Who Wants Halliburton's Job?

Published on October 19, 2004 By JillUser In Politics

The left seems to respond to the word "Halliburton" like my mother-in-law responds to the word "fart" (it is what she considers the "f" word). I ask this, what other establishment could and would do Halliburton's job? I am not defending overcharges or any other conduct. I am simply curious as to what the options would be.

I often wonder how many people howling "Halliburton this or Halliburton that" even know what Halliburton does. I also think you have to be out of your flipping mind if Halliburton is what you base your vote on. I got a flier from the Michigan Democratic Party that was nothing but whining about Halliburton as the basis of why we can do better than Bush/Cheney. It didn't give one example of how Kerry would be better. Like Bush said, "a litany of complaints is not a plan".

Comments (Page 1)

Myrrander

on Oct 19, 2004

It's a fair question, Jill, and I for one have backed off of my Halliburton rhetoric for some of the very reasons you mention. Good post.

JillUser

on Oct 19, 2004

Thanks Myr. I am merely trying to educate myself on the subject. I have been unsuccessful in getting answers from any of my Democrat friends.

Myrrander

on Oct 19, 2004

I do know that Kellogg, Brown, and Root (Halliburton subsidiary) has been working with the US military since the 1940s. 60+ years working together would make for a pretty efficient business relationship, don't you think? I've been looking for "Halliburton alternatives" on the net since I read this question and I've come up with zip (DynCorp, perhaps, but lefties would hate them, too). Personally, I think it makes sense that if you've used a company for 60 years, why change if the relationship is working?

Democrats also don't like to admit that Halliburton got at least one "no bid" contract during the Kosovo war -- so they need to paint Bill Clinton with that anti-Halliburton brush.

This post has gotten my mind going more than any I've read today (and there have been some good ones). I'll post anything I find out.

Daiwa

on Oct 19, 2004

It is true that there are very few, if any, viable alternatives to Halliburton. Can you imagine the brouhaha if we had waited for a competitive bidding process to start the rebuilding in Iraq? Kerry would be skewering Bush for the delay, of course.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Myrrander

on Oct 19, 2004

I'm afraid I have to agree with ya, Daiwa.

Where are my fellow liberals? It's up to you to try and answer this question since our side is the one doing the most grousing about Halliburton. I've tried, and I've come up with this: Halliburton and its subsidiary KBR offer it all for Iraq -- military support through laundry, food, and other services; expertise in getting Iraqi oil fields going; expertise in getting the lights and water back on; expertise in transporting goods; and 60 years (KBR since the 1940s, Halliburton aquired the company in 1962) of experience working with the US military.

Has the company done wrong? Yes. But they seem to be the best defense contractor for the work.

JillUser

on Oct 19, 2004

I'll post anything I find out

I appreciate that Myr.

So very true Daiwa!

JillUser

on Oct 20, 2004

Where are all of the options that the liberals have for us? They have the complaints. Where are the solutions?

Myrrander

on Oct 20, 2004

Yeah, I don't think most of us on the left have thought about this. We complained that Iraqi oil revenues weren't as much as projected, we complained that the lights and water were off -- and guess what? Halliburton fixes all those things.

So I suppose I need to shut up about how evil Halliburton is. I was hoping this thread would get more attention that it has.

drmiler

on Oct 20, 2004

Reply #8 By: Myrrander - 10/20/2004 10:26:00 AM
Yeah, I don't think most of us on the left have thought about this. We complained that Iraqi oil revenues weren't as much as projected, we complained that the lights and water were off -- and guess what? Halliburton fixes all those things.

So I suppose I need to shut up about how evil Halliburton is. I was hoping this thread would get more attention that it has.

They haven't said anything because after the info you gave was read by them. They realize they don't have a leg to stand on. In effect you cut them off at the knees!

shadesofgrey

on Oct 20, 2004

you imagine the brouhaha if we had waited for a competitive bidding process to start the rebuilding in Iraq? Kerry would be skewering Bush for the delay, of course.

There wouldn't have been any fall out if the bidding process began prior to the conflict as was called for in a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. The complaints about the electricity and water shortages were legitimate because they could have been prevented. The government had full knowledge of what was going to occur post-fighting. Ample warning had been given about the humanitarian needs immediately following the conflict. The government ignored those warnings rather than acting on them. The mess that ensued was completely preventable.

There are plently of other companies that could have easily filled Haliburton's shoes. In addition to Haliburton, the government invited Bechtel, Fluor, Louis Berger Group Inc., Parsons Corp., and Washington Group International Inc. to bid on the reconstruction work. Bechtel's work in the Middle East dates back to WWII and much of the work after the first Gulf War was awarded to Bechtel. Haliburton is definitely not the only company capable of doing this work--they just had the advantage in the process.

Myrrander

on Oct 20, 2004

they just had the advantage in the process

So was Clinton at fault for giving Halliburton a no-bid contract in Kosovo? Was Dick Cheney manipulating Bill? Even though the contract happened in 1993 and Cheney wasn't CEO until 1995?

This is the second time in two days I think I've short-circuited my own side. I cut up a bunch of arguments for John Kerry pretty bad yesterday.

I'd rather be a cynical leftie than a sheep, though.

drmiler

on Oct 20, 2004

Reply #11 By: Myrrander - 10/20/2004 2:18:16 PM
they just had the advantage in the process

So was Clinton at fault for giving Halliburton a no-bid contract in Kosovo? Was Dick Cheney manipulating Bill? Even though the contract happened in 1993 and Cheney wasn't CEO until 1995?

This is the second time in two days I think I've short-circuited my own side. I cut up a bunch of arguments for John Kerry pretty bad yesterday. I'd rather be a cynical leftie than a sheep, though.

Just because your thinking like this does NOT make you a sheep! Sheep don't think.

Myrrander

on Oct 20, 2004

That's what I mean. I'd rather question and have some cynicism for my "side" than just be a non-thinking sheep. And sometimes, like on this issue, I even change my mind. After Jill posted this yesterday, I spent my whole conference period reading about Halliburton, both pro and con. I decided they aren't so bad after all.

drmiler

on Oct 20, 2004

Reply #13 By: Myrrander - 10/20/2004 2:28:09 PM
That's what I mean. I'd rather question and have some cynicism for my "side" than just be a non-thinking sheep. And sometimes, like on this issue, I even change my mind. After Jill posted this yesterday, I spent my whole conference period reading about Halliburton, both pro and con. I decided they aren't so bad after all.

But according to this guy they are.

Reply #10 By: shadesofgrey - 10/20/2004 1:44:30 PM
There wouldn't have been any fall out if the bidding process began prior to the conflict as was called for in a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. The complaints about the electricity and water shortages were legitimate because they could have been prevented. The government had full knowledge of what was going to occur post-fighting. Ample warning had been given about the humanitarian needs immediately following the conflict. The government ignored those warnings rather than acting on them. The mess that ensued was completely preventable.

There are plently of other companies that could have easily filled Haliburton's shoes. In addition to Haliburton, the government invited Bechtel, Fluor, Louis Berger Group Inc., Parsons Corp., and Washington Group International Inc. to bid on the reconstruction work. Bechtel's work in the Middle East dates back to WWII and much of the work after the first Gulf War was awarded to Bechtel. Haliburton is definitely not the only company capable of doing this work--they just had the advantage in the process

JillUser

on Oct 20, 2004

the government invited Bechtel, Fluor, Louis Berger Group Inc., Parsons Corp., and Washington Group International Inc. to bid on the reconstruction work.

If the government invited other companies to bid, how can it be considered a no bid contract?

I'd rather be a cynical leftie than a sheep, though.

Good for you Myr! Plus, sometimes it is fun to play devils advocate and find out you can argue the other side better than they can

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!