France and Germany shut out!

[jimnyc]

You make a good point, Jon, except criminal charges wont result from it. This type of overcharge is handled by the contracting authority.

Can you explain why there won't be any criminal charges, or at least civil charges to recoup what you say that profited? Surely if they cost profited from the overcharging, and every democrat and their mother sees it, then why would they allow it to be paid? The facts will be presented for all to see, so unless the democrats are somehow involved, I don't see them profiting. The contracts very well may include cost factoring, but it's doubtful it includes illegally gouging costs for profit.

The army is going to request a refund for the overpayment and unless Haliburton wants to appeal to arbitration, they'll give it to them. That was in the originating article. That's how it will resolve itself, criminal charges are extremely unlikely, they would have to prove collusion over incompetance i.e. they took the higher price purposefully to defraud the government.

According to the way you describe it, it should be easy to prove they profited, and just as easy to prove it was done purposely and illegally.

(imho)That's a tough sell, especially considering it all happened in Kuwaitt.

Forgive me, I'm a bit slow this morning as I'm just starting on my coffee, what does "imho" mean? It sounds to me like you just admitted that what you are presenting is based on your opinion.

Personally, I think the more serious the charge the more the need for solid proof. Every democratic candidate is now speaking out about the contracts and the overcharge, not a one of them has claimed that Halliburton profited - why do you think that is? I'll bet because they think it's a bit premature. They'll more than likely wait for a full investigation to take place, then come out with guns blaring if it's determined that they profited. Until such time, it's simply a 61mil overcharge that the President himself has already stated he expects to be repayed.

Cost plus contracting is what it is. You get paid a percentage above your cost. This is a good example of why it is considered a liscence to steal among government contractors. Over time, Haliburton will push that number as high as the auditors let them. The Army put some hard nosed guy in charge of the auditing, and he's coming out of the box with a list of complaints and reimbursement invoices. I like him already .

It's a fact that cost plus contracting is part of Halliburton's contract with their effort in Iraq, which would be similar to most companies that receive such contracts. What we don't know here is whether or not this applies to this particular charge. Forgive me for not wanting to jump on the bandwagon of baseless accusations.

I'm pretty confident that when all is said and done, the 61mil will no longer appear as a cost to Halliburton, therefore no possibility of a profit off of cost. Of course this is my opinion, as is yours about their supposed profit.

Is this as big a deal as Jim and I are making it out to be? Naw, it was completely predictable, the army is acting appropriately, the checks and balances appear to be fully engaged.

Apparently worthy of you starting a thread about it and immediately leveling accusations.

You say the army is acting appropriately. Would allowing them to defraud the government be part of this?

I just got tired of listening to him call people names.

Do you need a pacifier? :baby:

This just happened to be a very strong spot to stand my ground, and that's why I chose it.

Your strong spot? Ok then, can you now please provide the proof I have asked of you on several occasions? Or just admit it's just theories and assumptions at this point?

 

[jimnyc]

Did I scare another one off by asking him to provide proof and facts? They must be dirty words to a liberal of his caliber.

 

[MtnBiker]

Yeah, how dare you Jim, ask for facts.
No I'm sure Dijetlo will come back sometime.

 

[Johnney]

shame shame, hoe dare you!!

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by dijetlo
A company that recieved a "cost plus" contract allowed themselves to be overcharged. You can argue that Haliburton doens't know the price of gas in Baghdad, I'd even like you to do that so I can bat you around a little more (I'm getting tired of your insults). If you accept they know they were overcharged, they then must understand this pads their profit margins, and I've repeatedly explained to you why. The only theory I put forward is what Haliburton got in exchange for making Uncle Sam pay double for its' gas.

NY Times: No Evidence of Halliburton Profiteering

A comprehensive investigation into Halliburton's multibillion-dollar contract to restore Iraq's oil infrastructure shows "no evidence of profiteering" by the Houston-based oil services company.

That's the verdict by the New York Times, which assigned its Whitewater sleuth Jeff Gerth and investigative ace Don Van Atta to lay bare all the tawdry details of how Vice President Dick Cheney's former company was reaping big-bucks profits from sweetheart deals imagined by Democrats.

One problem: Gerth and Van Atta found almost nothing for Dems to hang their hats on. In fact, not only couldn't the Times find any evidence that Halliburton was stuffing its pockets under-the-table - even the aboveboard revenue collected by the company hasn't been much to write home about.

"So far this year, Halliburton's profits from Iraq have been minimal," the Times admitted. "The company's latest report to the Securities and Exchange Commission shows $1.3 billion in revenues from work in Iraq and $46 million in pretax profits for the first nine months of 2003."

That's a slender 3.5 percent margin, hardly enough to make any self-respecting war profiteer look twice. No wonder this story hasn't been leading TV and radio news reports all day.

Too be sure, Times editors did their best to make it sound as if something fishy was going on. The report's front-page headline - "Halliburton Contracts in Iraq: The Struggle to Manage Costs" - gave no clue to the exoneration that followed.

And subheadlines like "Little Public Disclosure" and "An Absence of Competition" hinted darkly of shady deals where Cheney's friends were lining their pockets with blood money.

But even the Times had to admit that Halliburton's original Iraq contract was won "in a bidding process in December 2001."

What about that widely cited report last month claiming the company had overpaid by as much as 100 percent for Kuwaiti gasoline? Turns out that news is pretty much a political bust, too.

Company spokeswoman Wendy Hall explained that the Army Corps of Engineers needed the fuel imported to Iraq within 24-hours - not much time to launch a competitive bidding process.

"There's a premium for getting it done fast," explained Gordon Adams, a military procurement expert at George Washington University.

Anyone who disagrees ought to try sending all their mail by next-day-air and see what happens to their postage budget.

Another factor that sent job cost estimates through the roof: sabotage by terrorists.

"As the war wound down, more work came [Halliburton subsidiary] KBR's way, mostly because of acts of sabotage on pipelines and Iraq's oil facilities," the Times noted. "When security problems made the production of fuel inside Iraq even more difficult -- leading to shortages -- the government asked Halliburton to import fuel."

link