Who Wants Halliburton's Job?

from JoeUser Forums

The left seems to respond to the word "Halliburton" like my mother-in-law responds to the word "fart" (it is what she considers the "f" word).  I ask this, what other establishment could and would do Halliburton's job?  I am not defending overcharges or any other conduct.  I am simply curious as to what the options would be.

I often wonder how many people howling "Halliburton this or Halliburton that" even know what Halliburton does.  I also think you have to be out of your flipping mind if Halliburton is what you base your vote on.  I got a flier from the Michigan Democratic Party that was nothing but whining about Halliburton as the basis of why we can do better than Bush/Cheney.  It didn't give one example of how Kerry would be better.  Like Bush said, "a litany of complaints is not a plan".

politics
9,705 views 29 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's a fair question, Jill, and I for one have backed off of my Halliburton rhetoric for some of the very reasons you mention. Good post.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Thanks Myr.  I am merely trying to educate myself on the subject.  I have been unsuccessful in getting answers from any of my Democrat friends.
Fences - Organize your desktop icons today!
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
I do know that Kellogg, Brown, and Root (Halliburton subsidiary) has been working with the US military since the 1940s. 60+ years working together would make for a pretty efficient business relationship, don't you think? I've been looking for "Halliburton alternatives" on the net since I read this question and I've come up with zip (DynCorp, perhaps, but lefties would hate them, too). Personally, I think it makes sense that if you've used a company for 60 years, why change if the relationship is working?

Democrats also don't like to admit that Halliburton got at least one "no bid" contract during the Kosovo war -- so they need to paint Bill Clinton with that anti-Halliburton brush.

This post has gotten my mind going more than any I've read today (and there have been some good ones). I'll post anything I find out.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
It is true that there are very few, if any, viable alternatives to Halliburton. Can you imagine the brouhaha if we had waited for a competitive bidding process to start the rebuilding in Iraq? Kerry would be skewering Bush for the delay, of course.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm afraid I have to agree with ya, Daiwa.

Where are my fellow liberals? It's up to you to try and answer this question since our side is the one doing the most grousing about Halliburton. I've tried, and I've come up with this: Halliburton and its subsidiary KBR offer it all for Iraq -- military support through laundry, food, and other services; expertise in getting Iraqi oil fields going; expertise in getting the lights and water back on; expertise in transporting goods; and 60 years (KBR since the 1940s, Halliburton aquired the company in 1962) of experience working with the US military.

Has the company done wrong? Yes. But they seem to be the best defense contractor for the work.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

I'll post anything I find out
I appreciate that Myr.


So very true Daiwa!

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Where are all of the options that the liberals have for us?  They have the complaints.  Where are the solutions?
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yeah, I don't think most of us on the left have thought about this. We complained that Iraqi oil revenues weren't as much as projected, we complained that the lights and water were off -- and guess what? Halliburton fixes all those things.

So I suppose I need to shut up about how evil Halliburton is. I was hoping this thread would get more attention that it has.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply #8 By: Myrrander - 10/20/2004 10:26:00 AM
Yeah, I don't think most of us on the left have thought about this. We complained that Iraqi oil revenues weren't as much as projected, we complained that the lights and water were off -- and guess what? Halliburton fixes all those things.

So I suppose I need to shut up about how evil Halliburton is. I was hoping this thread would get more attention that it has.


They haven't said anything because after the info you gave was read by them. They realize they don't have a leg to stand on. In effect you cut them off at the knees!
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
you imagine the brouhaha if we had waited for a competitive bidding process to start the rebuilding in Iraq? Kerry would be skewering Bush for the delay, of course.


There wouldn't have been any fall out if the bidding process began prior to the conflict as was called for in a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. The complaints about the electricity and water shortages were legitimate because they could have been prevented. The government had full knowledge of what was going to occur post-fighting. Ample warning had been given about the humanitarian needs immediately following the conflict. The government ignored those warnings rather than acting on them. The mess that ensued was completely preventable.

There are plently of other companies that could have easily filled Haliburton's shoes. In addition to Haliburton, the government invited Bechtel, Fluor, Louis Berger Group Inc., Parsons Corp., and Washington Group International Inc. to bid on the reconstruction work. Bechtel's work in the Middle East dates back to WWII and much of the work after the first Gulf War was awarded to Bechtel. Haliburton is definitely not the only company capable of doing this work--they just had the advantage in the process.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
they just had the advantage in the process


So was Clinton at fault for giving Halliburton a no-bid contract in Kosovo? Was Dick Cheney manipulating Bill? Even though the contract happened in 1993 and Cheney wasn't CEO until 1995?

This is the second time in two days I think I've short-circuited my own side. I cut up a bunch of arguments for John Kerry pretty bad yesterday. I'd rather be a cynical leftie than a sheep, though.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #11 By: Myrrander - 10/20/2004 2:18:16 PM
they just had the advantage in the process


So was Clinton at fault for giving Halliburton a no-bid contract in Kosovo? Was Dick Cheney manipulating Bill? Even though the contract happened in 1993 and Cheney wasn't CEO until 1995?

This is the second time in two days I think I've short-circuited my own side. I cut up a bunch of arguments for John Kerry pretty bad yesterday. I'd rather be a cynical leftie than a sheep, though.


Just because your thinking like this does NOT make you a sheep! Sheep don't think.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
That's what I mean. I'd rather question and have some cynicism for my "side" than just be a non-thinking sheep. And sometimes, like on this issue, I even change my mind. After Jill posted this yesterday, I spent my whole conference period reading about Halliburton, both pro and con. I decided they aren't so bad after all.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #13 By: Myrrander - 10/20/2004 2:28:09 PM
That's what I mean. I'd rather question and have some cynicism for my "side" than just be a non-thinking sheep. And sometimes, like on this issue, I even change my mind. After Jill posted this yesterday, I spent my whole conference period reading about Halliburton, both pro and con. I decided they aren't so bad after all.


But according to this guy they are.


Reply #10 By: shadesofgrey - 10/20/2004 1:44:30 PM
There wouldn't have been any fall out if the bidding process began prior to the conflict as was called for in a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. The complaints about the electricity and water shortages were legitimate because they could have been prevented. The government had full knowledge of what was going to occur post-fighting. Ample warning had been given about the humanitarian needs immediately following the conflict. The government ignored those warnings rather than acting on them. The mess that ensued was completely preventable.

There are plently of other companies that could have easily filled Haliburton's shoes. In addition to Haliburton, the government invited Bechtel, Fluor, Louis Berger Group Inc., Parsons Corp., and Washington Group International Inc. to bid on the reconstruction work. Bechtel's work in the Middle East dates back to WWII and much of the work after the first Gulf War was awarded to Bechtel. Haliburton is definitely not the only company capable of doing this work--they just had the advantage in the process
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

the government invited Bechtel, Fluor, Louis Berger Group Inc., Parsons Corp., and Washington Group International Inc. to bid on the reconstruction work.
If the government invited other companies to bid, how can it be considered a no bid contract?


I'd rather be a cynical leftie than a sheep, though.
Good for you Myr!  Plus, sometimes it is fun to play devils advocate and find out you can argue the other side better than they can

Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
But according to this guy
Uh oh, shades got mistaken for a guy again
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #10 By: shadesofgrey - 10/20/2004 1:44:30 PM
In addition to Haliburton, the government invited Bechtel, Fluor, Louis Berger Group Inc., Parsons Corp., and Washington Group International Inc. to bid on the reconstruction work. Bechtel's work in the Middle East dates back to WWII and much of the work after the first Gulf War was awarded to Bechtel. Haliburton is definitely not the only company capable of doing this work--they just had the advantage in the process.


Yeah "shadesofgrey" can you explain just how something can be considered a no-bid contract if the government invited others to bid? Sounds more like to me that their bids were to high or that they didn't bid at all because they couldn't handle the work. Which brings "myrranders" point to home!
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #16 By: JillUser - 10/20/2004 2:33:26 PM
But according to this guy
Uh oh, shades got mistaken for a guy again


Sorry, my mistake.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Here's some info on what that "no bid" contract paid for:

*$705 million for an initial round of oil field rehabilitation work for the Army Corps of Engineers
*$142 million for base camp operations in Kuwait (feeding troops, laundry services, water and sewage work for camps)
*$170 million for logistical support for the Iraqi reconstruction (architecture and planning work; utility work)
*$28 million for the construction of prisoner of war camps
*$39 million for building and operating U.S. base camps in Jordan

Are these services that you want to contract out to the cheapest bidder? Or would you rather these things go to an experienced company?
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
First of all, there is nothing in my post that either supports or doesn't support Haliburton. All I say is that 1. the bidding process could have been run before it was and 2. other companies had experience. Re-read, I don't make any statement against Haliburton. The fall out over the water and electricity would have occurred regardless of the company getting the bid because it happened so late. Notice, I state that the government could have prevented it.

Jill asked if there were other companies capable of doing the job. I answered the question by listing them. Don't read your perceptions into my post.

For the record, money for reconstruction was given out in several different ways. Haliburton recieved some no-bid contracts, but there were also contracts were USAID asked for bids--in some cases you had to be invited to bid, in others the process was open to anyone. My comment that Haliburton had an advantage was simply referring to the fact that they received some no-bid contracts. The bidding process was long and laborious (I know, I wrote the bid for one company--it was a painful process).

All to often on the politics forum of this board I find that people read what they want into someone elses comment. You all assumed I was bagging Haliburton instead of actually reading my words.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
So was Clinton at fault for giving Halliburton a no-bid contract in Kosovo? Was Dick Cheney manipulating Bill? Even though the contract happened in 1993 and Cheney wasn't CEO until 1995?


see my previous comment, and then re-read my first one without our your own spin. My comment was on the bidding process--if Haliburton received a contract without a bid, it is undeniable that they had an advantage. You may speculate why this happened, but I did not. Please do not read your intentions into my posts.

I'd rather be a cynical leftie than a sheep, though.

I am anything but a sheep, but thanks for that.

Uh oh, shades got mistaken for a guy again

It's a common occurance--apparently there is some misconception in the blogging sphere that only men have articulate opinions.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #20 By: shadesofgrey - 10/20/2004 3:40:12 PM
First of all, there is nothing in my post that either supports or doesn't support Haliburton. All I say is that 1. the bidding process could have been run before it was and 2. other companies had experience. Re-read, I don't make any statement against Haliburton. The fall out over the water and electricity would have occurred regardless of the company getting the bid because it happened so late. Notice, I state that the government could have prevented it.


You need to go reread reply #17. You own words correct you!
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yeah "shadesofgrey" can you explain just how something can be considered a no-bid contract if the government invited others to bid? Sounds more like to me that their bids were to high or that they didn't bid at all because they couldn't handle the work. Which brings "myrranders" point to home!


You need to go reread reply #17. You own words correct you!


For the record, money for reconstruction was given out in several different ways. Haliburton recieved some no-bid contracts, but there were also contracts were USAID asked for bids--in some cases you had to be invited to bid, in others the process was open to anyone. My comment that Haliburton had an advantage was simply referring to the fact that they received some no-bid contracts. The bidding process was long and laborious (I know, I wrote the bid for one company--it was a painful process).


Maybe you should finishing reading before you post. Really, point to where I said Haliburton was bad. You can't. But I would love for you to explain how my own words correct me.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #23 By: shadesofgrey - 10/20/2004 4:03:45 PM
Yeah "shadesofgrey" can you explain just how something can be considered a no-bid contract if the government invited others to bid? Sounds more like to me that their bids were to high or that they didn't bid at all because they couldn't handle the work. Which brings "myrranders" point to home!


You need to go reread reply #17. You own words correct you!


For the record, money for reconstruction was given out in several different ways. Haliburton recieved some no-bid contracts, but there were also contracts were USAID asked for bids--in some cases you had to be invited to bid, in others the process was open to anyone. My comment that Haliburton had an advantage was simply referring to the fact that they received some no-bid contracts. The bidding process was long and laborious (I know, I wrote the bid for one company--it was a painful process).


Maybe you should finishing reading before you post. Really, point to where I said Haliburton was bad. You can't. But I would love for you to explain how my own words correct me.


I never said that you said that. YOU are the one that said Halliburton got a no-bid contract in one breath and in the next said the government invited a host of others to bid also. So which way is it? You can't have it both ways.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
So which way is it? You can't have it both ways.


Actually, you can. As I explained. Some contracts were no-bid and some required the bidding process...why is that so hard to understand? You do realize that there are other companies working in Iraq other than Haliburton, right?

And actually, in my first post, never said Haliburton got a no-bid contract. Nice try.