no evidence of profiteering by Halliburton
Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr for the New York Times--
They should have assigned the story to their first string:
Posted on 12/29/2003 2:40:40 PM PST by mware
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."
If the Times' report on Cheney's old company is the best the Democrats can do, it's time for Terry McAuliffe to begin searching for a new campaign boogeyman ASAP.
The task force, led by an aide to Douglas J. Feith, the under secretary of defense for policy, quickly concluded that the government alone could not meet the oil needs, members of the group said. "There were only a handful of companies, and KBR was always one of those mentioned," said one Pentagon official.
Almost immediately, an alarm went off among members of the group. "I immediately understood there would be an issue raised about the vice president's former relationship with KBR," the official said, "so we took it up to the highest levels of the administration, and the answer we got was, `Do what was best for the mission and we'll worry about the political' " fallout.
...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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fyi, (bad news for the bad guys), ping!
8 Halliburton's Mission ~ The CEO explains what the company is doing in Iraq ~ Opinion Journal | 10/17/03 | DAVE LESAR
More on the DoD's new role:
8 Defense Energy Support Center To Help Restore Iraqi Oil ~ DoD | 12/30/03
no evidence of profiteering by Halliburton
Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr for the New York Times--
They should have assigned the story to their first string:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.