Halliburton Fails Upward

"Lawmakers, Including Republicans, Criticize Pentagon on Disputed Billing by Halliburton," read a New York Times headline on June 22. "Worries Raised on Handling of Funds in Iraq," the Los Angeles Times wrote the same day. It seemed clear that the Bush Administration's favorite war profiteer was again in hot water. Shortly thereafter, the Democratic Policy Committee released a report alleging that Halliburton subsidiary KBR overcharged the US government by as much as $1 billion, not even counting an additional $442 million in "unsupported" billing, for work in Iraq.

The headlines ceased over the next week. Then, In early July, KBR captured coverage in a decidedly more positive light: "Halliburton Gets More Iraq Work," Reuters reported on July 7. Once again, an Administration ally was/is failing upwards. Five billion dollars of new work, to be exact, on top of a contract that has brought KBR $9.1 billion, almost one sixth of what Bush promised the entire war effort would cost.

The military signed the $4.97 billion deal in May, but didn't reveal the details until this month, "because the Army did not consider it necessary," an Army spokesman told Reuters. Most of the money will go toward logistics--food, sanitation, laundry and other services for the troops--precisely the functions KBR has failed so spectacularly to properly administer thus far.

According to government reports and Army and KBR sources, Halliburton charged the government for 10,000 meals a day it never served, dished out food that had been expired for a year and provided its Turkish and Filipino staff with leftovers in trash bags. The Government Accountability Office concluded last year that the Army could save $43 million on food just by bypassing KBR and working with a different subcontractor. The $1.5 million tailoring fees, $560,000 in unnecessary heavy equipment, $152,000 for movie screenings, $45 cases of soda and exorbitant "cost-plus" contracts were just icing on the cake.

"I can unequivocally state that the abuse related to contracts awarded to KBR represents the most blatant and improper abuse I have witnessed during the course of my professional career," Bunnatine Greenhouse, the Army's top civilian contracting official, testified before the Democratic Policy Committee. (Republicans have blocked Democratic attempts to hold official hearings on Halliburton.)

Attempting to quash the mounting evidence of misconduct, Halliburton dispatched its own internal investigative units, dubbed "Tiger Teams" to the Gulf. The Tigers' promptly raked up a $1 million bill at Kuwait's five star Kempinski Hotel, journalist Ed Harriman reports, while Army troops were "sleeping in tents at a cost of $1.39 a day."

The Tigers', after much partying, subsequently recommended that the Army extend KBR's subcontracts.

It couldn't be more obvious that the entire company needs to be caged.

Comments (42)

1. Out of curiosity....

   Do any of the readers of this blog own Halliburton stock as part of their portfolio?

   Todd

   Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/12/2005 @ 11:39am

2. Thank you for an important and valuable post, and one that pulls together much of the recent coverage on this issue. Let me respectfully disagree with commentator Frank Grits.

   It's not case of Dick Cheney "being on the take." This a larger problem with our government, the defense industry, and horde of lobbyists and think-tankers.

   Posted by ThomH at 07/12/2005 @ 11:49am

3. Damn dude, I need me some Cheney.

   I completely agree with you Zero, but I am really curious as to how the John Bolton nomination will play out. Bolton is Cheney's man, so lets see how well Cheney can deliver for Bolton.

   Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/12/2005 @ 12:58pm

4. UN is falling apart...Sevan is under criminal investigation and fraud is abound. Why not put Bolton in there? Still don;t know why he is a problem. Something needs to be done. The UN people were making money from the Oil coming from Iraq but food wasn;t getting to the people and we are worried that Bolton has an Iron fist and is not politcally correct...typical!

   I defended Haliburton as a company that was a sole source and a good strategic decision. This is fraud and people heads should role. You should all check out the General Accountabiity Office and starts raging agains them...they are the watch dog on government spending. David Walker is the Comptroller/Director and is pretty middle road and favors no political party...

   Posted by dancall at 07/12/2005 @ 1:41pm

5. Here is the website: http://www.gao.gov/

   Posted by dancall at 07/12/2005 @ 1:42pm

6. What's really amazing about running up a $1 million hotel bill is there isn't SpectraVision in Kuwait. Also aren't prostitution and liquor illegal there too?

   Just how do you run up a bill in a place without hookers, booze or porn?

   Posted by T.A. Martin at 07/12/2005 @ 2:38pm

7. -- The UN people were making money from the Oil coming from Iraq but food wasn;t getting to the people --

   And the U.S. is part of the U.N., and they were making plenty from the Oil-for-Food program, too. Talk about typical! People want to slam the U.N. for this (and with good reason, I'll more than admit) yet pretend that the U.S. had no knowledge of this and didn't make a dime off of it -- which is purely puerile and preposterous.

   Posted by Kevin Collins at 07/12/2005 @ 2:54pm

8. "Just how do you run up a bill in a place without hookers, booze or porn?"

   HA, that's the best line I have heard in a while!

   GREAT question, I love it.

   Todd

   Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/12/2005 @ 3:21pm

9. DanCall, I think you've got that backwards. The GAO did much of the basic work in bringing KBR abuses to light. But the GAO can only audit, review and recommend. They have no enforcement powers. They have no decision-making powers.

   If the DOD or WhiteHouse decides to go with contractor X, nothing the GAO can do. Except demand the records and then follow the money.

   These were cost-plus no-bid contacts. I believe those decisions were questionable.

   The Nation, incidently, could assign a full-time reporter to the GAO office as they publish so many testimonies and recommendations.

   Usually, however, the MSM ignores the GAO until the scandal has exploded. Not that the Nation considers itself--rightfully--as MSM, or has the staff to do this. But one wonders if more timely reportage of GAO testimony would help.

   This issue is back in blogosphere news in part because of an excellent recent essay by Ed Harriman in the London Review of Books [lrb.co.uk].

   But in truth, he's working with material that was shamelessly mostly ignored when it came out--from a year or so ago to the past few months.

   So I credit the Nation for staying with and on the story--not engaging in the usual short attention span theatre.

   Posted by ThomH at 07/12/2005 @ 3:37pm

10. Thom - Very good suggestion on GAO, I agree we should try and cover more closely. Problem is they release a ton of stuff, usually quite dense and long. But I'm gonna try and pay closer attention, especially before these stories break in MSM.

    Posted by Ari Berman at 07/12/2005 @ 4:02pm

11. Thom, that is what I was driving at. The GAO swithced Accounting to Accountability a couple of years ago. They are the auditing branch and "watch dog" for government spending, which is why I first suggested hitting them up with ideas a to get solid factual information. They had a piece on NASA that said they couldn;t account for $5 Billion, yes $ 5 Billion!!!

    Ari, you should start looking into the Sarbanes Oxley Act that is set up at an internal control system to act as a "safety net" against corporate Fraud. This is also known as the Enron law and to fully understand what happened with Enron will shed a lot of light on how no president had any influence on them, it was the accounting practices that were set up by CFO;s and external auditors like Arthur Anderson who covered up the practices. The premise is to "cook the books" to give raises to executives while driving the stock price of the company. What is interesting in most of these cases is that the companies would not allow their employees to sell their company stocks, which is why Enron employees lost everything. Amazingly, the more conservative minded folks hated these accounting practices because they knew it was a scam. These were rouge businessmen that didn;t care if a republican or democrate was in office, seeing the accounting practice of Enron started in the mid 90's. I had a very good friend who interviewed with the CFO at Enron and walked away because "It didn;t make sense"...there response to him, "you are not smart enough to work there".

    What the GAO is trying to do is implement some of the Sarbanes Oxley policies into the government. Basically to stop failing programs, repetitive programs, and over spending like Haliburton case. Even non profits are on the hit list due to some of the fraud occrus where np;s are milking the government for all they can get without doing what they say they are doing. A lot of the people who run non profits or NGOs are not paying payroll taxes and are hiding behind the tax shelters. Kinda like Jesse Jackson who uses his non profit status under the Rainbow Coallition and has not paid on dollar in taxes in over 30 years.

    It is very complex, yet would make a very interesting piece for you.

    Posted by dancall at 07/12/2005 @ 4:33pm

12. I had actually asked the Honorable David Walker, the comptroller of the GAO about the .coms and these accounting practices in the 90s up until the crash in 2002 and if what we were seeing as a strong economy was merely a false economy because of the fraud and at the time of goverment did nothing to stop it. He just kinda chuckled and said there could be a lot of truth to that.

    Posted by dancall at 07/12/2005 @ 4:40pm

13. A few things to ponder about the discussion on the UN/Bolton that I've spawned.

    1) How do you pursue reforming an organization by appointing someone who has vociferously called for the complete dismantling of that organization. I would assume their is a very broad difference between a tune up, and sending it to the junk yard.

    2) For my info, and maybe Ari you can clue me in, are GAO reports available through NEXUS search, or comprable engines?

    3) The hypocrisy of the Bush Administration supporters calling for UN reform, and siting instances like the Oil-for-Food imbroglio is astounding. Lets pull a few out of the old Bush is a scandal whore memories album...ahem...Haliburton no bid contracts, embezlment, converup and overcharging of those goverment contracts, and then rewarded again with more no bid contracts. Abu Gharaib/Gitmo. Boeing insider deals w/ Pentagon. Iraq war intelligences hyperexagerations (and thats being nice). Payola. Karl Rove leak. And many more smalled scandals of note. But I dont hear anyone calling for Bush's head like they are for Kofi Annan. Whats the deal with that? (a la Jerry Seinfeld)

    Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/12/2005 @ 4:53pm

14. I dont want to get into it, and into the specifics of accounting and economics. But to make a long short...i call BS on Davy Walker story, and the "false economy" bunk.

    This false economy bull is being peddled by the fuzzy-economic team that brought us Bush's budgets, its just a stupid anti-90s backlash. Republicans can't stand the fact that a Democrat stole their fiscal responsibilty issue from under them, AND rode one of the strongest growth waves the world has ever seen.

    Bunk...Bunk...Bologna (this is when the Dancall gets up and chases me around the circle trying to tag me before I get back to his seat.

    Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/12/2005 @ 5:06pm

15. This line stood out... "dished out food that had been expired for a year"

    "Supporting" the troops with bad food, inadequate armor and no real plan to deal with anything while the elite "Tiger Team" rings up a $1,000,000 tab at a 5 star hotel on a mission to see how they can improve the service to the Army!??!

    The people who come up with this nonsense run our country? It just boggles the mind.

    Posted by question! at 07/12/2005 @ 5:39pm

16. Liberal, explain to me where all the .coms went, where all the angle funding went, why commerical building across american cities are at 50% occupied today when 10 years ago they were filled. If you look at all the .comers making 50% of their true worth and being taxed on that it increased tax revenue which decreased the national debt. We started to outsource jobs in the 90s, driving profits for companies which fueled the US economy. we started a downward slope in the last year of the clinton year, followed by 9.11 which crippled the economy. Corporate Fraud was abundant during the 90's and if you look at the cases against enron, arthur anderson, tyco, they all went back into the 90's. Our world had never experienced a "technology boom" and to give credit to any president for the success for the economy is an absolute joke.

    Posted by dancall at 07/12/2005 @ 6:29pm

17. I agree with Dan to a certain extent - we can't truly give all the credit to one president for the success of an economy. That being said, I think it's pretty fair to say that a lot of the blame for the mess the economy is in now can be blamed on President Bush's attempts to resurrect Reagonomics and his total disregard for the middle and lower classes in his tax cuts.

    Posted by Turk33 at 07/12/2005 @ 11:58pm

18. Turk, read this...his "resurrecting Reagonomics" is working! Bad news for you Bush haters...

    "Bush's Budget Update May Show Deficit Goal Being Reached Early" http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aZgwyLsWjDDc

    Now, if they can stop this crazy debabcle with Haliburton and stop spending at 7% clips, it would have dropped lower.

    But one thing that you all must realize, that wars do fuel the economy. Why do you think we came out of WWII so strong? We were acting as the world's economy through our Defense programs...It is sick, but true.

    Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 08:43am

19. Ugh...there is certainly proof that I previously said that I did not want to go into a debate about economics and accounting. But, Dancall's lack of understanding the basic market principles in a regulate capitalistic society like our has spured me into give a brief repudiation of his economic assesment of the 1990s.

    Turk: FYI, I don't presume to give Clinton all the credit, or all the blame, hence why I wrote that "(Clinton)rode one of the strongest growth waves the world has ever seen." Opposed to saying created, or was responsible. And we are in full agreement of the acceleration of the down cycle in our economy by tried and failed reaganomic policies...actually they do exactly what they purpose to do...they do "trickle." :)

    Ok...(knuckles crack)...Market forces...try to make this as simple and abhreviated as possible...

    Economic Growth = more jobs, more profit, more income, more expansion (plant, employee, market entry, etc)

    Economic Recession = fewer jobs, less profit (unless your an oil firm), less income/stagnating income growth, less expansion/recession

    Time of growth means more companies enter markets...historically MOST BUSINESSES FAIL...1990s = TIME OF GROWTH...dot com burst = most businesses failing...NOTHING FALSE ABOUT IT...just simple market cycles

    We've been outsourcing jobs much earlier that the 90s, dont be a bonehead...ever remember the "Buy American" TV commericials? We sent all our auto plants to mexico...try the 1980s. That outsourcing jobs in the 90s led to HUGE corp. profits is a bunch of Con. PR, how do you then explain the HUGE increases in overal employment and record low unemployment rates? The economy was slowing down during the last year of the Clinton Admin, but it didnt nose dive till Bush inacted some of his boneheaded policies, 9-11 or no 9-11 our economy's slowdown was accelerated into a "turndown" through fuzzy budget Bush's policy. In fact, the war machine should have had a much more positive effect on our economy that it has, the only reason it hasnt, is because the profits are not being reinvested in America...Bush has taken away all incentive to do so...why...because his cronies like their pockets filled with loot, and their money effects elections.

    Enron, Tyco, Andersen (which was exonerated), traced problems to the 90s, but that blame doesnt mean that the economy was false, or that it was Clinton's fault. If you file a fake tax returns, and fake W-2s the IRS wont have a clue that your faking...not that different with companies. If they fake EVERYTHING, then you dont know they are lying. For all the Enrons out there, there are tons of other companies big and small that do things the right way! Look at the airline industry, yeah it sucks that they had to kill their employee pension plans, but they didnt hide their problems, they put them on the table and were above board. The airline industry has been having these problems since the 70s and 80s. So don't feed me that bull-hockey about the 90s being some huge rise of corporate greed, have you looked at the corporate greed today? It puts the 90s to shame, its on a level comparitive to the 80s, but closer to the 20s!

    Have you been living in a nutshell...i mean i knew you were a nut...but to say; "Our world had never experienced a "technology boom" and to give credit to any president for the success for the economy is an absolute joke." Wow...dude...you ever thought about the turn of the 20th century, and the advent of the railroads, automobile, motion picture? Or maybe the marvels of modern medicine? No? Telegraph? Hmm? Talk about a technology boom, those things spurred the type of predictions and fantasy that we are just begining to realize, ie. space travel, space elevators, translucient cement walls, glasses that are stronger than steel, fusion technology, advanced robotics and simulated intelligence! Try picking up a science book, or trade magazine before you make your grand sweeping obtuse, short sighted, broad, statements that you got off GOP.com

    About no president being able to take credit:

    Fiscal policy = inaccurate and inefficient means to effect economy

    Bush Fiscal policy = REALLY inaccurate and highly recessionary means to effect economy

    Clinton Fiscal Policy = less inaccurate and hedging effect through surplus building and budget balancing, ie. let the fed do most of the work, and provide a stable frame for the fed to maximize its effectiveness.

    Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/13/2005 @ 10:48am

20. FYI, that article is old news. It doesnt show that ANYTHING is working. It just shows that as of THIS date, we are not spending as much in deficit as we projected. It wont mean anything until the fiscal year has closed and has been revised. Also, it is primarily a result of increase corporate taxes due to a ONE TIME corporate tax increase. Don't read to much into it. Most of the good PR coming out of these "we arent in AS MUCH of a deficit" pieces are just that...PR. Plus its the difference between 450 billion deficit and 300 billion deficit (too date prediction). Good for us, but dude, its still bad stewardship.

    Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/13/2005 @ 10:57am

21. Liberal, you are abosolutely correct. But, you must agree that the majority of Americans did not start investing into the stock market until the 1990's. You show false returns, ie profits, growth, etc, stock goes up and people invest more money into the company, thus a false reading to the investors who are being lied to. What part of that don;t you get and what part of the Sarbanes Oxley Act don't you understand? It is a complex, yet simple way of stopping companies from making FALSE quartly reports to make the company look better then they are actually doing.

    If we are basing our economy on the market then how can a federal system be 100% completely reliable on taxes that may be cut at the knees when the market crashes...THUS A FALSE ECONOMY! The most fisacally conversative investors on wall street said the economy is not right and will crash and burn hard. You are right that it is cyclical, but for public companies to be over stating profits and growth and the government did not protect the private citizen investors is WRONG!

    Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 10:57am

22. By the way, airline companies are being crippled by the unions. American Airlines was lucky enough to have a union that understood the business. United unfortunatly stuck it to the Company and went almost bankrupt. Liberal SIMPLE explanations tend to leave out the dynamics of the Unions squeezing companies at the wrong time. Did you know that UAL asked for raises and were going to strike after 9/11? You may want to add that into your "simple" example of the airline industry! Let's not also forget that the late 80's and 90's when Southwest Airlines, ATA and now the Jet Blues of the world are chewing up their market space. Please add that to your economic reasoning why the airline market is like the Tech boom in the 90s...or do we have to go into the story of spending on the Y2K issue???

    Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 11:02am

23. Now to get back to Ari's point, we need to stop Bush and Haliburton, but it is going to take time to due full diligence. Like the other fisaco with Rove, there is a smoking gun, but lets get the facts straight before going on a emotional rampage. It took years for the auditors to go through Enron and bring them to court. This will take time and if there are any fraud connections with haliburton and it connects with Cheney, then they all should go to jail, no question about it!

    Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 11:20am

24. Ok...first...overstating profits and hiding losses is nothing new. Every heard of the S&L scandals (ironically a Bush brother was in on that little scandal)? The government cleaned up that sector and then there was fraud in others. Corporate fraud, believe it or not, has a lot to do with our style of economy...CAPITALISM. We have a regulate capitalistic economy, but the regulation is not maximal or necessarily efficient. In other words, its hard to tell when a system is broken until it breaks. So are you proposing that the government instead of companies like Andersen do the accounting and consulting?

    Yes, false returns do often result in positiv outlooks by investors, who invest and are defrauded, but again, that in no way is a false economy. And i might remind you that the investment is actually a very very small part of our economy, and the stockmarket although it may seem new because of its increased visability resurgence of trust over the last 20 years, has actually been around for quite some time (sarcasm).

    The statement that a majority of americans didnt start investing in the stock market until the 1990s way off the apple cart. A majority of americans STILL dont invest in the stock market. Contrary to popular belief, much of the stock investments come from the SAME people. Most Americans don't have the type of dispossible income necessary to make investments in companies.

    Actually its interesting to note on savings vs. consuption, is so quickly out balancing comsuption that we are financing our constuption by liquidating our savings to foreign investors like China, and that recently accelerated trend is going to pose a VERY serious problem in the next 15 to 20 years. Sorry for the tangent, but, SAVE DONT SPEND PEOPLE, IF YOU CANT AFFORD IT IN CASH (with the exception of a home), DONT BUY IT ON CREDIT!!!

    I'm all for more accuracy in corporate reporting, unfortunately the SOA doesnt do nearly enough to close the loop holes that have seemed to be at the root of most of the accounting scandals. 1) more uniformity in account procedures 2) off shore corporate relocations. However it does propose a much better system to follow the money so that we can analyze where, and encourage less of those practices.

    Interestingly enough, last night I was at dinner with a friend who is an economist and influential econ professor from UVA. Our discussion over traditional irish fare, turn to...(drum roll)...economics. More specifically taxes. He hastened to remind me that our government wasnt ALWAYS funded on a tax system. And it isnt completely funded by taxes today either. The simplest example is this interesting little tool called a bond. But more complex varieties are monetary exchanges, government 2 government loans, etc. Do the majority of our reciepts come from taxes, sure, but I just thought it was interesting to note that not 100%, and it hasnt always come from taxes. But on to your point, I am not sure I follow at all how a government that collects taxes, is a false economy when a market depreciates (it didnt crash). Also, I think you need to take note that the economy is not based on a, or the market, it is based on many markets, both national and international (thats why we changed it from GNP to GDP to account for international business), its based on exports, income, government spending, etc. Not just in your simpler terms, the stock market, or in a broader misrepresentation, "THE MARKET."

    The most fiscally conservative invetors on wall street I am not sure will say that. I am not even really sure what you mean by a "fiscally conservative investor." But I take it that you mean, a conservative (in terms of their investments, not political ideology) investor. If you are refering to Bear analysist than I'd say thats a no brainer...Their Bears! In terms of our economy not being right...I also don't know what that means, I think there is plenty of room for growth, i just think with the decrease in tax reciepts and the burden falling more heavily on those that need relief the most, coupled with our overspending we are stifling growth!

    Any being ethically wrong as far as corporate practices go, is a long long way off from being a "false economy" that you so much desire to lay at Bill Clinton's feet.

    Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/13/2005 @ 11:24am

25. Dude...can your read?!?!?!?!

    I never compare the airline industry to the techboom...nor did I get into the complex relationship of unions or United Airlines specifically. I used the airlines as an example of open discussions about budget issues, opposed to closed door manipulations that cause for surpises like Enron.

    Click Here for Help Dancall [hop.com]

    Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/13/2005 @ 11:37am

26. May bad...link didn't go through...no worries, help is on the way

    Click Here Instead [hop.com]

    Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/13/2005 @ 11:38am

27. Liberal, I think we are saying the same thing but in differnt ways.

    Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 12:22pm

28. That was my original point, Clinton didn;t have a positive or negative impact on the economy. But if some give him the credit, then the bad stuff also has to go hand and hand. It is just that some people always remember the good and remember to leave out the bad. All is good!

    Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 12:25pm

29. No, actually I am not even close to agreeing with you, or saying anything similar.

    If you reread my responses to your posts, I clearly have outlined that yes, Presidents do have impacts, and Clintons was overall positive. These are directly caused by their approach to fiscal policy, ie. Clinton provided a stable fiscay policy so that fed policy could work quickly and efficiently, whereas Bush's fiscal policiy has been reckless and has interfered with fed policy that was in place, putting the nation in a "soft patch."

    Thats all I'm going to respond to you on this particular series of posts. Obviously you are not arguing for knowledge, you are arguing for arguments sake. And I extend an apology to the readers of Ari's column who for the extended debate, in which had I maintained my silence, still would have seen the falacies in Dancall's arguments. I'm sorry.

    Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/13/2005 @ 12:33pm

30. Liberal, it was easy for Clinton to do that because of the tech boom. How much money did corporations and Govet spend on Y2K, how many jobs did that create...Liberal, people were coming out of retirement because there weren't enough people who understood the Cobal language. then people were getting paid up to 50% of their TRUE knowledge base worth, if not more. Y2K was a one time shot that this world has never seen before. To compare that to anything in this country is historically incompetent. Then lets talk about the value of property and how that soared through the 90's. Why is it that Silicon valley is worth 30% less then 5 years ago?

    Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 12:46pm

31. I know people who were making 160,000 salaries during the tech boom, now they are making 80-90,000. explain that balance, Liberal? It is called a false economy. We had a surplus of taxes coming in off that money and we were ignoring the fact that major outsourcing was started in the 90;s because after the US employee base was working on Y2K, we needed more technology jobs and we got it cheaper. so, in essense, the government was not only able to increase the tax base on individuals, but with corporatations on their payroll taxes. And if you forgot, when these companies were falsifying their quartly reports making them higher, the government also gets piece of that as well. Any logical and knowledge left in you or do you have to say I am only arguing with you for argruments sake?

    Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 12:53pm

32. nice try and trying to hide behind the apology. I said in essense that I agreed with you to stop it, but your comments had to be said last because you are hiding behind a issue that you can;t defend and wanted the last word. Typical!

    Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 12:57pm

33. Ari, Here is fuel for you, not sure if you have seen this yet, but WorldCom CEO just got 25 years in Jail...Hey liberal, that was a $11 Billion accounting scam that created false reporting to the government and private investors...do we need to go on with this??? BTW, Ebbers resigned in late 2001, under one year in the Bush Admin...do you think that the $11 Billion was ok because it was found on Bush's watch? Your knoweldgable response to how this did not effect the economy should be an interesting one, to say the least.

    Enron Execs are next...

    http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050713/D8BAK4H83.html

    Now, if you let the people do their jobs with Haliburton, the truth will come out and people will go to jail.

    Ari, this is a meatball right down the middle of the plate for you...go to town!!!

    Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 1:16pm

34. A quite-relevant piece from The New Republic's Notebook section:

    http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050711&s=notebook071105twp

    AUDIT(ORY) IMPAIRMENT

    Now that Halliburton has, as the Associated Press recently reported, taken on the responsibility of building a new 220-bed prison at Guantánamo Bay, it seems a shame to distract them from the task at a hand. But it appears congressional Democrats are insensitive to the energy conglomerate's need for creative focus in Cuba and insist on drawing attention to Halliburton's activities in Iraq.

    On Monday, Senate and House Democrats released a report revealing that internal Pentagon audits have questioned a staggering $1.4 billion of Halliburton's expenses in Iraq. Among the suspicious charges were $45 cases of soda and $100-per-bag laundry fees. The company also billed the government for several months of preparing some 10,000 meals per day that American troops never ate. Other records indicated the company simply doubled up legitimate charges for food, oil, and services.

    Boggled by the tally, Representative Henry Waxman complained that "taxpayers are getting bilked," but Halliburton spokeswoman Cathy Mann dismissed Democratic outrage as "political rhetoric." "Audits are part of the normal contracting process," Mann told The Boston Globe, "and it is important to note that the auditors' role in the process is advisory only." Yes, Pentagon, don't listen to those auditors. Instead, let us tell you about some very affordable magazine subscriptions to The New Republic.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 07/13/2005 @ 1:20pm

35. That is nuts! Just be patient...The World Com investigation took 5 years! Now, these are the facts that can hang people!!!

    Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 1:30pm

36. Da,

    Maybe. But what about a couple of years ago when the GAO reported that $1.5 billion a month from the monthly $3.9 billion Iraq war budget was going unaccounted for? I mean, $1.5 BILLION a month UNACCOUNTED for! Rather than the American public, both Democrats and Republicans alike, demanding where in the hell their tax dollars were going, Bushies (and there's a difference in my book between Republicans and Bushies) merely dismissed it because Edward Kennedy was the main one raising hell about it. So it wasn't that the Bushies had provided a plausible or even a smidgen of an explanation for this missing $1.5 billion a month, only that it was a Democrat -- and, worse, a "Massachutes liberal", and, even worse, a KENNEDY -- fuming over it. Just boggles the mind, this. If it were a Gore administration in charge, I'd have been just as POed over it. Good gracious alive, it's insane.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 07/13/2005 @ 2:42pm

37. Don;t feed the pigeons

    Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 2:48pm

38. Kevin, that is a problem because our political leaders dont have any credibility on either side. Kennedy may have had a great point, but his other rants override his good ones. Much the same on the reps side.

    I don't know why anyone would want to become President...A Senator is more powerful, in my humble opinion!

    Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 2:51pm

39. You have to push harder to be relevant and taken seriously. War profiteering on the part of high public officials is an impeachable offense, isn't it? The decision to go to this war was direcly influenced by the Vice President of the United States for reasons of personal profit, correct? Build your case and say that, and demand and inquiry into possible "high crimes and misdomeanors" immediately. Anything short of real muck racking is a joke in this media climate.

    Posted by Philbin at 07/13/2005 @ 8:12pm

40. Phil, Iraq is questionable, but we are there. when the case is built and they go after him, fine.

    Phil, actually, the VP has to disclose his personal assests and all money coming in. You should know that. So, why don;t you do a little pet project and show me that Cheney is profiting off this war. If you can, then maybe we can go public with this factual information that you have so diligently come up with. Is that relevant and serious enough for you?

    Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 10:45pm

41. Phil...here is a start... you will like this http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=23898

    Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 10:50pm

42. Phil...here is a start... you will like this http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=23898

    this was also interesting... http://www.factcheck.org/article261.html

    Posted by dancall at 07/13/2005 @ 10:54pm