Halliburton and Cheney

[Nepa]

<font color="blue"> Is anyone surprised or does anyone feel that this can't be true? </font>

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A newly unearthed Pentagon (news - web sites) e-mail about Halliburton contracts in Iraq (news - web sites) on Tuesday prompted fresh calls on Capitol Hill for probes into whether Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) helped his old firm get the deals.

Rest of the corruption story (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&amp;cid=615&amp;e=8&amp;u=/nm/iraq_contracts_halliburton_dc)

[andyfox]

What's to be surprised about or not to be believed. A VP helped his old company. I'm sure it's not the first time it happened. Hell, one VP had to resign in my lifetime becuase he was taking kickbacks in his office. It's political season, so it's a big deal.

I'm not saying it ought not be investigated. Just that it's SOP.

[cardcounter0]

WOW!

I guess the only thing that surprises me is why this was hidden in an obscure e-mail and all the denials from Cheney.

With the above attitude, they could just simply back a truck up to the Treasury and fill it up with Taxpayer Cash.
No big deal, as long as no sex takes place.

[jokerswild]

It's a well known fact that Cheney is a crooked traitor.

[jokerswild]

Dfending Cheney is like defending 2-7o in a no limit game.

[adios]

You may have missed this. Cheney divested his holding in Halliburton before the 2000 election. I might add that it saved him a lot of money. It's funny when I bad news comes out about Halliburton in Iraq the stock drops like $0.30 a share. Profits for Halliburton in Iraq are small potatos compared to other Halliburton activities is my take. Do you know how much Halliburton's bottom line is due to profits in Iraqi operations?

[MaxPower]

Fine, but why did Cheney have to lie about it if he wasn't doing anything wrong?

[adios]

Fine where can I find a copy of the email and the memo? If you have either it would be appreciated.

Here's a link to a Time Magazine story:

The Paper Trail (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040607-644111,00.html)

The e-mail says Feith approved arrangements for the contract "contingent on informing WH [White House] tomorrow. We anticipate no issues since action has been coordinated w VP's [Vice President's] office." Three days later, the Army Corps of Engineers gave Halliburton the contract, without seeking other bids. TIME located the e-mail among documents provided by Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group.

Cheney spokesman Kevin Kellems says the Vice President "has played no role whatsoever in government-contract decisions involving Halliburton" since 2000. A Pentagon spokesman says the e-mail means merely that "in anticipation of controversy over the award of a sole-source contract to Halliburton, we wanted to give the Vice President's staff a heads-up."

It's amazing to me all the one sided stories on this. Actually it isn't.

[cardcounter0]

Somebody lied to you about that one.

Cheney is still paid by Halliburton (deferred compensation or some such) and has huge stock holdings and options placed in a trust (I guess he just gets to spend the money, but supposedly really doesn't know where it is coming from).

Halliburton charges the govt. to haul empty trucks back and forth in Iraq (and puts US Troops in danger who escort these useless convoys).

They are currently hauling out of Iraq everything that is not nailed down and selling it for scrap (and I guess will later bill the govt. for the reconstruction costs of replacing it.)

They were caught charging the Army for meals that were never served to the Troops.

They were caught overcharging for suppling the troops with gasoline.

I would say that the 30 billion or so in no-bid contracts they have already been paid for is quite significent.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Cheney is still paid by Halliburton (deferred compensation or some such) and has huge stock holdings and options placed in a trust (I guess he just gets to spend the money, but supposedly really doesn't know where it is coming from).

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong, he's receiving his severance pay from resigning as CEO that is fixed and not contingent on company performance. I assume it's for tax defferal reasons which are SOP. BTW Cheney contributed the profits from his sale of Halliburton stock to charity.

[ QUOTE ]
Halliburton charges the govt. to haul empty trucks back and forth in Iraq (and puts US Troops in danger who escort these useless convoys).

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? Iraqi oil production is on the rise.

[ QUOTE ]
They are currently hauling out of Iraq everything that is not nailed down and selling it for scrap (and I guess will later bill the govt. for the reconstruction costs of replacing it.)

They were caught charging the Army for meals that were never served to the Troops.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have any proof?

[ QUOTE ]
They were caught overcharging for suppling the troops with gasoline.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's what Halliburton has to state in their recent 10-Q:

United States government contract work. We provide substantial work under our government contracts business to the United States Department of Defense and other governmental agencies, including worldwide United States Army logistics contracts, known as LogCAP, and contracts to rebuild Iraq &amp;#8217; s petroleum industry, known as RIO. Our government services revenue related to Iraq totaled approximately $2.1 billion in the first quarter of 2004 and approximately $3.6 billion in 2003. Our units operating in Iraq and elsewhere under government contracts such as LogCAP and RIO consistently review the amounts charged and the services performed under these contracts. Our operations under these contracts are also regularly reviewed and audited by the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), and other governmental agencies. When issues are found during the governmental agency audit process, these issues are typically discussed and reviewed with us in order to reach a resolution.
The results of a preliminary audit by the DCAA in December 2003 alleged that we may have overcharged the Department of Defense by $61 million in importing fuel into Iraq. After a review, the


21

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Army Corps of Engineers, which is our client and oversees the project, concluded that we obtained a fair price for the fuel. However, Department of Defense officials thereafter referred the matter to the agency &amp;#8217; s inspector general, which we understand has commenced an investigation. We have been advised by the Criminal Division of the United States Department of Justice that it may also investigate this matter. If criminal wrongdoing is found, criminal penalties could range up to the greater of $500,000 in fines per count for a corporation, or twice the gross pecuniary gain or loss. We have had inquiries in the past by the DCAA and the civil fraud division of the United States Department of Justice into possible overcharges for work performed during 1996 through 2000 under a contract in the Balkans, which inquiry has not yet been completed by the Department of Justice. Based on an internal investigation, we credited our customer approximately $2 million during 2000 and 2001 related to our work in the Balkans as a result of billings for which support was not readily available. We believe that the preliminary Department of Justice inquiry relates to potential overcharges in connection with a part of the Balkans contract under which approximately $100 million in work was done. The Department of Justice has not alleged any overcharges, and we believe that any allegation of overcharges would be without merit .
On January 22, 2004, we announced the identification by our internal audit function of a potential overbilling of approximately $6 million by one of our subcontractors under the LogCAP contract in Iraq for services performed during 2003. In accordance with our policy and government regulation, the potential overcharge was reported to the Department of Defense Inspector General &amp;#8217; s office as well as to our customer, the Army Materiel Command. On January 23, 2004, we issued a check in the amount of $6 million to the Army Materiel Command to cover that potential overbilling while we conduct our own investigation into the matter. We are continuing to investigate whether third-party subcontractors paid, or attempted to pay, one or two of our former employees in connection with the billing.
During 2003, the DCAA raised issues relating to our invoicing to the Army Materiel Command for food services for soldiers and supporting civilian personnel in Iraq and Kuwait . In 2003, we took two actions in response to the issues raised by the DCAA . First, we temporarily credited $36 million to the Department of Defense until Halliburton, the DCAA, and the Army Materiel Command could agree on a process to be used for invoicing for food services. We recognized revenues and related costs associated with these services, and the $36 million was reflected in &amp;#8220;Notes and accounts receivable&amp;#8221; in our March 31, 2004 and December 31, 2003 condensed consolidated balance sheets. Second, we did not submit $141 million of additional food services invoices pending an internal review regarding the number of meals ordered by the Army Materiel Command and the number of soldiers actually served at dining facilities for United States troops and supporting civilian personnel in Iraq and Kuwait. The $141 million amount was our &amp;#8220;order of magnitude&amp;#8221; estimate of the remaining amounts (in addition to the $36 million we already temporarily credited) being questioned by the DCAA. We recognized revenues and related costs associated with these services, and the $141 million was reflected in &amp;#8220;Unbilled work on uncompleted contracts&amp;#8221; in our March 31, 2004 and December 31, 2003 condensed consolidated balance sheets. In the first quarter of 2004, our internal procurement team completed an analysis of all our dining facilities and administration centers (DFACs) in our Iraq and Kuwait areas of operation. Based upon the results of our analysis, we have billed the United States government for the $141 million in invoices for food services we voluntarily withheld, we are paying subcontractor invoices, and we are attempting to resolve the previously billed $36 million for related services. It is likely the DCAA may recommend that some portion of these payments be withheld for our services until its own audits are complete. Even if this occurs, we believe we ultimately will be reimbursed.
During the first quarter of 2004, the Army Materiel Command issued a mandate that could cause it to withhold 15% from all our invoices paid after March 31, 2004 until our task orders under the LogCAP


22

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




III contract are definitized. The Army Materiel Command has now extended this period to June 15, 2004. We do not believe the potential 15% withholding will have a significant or sustainedimpact on our liquidity, as the withholding is temporary and ends once the definitization process is complete.

Just a reminder that the penalties for signing 10-Q's that knowingly and intentially have false information carries huge penalties to the CEO's because of the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation.

[ QUOTE ]
I would say that the 30 billion or so in no-bid contracts they have already been paid for is quite significent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong, not even close.

[andyfox]

Where do you see one-sidedness in the Time story? They quote, apparnetly verbatim, the email, and then quote both a Cheney and DOD spokesman.

[andyfox]

If Feith's email was reportedly accurately by Time, and indeed any arrangements involving contracts for Haliburton
were "cleared" with Cheney's office, he should resign. He was CEO of the company and should not have any say whatsoever in their dealings with the government, whether he profits from it or not.

[MaxPower]

I read the story and I guess it all comes down to whatever "coordinated" means.

[adios]

Not in the Time magazine story but in many others including but not limited to the Guardian.

[adios]

and we'll see what happens but there is another side interpretation.

[adios]

Cleared with Cheney could also mean finding out from Cheney if he felt there was a conflict of interest.

[Chris Alger]

I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be untrue. Institutional federal corruption has evolved over generations, even centuries. It doesn't require outright bribery, bag men, law-breaking or even "direct contacts" between officials and their "clients." Someone in the Pentagon might have assumed that Cheney's staff was working with Haliburton when in fact the "coordinating" tasks were assumed by Rumsfeld's deputies with a wink and a nod to Dick, maybe but not necessarily coupled with a few unprovable conversations, to kind that cement relationships between the powerful.

In a properly functioning republic the Democratic line would be: every high official with any past or present connection to the industries most likely to benefit from war with Iraq should have resigned the minute war was seriously entertained. If not, the appearance of corruption (which is the standard for judges and lawyers) should be loudly and constantly denounced. The ethic should be so strong that anyone with the gall to demand a "smoking gun" would be hooted from the halls of power and the press. The idea that high government service being judged by the standards reserved for criminals should be considered shocking.

But that's not the way it works. The Democrats as a whole never went on the warpath over apparent conflicts of interest. It's a pretty good sign that they remain satisifed with taking partisan potshots until it's their turn to dole out policy-based profits acquired by mass violence.