Halliburton charging for sending drivers on 'empty errands' & in the line of bullets
This is a great read : ARTICLE
Apparently a group of drivers for Halliburton are claiming that they have been repeatedly sent criss crossing around Iraq in empty flat-bed trucks 'dodging bullets, bricks and homemade bombs'
"while their employer, a subsidiary of Halliburton, billed the government for hauling what they derisively called "sailboat fuel."
and I guess its kinda expensive: "Trucking experts estimate each round trip costs taxpayers thousands of dollars."
Shane "nitro" Ratliff "was hauling an empty truck to Baghdad International Airport, Iraqis threw spikes under his tires and a brick, a cementlike clot of sand and gasoline through his windshield, scattering shards of glass over him and into his eyes.
"We didn't have no weapons; I had two rocks and a can of ravioli to fight with," Ratliff said."
\
and I guess it wasn't just small time potatos . . . the excuse was that it was "for security purposes"
anyway:
This would all make sense if they didn't end up going both ways . . after all the trucks would have to get to a place to load up . . . but apparently they did go both ways 'MT'
And guess what . . . Cheney still gets a check each month from Halliburton: See here now!
Apparently a group of drivers for Halliburton are claiming that they have been repeatedly sent criss crossing around Iraq in empty flat-bed trucks 'dodging bullets, bricks and homemade bombs'
"while their employer, a subsidiary of Halliburton, billed the government for hauling what they derisively called "sailboat fuel."
and I guess its kinda expensive: "Trucking experts estimate each round trip costs taxpayers thousands of dollars."
Shane "nitro" Ratliff "was hauling an empty truck to Baghdad International Airport, Iraqis threw spikes under his tires and a brick, a cementlike clot of sand and gasoline through his windshield, scattering shards of glass over him and into his eyes.
"We didn't have no weapons; I had two rocks and a can of ravioli to fight with," Ratliff said."
\ and I guess it wasn't just small time potatos . . . the excuse was that it was "for security purposes"
anyway:
Quote:
Earlier this year, up to one-third of all the flatbed trucks in a 30-truck convoy were empty, they said. Much of the time, drivers would drop off one empty trailer and pick up another empty one.
"There was one time we ran 28 trucks, one trailer had one pallet (a trailer can hold up to 26 four-foot-square pallets) and the rest of them were empty," said David Wilson, who was the convoy commander on more than 100 runs. Four other drivers who were with Wilson confirmed his account.
Earlier this year, up to one-third of all the flatbed trucks in a 30-truck convoy were empty, they said. Much of the time, drivers would drop off one empty trailer and pick up another empty one.
"There was one time we ran 28 trucks, one trailer had one pallet (a trailer can hold up to 26 four-foot-square pallets) and the rest of them were empty," said David Wilson, who was the convoy commander on more than 100 runs. Four other drivers who were with Wilson confirmed his account.
This would all make sense if they didn't end up going both ways . . after all the trucks would have to get to a place to load up . . . but apparently they did go both ways 'MT'
And guess what . . . Cheney still gets a check each month from Halliburton: See here now!
Comments
I don't care much that he is a socialist though . . .
Originally posted by pfflam
Aquatic is a socialist, actually.
Edit: (Which means he pretty much agrees with you on corporate abuse topics)
Originally posted by pfflam
You're just a pathetic idiot
ok we don't have to reply like this
Fellows
"Stop fighting! This is a War Room!"
Its amazing really . . . I think tht the other industries involved have not had such a record of either complete bungling or outright corruption . . . . does this reflect on the recent past CEO?
well . . . . you know what I think.
Originally posted by pfflam
I guess this directly relates to Cheney then: E-mail shows Cheney helped Halliburton get deal without even a bid
Its amazing really . . . I think tht the other industries involved have not had such a record of either complete bungling or outright corruption . . . . does this reflect on the recent past CEO?
well . . . . you know what I think.
Ah yes... The Guardian. It must be true. It is interesting that is someone posts an article from the National Review he is laughed at and accused of being some crazy neocon. But post an article from a left-wing publication like the Guardian and we must accept this as the absolute gospel. Geezus...
And yes Cheney does receive payments from Halliburton. It is called deferred compensation - it is money he was owed before he left the firm and the checks he receives are not affected by the company's financial performance. In other words, the contracts Halliburton received in Iraq do not effect how much Cheney is being paid as that is a fixed amount that was detemined before he left as CEO. I should not have to explain that to someone with your alleged intelligence as you clearly seem to have a very high opinion of yourself. So you don't have a scoop here - but it was a nice try. You really will have to do better next time...
Originally posted by 7E7
Ah yes... The Guardian. It must be true. It is interesting that is someone posts an article from the National Review he is laughed at and accused of being some crazy neocon. But post an article from a left-wing publication like the Guardian and we must accept this as the absolute gospel. Geezus...
.
Perhaps that source is biased . . . I don't know though . . .I just chose it from MANY OTHERS that were about the same e-mail article. here are a few:
ARTICLE
Even in TEXASS
A POST
DOWN UNDER
AYE BEAM ME UP
AND WITH SHEEP TOO
Le TRIB
Be an independant
We Did return
W Times
DASVIDANYA (sp?)
BLOKES
cnn
Capitol Times
Even in Philly
Thar ahwta Be A PRAWBE
EVEN FAUX!!!!
USA
Another from TEXAS
GAWGIA
Defense Talk
TURKS
ETC ETC ETC ETC
ETC ETC ETC
Originally posted by pfflam
Perhaps that source is biased . . . I don't know though . . .I just chose it from MANY OTHERS that were about the same e-mail article. here are a few:
ARTICLE
Even in TEXASS
A POST
DOWN UNDER
AYE BEAM ME UP
AND WITH SHEEP TOO
Le TRIB
Be an independant
We Did return
W Times
DASVIDANYA (sp?)
BLOKES
cnn
Capitol Times
Even in Philly
Thar ahwta Be A PRAWBE
EVEN FAUX!!!!
USA
Another from TEXAS
GAWGIA
Defense Talk
TURKS
ETC ETC ETC ETC
ETC ETC ETC
That is all very nice but it does not address the crux of the matter. And that is that Cheney is not profiting from Halliburton's current deals in Iraq - as if you even have actual proof that the Vice President is somehow orchestrating things behind the scenes. Mere suspicion just does not qualify as proof. You and others make it sound like Halliburton is paying the guy cash in plain brown envelopes for doing them favors when the only money he is receiving from the company is money he has already earned - he is only receving the money now because it was deferred until now. Bringing this whole issue into the discussion as a means of somehow proving your point is very misleading and I am sure it was done purposely. Some people however are not fooled and it is only you who looks foolish in not understanding a concept as simple as deferred compensation.
Originally posted by 7E7
That is all very nice but it does not address the crux of the matter. And that is that Cheney is not profiting from Halliburton's current deals in Iraq - as if you even have actual proof that the Vice President is somehow orchestrating things behind the scenes. Mere suspicion just does not qualify as proof. You and others make it sound like Halliburton is paying the guy cash in plain brown envelopes for doing them favors when the only money he is receiving from the company is money he has already earned - he is only receving the money now because it was deferred until now. Bringing this whole issue into the discussion as a means of somehow proving your point is very misleading and I am sure it was done purposely. Some people however are not fooled and it is only you who looks foolish in not understanding a concept as simple as deferred compensation.
No . . . the 'crux of the matter' is leadership and legacy and his unweaned sense of connection loyalty.
First, the issues of leadership: what sort of CEO would shape a company that would so consistently attempt to balk the US of money, so consistently STEAL FROM US!! . . . how many probes are there now against Halliburton? How much were they overcharging? Why did the soldiers have to eat cold crap? Who bungled this that and the other?
Legacy: What sort of structuring did Cheney put into play as CEO? How could a company get to this point?
ALSO, as has been shown in previouse threads: Kellog, Brown and Root (Halliburton) had direct and working connections to Iraq prior to the war . . . so blame the French for having industrial with ties to Iraq, but realize that not only did the US have Industries with working ties, those Industries were directly related to the Vice President of the US!!!!
The issue of Connection: No bid process, the company was given the 'contract' because of what exactly? It certainly cannot have been excellent work-history!
. . . obviously they got the job because of a huge network of connected buddies; the tip of the iceberg on the real political force behind these actions.
Just how influential was the idea of lucrative contracts, contracts to KB&R and Bechtell (many ties there as well) and other industries (not excluding oil related) . . . how influential were these impending contracts in shaping the 'need' to go to war?
Did these immenent contracts play a (deliberate) part in the ostracism of our allies? ensuring that we would get no competition?
Even if these are consciously NOT issues, they are under the surface . . . hence the need to remove such things as 'conflict of interest' from such considerations as HUGE contracts and even the notion of a lucrative war.
Cheney's connectedness is thicker than concrete: if corruption exists it won't be hard to know where to look!
When I say that money was a motivation I don't mean for the individual CEO but to the 'idea of the Company', and, for Ideological reasons as well . . . the company is an entity, shaped by the CEO that represents an ideology: the Ideology of the VP: a new privatized military/corporate model that means 'progress' and 'freedom' and 'democracy' for God loving Capitalists . . . it is in Cheney's Ideological interests that that company get contracts and that it thrive.
The apparent fact that Cheney will overlook notions such as conflict-of-interst, and missuse of power in order to promote his ideological corporate babies in the form of his company, reveals how corrupt that ideology is
AND,
the fact that that company is in turn CORRUPT, when it has been shaped by leadership willing to employ currupt means, comes as no surprise !!
That is the 'crux'
Originally posted by pfflam
No . . . the 'crux of the matter' is leadership and legacy and his unweaned sense of connection loyalty.
First, the issues of leadership: what sort of CEO would shape a company that would so consistently attempt to balk the US of money, so consistently STEAL FROM US!! . . . how many probes are there now against Halliburton? How much were they overcharging? Why did the soldiers have to eat cold crap? Who bungled this that and the other?
Legacy: What sort of structuring did Cheney put into play as CEO? How could a company get to this point?
ALSO, as has been shown in previouse threads: Kellog, Brown and Root (Halliburton) had direct and working connections to Iraq prior to the war . . . so blame the French for having industrial with ties to Iraq, but realize that not only did the US have Industries with working ties, those Industries were directly related to the Vice President of the US!!!!
The issue of Connection: No bid process, the company was given the 'contract' because of what exactly? It certainly cannot have been excellent work-history!
. . . obviously they got the job because of a huge network of connected buddies; the tip of the iceberg on the real political force behind these actions.
Just how influential was the idea of lucrative contracts, contracts to KB&R and Bechtell (many ties there as well) and other industries (not excluding oil related) . . . how influential were these impending contracts in shaping the 'need' to go to war?
Did these immenent contracts play a (deliberate) part in the ostracism of our allies? ensuring that we would get no competition?
Even if these are consciously NOT issues, they are under the surface . . . hence the need to remove such things as 'conflict of interest' from such considerations as HUGE contracts and even the notion of a lucrative war.
Cheney's connectedness is thicker than concrete: if corruption exists it won't be hard to know where to look!
When I say that money was a motivation I don't mean for the individual CEO but to the 'idea of the Company', and, for Ideological reasons as well . . . the company is an entity, shaped by the CEO that represents an ideology: the Ideology of the VP: a new privatized military/corporate model that means 'progress' and 'freedom' and 'democracy' for God loving Capitalists . . . it is in Cheney's Ideological interests that that company get contracts and that it thrive.
The apparent fact that Cheney will overlook notions such as conflict-of-interst, and missuse of power in order to promote his ideological corporate babies in the form of his company, reveals how corrupt that ideology is
AND,
the fact that that company is in turn CORRUPT, when it has been shaped by leadership willing to employ currupt means, comes as no surprise !!
That is the 'crux'
Your post here is nothing but pure crap. It is all based on specualtion and suspicion - but the thing you lack is proof for your assertions. It would be like me saying that everything the Democrats do is based solely on what the trial lawyer lobby - who contributes an obscene amout of money to the DNC and Democratic candidates - wants. Perhaps this is why medical costs have skyrocketed to such ridiculous levels. Now there should be an investigation there because a lot of Americans are dying because they cannot afford decent health care. Now I am not suggesting that the Democrats are responsible for the murder of countless U.S. citizens because of how greedy they are... See how this kind of crap works when suspicion and paranoia gets in the way?
The fact that Cheney used to be the CEO of Halliburton just is not enough proof that all this has happened as you claim. It simply is not the smoking gun here. So get your head out of you ass and stop using DNC talking points and get some evidence that there is wrongdoing on the part of Cheney and all these other guys. Absent anything that will advance this discussion to a level worthy of any kind of note you probably should zip it because you sound dangerously like your typically shrill liberal who has nothing better to do then to spread the same tired lies in hope that some element of truth will sprout. You remind me of these guys I saw the last time I was in Washington D.C. They walk around the White House in this fixed glaze muttering to themselves. Then they occasionally shout out loud to nobody in particular and nothing they say makes any sense to anybody around them. Very sad...
kick yo ass boeeey
--ok . . . ehem--
1st off, I never said anything about donations so your attempt at analogue is misguided . . . let me repeat that so your little brain can grasp: what Cheney is to Hallibuton and that companies' corruption has nothing to do with trial Lawyers and Democrats . . . bad analogue: but then what else would I expect.
2ndly, Halliburton has consistently shown itself to be, if not CORRUPT, then borderline corrupt and very badly managed.
This company takes its present shape due to its history: meaning that, it is now what it is because of what it once was (is that too complex?!?!)
That history involves that company being shaped by its leadership and CEO . . . that leadership and CEO was Dick Cheney.
Follow the bouncing ball:
Corruption is,
what is is the result of what was,
what was was CHENEY as the leadership =
A corruption that came about from the history of the company, corruption that was allowed to consistently take place because leadership created a company/environment that would allowed such corruption to exist (if not actually being himself corrupt) and that leadership was Cheney.
This is merely a point to consider as there are no real prosocutables here . . . merely a portrait of slime.
3rdly, your pathetic description of supposedly shrill liberals, which you use to describe the lack of advancement of discussion, is what exactly? ANSWER: a thorough inability on your part to actually respond to the substance of what I have said.
That would appear to be a failure to "advance this discussion"
What exactly then is it that is so shrill anyway: nothing in your 'shrill' knuckle-drag post would indicate because you are unable to actually respond with any substance.
Apparently you are simply (and quite simple) unable to get beyond your refusal to even try and digest anything said by a "shrill liberal" . . . you would refuse to acknowledge any link that came from a Liberal even if it was signed by Cheney himself . . . you love the flavor of his pasty shit, your tongue is so far up you have hash marks on your neck!
Originally posted by pfflam
F**# ^ff p@*ck . . .
kick yo ass boeeey
--ok . . . ehem--
1st off, I never said anything about donations so your attempt at analogue is misguided . . . let me repeat that so your little brain can grasp: what Cheney is to Hallibuton and that companies' corruption has nothing to do with trial Lawyers and Democrats . . . bad analogue: but then what else would I expect.
2ndly, Halliburton has consistently shown itself to be, if not CORRUPT, then borderline corrupt and very badly managed.
This company takes its present shape due to its history: meaning that, it is now what it is because of what it once was (is that too complex?!?!)
That history involves that company being shaped by its leadership and CEO . . . that leadership and CEO was Dick Cheney.
Follow the bouncing ball:
Corruption is,
what is is the result of what was,
what was was CHENEY as the leadership =
A corruption that came about from the history of the company, corruption that was allowed to consistently take place because leadership created a company/environment that would allowed such corruption to exist (if not actually being himself corrupt) and that leadership was Cheney.
This is merely a point to consider as there are no real prosocutables here . . . merely a portrait of slime.
3rdly, your pathetic description of supposedly shrill liberals, which you use to describe the lack of advancement of discussion, is what exactly? ANSWER: a thorough inability on your part to actually respond to the substance of what I have said.
That would appear to be a failure to "advance this discussion"
What exactly then is it that is so shrill anyway: nothing in your 'shrill' knuckle-drag post would indicate because you are unable to actually respond with any substance.
Apparently you are simply (and quite simple) unable to get beyond your refusal to even try and digest anything said by a "shrill liberal" . . . you would refuse to acknowledge any link that came from a Liberal even if it was signed by Cheney himself . . . you love the flavor of his pasty shit, your tongue is so far up you have hash marks on your neck!
More drivel - unfortunately nothing of substance here. Get some facts and then check back in you sad little man...
My analogy was right on because you basically are saying that the Bush Administration's decisions are all based entirely on financial motivation - which you have done nothing to advance the truth of such claims. But then you come back with some corrupt leadership theory that is nothing more than mere speculation with little basis in reality - because your head is so far up the ass of people like Terry McAuliffe and James Carville who have a habit of making wild claims like yours while offering up zero evidence to back up their claims. We now know whose shit you are licking. Unlike you, I just cannot digest something I know I could not possibly swallow...
You think you have the whole picture but in reality you have nothing. If the standards of proof in a court of law were like what you believe them to be the jails and prisons in this country would really be full!
Originally posted by tonton
Dude, sorry to say, but your reading comprehension sucks.
Apparently he does no reading before assuming what I had to say.
Originally posted by 7E7
And that is that Cheney is not profiting from Halliburton's current deals in Iraq -
I'm sure after his VP is over Halliburton won't take Cheney back. I agree. The thought of someone-who was employed by Halli. and paid millions of dollars by Halli.- having anything to do with Halliburton getting no bid contracts in the billions is a huge stretch. It's outrageous to think that!!
What's next? Are they going to accuse Halliburton of making 95% of their contributions to Republicans since DUHbya took office?
All politicians are whores. Show them the money and they'll dance. However this administration is setting such high "standards" that they'll be tough to match in the future.
Originally posted by pfflam
Apparently he does no reading before assuming what I had to say.
So what are you saying? What I get out of your spiel is that Cheney as former CEO of Halliburton is doing everything in his power to help his former company secure lucrative contracts in Iraq. Do you not believe this to be the case? I simply cannot believe that you don't think that is what is happening. Clearly by inference you seem to be making the point that Cheney and the rest of the Bush Administration are risking American lives simply to boost profits for the big oil companies which in turn helps oil service outfits like Halliburton. Am I missing something here? You know damn well that you are not merely talking about Halliburton's activities in Iraq that are alleged in these articles. Your rant must go well beyond some theory that the company is corrupt and this is solely due to a culture Cheney supposedly instituted during his tenure there. Once again you lack evidence to support such allegations. If there is something wrong at Halliburton than why not start with the current CEO instead of Cheney who has not been CEO of that oufit in almost four years? Oh, it just does not fit in with your Bush/Cheney hating agenda.
Earlier you claimed Cheney is still personally profiting from his former relationship with the company because you specifically said he is still being paid by Halliburton even though you conveniently ignored the fact that you were attempting to mislead people by not mentioning the fact that the money Cheney receives is deferred compensation and is not affected by the profitability of the company or their current deals with Iraq. Your corruption theory is not supported by any facts so don't try to come across with some sort of intellectual superiority here because you are losing this little debate and no amount of liberal hacks in this forum can bail you out. If you can provide some facts rather than only liberal talking points which are supported by none than perhaps I could be pursuaded. But none will be coming because there simply are none. This thread is not even noteworthy because all it is about is your private fantasy about what you think is going on. Your hatred is blinding your ability to be rational.
Originally posted by burningwheel
what doesn't stink with this whole war?
The fake turkey Bush held in that photo op.