An Army Corps Of Engineer Whistleblower Puts Her Career On The Line

[NATO AIR]

for the truth and for the higher interests of the country, a full non-partisan investigation is needed into this mess.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101041101-733760,00.html

B U S I N E S S
Beyond the Call of Duty
A whistle-blower objected to the government's Halliburton deals—and says now she's paying for it
By ADAM ZAGORIN & TIMOTHY J. BURGER

Sunday, Oct. 24, 2004
In February 2003, less than a month before the U.S. invaded Iraq, Bunnatine (Bunny) Greenhouse walked into a Pentagon meeting and with a quiet comment started what could be the end of her career. On the agenda was the awarding of an up to $7 billion deal to a subsidiary of Houston-based conglomerate Halliburton to restore Iraq's oil facilities. On hand were senior officials from the office of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and aides to retired Lieut. General Jay Garner, who would soon become the first U.S. administrator in Iraq.

Then several representatives from Halliburton entered. Greenhouse, a top contracting specialist for the Army Corps of Engineers, grew increasingly concerned that they were privy to internal discussions of the contract's terms, so she whispered to the presiding general, insisting that he ask the Halliburton employees to leave the room.

Once they had gone, Greenhouse raised other concerns. She argued that the five-year term for the contract, which had not been put out for competitive bid, was not justified, that it should be for one year only and then be opened to competition. But when the contract-approval document arrived the next day for Greenhouse's signature, the term was five years. With war imminent, she had little choice but to sign. But she added a handwritten reservation that extending a no-bid contract beyond one year could send a message that "there is not strong intent for a limited competition."

Greenhouse's objections, which had not been made public until now, will probably fuel criticism of the government's allegedly cozy relationship with Halliburton and could be greeted with calls for further investigation. Halliburton's Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) subsidiary has been mired in allegations of overcharging and mismanagement in Iraq, and the government in January replaced the noncompetitive oil-field contract that Greenhouse had objected to and made two competitively bid awards instead. (Halliburton won the larger contract, worth up to $1.2 billion, for repairing oil installations in southern Iraq, while Parsons Corp. got one for the north, worth up to $800 million.) Halliburton's Iraq business, which includes another government contract as well, has been under particular scrutiny because Vice President Dick Cheney was once its CEO. The Pentagon, concerned about potential controversy when it signed the original oil-work contract, gave Cheney's staff a heads-up beforehand. (TIME disclosed that alert in June.)

Greenhouse seems to have got nothing but trouble for questioning the deal. Warned to stop interfering and threatened with a demotion, the career Corps employee decided to act on her conscience, according to her lawyer, Michael Kohn. Kohn, who has represented other federal whistle-blowers, last week sent a letter—obtained by TIME from congressional sources—on her behalf to the acting Secretary of the Army. In it Kohn recounts Greenhouse's Pentagon meeting and demands an investigation of alleged violations of Army regulations in the contract's awarding. (The Pentagon justified the contract procedures as necessary in a time of war, saying KBR was the only choice because of security clearances that it had received earlier.) Kohn charges that Greenhouse's superiors have tried to silence her; he says she has agreed to be interviewed, pending approval from her employer, but the Army failed to make her available despite repeated requests from TIME.

"These charges undercut months of assertions by Administration officials that the Halliburton contract was on the level," says Democratic Representative Henry Waxman. As the Corps's top contract specialist, the letter says, Greenhouse had noted reservations on dozens of procurement documents over seven years. But it was only after she took exception to the Halliburton deal that she was warned not to do so anymore. The letter states that the major general who admonished her, Robert Griffin, later admitted in a sworn statement that her comments on contracts had "caused trouble" for the Army and that, given the controversy surrounding the contract, it was "intolerable" and "had to stop." The letter says he threatened to downgrade her. (As with Greenhouse, the Army did not make Griffin available.) When the Pentagon's auditors accused KBR of overcharging the government $61 million for fuel, the letter says, the Army bypassed Greenhouse. Her deputy waived a requirement that KBR provide pricing data—a move that looked "politically motivated," the letter says.

The Pentagon maintains that it awarded Halliburton's Iraq contracts appropriately, as does a Halliburton spokeswoman. A senior military official says the Army "has referred the matter to the inspector general of the Department of Defense." As for Halliburton, it has faced alleged cost overruns, lost profits and seen at least 54 company contractors killed in Iraq. Greenhouse, meanwhile, has requested protection from retaliation. But her career—and reputation—are on the line.

 

[White knight]

That seems to fit the pattern of unprecedented actions I have been referring to in some of my posts.
Some of the others that come to mind are the CIA agent, whose identity was revealed,
Most recently, the NAACP/IRS investigation launched over a political speech.
Even awarding the contract to Halliburton with out a bid, smells more of ol Boy cronyism. The excuse if not Halliburton then who? Or the urgency of reconstruction does not totally justify the action.
All this will come out in the wash, someone will write a book about all these unusual and unprecedented practices. Time will tell.
The accusations about Halliburton overcharging the government for meals and spending unaccounted for show a pattern as well.
Surely someone will say but the Vice President does not work for Halliburton anymore, true. But this speaks something about who you are, your background, the kind of corporate culture you came from. The friends or associations you have, it says something about who you are as a person.

 

[freeandfun1]

So, should we also go back and investigate all the no-bid contract given to Haliburton by Clinton? C'mon guys. Who else can do what Haliburton does? Name them.

 

[White knight]

Yes, there is not point in having a selective viewpoint.
I think we all need to learn more about BCCI, Savings and Loan, or any other scandal that have government connections to, what is the word for having contrary interest to the public good.
See if there are any lessons to learn.

 

[dilloduck]

As long as donating money to a candidate is viewed as "free speech", we have in effect legitimized corruption for ANY candidate.

 

[MtnBiker]

So, should we also go back and investigate all the no-bid contract given to Haliburton by Clinton? C'mon guys. Who else can do what Haliburton does? Name them.

Great questions Free!!

 

[White knight]

It used to be the view point by many that all politicians are crooks.

 

[dilloduck]

Used To ?

 

[NATO AIR]

So, should we also go back and investigate all the no-bid contract given to Haliburton by Clinton? C'mon guys. Who else can do what Haliburton does? Name them.

Apparently Parsons Corp... they got the contract in the north. If Haliburton is this corrupt, (and I'm not, nor have I ever said the VP was making money off this and was part of it) I would rather a Brit or Japanese company do this than them.

 

[dilloduck]

Apparently Parsons Corp... they got the contract in the north. If Haliburton is this corrupt, (and I'm not, nor have I ever said the VP was making money off this and was part of it) I would rather a Brit or Japanese company do this than them.

Just to avoid the appearance of inpropriety ?

 

[White knight]

Anybody, know the History of Halliburton and KBR in short?

 

[NATO AIR]

Just to avoid the appearance of inpropriety ?

What do you mean dillo?

If I am unclear, I apologize. I'm saying Parsons got a contract for North Iraq, so obviously there is competition to Haliburton among American companies. And if there is no one else in America to compete, I'm sorry but we need to shop with the Brits or Japanese then. Haliburton has been screwing the American taxpayer (not Dick Cheney screwing us, Haliburton) and doesn't deserve these contracts.

 

[freeandfun1]

Anybody, know the History of Halliburton and KBR in short?

Yes. KBR's largest, private investor is Lady Bird Johnson.

 

[freeandfun1]

Apparently Parsons Corp... they got the contract in the north. If Haliburton is this corrupt, (and I'm not, nor have I ever said the VP was making money off this and was part of it) I would rather a Brit or Japanese company do this than them.

So, if Parson's has the contract in the north, you just verified the myth that ONLY Haliburton is getting the work. Now which is it?

 

[freeandfun1]

Kellogg, Brown and Root is an American company, a private military contractor and a subsidiary of Halliburton.

Halliburton Energy Services is a multinational corporation based in Houston, Texas, in the United States and the world's second-largest oilfield services company behind Schlumberger Limited. Founded in 1919, the company's primary focus is in the energy and petroleum industries, although it has many diverse subsidiaries which operate in other areas. Halliburton was based in Dallas, Texas, but its headquarters moved to Houston, Texas in 2003.

Formerly known as Brown and Root, the company has had many contracts with the U.S. military during the 2003 invasion of Iraq as well as during the Vietnam War.

Brown and Root was founded in Texas in 1919 by two brothers, George Brown and Herman Brown with money from their brother-in-law, Dan Root. The company began its operations by supervising small road-paving projects, but grew to building enormously complex oil platforms, dams, and Navy warships.

One of its first largescale projects, according to the book Cadillac Desert, was to build a dam on the Texas Colorado River near Austin during the Depression years. For assistance in federal payments, the company turned to the local congressman, Lyndon Baines Johnson Lyndon B. Johnson

Brown and Root had a well-documented relationship with Lyndon Johnson which began when he used his position as a Texas congressman to assist them in landing a lucrative dam contract. In return they gave him the funds to "steal" the 1948 senate race from the popular Coke R. Stevenson Coke Robert Stevenson (1888 - 1975) was a U.S. political figure. He served as the governor of Texas between 1941 and 1947.

The relationship continued for years, with Johnson funneling dozens of military construction contracts to B&R.

Brown & Root sold out to Halliburton in December

According to Dan Briody, who wrote a book on the subject, the company became part of a consortium of four companies that built about eighty-five per cent of the infrastructure needed by the Army during the Vietnam War. At the height of the war resistance movement of the '60s, Brown & Root was derided as "Burn & Loot" by protesters and soldiers.

 

[NATO AIR]

So, if Parson's has the contract in the north, you just verified the myth that ONLY Haliburton is getting the work. Now which is it?

huh? i'm saying haliburton's performance in iraq has been marred by corruption, incompetence, mismanagement and outright deception of the government.

i also said parsons had a contract in the north, saying there was at least one other company able to do the job. i'm sure there are british, japanese and australian companies that could probably do the same thing.

 

[freeandfun1]

huh? i'm saying haliburton's performance in iraq has been marred by corruption, incompetence, mismanagement and outright deception of the government.

i also said parsons had a contract in the north, saying there was at least one other company able to do the job. i'm sure there are british, japanese and australian companies that could probably do the same thing.

just as I said in the Hackworth thread, why should we rely on others? Halliburton is a US company and a US company should be doing the work of supporting our troops. The corruption you speak of is partisan BS. Show me where the justice department has found Halliburton guilty and then I will submit that there is corruption. Accusations alone are not enough. How would you like it if a comrade on your ship accused you of doing something you didin't do. Should we assume you are guilty just because the charge was made?

 

[NATO AIR]

just as I said in the Hackworth thread, why should we rely on others? Halliburton is a US company and a US company should be doing the work of supporting our troops. The corruption you speak of is partisan BS. Show me where the justice department has found Halliburton guilty and then I will submit that there is corruption. Accusations alone are not enough. How would you like it if a comrade on your ship accused you of doing something you didin't do. Should we assume you are guilty just because the charge was made?

i don't have to mention the FBI looking into all this, knowing them they'll screw it all up but oh well

check out the following articles about halliburton

facing a pentagon investigation
http://www.forbes.com/newswire/2004/02/23/rtr1272681.html

misbilling the pentagon, claiming no fault
http://www.forbes.com/associatedpress/feeds/ap/2004/08/11/ap1501116.html

i will find more later on, i'm trying to find credible sites and not the ones that claim cheney had a hand in all this (he didn't)

i'm saying halliburton has had serious problems, many of which they have not been straight on the level with america about. i've learned a sickening bit about contractors ripping the military off, we just had a huge fire onboard the ship because of that crap. it disgusts me.

 

[freeandfun1]

again, accusations. If they are guilty, then they will be found guilty.

 

[NATO AIR]

again, accusations. If they are guilty, then they will be found guilty.

yea they will be.

seriously though, i will find better than this. its just so hard to get good information these days.