NBC said last night, Halliburton the only company in the world

[Bandit]

able to do the job in Iraq and that was why there were "No-Bid Contracts" they said this as a fact checking exercise to Edwards who said 7.5 billion was awarded to Halliburton in "No-Bid Contracts" they said Edwards was being dishonest by claiming they were "No-Bid Contracts" when no other company could have placed a bid. do you think this is true? No other company in the entire world could feed our troops and build barracks for them. :shrug: I somehow find this absurd. How did our soldiers ever get by without Halliburton before this?

[MsTryska]

1. Aramark?

I'm thinking of the companies that do the olympics. I know they were in charge of food.

[brook]

41. I think they still...

control the concessions in the National Park system too. Treat the help badly. Dumped 1000's of old houseboat batteries into the water in Page, Arizona and got a slap on the hand. I used to have to get large quantities of magazines for films, I'd go to their warehouse - and it was mostly porn. They also were the first 'roach coaches" in the LA area. And, yes, I haven't got a favorable impression of them.

[MsTryska]

62. Well I didn't say they were good....

but they seem liek they could have handled what was necessary. (not that i'd necessarily want them to.)

[Jane Austin]

2. Sure. You can write the contract such that it fits only one company.

n/t

[ladybugg33]

71. But didn't Halliburton lie, cheat, inflate costs, mismanage funds?

OK, let's see that "Scope of Work" I want to know why in the biggest, most gifted nation on earth only one company could meet this SOW.

[lastknowngood]

3. In fact halliburton does nothing they are a front company who

simply sub contracts everything out. The do nothing actually at all.

[liberal N proud]

6. What they ment was that Halliburton was the only company that dicky had

ties to and would do business with!
But that would be the truth and not look good for shrub and boys

[XNASA]

4. Bechtel, Dyncorp,....

Schlumberger....

All listed as Halliburton Competitors.

[underpants]

8. Thanks I knew about Bechtel but not the others

The Today show had this story ready to go this morning in their "Fact Check". I knew it wasn't true.

[MsTryska]

61. Schlumberger is a German Firm tho....

not bloody likely we'd be willing to give the german's any opportunity for profit on this war. prolly why they're not part of the coalition.

[missjudy6]

66. Bechtel

is one of the subcontractors if I'm not mistaken.
Not mistaken they are responsible for the mess that was the Big Dig.

[trotsky]

5. B.S.

Halliburton does almost nothing themselves - they subcontract EVERYTHING. Meals, barracks, you name it. Halliburton is basically a taxpayer-funded general contractor.

[pacalo]

38. Right! NBC should know this, considering GE's profit from defense stocks.

[Rambis]

7. Why did the army quit feeding and clothing itself?

this used to be a self sufficient entity am I wrong? Walter Sobchek

[jmowreader]

12. 9/11 changed everything. You know that.

And the major thing it changed was that the Army is no longer self-supporting.

[ProfessorPlum]

16. That is a tale all in itself

During the Bush I administration, Cheney started looking around at ways to reduce defense costs. He started studying Halliburton to see if they could take up some of these jobs (they assured him they could) and eventually awarded them big contracts to serve the US Army. Then, as he left the government, Halliburton approached him (a man with no private business experience) to be their CEO.

So, it's been one long, dirty, quid pro quo for many years now. The army should have never outsourced its functions, but that is the big thing with these types. My aunt is a bureaucrat for the government, and they want everything outsourced. It's probably easier to control cronies and buddies than bureaucrats, who tend to stick around longer than any one administration.

[Rambis]

20. thank you

Bush I figures. Can we be done with this family please?

[LiberalFighter]

44. Someone needs to id their DNA and nuke it

so that their complete genealogical line is exterminated.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MsTryska]

63. One big......

mutual masturbation session with these folks.

[annabanana]

65. nail on the head there prof!...............n/t

[MADem]

24. Logistics/Supply

...is a very personnel intensive effort. The higher your tail to tooth ratio, the greater your costs. You do not want to have to pay soldiers who could run around shooting the enemy to make sandwiches and hand out underwear and towels. It's not just the salaries, it is pensions, housing allowance, medical and dental for the soldier and their family, etc. etc. It's far cheaper to pay a contractor, honestly--even if you have to pay the guy five times what the soldier would get, you aren't paying for his family back home, his medical, and most importantly, his pension. And when you don't need the contractor any more, you kick him to the curb.

The military has been moving to outsourcing/contracting non-warfighting actions for over 25 years. It started with little things, like MWR, secretaries, motor pools. Now they are gutting as many noncombat positions as they can get away with. They'll keep a few, for shipboard and remote locations, but even that could change in the future. It is what has enabled them to afford pay increases for servicemembers. It is not going to change. This ain't our grampa's Army, or Navy, or USMC, or Air Force.

If it doesn't put ordnance on target, it is superfluous and can be outsourced. Like it or not, that's the way it is.

EDIT--corrected timeline, the Services have been shifting to civilian jobs in a significant way for over a quarter century.

[Dudley_DUright]

26. Yes, but the problem with that argument is that you cannot

order your private contractors into a hazardous war zone (like you can Pvt. KP), so you end up having to pay them huge bonuses in hazard pay to get them to show up. IMH(and very non-expert)O, leave outsourcing to stateside bases, not in a war zone.

[MADem]

33. If you pay people enough

...they'll go. Halliburton has a better recruiting record nowadays than the National Guard. And in a REAL, as opposed to BUSHCO, war, there would be a draft, and the issue would be moot. This is a blood for oil adventure, not a war.

[merh]

42. That is a crock of sh*t! ANY TIME a corporation can pay its

employees and make a profit doing government work, there is serious mismanagement of tax dollars which results in a loss of services that the government agency (military) can provide. It also results in a loss of equipment that can be provided to the agency/military.

The "profits" that make the corporations fat and happy should go back into the government coffers and be used by the agency/service.

What you have posted is "their" explanation of why - but it is not legitimate or even logical reasoning. It is only the "good ole boy" system at its worst! Make your supporters rich, they can richly support you!

Mismanagement results in loss of revenue, in government, revenue is put back into the budget and used to improve services and purchase equipment. Ask the guys in Iraq if they would like armored vehicles and wish mom & dad didn't have to buy them a bullet proof vest for their Christmas present!

Crock of Sh*t!

Go tell it to the fundies, they believe anything the government tells them.

[crispini]

60. Outsourcing is BULLSHIT

In all areas. Just read about what's going on in Iraq, Halliburton is paying its flippin TRUCK DRIVERS 3x what a grunt would get to do the same job and they're badly trained to boot.

Case in point here at home, my company continues to outsource work to India and get crappy software back. Why in the name of heaven to people buy into this shit? IMO it's just a short term numbers game to get stateside employees (who are expensive) off the books... but it invariably bites you in the ass in the long run.

Sorry, a bit off topic there. My company annoys me though. Our CEO is a resident of the Cayman Islands for tax purposes. That says it all right there.

[LiberalFighter]

43. Cheney put all that in motion back before Clinton Admin

[bush equals idiot]

9. That was all taken care of with one under the table phone call

Guess who's.

[KoKo]

10. I heard that, also. I didn't do a Google, but thought they were lying...

and they could have mentioned the Iraqi's were capable of fixing their own country. It's not like they don't have construction skills or materials. NBC was out of line with that...but then what can one expect. :shrug:

[wabeewoman]

56. They did after the lst gulf war

fixed it themselves, I mean. And read some back posts of Riverbend. There was one about a bridge that the Iraqis could build for 50k but they wouldn't let them and spent many, many $$ more. I mean they were shipping plywood and concrete to Iraq.

[jmowreader]

11. It's absurd. There are a LOT of companies that do what Halliburton does

Aramark and Sodexho Marriott do food service. Flour Daniel and Mantech do construction on government contracts--Mantech tends to specialize in construction of "secure areas" (places where classified information is worked with) but they can do anything. And jeeze, if it came right down to it there are only about thirty trucking companies that are large enough and integrated enough to handle the logistics side of the operation.

I wouldn't have given this job to a single-source supplier and I sure as HELL wouldn't have given it to Halliburton!

How our soldiers got by without Halliburton before this was that we used to send Army cooks, Army truck drivers, Army construction troops and other Army units to do this shit. And they did a good job. This is the first fully-privatized war, and if President Kerry has a brain cell in his head it will be the last.

[Democrat 4 Ever]

32. Whoa, whoa, whoa!!!

You are in danger of clouding Bush&Co with the facts. How dare you. They need for all us to believe that the company that Cheney still receives compensation (yeah, they are delaying actual payments until he is out of office but he is still accruing it, darn it!) is the only company anywhere in the country, er...on the planet, no wait, the solar system that could do these jobs. Any they only charge approximately 1000 times the going rate. What is wrong with that? You must be un-American.

[sandnsea]

13. It was for security reasons

That's what they said last year. Halliburton had the security clearance and we needed to hurry up and award the contracts.

[democratreformed]

18. Just wrote that down below here. I'm glad you remember that too. n/t

[crickets]

23. Which begs the questions

how and why 1. Halliburton had the security clearance and 2. was the only company to have the security clearance beforehand. I think the answers aren't hard to figure out, but you know... these are questions the media should be asking. Hee, yeah, riiight.

[LiberalFighter]

45. And who all absolutely needed to have security clearance!!

[Beetwasher]

14. I Saw That And It's BULLSHIT!! But NOT For The Reasons Others Are Stating

I work in a field where I negotiate government contracts of a similar nature and the quote NBC used was the EXPLANATION by a gov't official as to why the contract was no-bid; that Halliburton was the only company that could do the work. THIS DOESN'T MEAN IT'S TRUE, ONLY THAT THAT'S THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY A BUSH ADMINISTRATIVE LACKEY IN THE GOV'T!!!

It might be true that they needed work done quickly and Halliburton was ready and therefore for SOME of the work no-bids may have been necessary, but NOT to the degree that Halliburton got them.

[Julien Sorel]

15. The only thing unique about Halliburton's

abilities is experience and positioning. They are the quintessential military-industrial complex company, in that they have a strong private business which is intertwined with government contract work. Their government work doubled during the time Cheney was there, from $1.2 billion to $2.3 billion. Obviously, Cheney was worth what they paid him as CEO.

The idea that there are no other companies in the world that could do this is foolish. Bechtel or Fluor could certainly handle the construction/oilfield side of it, and it wouldn't be too hard to find someone to subcontract the logistics and supplies. It is possible, even probable, that Halliburton was the best company for the job, but was the difference between it and its competitors worth a no-bid contract? Why not open the contract to bidding, then decide based on a combination of expertise and cost? This is particularly so to avoid even the hint of a conflict of interest at a time when corporations were coming under fire for huge ethical lapses that, in some cases, Bush himself was attached to. It was thoughtless and foolish to award the contract like that, even if it wasn't dishonest.

[MADem]

30. The OTHER UNIQUE THING

...about Halliburton is the number of recently retired senior, flag and general officers in their employ who serve in very key liaison positions. It is kind of creepy, frankly.

I do not have a problem with contracting out noncombat work, because so doing improves the pay and pensions of servicemembers over the long haul, and frees up more money for important things, like body armor, and medical care for wounded servicemembers. However, I do have a problem with "the fix" being in and no-bid contracts being renewed, especially when a company consistently performs poorly and rips off the US taxpayers. And there are more than a few senior retired military personnel who have been cheerfully complicit in this action. They ought to be ashamed of themselves, the disloyal bastards. If anyone really got off their asses and followed the influence, it would paint a picture of corruption that is quite disturbing in not only its mendacity, but its scope as well.

[venus]

48. Don't see how outsourcing

"improves the pay and pensions of servicemembers over the long haul, and frees up more money for important things, like body armor, and medical care for wounded servicemembers." our soldiers are lacking these things today, plus we needed that extra $87b. my company was the victim a no-bid contract. The company copied my technology then went to the government and got a no-bidder, even though we had already demonstrated the software. The government said this other company were the only ones who could perform the work in the time period required. Never quite got over that.

[democratreformed]

17. I think what they tried to pass off at the time was the Halliburton

was the only qualified company with the required security clearances already in place. I think I remember that correctly. Supposedly, it was a quick thing and the contracts were awarded to them b/c there wasn't time to wait on competitors to meet the necessary qualifications. I'm pretty sure it was something along those lines.

In other words, it wasn't actual work qualifications that won them the no-bid contracts - it was pre-existing government clearances.

[Princess Turandot]

19. Who did the work during Gulf War I/ Desert Storm? Or was that..

done by locals?

[Ivote]

22. If Halliburton is the only co.

Wouldn't that make them a MONOPOLY?
:kick:

[sandnsea]

29. Pre Halliburton outsourcing report

I think that was before Cheney and the DoD contracted Halliburton to write a report on whether government outsourcing of the military was cost effective.

[troublemaker]

21. I think it is true (A sinister truth)

Under former Defense Secretary Cheney oil exploration company Haliburton was developing/expanding their capacity to be a private army. 90% of the things armies do have little to do with bullets and bombs, so why can't an enterprising company sell a bunch of Republicans on the idea that privatization will yield a better result? It's practically their religion.

Haliburton was primed to invade Iraq. I don't doubt for a moment that no other corporation had spent the 1990s gathering those precise capabilities. Why would they have?

An oil exploration firm was already feeding our soldiers even under Clinton. Usually big corporations try to acquire businesses and move into markets somehow related to one another. Haliburton saw feeding armies in the field and oil exploration as compatible businesses. Why?

After the capacity is in place it would be a shame to let all that work go wasted. You've just gotta have a war, right? How else will everyone know how clever you are? I'm not saying Cheney invaded Iraq to benefit Haliburton, or at least not to narrowly benefit Haliburton financially. He invaded Iraq because he was as convinced of the power of his "corporation as war-fighter" as Rummy was convinced of his small, fast army theories. (I view all those guys as being like the competitors on ROBOT WARS eager pit their creations.)

[Hello_Kitty]

25. Operation Iraqi Freedom was the only war in the world

That could fit Halliburton's war profiteering needs.

[LiberalFighter]

46. So a war was necessary to pay off Halliburton

[Warren DeMontague]

27. 'Whether or Not' The Contract was No-Bid Wasn't even half of it:

Edwards threw out some pretty scathing accusations re: Halliburton, and Cheney's only answers were a) to tell people to go to "factcheck.com" and b) to act like a truant officer over Johnny Edwards' poor attendance record.

EDWARDS: I mentioned Halliburton a few minute ago in connection with the $87 billion, and you raised it in this question. This is relevant, because he was pushing for lifting sanctions when he was CEO of Halliburton.

Here's why we didn't think Halliburton should have a no-bid contract.

While he was CEO of Halliburton, they paid millions of dollars in fines for providing false information on their company, just like Enron and Ken Lay.

They did business with Libya and Iran, two sworn enemies of the United States.

They're now under investigation for having bribed foreign officials during that period of time.

Not only that, they've gotten a $7.5 billion no-bid contract in Iraq, and instead of part of their money being withheld, which is the way it's normally done, because they're under investigation, they've continued to get their money.

IFILL: Mr. Vice President?

CHENEY: I can respond, Gwen, but it's going to take more than 30 seconds.

IFILL: Well, that's all you've got.

(LAUGHTER)

CHENEY: Well, the reason they keep mentioning Halliburton is because they're trying to throw up a smokescreen. They know the charges are false.

They know that if you go, for example, to factcheck.com , an independent Web site sponsored by the University of Pennsylvania, you can get the specific details with respect to Halliburton.

It's an effort that they've made repeatedly to try to confuse the voters and to raise questions, but there's no substance to the charges.

IFILL: Thirty seconds.

EDWARDS: These are the facts.

The facts are the vice president's company that he was CEO of, that did business with sworn enemies of the United States, paid millions of dollars in fines for providing false financial information, it's under investigation for bribing foreign officials.

The same company that got a $7.5 billion no-bid contract, the rule is that part of their money is supposed to be withheld when they're under investigation, as they are now, for having overcharged the American taxpayer, but they're getting every dime of their money.

I'm happy to let voters make their own decision about this.

[sandnsea]

31. Doing business with Iran, the REAL stinkeroo

That's what I think and I wish we'd focus more on that and the lifting sanctions part of this than the no-bid part. It's outrageous and I think the American people would think so too. And the fact that Halliburton is the company that we relied on to decide whether outsourcing the military was cost effective and feasible in the first place. It just stinks to high heaven.

[Warren DeMontague]

35. It's like the 14 military bases in Iraq and how that relates

to the occupation and whether the Iraqis perceive that we have 'long term designs' on their country.

If you paid attention some real important stuff was said at the debates so far-- but the media is, of course, ignoring it.

[sandnsea]

40. Well, in fairness

Look at DU. People around here go wild for some pretty unimportant stuff too. The "we never met" lie is only important if we use it as a springboard to the other lies. Otherwise, it's gone in a matter of hours. Maybe people really do prefer scintillating scandal to hard issues, I don't know.

[Warren DeMontague]

57. Maybe. But given the media's druthers, we'd get 24-7 Jacko and Laci.

Still, I think it's worth hammering home a few simple things.

When the media keeps repeating that "Kerry didn't lay out a plan for Iraq" and Bush says all Kerry wants to do is "hold a summit", I think it's time to point out that whatever the shifting rationales for this war were and supposedly are, the reality is we're in a "hearts and minds" situation, and if we aren't there to build 14 bases and hang around indefinitely, why can't we come out and say so? If we're really there to "liberate" the Iraqi people and give them "self-determination" hey, that's great- then we don't need to build 14 bases there, do we.

Iraq is THE foreign policy issue. Explaining competently WHY we're really there is the crux of not only the debate, but success in the situation itself.

I'm flabbergasted (actually I'm not) that the Korporate Media doesn't want to talk about it.

[venus]

51. WOW, Edward's smackdown!

Didn't think he had it in him. I watched on the Blog and missed those beautiful statements. Thank you Senator Edwards.

[elperromagico]

28. You could give the jobs to several smaller companies,

each of which could focus on a specific need in Iraq. Not only would it be more efficient, but it would spread the wealth.

I thought Republicans opposed bureaucracy. I guess that only applies to government - oh, wait, it doesn't apply there either. :shrug:

[David Zephyr]

34. "Only Company" That Could Perform To Bush's "Time Frame"

The statement that MSNBC and NBC kept repeating (which the GOP had provided them) was qualified with the give away line that was something like "within the time requirements".

Well, who constructed the "time frame" for the bidded contract?

The contract was a no-bid because it was tailored for Halliburton to begin with.

[TexasSissy]

36. I'm not sure exactly which parts Halliburton is doing, BUT...

COMPANIES OTHER THAN HALLIBURTON built the electrical power plant and other buildings in Iraq that are being reconstructed.

Some company or companies built the oil plants in Iraq.

Some company or companies were running the oil plants in Iraq.

This is a line being put out by the administration. I heard it surface only recently.

[TexasSissy]

37. We'll see what Kerry's administration does with the contracts when he's

President.

[peacetalksforall]

39. With Halliburton and Cheney we have a situation where the contract

wasn't outsourced, but we got screwed anyway.

[AP]

47. A former Bechtel employee self-published a book describing the bid process

for the "bid" contracts and said even that procedure was totally rigged in favor of Halliburton.

Here's the story: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/07/29/BUGUO7UNGB1.DTL

[gardenista]

49. Absolute BS. NBC is wrong. nt

[incapsulated]

50. Didn't they say this was from the GAO?

I mean this excuse? I still think it's BS.

[ClassWarrior]

53. They did it themselves!! But why settle for a perfectly good...

...gubmint service when you can have a big shiny gaping moneyhole that flows directly into the Bush* Pioneers' bank accounts??

23.

[ClassWarrior]

55. And if the troops took care of their own cooking and barracks building...

...there'd alredy be a draft. Double bonus for the warmongering, profit-pilfering whack jobs in our Oval Office.

23.

[LittleClarkie]

54. And what job are they getting done, might I ask

Many Iraqis are getting hepetitis from lack of clean water while they build 14 new bases and a big ass UN buildiing. If Halburton is so efficient, why is the work going so slowly? Well ... we know one of the reasons it's going so slowly. It's not safe for the contractors to work over there. And they insist on not using Iraqi contractors who know these antiquated systems like the back of their hands, I hear. Oh no, that would be too efficient. Can't have that.

But then there's the case of the missing 8 billion that the auditors couldn't find.

Bah, it is absurd.

[Justice]

58. Newsflash: No company (or country) in the world was up to it

Halliburton has proven they aren't up to it. The Bush Administration has proven they are up to it. That is exactly the point - it was an overwhelming task for any country or company.

That is why we need a strong coalition. It proves that we approached it all wrong and without regard for the overwhelming complexity. That was unfair to US taxpayers, US armed forces and Iraqis (not necessarily in that order).

[0007]

59. This was an absurd statement by NBC

A simple statement or a page or two could not do justice to dispute this fallacy. I've heard it before coming from the CEO's of Halliburton. The guy below has put on propaganda campaigns all over the U.S., having their servants write into newspaper, saying how great Halliburton is for the troops. Washing clothes, cooking meals, and all the rhetoric that goes with it.


David Lesar -
King cock-a-roach

[annabanana]

64. "Results tailored 'requirements""

This happens all the time with government contracts, at all levels of government. It is a STAPLE of corruption.

This job HAS to go to a firm that based in Witchita, among whose officers there are two Scorpio's and a Leo.............Well whad'ya know!! Uncle Louie's firm is the ONLY one that fits the criteria!!

[Paradise]

67. What I know about it is that *rfp's have to be put out there for bids

but we'll never know if others could have done the job, will we?

*request for proposals

[spooky3]

68. They're simply repeating a RW talking point.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

69. This is a good discussion. The truth needs to be made clear

I especailly like ProfPlum's mention of how Cheney's husbanding Halliburton into the mix was eventually rewarded.

[ladybugg33]

70. Let's see the specs and let's have other companies comment.

How about that?