Haliburton leaving Iraq
It is about time! The Army is ending its multibillion-dollar deal with the oil-services mega-corporation Halliburton to provide worldwide logistical support to U.S. troops. Although the corporation's chief executive officer, Dave Lesar, has arduously tried to deny these allegations or the importance of this story for fear of losing investors, one thing remains clear, this decision is a clear indication of the Bush administration's changing policy and commitment to the Iraqi conflict, though perhaps through no pressure of their own.
Although the Army praised Halliburton for their work, it was noted last week by officials that a single contractor leaves the U.S. vulnerable, though they did not mention specifics as to how. This is good news for many of us who believe Halliburton is a war profiteer whose monopolistic practices have hurt the U.S. domestically and abroad. Last year it was announced the company had overcharged the U.S. by billions of dollars. In fact, KBR, the subsidiary of Halliburton which actually landed the no bid LOGCAP contract with the government, has already netted over 8 billion dollars despite evidence of wide spread corruption, fraud, and cost over-runs.
According to a July 12 report in the Washington Post, "The Pentagon's new plan will split the work among three companies, to be chosen this fall, with a fourth firm to be hired to help monitor the performance of the three others. Halliburton will be eligible to bid on the work."
Last year, Facing South: Bloggers for a Progressive South reported that Halli was considering leaving Iraq altogether. The question raised was: with the ongoing violence, "has Iraq not turned out to be the profit center that they had envisioned?" If so, it makes perfect sense that they no longer need to stay in Iraq. However, it also begs to ask, is this a foreshadowing of the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq as well? Perhaps.
However, what I would like to know is if there are three other companies that can do the job Halliburton has been doing, why was Halli giving a no bid contract? The reason I mention this is because the Pentagon's response to the no bid contract question was that Halli was the only company that could do this kind of job on this scale. Now that we know there are these three other companies, most people want to know, did they just pop up the last couple of years? And if not, then there needs to be an investigation as to why Halli was giving a no bid contract, and furthermore, why the Pentagon lied about it? What were they covering up?
These questions are essential and their answers could offer some insight into the reasons the Bush Administration went to war in Iraq in the first place, possible war profiteering! I will offer the administration's naivete' the benefit of the doubt for now, but things are not adding up when it comes to this war, or the business transactions with Halliburton.
Although the Army praised Halliburton for their work, it was noted last week by officials that a single contractor leaves the U.S. vulnerable, though they did not mention specifics as to how. This is good news for many of us who believe Halliburton is a war profiteer whose monopolistic practices have hurt the U.S. domestically and abroad. Last year it was announced the company had overcharged the U.S. by billions of dollars. In fact, KBR, the subsidiary of Halliburton which actually landed the no bid LOGCAP contract with the government, has already netted over 8 billion dollars despite evidence of wide spread corruption, fraud, and cost over-runs.
According to a July 12 report in the Washington Post, "The Pentagon's new plan will split the work among three companies, to be chosen this fall, with a fourth firm to be hired to help monitor the performance of the three others. Halliburton will be eligible to bid on the work."
Last year, Facing South: Bloggers for a Progressive South reported that Halli was considering leaving Iraq altogether. The question raised was: with the ongoing violence, "has Iraq not turned out to be the profit center that they had envisioned?" If so, it makes perfect sense that they no longer need to stay in Iraq. However, it also begs to ask, is this a foreshadowing of the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq as well? Perhaps.
However, what I would like to know is if there are three other companies that can do the job Halliburton has been doing, why was Halli giving a no bid contract? The reason I mention this is because the Pentagon's response to the no bid contract question was that Halli was the only company that could do this kind of job on this scale. Now that we know there are these three other companies, most people want to know, did they just pop up the last couple of years? And if not, then there needs to be an investigation as to why Halli was giving a no bid contract, and furthermore, why the Pentagon lied about it? What were they covering up?
These questions are essential and their answers could offer some insight into the reasons the Bush Administration went to war in Iraq in the first place, possible war profiteering! I will offer the administration's naivete' the benefit of the doubt for now, but things are not adding up when it comes to this war, or the business transactions with Halliburton.
posted by Caleab at 11:27 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home