NY Times: No Evidence of Halliburton Profiteering

Newsmax ^ | MOnday Dec 29, 2003 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

[HoustonCurmudgeon]

I TOLD you two they would never catch us!

[Qwinn]

BTTT.

You know what's funny? Newsmax is reporting that Saddam had 40 billion hidden away in banks around the world, in addition to the few billion we've already found.

This means Saddam was extorting and profiteering from innocent people a THOUSAND TIMES MORE than Halliburton. And yet, in the eyes of the Left, Saddam was no threat and Cheney is the Prince of Darkness.

Un-freaking-believable.

Qwinn

[Stultis]

NYT money quote (second to "no profiteering"):

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.

[Stultis]

Here's one from a few days ago that might qualify as GNFI.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

GNFI, indeed! Thank you, Stultis. (^:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

...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

[Grampa Dave]

Great News. Thanks for posting this. I just sent it to our local left wing fish wrap.

[Alamo-Girl]

Bump!

[blackie]

The democrats are sad ~ very sad!

[prairiebreeze]

Sucks to be a DemocRat these days!

Prairie

[GOPJ]

bump

[windchime]

Bump!

[JulieRNR21]

Does anyone have a link or URL for the NYT article stating their findings whcih clear Halliburton?

[windchime]

Here it is, Julie.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/29/international/middleeast/29CONT.html

Fox reported a few minutes ago on Special Report that the contract with Haliburton for fuel has been cancelled and the Pentagon will handle procurement. ???? That's all that was mentioned.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

Sorry to hear about Halliburton losing the contract. Hope it's more to do with their overcharging Kuwaiti subsidiary, than about our DoD appeasing domestic DNC/press accusers.

More on the DoD's new role:

8 Defense Energy Support Center To Help Restore Iraqi Oil ~ DoD | 12/30/03

[JasonC]

Fact free smear?

[windchime]

"Hope it's more to do with their overcharging Kuwaiti subsidiary, than about our DoD appeasing domestic DNC/press accusers."

Me too! I read the DoD material a little before I heard the report on Haliburton....actually, it was just a statement by Jim Angle more than a report and there was no additional discussion. Hopefully, they will develop the story further.

[PhilDragoo]

An examination of what has grown into a multibillion-dollar contract to restore Iraq's oil infrastructure shows no evidence of profiteering by Halliburton

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:

[At _War_With_Liberals]

Ya know... Looking back, I liked Jayson Blair a helluva lot more than 90% of the writers at the NYT.

I think that they have used the Blair incident and their pretend mea culpa to hide a move further to the left.

Just an observation. It was all a show.

At least it exposed the bias of the NYT to folks that could not see it themselves.