Halliburton

[erpowers]

I have heard on two different occasions that Halliburton got no bid contracts because they were the only company that could do the work. How is it that Halliburton was the only company that was able to do the work need to be done in Iraq? Also did Dick Cheney have anything to do with only Halliburton being able to do the work? I have heard that when he was the Secretary of Defense he changed many of the rules concerning companies doing business with the government.

[JimmyJazz]

1. For a really good read, try John Dean's book Worse than Watergate

the details of halliburton and cheney's involvement are a bit detailed, but Dean presents them in a very clear, easy to understand manner. The book is short but powerful. Any one else have any good books on the subject?

[Tafiti]

2. I have no specific knowledge on the subject, but I had the same...

...thought when I heard that. The conclusion I came to was that he probably made damn sure they were the only company who would be able to provide the services, because we know the plan for Iraq began much sooner than people think.

[marano]

3. I have heard the same from Repubs...

and I believe that is the point. People like Cheney tout that one of the attributes of capitalism is that it promotes competition.... though it actually does not. To be sucessful in a capitalist system you must rely on the failure of others. Being the only one that can do the job is exactly what they want.

[plcdude]

4. who wrote the contract specifications?

That is the key question. Or who influenced the details? It is extremely easy to draw up the contract so that only Halliburton could fit the bill. Universities do it all the time to make sure they or their faculty get the contract. This is a no brainer. Cheney probably had the contract so written that only his company and their unique resources applied.

[TahitiNut]

5. It's a lie.

First, only "American" companies are considered in posing this lie. Second, it's not just Halliburton - it's a plethora of subcontractors. Third, most existing Federal contractors are set up to be able to do such business with the government, the greatest impediment being the accounting and project management systems required.

Most significantly, such a lie portrays the oligarchical nature of the government-corporation relationship. Once upon a time (the 70s), the Federal government had a requirement that all contracts be backfilled by more than one alternative company. The principle is that no single company should have any kind of 'monopoly' on a contractual function and only by regulation and contracts management could such alternate sourcing be preserved.


In my opinion, any time it could be said that some single company was the "only one" able to provide such services, then that company should be immediately nationalized and liquidated, the employees then become Federal employees subject to the Civil Service pay scales and rules. This is the principle justifying "eminent domain." The compensation (to owners/shareholders) should be in the form of equity in a pool of 10-year Treasury securities, the face value of which would equal the average market capitalization of the company over the prior 2 years.

Likewise, any time the failure of any single company is seen as so harmful to the national economy that its seen as rationalizing subsidies and bailouts, then that's the time to "trust bust" that company. We should absolutely NEVER allow any private corporation to gain that degree of control of our national economic well-being. Never. That's the best definition of a "trust" that's antithetical to the interests of the people I could imagine.

[Stryguy]

6. Yet they subcontracted the work out?

Ok Halliburton is the only one that could do the job yet it's all over the news that they subcontract the work out?

How does that make any Fing sense? Let me form a company I can subcontract other companies as good as the next guy.

[jayfish]

7. It Is A Misleading Statement Of Fact.

As a single entity, Halliburton may indeed have been the only company that could do the work. The problem is that the bidding should have considered multiple companies that could distribute the work evenly rather than one huge corporation.

Jay