Halliburton may have overcharged millions

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Why is this completely NOT a surprise.



Make note of who discovered this typical profiteering? It wasn't some 'Libby' watch group



I expect no m,ore from this gang of thieves or any of their compatriots . . .



CHENEY's company that won a bidless contract in a country that was invaded by that very ex CEO's lying admin . . . . meaningful?!? look at the link at least.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 21
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    that's just business as usual for them:



    http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/c...lliburton.html
  • Reply 2 of 21
    From Talkingpoints



    What a surprise ...



    When Congress voted the $87 billion for military expenditures and reconstruction in Iraq they were keen to create an office of Inspector General at the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) to watch out for all manner of waste, fraud, abuse, price gouging and various other shenanigans.



    Now it seems that Paul Wolfowitz has gutted that provision.



    According to Inside the Pentagon, a weekly newsletter, "Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz last week directed a newly formed inspector general's office in Iraq not to request sensitive information about Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) activities related to intelligence or operational plans."



    The report goes on to quote Wolfowitz's order ...



    In his statement, upon approving the act, the president directed that, in exercising these authorities and responsibilities, the IG/CPA shall refrain from initiating, carrying out, or completing an audit or investigation, or from issuing a subpoena, which requires access to sensitive operation plans, intelligence matters, counterintelligence matters, ongoing criminal investigations by other administration units of the [Defense Department] related to national security, or other matters the disclosure of which would constitute a serious threat to national security.



    In plain English, that sounds a lot like the IG should refrain from doing anything.



    On the surface, you can see why you wouldn't want green-eye-shade types rustling through sensitive intelligence and war-fighting information willy-nilly.



    But common sense also tells you that all the other IGs at the Pentagon must have to work with classified information all the time. So certainly they've worked out some way of dealing with these issues. And as the article goes to say, they have.



    "In the Defense Department," says Inside the Pentagon, "auditors with appropriate clearances have access to all internal information deemed necessary to carry out their duties."



    But under the new rules IGs can only make the kinds of requests noted above "if so directed by the defense secretary."



    That makes the new CPA IG sound a tad less than fully independent, doesn't it?



    Again, according to the article, the highly restrictive rules Wolfowitz has set forth for the CPA Inspector General are different from those which apply to all the rest of the Pentagon.



    Don't you feel better now?



    -- Josh Marshall
  • Reply 3 of 21
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    Hehe guess we're both so shocked...http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...threadid=35088



    This seriously is such a scandal though, it deserves such attention. This is but one of many shady deals the whitehouse has been up to. I read on Drugde today that Bush only ate with Army units that didn't have "low morale."



    Honestly, sometimes I don't feel angry at Bush and co. I feel sick. Like I want barf in my mouth and swallow it. No other President has done this for me. Nixon might have but still...And all to serve up a FAKE turkey, too. Gag me w/ a spoon.
  • Reply 4 of 21
    Hee hee.



    Quote:

    The defense officials said they had no reason to believe the problems were anything other than "stupid mistakes'' by Halliburton. They said the company and the Pentagon were negotiating a possible settlement of the matter, which could include repayment by Halliburton.



    That's $67 worth of "stupid mistakes."



    Could have happened to anyone.
  • Reply 5 of 21
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Bush yesterday requested Halliburton to pay this money back. This approach is like robbing someone, the police ignore it, and the perp gets a polite request to pay it back...and nobody gets into trouble. If this issue hadn't have got any publicity, then Halliburton would have probably gotten away with it 100%.
  • Reply 6 of 21
    northgatenorthgate Posts: 4,461member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sammi jo

    Bush yesterday requested Halliburton to pay this money back. This approach is like robbing someone, the police ignore it, and the perp gets a polite request to pay it back...and nobody gets into trouble. If this issue hadn't have got any publicity, then Halliburton would have probably gotten away with it 100%.



    Just have them pay it back. Simple. Right?



    Wait.



    If this was Al Gore's administration and this were about Joe Lieberman's ex-company, not only would there be a congressional investigation, but there would be demands from Republicans in Congress for the Attorney General to open an investigation into criminal charges.



    But alas, like Gov Shwarzenegger's free pass to be a serial groper, like Plame, like Enron, this too shall pass.



    SDW and Trumpt are right. The Dems have absolutely no backbone!



    Virtue, apparently, is a widely interpreted value.
  • Reply 7 of 21
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sammi jo

    Bush yesterday requested Halliburton to pay this money back. This approach is like robbing someone, the police ignore it, and the perp gets a polite request to pay it back...and nobody gets into trouble. If this issue hadn't have got any publicity, then Halliburton would have probably gotten away with it 100%.



    Ahh, but wolfowitz got rid of any oversight:



    Quote:

    Okay, this may call for what, back in the old days, we used to call reporting.



    Yesterday, President Bush said that if Halliburton's overcharged then they've gotta pay up.



    "I appreciate the Pentagon looking out after the taxpayers' money," the president said. "They put the issue right out there on the table for everybody to see, and they're doing good work. We're going to watch, we're going to make sure that as we spend the money in Iraq that it's spent well and spent wisely. And their investigation will lay the facts out for everybody to see."



    Yet, just a week earlier, acting on the president's orders, the Deputy Secretary of Defense signed a directive which hamstrung precisely the sort of internal audits of the funds Congress just approved for work in Iraq -- just the sort of crackerjack oversight the president says he loves.



    and



    Quote:

    What a surprise ...



    When Congress voted the $87 billion for military expenditures and reconstruction in Iraq they were keen to create an office of Inspector General at the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) to watch out for all manner of waste,fraud, abuse, price gougingand various other shenanigans.



    Now it seems that Paul Wolfowitz has gutted that provision.



    According to Inside the Pentagon, a weekly newsletter, "Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz last week directed a newly formed inspector general's office in Iraq not to request sensitive information about Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) activities related to intelligence or operational plans."



    The report goes on to quote Wolfowitz's order ...



    In his statement, upon approving the act, the president directed that, in exercising these authorities and responsibilities, the IG/CPA shall refrain from initiating, carrying out, or completing an audit or investigation, or from issuing a subpoena, which requires access to sensitive operation plans, intelligence matters, counterintelligence matters, ongoing criminal investigations by other administration units of the [Defense Department] related to national security, or other matters the disclosure of which would constitute a serious threat to national security.



    In plain English, that sounds a lot like the IG should refrain from doing anything.



    On the surface, you can see why you wouldn't want green-eye-shade types rustling through sensitive intelligence and war-fighting information willy-nilly.



    But common sense also tells you that all the other IGs at the Pentagon must have to work with classified information all the time. So certainly they've worked out some way of dealing with these issues. And as the article goes to say, they have.



    "In the Defense Department," says Inside the Pentagon, "auditors with appropriate clearances have access to all internal information deemed necessary to carry out their duties."



    But under the new rules IGs can only make the kinds of requests noted above "if so directed by the defense secretary."



    That makes the new CPA IG sound a tad less than fully independent, doesn't it?



    Again, according to the article, the highly restrictive rules Wolfowitz has set forth for the CPA Inspector General are different from those which apply to all the rest of the Pentagon.



    Don't you feel better now?



    -- Josh Marshall



    Josh is a great guy.
  • Reply 8 of 21
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by giant

    Ahh, but wolfowitz got rid of any oversight....



    Try this if you don't like oversight!



    Quote:

    Keeping Secrets

    The Bush administration is doing the public's business out of the public eye.

    By Christopher H. Schmitt and Edward T. Pound



  • Reply 9 of 21
    alcimedesalcimedes Posts: 5,486member
    anyone who's posted in this thread able to tell me who made the money in this overcharging scheme?
  • Reply 10 of 21
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    Try this if you don't like oversight!



    That is a surprising, scary and in depth article.



    I would want to point out to any conservatives whho might immediately dismiss it, that it is posted in a very conservative magazine . . .
  • Reply 11 of 21
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by alcimedes

    anyone who's posted in this thread able to tell me who made the money in this overcharging scheme?



    The way Halliburton's government contracts work is that they get reimbursed for what they spend and then get a fee that is a percentage of that spending. That is why they always overcharge so much (which they have a LONG history of doing, just read what I linked to above). So they are in fact making a profit off of this.



    Then we have to ask who this kuwaiti company is and which other companies are investors in it. I didn't see the name of the company in that article, and I'm working on a couple essays on Cleo from 5 to 7 and Contempt, so I should finish those before looking that up.
  • Reply 12 of 21
    alcimedesalcimedes Posts: 5,486member
    exactly. so when they find out who owns/controls the company in Kuwait, then things get interesting.



    for now, the Haliburton group got overcharged by a company in Kuwait.



    they paid X dollars to the company in Kuwait. then they get X dollars back. where's the profit?



    Quote:

    But the company apparently didn't profit from the discrepancy, according to officials who briefed reporters Thursday on condition of anonymity. The problem, the officials said, was that Halliburton may have paid a Kuwaiti subcontractor too much for the gasoline in the first place.



  • Reply 13 of 21
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by alcimedes

    exactly. so when they find out who owns/controls the company in Kuwait, then things get interesting.



    for now, the Haliburton group got overcharged by a company in Kuwait.



    they paid X dollars to the company in Kuwait. then they get X dollars back. where's the profit?




    also from the article



    Quote:

    "Halliburton only makes a few cents on the dollar when fuel is delivered from Kuwait to Iraq," the statement read.



    So they made a larger profit. There's no two ways about it. That's how the contract works.



    Halliburton get profits depending on how much they spend, and they have ALWAYS dramatically over charged in order to make a bigger profit.



    Read me: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/c...lliburton.html



    Quote:

    A 1997 investigation by the General Accounting Office (GAO) revealed Halliburton has repeatedly overcharged the government for its services._ For example, in one case, Halliburton charged the U.S. government $85.98 per sheet of plywood delivered to a location outside the U.S._ In another instance, the company attempted to bill the Army for the income taxes that its employees were liable for while working in Hungary._ (Chatterjee 5-2-2002a; Gerth and Van Natta 7-14-2002)



    In 2000, the GAO discovered that Brown and Root had grossly mismanaged its expenditures at the army's facilities in Kosovo._ For example, contract labor working in the Balkans on the U.S. taxpayers' clock_ were encouraged to work extra hours doing redundant tasks.__ The report explained that at Camp Bondsteel laborers often cleaned offices_ and bathrooms over and over again - up to four times a day._ (Chatterjee 5-2-2002a; Hennessey 5-23-2002)_Additionally, it revealed that Brown and Root had ordered so much furniture ($5.2 million worth) that the army had great difficulty finding room for it all._ Processing the order alone cost U.S. taxpayers $377,000. (Hennessey 5-23-2002)



    The former Brown and Root contract manager, Dammen Grant Campbell, blew the whistle on his ex-employer, revealing that the Halliburton subsidiary had purposefully inflated its invoices by exaggerating the quantity and quality of the supplies its used on government contracts._ In the span of about 4 years, between 1994 and 1998, the company sent the government these fraudulent bills for 224 projects._ (Chatterjee 5-2-2002a)



    KBR charged the U.S. Army $750,000 for electrical repairs that had cost them only about $125,000 at a base in California._ Commenting on the incident, A KBR lawyer explained, "The company happened to negotiate a couple of projects we made more money on than others._ On some projects the contractor may make a large or small profit, while on others it may lose money, as KBR sometimes did on this contract."_ (Gerth and Van Natta 7-14-2002)



    The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is currently investigating Halliburton for possible fraudulent accounting in 1998 and 1999._ The company is accused of booking $100 million in reimbursement income for cost overruns on construction contracts before its customers actually agreed to pay these extra costs._ The New York Times_ reported that according to a former Dresser Industries executive Halliburton claimed the income "to obscure large losses on several important construction contracts."_ Halliburton's auditor, Anderson Accounting, is assumed to have approved of the misleading financial statements._ (Berenson and Bergman 5-22-2002; Harrington and Toedtman 5-30-2002)_ According Halliburton's current CEO, David Lesar, Cheney had been aware the projected cost-overrun payments were being recorded as revenues._ (PRNewswire 7-14-2002) While much of the complacent public seems content that Cheney's former company is not being overlooked by the SEC, more critical observers_are calling attention to the apparent conflict of interest between Harvey Pitt, the current SEC chairman, and the allegations he is charged with investigating._ (Coile 7-1-2002; Fields 7-9-2002)_ Pitt at one time was a top lobbyist and attorney for several major Wall Street brokerage and accounting firms._ Even Al Gore has raised his voice._ In a speech on June 29, he complained: "They picked the principal lawyer and lobbyist for the big five accounting firms who, before coming to the government, went and pleaded with the SEC to open up loopholes for the accounting companies."___ (Coile 7-1-2002)_ Another conflict of interest is that the SEC reports to the Vice President._(Harnden 5-7-2002)



  • Reply 14 of 21
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by giant

    Contempt, so.



    I love Palance in that movie . . . he plays teh perfect "American" as seen by the French, the scene where he starts kicking stuff is hillarious!
  • Reply 15 of 21
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pfflam

    I love Palance in that movie . . . he plays teh perfect "American" as seen by the French, the scene where he starts kicking stuff is hillarious!



    No kidding. He's a creepy one, isn't he?
  • Reply 16 of 21
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by alcimedes

    anyone who's posted in this thread able to tell me who made the money in this overcharging scheme?



    Yes.



    Quote:

    Under the contract, Halliburton gets a guaranteed profit calculated as part of the company's costs. In other words, the higher the costs, the more money for Halliburton.



    Halliburton is guaranteed a profit equal to at least 2 percent of its costs. Depending on performance, Halliburton can earn a profit of up to 7 percent of costs.



    If the subcontractor were to overcharge by $61 million, Halliburton would be guaranteed $1.2 million in profit from that amount. If Halliburton earned the entire 7 percent, its profit on the overcharge would be about $4.3 million.



    From a very simple article here.
  • Reply 17 of 21
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pfflam

    That is a surprising, scary and in depth article.



    I hadn't finished reading it when I posted it, but ultimately I can't to the same conclusion. It was very unnerving, very scary. Not healthy for the country in the least.
  • Reply 18 of 21
    thanks bunge. that's the first article i've seen that actually talked about how much money they actually made out of it.



    a few interesting points.



    Haliburton didn't overcharge on all the oil, just the oil from Kuwait that came from a specific contractor (that overcharged).



    if they have to get oil from a company that overcharges, how else would they have gone about this? i can see how this reflects badly on the subcontractor in Kuwait, but isn't that the only company that's shown signs of anything amiss in this case?



    now there could be more to it, it will depend on the heirarchy of the company in Kuwait. just seems a bit premature at this point.
  • Reply 19 of 21
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by alcimedes

    thanks bunge. that's the first article i've seen that actually talked about how much money they actually made out of it.



    a few interesting points.



    Haliburton didn't overcharge on all the oil, just the oil from Kuwait that came from a specific contractor (that overcharged).



    if they have to get oil from a company that overcharges, how else would they have gone about this? i can see how this reflects badly on the subcontractor in Kuwait, but isn't that the only company that's shown signs of anything amiss in this case?



    now there could be more to it, it will depend on the heirarchy of the company in Kuwait. just seems a bit premature at this point.




    Apparently you need this posted yet again. It would be UNUSUAL for it to be unintentional:



    Quote:

    A 1997 investigation by the General Accounting Office (GAO) revealed Halliburton has repeatedly overcharged the government for its services._ For example, in one case, Halliburton charged the U.S. government $85.98 per sheet of plywood delivered to a location outside the U.S._ In another instance, the company attempted to bill the Army for the income taxes that its employees were liable for while working in Hungary._ (Chatterjee 5-2-2002a; Gerth and Van Natta 7-14-2002)



    In 2000, the GAO discovered that Brown and Root had grossly mismanaged its expenditures at the army's facilities in Kosovo._ For example, contract labor working in the Balkans on the U.S. taxpayers' clock_ were encouraged to work extra hours doing redundant tasks.__ The report explained that at Camp Bondsteel laborers often cleaned offices_ and bathrooms over and over again - up to four times a day._ (Chatterjee 5-2-2002a; Hennessey 5-23-2002)_Additionally, it revealed that Brown and Root had ordered so much furniture ($5.2 million worth) that the army had great difficulty finding room for it all._ Processing the order alone cost U.S. taxpayers $377,000. (Hennessey 5-23-2002)



    The former Brown and Root contract manager, Dammen Grant Campbell, blew the whistle on his ex-employer, revealing that the Halliburton subsidiary had purposefully inflated its invoices by exaggerating the quantity and quality of the supplies its used on government contracts._ In the span of about 4 years, between 1994 and 1998, the company sent the government these fraudulent bills for 224 projects._ (Chatterjee 5-2-2002a)



    KBR charged the U.S. Army $750,000 for electrical repairs that had cost them only about $125,000 at a base in California._ Commenting on the incident, A KBR lawyer explained, "The company happened to negotiate a couple of projects we made more money on than others._ On some projects the contractor may make a large or small profit, while on others it may lose money, as KBR sometimes did on this contract."_ (Gerth and Van Natta 7-14-2002)



    The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is currently investigating Halliburton for possible fraudulent accounting in 1998 and 1999._ The company is accused of booking $100 million in reimbursement income for cost overruns on construction contracts before its customers actually agreed to pay these extra costs._ The New York Times_ reported that according to a former Dresser Industries executive Halliburton claimed the income "to obscure large losses on several important construction contracts."_ Halliburton's auditor, Anderson Accounting, is assumed to have approved of the misleading financial statements._ (Berenson and Bergman 5-22-2002; Harrington and Toedtman 5-30-2002)_ According Halliburton's current CEO, David Lesar, Cheney had been aware the projected cost-overrun payments were being recorded as revenues._ (PRNewswire 7-14-2002) While much of the complacent public seems content that Cheney's former company is not being overlooked by the SEC, more critical observers_are calling attention to the apparent conflict of interest between Harvey Pitt, the current SEC chairman, and the allegations he is charged with investigating._ (Coile 7-1-2002; Fields 7-9-2002)_ Pitt at one time was a top lobbyist and attorney for several major Wall Street brokerage and accounting firms._ Even Al Gore has raised his voice._ In a speech on June 29, he complained: "They picked the principal lawyer and lobbyist for the big five accounting firms who, before coming to the government, went and pleaded with the SEC to open up loopholes for the accounting companies."___ (Coile 7-1-2002)_ Another conflict of interest is that the SEC reports to the Vice President._(Harnden 5-7-2000)



  • Reply 20 of 21
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    And just to add, there is and always has been a strong relationship between the kuwaiti oil companies and US comapanies (including halliburton).



    I'm reading now that the Kuwaiti oil industry consists on one parent company with eight subsidiaries.



    Texaco (US) and KOC (parent company) jointly operate many (if not all, I can't tell yet) of the offshore wells and what looks like one major land one. KOC also has various partnerships with European and US companies, including Halliburton. Every industry, including petroleum, in Kuwait is open to 100% foreign ownership except for oil extraction.
Sign In or Register to comment.