CNN: Halliburton Pulled from Iraqi Oil Contract

Verto · December 31, 2003, 00:00

Quote:

Halliburton pulled from Iraqi oil contract

WASHINGTON (AP) --The Defense Department is removing the Army Corps of Engineers from overseeing oil imports into Iraq, acting just weeks after Pentagon auditors said Halliburton -- Vice President **** Cheney's former firm -- may have overcharged taxpayers under the Corps' supervision.

The Defense Energy Support Center, which buys fuel for the military throughout the world, will supervise the replacement of Halliburton and the award of a new contract for the imports, the center said Tuesday.

"We're taking over the mission," said the center's spokeswoman, Lynette Ebberts. She would not comment on whether the audit prompted the change, which was ordered December. 23.

Democratic lawmakers have been highly critical of the prices charged the U.S. government by Halliburton's KBR subsidiary, which has been importing refined petroleum products into Iraq under a mission awarded without competitive bids. Cheney headed Halliburton before running for vice president.

Earlier this month, the Defense Department's auditing agency supported the Democrats' allegations, finding the company may have charged up to $61 million too much for delivering gasoline to Iraqi citizens.

President Bush tried to calm the controversy, saying Halliburton should repay the government if it overcharged for fuel, which was imported from Iraq's neighboring countries.

Halliburton has said it expected to be cleared by the Defense Department. The company said its pricing resulted from a contract with a Kuwaiti firm, the only company approved as a supplier by the Corps.

Halliburton got its contract to rebuild Iraq's dilapidated oil industry as an outgrowth of a contract with the Army to provide emergency logistical help for situations such as the Iraq war. The Army Corps of Engineers opened the oil rebuilding process to competitive bidding earlier this year and was preparing to award up to $2 billion in replacement contracts.

Richard J. Connelly, director of the support center, said the existing contract would remain in place for now, so that fuel deliveries will not be interrupted.

Corps spokesman Robert Faletti said, "I don't believe the report had anything to do with the transfer."

The support center said it would award contracts under competitive bidding, a process that could take two to three months, but would consider a short-term contract until the bids are awarded.

Kuciwalker · December 31, 2003, 00:00

alva · December 31, 2003, 00:02

Talk about a surprise.

JohnT · December 31, 2003, 00:07

Not really. It's a politically astute thing to do and yet removes another complaint to be used against Bush. However, that still won't stop the complainers... I mean, they keep on going about Bush/Enron regardless of the fact that Enron was a crook from 1987 onwards, regardless of the fact that they went bankrupt in December of 2001 and that Bush didn't do one damn thing to save them.

Kuciwalker · December 31, 2003, 00:08

Especially a certain poster mentioned in your sig...

mrmitchell · December 31, 2003, 00:23

So long as they don't, say, choose Bush's uncle's oil company to run the project, and the next pick doesn't continue to ridiculously overcharge, then I'll stop complaining

(IOW: If they don't **** up then I wont complain.

)

Harry Tuttle · December 31, 2003, 00:26

Good deal. Stop the political bs and get the country turned around.

Sava · December 31, 2003, 00:35

JohnT: that's the standard cop out about Bush and Lay... but it's not really the idea that Bush was involved in Enron... it's that he's part of that sociopathic corporate culture. And I don't know about you, but I couldn't be friends with some evil **** like Ken Lay. Yet Dubya still is.

Harry Tuttle · December 31, 2003, 00:39

what evil unlike Ken lay ****s are you friends with Sava?

Imran Siddiqui · December 31, 2003, 00:49

I'm with John... I wonder how the left spins this

.

Kuciwalker · December 31, 2003, 00:49

Sava, so now politicians are judged by their friends, not their policy? IIRC, Clinton had a few "friends" who were...

Oncle Boris · December 31, 2003, 00:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I'm with John... I wonder how the left spins this

.

And I wonder if this could have happened without the left's continual whinings?

Imran Siddiqui · December 31, 2003, 00:52

Ah... there it is

.

Kuciwalker · December 31, 2003, 00:55

Oncle Boris, you walked right into that.

Oncle Boris · December 31, 2003, 01:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Ah... there it is

.

Imran, you're my fav right-winger!

mrmitchell · December 31, 2003, 01:01

Quote:

Oncle Boris, you walked right into that.

Yeah, Boris. You sure did! Even thinking that the administration listens to us lefties!

Lefty Scaevola · December 31, 2003, 01:07

The focus of the story is likely inaccurate. I suspect what is really going on now is not about Haliburton, but is really about turf between the two defense agencies

JohnT · December 31, 2003, 02:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava

JohnT: that's the standard cop out about Bush and Lay... but it's not really the idea that Bush was involved in Enron... it's that he's part of that sociopathic corporate culture. And I don't know about you, but I couldn't be friends with some evil **** like Ken Lay. Yet Dubya still is.

Thanks, Sava. I knew you wouldn't let me down.

Spiffor · December 31, 2003, 03:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
The focus of the story is likely inaccurate. I suspect what is really going on now is not about Haliburton, but is really about turf between the two defense agencies

This is the first thing I thought when reading the opening post too.
Now, it's good news nonetheless that a proper bid will be used. I strongly hope that British and other coalition firms will be considered in the bid. Otherwise, the US credibility towards its allies will not be restored.

DAVOUT · December 31, 2003, 07:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor

Otherwise, the US credibility towards its allies will not be restored.

... And this is a serious concern for.

NeOmega · December 31, 2003, 08:17

Oh Halliburton.... buying gas at $2.65 a gallon from Kuwait, and then shipping it to Iraq and selling it at the Stations for 15 cents. Who are the corporate gemiuses running your no-bid contracts anyways? Oh yeah KBR.

Zylka · December 31, 2003, 08:32

Quote:

JohnT: that's the standard cop out about Bush and Lay... but it's not really the idea that Bush was involved in Enron... it's that he's part of that sociopathic corporate culture.

Good ****ing peacocks. Give this kid a shiny medal and his downs-syndrome certificate

Bugs ****ing Bunny · December 31, 2003, 09:02

Quote:

Halliburton has said it expected to be cleared by the Defense Department.

Well there's a shock.

Shi Huangdi · December 31, 2003, 09:07

I'd like to see Halliburton stopped from doing business with the gov. ever again.

chequita guevara · December 31, 2003, 11:52

Halliburton never should have gotten a no-bid contract in the first place. The contract should have been pulled much sooner, when this gas gouging was first revealed (you heard it from me first, months before it was in the mainstream media, btw).

As Uncle Boris notes, had the "left" not complained about this, it's unlikely the Pentagon would have canceled it. Yay for us! The good guys actually win one once in a while.

Still, I think this has more to do with what Lefty said. The Pentagon seems to have a hate-on for this Administration, and has been trying to embarress them constantly. It's probably very galling for them to be led by a deserter.