Does anyone have any proof that haliburton is making money off of oil in Iraq?
or even if they are getting any oil from Iraq? Also, does anyone else know what France, Germany, and Russia was doing with Saddam at the time prior to Iraq? "An enemy of my enemy is a friend of mine" (Osama and Saddam) reaLIST. That is one reason i don't like libbies, they assume something that I have not done, such as giving thumbs down. I don't do that to my own questions, until I am ready to select a BA, in order to rule out answers i don't want to select
Politics - 12 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
I have no proof, and I've looked for it. Therefore the proper conculsion I have made is that Iraq is not about oil, in any way at all
2 :
get a life
3 :
They don't need the oil money - they're making enough from the no-bid contract they have with our government.
4 :
The history of Halliburton’s other major contract in Iraq—the oil contract—indicates the need for skepticism. It is well known that Halliburton received its first oil contract (RIO I) as the result of a dubious no-bid contract ordered by top Pentagon officials (including Paul Wolfowitz)—a decision that was “coordinated with the vice president’s office,†according to a Pentagon e-mail uncovered by Judicial Watch. The rest, as they say, is history. After getting a leg up on all potential competitors, KBR also used its incestuous relationship with the Army Corps of Engineers to extract a second no-bid oil contract (RIO II). The fix was in, according to the Corps’ top civilian contracting expert, Bunnatine Greenhouse: "I can unequivocally state that the abuse related to contracts awarded to KBR represents the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed during the course of my professional career." Greenhouse exposed the collusive relationship at an unofficial congressional hearing held by the Democrats last June (no official committee has yet chosen to invite her to testify), before she was demoted for speaking out. As was the case with the oil contracts, Halliburton remains eligible to bid for the new logistics contracts in Iraq, despite a horrendous record of dubious cost overruns, waste, employees who took kickbacks, the torching of $85,000 trucks that required only minor repairs, $45 cases of soda, $100 per bag of laundry, and evidence that Halliburton served contaminated water to the troops. All of this and so much more have been uncovered by the Pentagon’s auditors, the Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, numerous whistleblowers, Waxman and Dorgan, and plenty of outside investigators, including my colleagues at Halliburton Watch. The point is that in Halliburton’s case, there is more than enough basis for suspension or debarment from future contracts. Yet the fact remains that with weak oversight, it's impossible to imagine anything will change. In fact, it could get worse, especially if the responsibility for oversight itself is outsourced. With the network of contract cronyism and subcontracting ties in Iraq and elsewhere, it will be hard to find any contractor to conduct such oversight that does not have a significant conflict of interest. Waxman, Dorgan and other members have already identified this conflict of interest in other Iraq-related contracts. Meanwhile, the powerful Republicans who control key committees in Congress have staunchly resisted all calls for in-depth investigations, while rebuffing numerous attempts by Sen. Dorgan to establish a special Senate investigative committee on war profiteering, modeled after a similar committee established by Harry Truman in World War II. The last time Dorgan raised his proposal was in May, when it was shot down in a strict partisan vote. Leading Senate Democrats, including Dorgan, Durbin, D-Ill., Harry Reid and Pat Leahy have also introduced a comprehensive contracting reform proposal—The Honest Leadership and Accountability in Contracting Act of 2006 (S. 2361). The bill would establish criminal penalties for war profiteering, require that lawbreaking companies be excluded from any new contracts and protect whistleblowers from retaliation, among other provisions. It was brought up for a vote during the Senate’s consideration of the 2007 Defense bill, and similarly shot down by the Republican Congress’ highly-partisan Halliburton protection racket. The only contract reform bill that continues to survive with bipartisan support is the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (S. 2590)—a proposal introduced by Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Tom Coburn, R-Okla., with support from other Republicans including John McCain. This bill would require the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to create a publicly available database that tracks federal spending as well as the entities that receive federal funds. A useful proposal, but quite modest when measured against the epidemic of contracting abuses. “We have not done the oversight,†Dorgan suggests. “I think part of it is because we have one-party rule in this town—the White House and the House and Senate. Nobody wants to embarrass anybody. But the fact is there is such massive amount of money that is going out the door in support of these contracts—sole-source, no-bid contracts that have promoted waste. And nobody wants to take a second look at it. Nobody wants to see what is going on.†Because Halliburton remains eligible to bid on any of the new Iraq logistics work, there is every reason to watch for new scams invented to circumvent the Potemkin-like oversight asserted by the Pentagon. For example, when the buzz about breaking up the monopoly contract began last year, Halliburton's CEO David Lesar, a former partner at Arthur Andersensuggested : "If we do choose to rebid, we're going to jack the margins up significantly." Another problem with outsourcing oversight is that all kinds of fraud can be hidden under layer after layer of subcontracts, especially when the subcontractors are incorporated in different countries all over the world. It may be difficult for anyone but the best forensic accountant to determine if the other contractors and their subcontractors have no connection to Halliburton. After all, we’re talking about a company experienced at using offshore subsidiaries and tax haven accounts to avoid restrictions on doing business in Iran and who hid a $180 million bribery scheme in Nigeria. Halliburtion is a company that knows how to hide its dirty linen from inattentive eyes. Lesar and his colleagues are plenty confident they can continue business as usual despite the stepped up attention. U.S. taxpayers, at least, deserve better. If the congressional protection racket that surrounds Halliburton is willing to play hardball, then Democrats should up the ante. Rather than conceding defeat, they should push for tougher reforms to demonstrate what a difference a midterm election can make. As leverage they should continue to expose the culture of corruption that has gutted all kinds of enforcement standards and procurement policies that are merely sweetheart deals and just plain giveaways to former government workers turned kleptocratic contractors. EDIT: it figures you ask a question and I supply you with the truth (the truth you don't want to hear) ....and you give me a thumbs down....you are so predictable.
5 :
Do you have proof they are not? Prima Facia, Halliburton would not be in Iraq for strictly benevolent and voluntary purposes, now would they?
6 :
Yeah, nobody has ever been able to prove that one drop of Iraqi oil has been "stolen". Don't hold your breath.
7 :
you think they're working for free? was that a serious question?
8 :
$18 Billion in government contracts.
9 :
Ahahahahaha,,,,,.no no no its not like they are making any money off of the no bid contracts they received for providing EVERYTHING there. It is utterly amazing how the truth gets warped in the hands of a conservative. Keep your head in the sand its happy there.
10 :
Halliburton has no proof of what they have done with the money we gave them to rebuild Iraq! I doubt they have ANY credible evidence of ANY wrongdoing! lol
11 :
No. Haliburton is in Iraq....but not the Oil Division of the company. Haliburton is a multi-functional global company with multiple divisions and resources. Haliburton is trucking mainly supplies to part of Iraq. Besides The coalition and America took the Main pumping, sorting, distribution plants and pipelines. Offshore loading platforms...etc etc... The day before we offically invaded Iraq. Now, if the coalition, namely America, wantted the OIL...why are our tankers not lined up in the GULF?? humm.. We did not want the oil....WE WANTTED TO keep Saddam from causing a global issue by setting them on fire again. France, Germany, and Russia: were doing nothing more that America or any other country seeking loop=holes in the "Oil for food" program.
12 :
According to their yearly statement that is filed with the IRS they have shown a profit of 3% world wide. They were given a no bid contract under President Clinton when going into Bosnia, however nothing is mentioned about this anywhere in the "un-bias" press. So those who claim that they were given a no bid contract was a first need to look at the historical facts first then make comments about what did if fact occur.
