# Haliburton Truth/Edwards BS



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Good editiorial about the BS your going to here tonight from Edwards about Halliburton :******:

Hullabaloo Over Halliburton
The Kerry campaign's Old Democrat tendencies.

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 12:01 a.m.

Tonight's Vice Presidential debate is expected to be a bare-knuckled affair--traditionally it's the understudies who go negative while their bosses strike a higher tone. As well as making for good entertainment, this can give the voters some valuable information about the two tickets.
For instance, we expect that John Edwards will use the word "Halliburton" at least once as a shorthand way of accusing the Bush Administration of helping its friends in big business to ill-gotten gains. Last Saturday, John Kerry said, "In fact, the only people George Bush's policies are working for are the people he chooses to help. They're working for drug companies. They're working for oil companies . . . and they're certainly working for Halliburton."

By sheer force of repetition :eyeroll: the vague accusations hurled at Halliburton have unfairly dragged the company's good name down to the level of Enron. It's an article of faith among Democrats that Vice President Dick Cheney, who was Halliburton's CEO from 1995-2000, is somehow funneling contracts its way and is being compensated by the company for these services. The company is supposedly gouging the U.S. taxpayer in Iraq and employing "Enron-style accounting," in the words of the Kerry campaign. For good measure, Mr. Kerry recently accused the company of opening "some 20 offshore entities" on Mr. Cheney's watch.

*All that's needed to refute this smear campaign are the facts: *Mr. Cheney's deferred compensation is a standard practice for retiring executives and an entirely legal way of spreading tax liability for previously agreed compensation, so it does not imply any continuing relationship with Halliburton. In order to re-enter public service, Mr. Cheney had to forfeit millions of dollars worth of stock options to avoid any conflict of interest. And he has zero control or even input regarding Halliburton's Defense contracts.

But the attacks have gone on for so long despite no evidence of impropriety that there must be something else going on here. That's what we mean by saying that voters can learn from a campaign's negative attacks: *They sometimes betray the accuser's ( DEMOCRATS)own biases. In this case, it is a prejudice against large corporations and preference for big government.*
Consider that Halliburton is a poster child for the efficient contracting out of government functions to the private sector. It owes most of its involvement in Iraq to the third Logistics Civilian Augmentation Program, or Logcap III, awarded to its KBR subsidiary in 2001 through competitive bidding against four other contractors. Congress has supported this practice because, by using private sector employees for non-military functions, the armed forces put fewer soldiers at risk in a war zone. And the private sector can cook meals and wash uniforms more cheaply than the Pentagon. *The Clinton Administration and other New Democrats understood the logic of this "outsourcing."* 

Initially, Logcap III called for KBR to support 25,000 troops in a theater of war. As military men say, no war plan survives contact with the enemy, and today the company is supporting 211,000 soldiers and personnel in Iraq and Kuwait. In the course of ramping up such an enormous effort, there are bound to be difficulties. But KBR has done a tremendous job of responding quickly to changing circumstances. Some of the biggest snafus have occurred in accounting at both KBR and the Pentagon, and even then the company has blown the whistle on itself.

KBR's other major contract in Iraq was Restore Iraqi Oil, a program to get the country's petroleum flowing quickly to finance reconstruction. That contract was awarded without bidding, and with good reason. The company was simply the only one capable of handling all of the possible challenges, including oil-well fires and pipeline breakdowns. And the Pentagon's confidence has been rewarded: KBR restored production to pre-war levels three months ahead of schedule.

Given the risky work and the firestorm of criticism from Democrats, one would think that Halliburton was making profit hand over fist in Iraq. Sadly for the company's shareholders, that is not the case. Profit from Logcap would come mostly from an "award fee," granted by the military on the basis of how well the company contains costs, and which may not exceed 2% of costs. Likewise, the profit potential on the oil contract is strictly limited and will probably end up between 1% and 3%, compared to the usual margin of 15% for private oil industry services. Halliburton is so underwhelmed by the returns on this government contracting that it is trying to spin off its KBR subsidiary.
Not surprisingly, there's a lack of consistency here from the Kerry campaign. *On the one hand, it criticizes the Bush Administration for not spending money Congress allocated to rebuild Iraq faster. Meanwhile, it criticizes the KBR oil contract needed to get oil flowing quickly*. In an interview with this paper in May, Senator Kerry tried to back away from his primary-season labelling of companies that send jobs abroad as "Benedict Arnolds." Now he's back attacking Halliburton for doing business overseas.
*All of this marks a striking return to the Old Democrat distrust of all private enterprise, which held that if it moves, tax it, if it keeps moving, regulate it, and when it stops moving, subsidize it. * :eyeroll: The idea of anyone making a dime of profit by taking over a government function and doing it better is anathema on the Kerry ticket, and the idea of that person then going into public service even worse. That's the subtext of the Halliburton attacks on Dick Cheney.


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

I think I'm going to use the debate tonight for entertainment by playing a drinking game. Every time I here "Halliburton" I'm going to take a drink!
I'm glad I didn't do it in the previuos debate with "Its hard work" I'd still be hungover!
TC


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I (Dec 2, 2003)

Now that sounds like one helluva good drinking game!


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

Working in the oil and gas industry, I would have to agree, Halliburton is probably the only one who could do it, it's such a big load a crap anyway, seeing how Clinton has awarded more no bid contracts to Halliburton than Bush has.


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

Racer are you saying Halliburton is the only company that could serve our troops food?

TC


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

No, I was talking about the Iragi oil fields.


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

You do know they are involved in more than oil field service? They are involved in things such as food service/chow lines.

I do not question their expertese in oil. 
TC


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Halliburton is doing a good job an if it wasn't for all the phony accusations about Cheney noone would be complaining. Notice the same people that never said a word about it when Clinton was using them are now criticizing it. Its pathetic that the people of Halliburton doing the dangerous work they are doing have to put up with this attack on their character by a bunch of chicken **** liberals that wouldn't have the balls to go do the job they are doing for any amount of money. Halliburton is the only American business that can do this job which is why the last two admistrations used them as well.


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

Bob, 
You should look at the Halliburton website. Just an idea. I geuss there are alot of people that do not know how to cook and serve food in the USA your right. Next time you go out to eat look out all those people who know food service are gone because they are the only ones who know anything about food. Maybe you need to look at Halliburton.

By the way I think the so called contractors are more [email protected]#$% than the men and women we have over there afterall our troops are doing it for a hell of a lot less money than the contractors. Who do you think is more of a chicken? I think if you have to get paid 10 or 20 times to do what somebody in the military use to do that makes you a chicken#$*!
TC


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

So what was wrong with Halliburton when Clinton was using them?


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

There are plenty of people that can cook and they are all eligible to apply for work at Halliburton just like you are, nothing is stopping anyone from going to work for Halliburton but most of them don't do they. Could it be that there are a lot of people not willing to take the risk at any pay level. Your attitude that they are cowardly because they make a lot of money risking their lives is consistant with the liberal ideology that anyone thats making a lot of money is somehow doing something thats wrong or not admirable, its too bad you see things that way. Their pay matches the risk level of the job, there is no rational comparison to a cook ect. stateside who only has to worry about burning themselve on a hot pan. As for the troops pay that has nothing to do with Halliburton, they enlisted knowing what the pay is and actaully I'd feel safer being a heavily armed soldier with a bunch of other heavily armed soldiers than some truck driver or cook those crackpots grab and behead every chance they get.


----------



## sdeprie (May 1, 2004)

Yes, there are lots of PEOPLE stateside who could do what Halliburton does, but they haven't organized a company to do it under the stress that Halliburton is under. That's the point. There are a lot of jobs with HIGH paying salaries in the mideast, because the risk is high. Even I as a nurse could get a job there paying several times what I get now. Making a high salary is NOT A SIN. Working hard to get to the point where you can is NOT A SIN. Where did I get the money to get where I am? Why, I joined the Navy. Went to school on the GI Bill, also, NOT A SIN. And I was in the position for 17 years where they could (and did) send me where-every they chose, perhaps even in harm's way. It was my choice. And after I made my choice, I didn't cry about it (too much) when they rained on my parade. That's what happens. So, why is Halliburtaon so bad? Is it because they pay good money? Is it because they make good money? It seems to me that if you can offer a service no-one else can (or will) and that service is desperately needed, then it makes sense to make good money. That's how capitalism works.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

Would somebody please tell me what was wrong with Halliburton when Clinton was using them.


----------

