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 2)

JillUser

on Oct 20, 2004

But according to this guy

Uh oh, shades got mistaken for a guy again

drmiler

on Oct 20, 2004

Reply #10 By: shadesofgrey - 10/20/2004 1:44:30 PM
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.

Yeah "shadesofgrey" can you explain just how something can be considered a no-bid contract if the government invited others to bid? Sounds more like to me that their bids were to high or that they didn't bid at all because they couldn't handle the work. Which brings "myrranders" point to home!

drmiler

on Oct 20, 2004

Reply #16 By: JillUser - 10/20/2004 2:33:26 PM
But according to this guy
Uh oh, shades got mistaken for a guy again

Sorry, my mistake.

Myrrander

on Oct 20, 2004

Here's some info on what that "no bid" contract paid for:

*$705 million for an initial round of oil field rehabilitation work for the Army Corps of Engineers
*$142 million for base camp operations in Kuwait (feeding troops, laundry services, water and sewage work for camps)
*$170 million for logistical support for the Iraqi reconstruction (architecture and planning work; utility work)
*$28 million for the construction of prisoner of war camps
*$39 million for building and operating U.S. base camps in Jordan

Are these services that you want to contract out to the cheapest bidder? Or would you rather these things go to an experienced company?

shadesofgrey

on Oct 20, 2004

First of all, there is nothing in my post that either supports or doesn't support Haliburton. All I say is that 1. the bidding process could have been run before it was and 2. other companies had experience. Re-read, I don't make any statement against Haliburton. The fall out over the water and electricity would have occurred regardless of the company getting the bid because it happened so late. Notice, I state that the government could have prevented it.

Jill asked if there were other companies capable of doing the job. I answered the question by listing them. Don't read your perceptions into my post.

For the record, money for reconstruction was given out in several different ways. Haliburton recieved some no-bid contracts, but there were also contracts were USAID asked for bids--in some cases you had to be invited to bid, in others the process was open to anyone. My comment that Haliburton had an advantage was simply referring to the fact that they received some no-bid contracts. The bidding process was long and laborious (I know, I wrote the bid for one company--it was a painful process).

All to often on the politics forum of this board I find that people read what they want into someone elses comment. You all assumed I was bagging Haliburton instead of actually reading my words.

shadesofgrey

on Oct 20, 2004

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?

see my previous comment, and then re-read my first one without our your own spin. My comment was on the bidding process--if Haliburton received a contract without a bid, it is undeniable that they had an advantage. You may speculate why this happened, but I did not. Please do not read your intentions into my posts.

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

I am anything but a sheep, but thanks for that.

Uh oh, shades got mistaken for a guy again

It's a common occurance--apparently there is some misconception in the blogging sphere that only men have articulate opinions.

drmiler

on Oct 20, 2004

Reply #20 By: shadesofgrey - 10/20/2004 3:40:12 PM
First of all, there is nothing in my post that either supports or doesn't support Haliburton. All I say is that 1. the bidding process could have been run before it was and 2. other companies had experience. Re-read, I don't make any statement against Haliburton. The fall out over the water and electricity would have occurred regardless of the company getting the bid because it happened so late. Notice, I state that the government could have prevented it.

You need to go reread reply #17. You own words correct you!

shadesofgrey

on Oct 20, 2004

You need to go reread reply #17. You own words correct you!

For the record, money for reconstruction was given out in several different ways. Haliburton recieved some no-bid contracts, but there were also contracts were USAID asked for bids--in some cases you had to be invited to bid, in others the process was open to anyone. My comment that Haliburton had an advantage was simply referring to the fact that they received some no-bid contracts. The bidding process was long and laborious (I know, I wrote the bid for one company--it was a painful process).

Maybe you should finishing reading before you post. Really, point to where I said Haliburton was bad. You can't. But I would love for you to explain how my own words correct me.

drmiler

on Oct 20, 2004

Reply #23 By: shadesofgrey - 10/20/2004 4:03:45 PM
Yeah "shadesofgrey" can you explain just how something can be considered a no-bid contract if the government invited others to bid? Sounds more like to me that their bids were to high or that they didn't bid at all because they couldn't handle the work. Which brings "myrranders" point to home!

You need to go reread reply #17. You own words correct you!

For the record, money for reconstruction was given out in several different ways. Haliburton recieved some no-bid contracts, but there were also contracts were USAID asked for bids--in some cases you had to be invited to bid, in others the process was open to anyone. My comment that Haliburton had an advantage was simply referring to the fact that they received some no-bid contracts. The bidding process was long and laborious (I know, I wrote the bid for one company--it was a painful process).

Maybe you should finishing reading before you post. Really, point to where I said Haliburton was bad. You can't. But I would love for you to explain how my own words correct me.

I never said that you said that. YOU are the one that said Halliburton got a no-bid contract in one breath and in the next said the government invited a host of others to bid also. So which way is it? You can't have it both ways.

shadesofgrey

on Oct 20, 2004

So which way is it? You can't have it both ways.

Actually, you can. As I explained. Some contracts were no-bid and some required the bidding process...why is that so hard to understand? You do realize that there are other companies working in Iraq other than Haliburton, right?

And actually, in my first post, never said Haliburton got a no-bid contract. Nice try.

drmiler

on Oct 20, 2004

Reply #25 By: shadesofgrey - 10/20/2004 4:10:26 PM
So which way is it? You can't have it both ways.

Actually, you can. As I explained. Some contracts were no-bid and some required the bidding process...why is that so hard to understand? You do realize that there are other companies working in Iraq other than Haliburton, right?

No you can't.

Reply #20 By: shadesofgrey - 10/20/2004 3:40:12 PM
For the record, money for reconstruction was given out in several different ways. Haliburton recieved some no-bid contracts

You state that you wrote one of the bids. Okay. Then why did your company not get the contract?

shadesofgrey

on Oct 20, 2004

Then why did your company not get the contract?

The company I wrote the bid for? Cause the premise behind the proposal sucked and it didn't meet any of the US's goals in the region.

The other company that I mentioned in my first post did receive a reconstruction contract.

I feel like I am being taken to task for knocking down Haliburton when the only purpose for my first post was to answer Jill's question:

I ask this, what other establishment could and would do Halliburton's job?

Hence the list of companies that I provided that are capable, have the experience and wanted to do the job. There are alternatives to Haliburton--that was my only point.

No you can't.

I feel like I am engaged in a playground "did not", "did to" battle, but I'll bite. Why can't it be? Are you denying reality? Do you think that all the reconstruction money was given out in one large chunk to one company?

JillUser

on Oct 20, 2004

Cause the premise behind the proposal sucked and it didn't meet any of the US's goals in the region

So I guess they didn't really fall under the "could do the job" category.

Thanks for the info shades. It is refreshing to hear from someone who actually knows something about the business that Halliburton deals with and doesn't talk about it as if it is some evil entity run by overlord Cheney. I think I spurred the no-bid misconception due to being led to believe (by the Kerry camp and the Michigan Democratic Party) that Halliburton is it as far as contracts went for work in Iraq. I doubt I am the only one who has been influenced to believe that Halliburton got a free pass to run the show in Iraq.

Myrrander

on Oct 20, 2004

Shades >> I wasn't trying to spin on you, truly. I was addressing my comments more to my fellows on the left who have bitched about Halliburton and not provided and alternatives. You did that, and I didn't acknowledge it, and that's my fault. You obviously have experience in the field, and therefore, something very important to add to this discussion. I've found myself a bit irritated at the left today, and I let that irritation pull a "fast one" on what you posted. Sorry for that, after re-reading everything, I still address my questions to the left, but regret that I impugned what you said.

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!