Full Version: The Rise of Halliburton
Halliburton (Kellogg Brown & Root RMK-BRJ) holds the LOGCAP (Logistical Support Contract) for the for the Army for the next 10 years. Halliburton is the largest civilian construction and engineering contractor in the United States. Dick Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton in 1997 and within a few years he is Vice President of the United States.
"In 1964 (LBJ) used the Gulf of Tonkin incident, a minor fracas in retrospect, to justify the sending of ground troops into Vietnam. The result of that move was the need for billions of dollars worth of bases, airstrips, posts, and bridges.
In 1965, a year after Johnson stepped up America's participation in Veitnam, Brown & Root (Halliburton subsidary) joined three other construction and project management behemoths, Raymond International, Morris-Knudsen, and J.A. Jones to form one of the largest civilian-based miltary construction conglomerates in history. The group, which came to be known collectively as RMK-BRJ, went on to do more than $2Billion worth of work in Vietnam..."
(The Halliburton Agenda, Dan Briody)
The 100 year history of Halliburton has been a success story that is second to none. They have emerged as a product of both Texas politics and big oil money. Should we be celebrating Halliburton's rise as the premire civilian construction contractor or threatened by it. From LBJ to Dick Chenny, from Veitnam to Iraq Halliburton has grown to become the heart of America's Industrial Military Complex. Should we be alarmed or reassured by the rise of this conglomerate giant in our political infrastructure?
Merchants of Blood: From Veitnam to Iraq
History of Halliburton
Question for debate:
Is the rise of Halliburton a case study in political corruption
or private enterprise at its finest 
?
"In 1964 (LBJ) used the Gulf of Tonkin incident, a minor fracas in retrospect, to justify the sending of ground troops into Vietnam. The result of that move was the need for billions of dollars worth of bases, airstrips, posts, and bridges.
In 1965, a year after Johnson stepped up America's participation in Veitnam, Brown & Root (Halliburton subsidary) joined three other construction and project management behemoths, Raymond International, Morris-Knudsen, and J.A. Jones to form one of the largest civilian-based miltary construction conglomerates in history. The group, which came to be known collectively as RMK-BRJ, went on to do more than $2Billion worth of work in Vietnam..."
(The Halliburton Agenda, Dan Briody)
The 100 year history of Halliburton has been a success story that is second to none. They have emerged as a product of both Texas politics and big oil money. Should we be celebrating Halliburton's rise as the premire civilian construction contractor or threatened by it. From LBJ to Dick Chenny, from Veitnam to Iraq Halliburton has grown to become the heart of America's Industrial Military Complex. Should we be alarmed or reassured by the rise of this conglomerate giant in our political infrastructure?
Merchants of Blood: From Veitnam to Iraq
History of Halliburton
Question for debate:
Is the rise of Halliburton a case study in political corruption
or private enterprise at its finest ?
Is the rise of Halliburton a case study in political corruption or private enterprise at its finest ?
Well, I guess for it to be a case study in political corruption there would have to be some--otherwise it would be a mighty short study. The fact that Cheney used to work there (emphasise on used to) doesn't indicate any corruption at all. In fact, given the extra scrutiny this would bring, it probably works to hinder their influence. Both Halliburton and KBR were dominant companies long before Cheney had any involvement with them--and in fact both companies frequently were at odds with governmental policies and restrictions as they attempted to gain international contracts. As to the Vietnam references, if the attempt is to draw a link showing the war (conflict?) was waged solely to benefit Halliburton, it will take a whole lot more evidence than than provided. The government/military frequently requires construction projects--someone needs to fill them. Getting such business doesn't indicate any evil intent.
Should we be celebrating Halliburton's rise as the premire civilian construction contractor or threatened by it.
Exactly what is there to feel threatened by? If Halliburton weren't filling these contracts, then someone else would be--how that effects anyone else escapes me. The only real dilemma would be which companies to buy stock in--hardly a life or death decision. The story here seems to be: military requires construction projects, company provides them, projects get completed, military and company benefit. Sounds like business as usual to me. Would we be better off if it were international firms fulfilling these military contracts? Now there's something that I would feel threatened by.
Well, I guess for it to be a case study in political corruption there would have to be some--otherwise it would be a mighty short study. The fact that Cheney used to work there (emphasise on used to) doesn't indicate any corruption at all. In fact, given the extra scrutiny this would bring, it probably works to hinder their influence. Both Halliburton and KBR were dominant companies long before Cheney had any involvement with them--and in fact both companies frequently were at odds with governmental policies and restrictions as they attempted to gain international contracts. As to the Vietnam references, if the attempt is to draw a link showing the war (conflict?) was waged solely to benefit Halliburton, it will take a whole lot more evidence than than provided. The government/military frequently requires construction projects--someone needs to fill them. Getting such business doesn't indicate any evil intent.
Should we be celebrating Halliburton's rise as the premire civilian construction contractor or threatened by it.
Exactly what is there to feel threatened by? If Halliburton weren't filling these contracts, then someone else would be--how that effects anyone else escapes me. The only real dilemma would be which companies to buy stock in--hardly a life or death decision. The story here seems to be: military requires construction projects, company provides them, projects get completed, military and company benefit. Sounds like business as usual to me. Would we be better off if it were international firms fulfilling these military contracts? Now there's something that I would feel threatened by.
I chose "other" as I think Halliburton is a prime example of how privatisation DOESN'T work.
I don't know enough to say that it is corrupt, though even blind trusts and the like make me uncomfortable when someone who stands to gain from a company winning a contract is one of the people who decides whether or not it gets that contract.
But from the UK experience of PFI (where private corporations take contracts with government to run public institutions - mostly schools and hospitals) is that there is only a cost saving when the books are fiddled (most often by a government keen not to be proven wrong), and more often there is a cost increase and often a a decline in levels of service as well.
I don't know enough to say that it is corrupt, though even blind trusts and the like make me uncomfortable when someone who stands to gain from a company winning a contract is one of the people who decides whether or not it gets that contract.
But from the UK experience of PFI (where private corporations take contracts with government to run public institutions - mostly schools and hospitals) is that there is only a cost saving when the books are fiddled (most often by a government keen not to be proven wrong), and more often there is a cost increase and often a a decline in levels of service as well.
Is the rise of Halliburton a case study in political corruption or private enterprise at its finest ?
I'd say political corruption at its finest.
I find it disturbing that Halliburton was awarded an unprecedented renewable 10-year contract (not subjected to competitive bidding, mind you), when most military contracts are limited to 5 years. And all the reports of overcharging and waste tell me that it’s definitely a case of political corruption and greed. When most of us take a job in a large industry, we are required to sign Conflict of Interest statements. That doesn’t seem to apply in the second highest job in the country.
This from 2002:
Another UPI story about Halliburton fraud.
A telling statement from the UPI article: Cheney, who headed Halliburton before becoming U.S. vice president, still has Halliburton stock options that can be exercised until as late as 2009.
Halliburton overcharging, and outright fraud: link
Other shady doings: link
I'd say political corruption at its finest.
I find it disturbing that Halliburton was awarded an unprecedented renewable 10-year contract (not subjected to competitive bidding, mind you), when most military contracts are limited to 5 years. And all the reports of overcharging and waste tell me that it’s definitely a case of political corruption and greed. When most of us take a job in a large industry, we are required to sign Conflict of Interest statements. That doesn’t seem to apply in the second highest job in the country.
This from 2002:
QUOTE
AP-The Army has paid Brown & Root $13.7 million since the contract began Feb. 1 to provide food, laundry and other support services to U.S. troops in the former Soviet republics of Georgia and Uzbekistan. The Army will not disclose other locations where the contract has been used.
The $300 million, five-year Navy contract was awarded to Brown & Root in April 2001, three months after Cheney became vice president. It followed a November 2000 recommendation from the General Accounting Office that upheld a protest of the original Navy decision in June 2000 to give the Halliburton subsidiary the contract. AP Story 2002
The $300 million, five-year Navy contract was awarded to Brown & Root in April 2001, three months after Cheney became vice president. It followed a November 2000 recommendation from the General Accounting Office that upheld a protest of the original Navy decision in June 2000 to give the Halliburton subsidiary the contract. AP Story 2002
Another UPI story about Halliburton fraud.
A telling statement from the UPI article: Cheney, who headed Halliburton before becoming U.S. vice president, still has Halliburton stock options that can be exercised until as late as 2009.
Halliburton overcharging, and outright fraud: link
Other shady doings: link
Technically, Halliburton has a one year base contract with nine one year options
With Halliburton yielding a 3.8% profit margin, when most defense contracts yield a 7% margin, I would hardly call them war profiteers.
From NRO
With Halliburton yielding a 3.8% profit margin, when most defense contracts yield a 7% margin, I would hardly call them war profiteers.
QUOTE
That work received favorable notices throughout the Clinton administration. For example, Vice President Al Gore's National Performance Review mentioned Halliburton's performance in its Report on Reinventing the Department of Defense, issued in September 1996. In a section titled "Outsourcing of Logistics Allows Combat Troops to Stick to Basics," Gore's reinventing-government team favorably mentioned LOGCAP, the cost-plus-award system, and Brown & Root, which the report said provided "basic life support services — food, water, sanitation, shelter, and laundry; and the full realm of logistics services — transportation, electrical, hazardous materials collection and disposal, fuel delivery, airfield and seaport operations, and road maintenance."
In 2001, after the Bush administration came into office, the giant LOGCAP contract expired again and another competition was held. Once again, Halliburton won the contract, and it was under that arrangement that the Iraqi-oilfield analysis was done. As the record shows, Halliburton won big government contracts under the Clinton administration, and it won big government contracts under the Bush administration. The only difference between the two is that Henry Waxman is making allegations of favoritism in the Bush administration, while he appeared untroubled by the issue during the Clinton years.
In 2001, after the Bush administration came into office, the giant LOGCAP contract expired again and another competition was held. Once again, Halliburton won the contract, and it was under that arrangement that the Iraqi-oilfield analysis was done. As the record shows, Halliburton won big government contracts under the Clinton administration, and it won big government contracts under the Bush administration. The only difference between the two is that Henry Waxman is making allegations of favoritism in the Bush administration, while he appeared untroubled by the issue during the Clinton years.
From NRO
Question for debate:
Is the rise of Halliburton a case study in political corruption or private enterprise at its finest ?
Cheyney's Haliburton
He's Our Vice President Folks
By Wahkonta Anathema
Posted Thursday, January 01, 2004 on conspiracy-history-news
Discussion: Politics
Since we'll be reading about our Vice-President's office involvement in betraying the American CIA, I thought I'd post this article as to his involvement with the Corp.'s getting contracts; just so you know where he's at BEFORE his lips start moving. I note the article is from LaRouche, who also has been calling for a world economic depression for over 10 years, and I inform I do not support him politically, but his research on this is pretty good with out the last sentence, which is gratuitous.
ARTICLE EXCERPT BEGINS
Cheney's Halliburton Becomes
The `Enron' of War Profiteers
by Carl Osgood
Vice President Dick Cheney's Halliburton Corporation has been caught, once again, ripping off U.S. taxpayers. This time, it's not just overcharging for gasoline or other contracted items; it's the very food being fed to American soldiers in Iraq; and it's not just taxpayers, but U.S. troops being exposed to filthy mess halls and rotten food, according to official Pentagon inspection reports.
According to a Dec. 12 NBC "Nightly News" investigative reportâconfirmed to EIR by other sourcesâa Pentagon audit found dirty and unsafe conditions in four mess halls that Halliburton's KBR subsidiary operates in Iraq. NBC also reported that KBR's promises to improve its food services "have not been followed through," and that the Pentagon warns that "serious repercussions may result" if the contractor does not clean up its act. The auditors reported finding "blood all over the floor ... dirty pans ... dirty salad bars ... rotting meats... and vegetables" during a series of inspections in August, September, and Octoberâincluding of the mess hall that President Bush visited during his Thanksgiving visit to Baghdad. (No wonder he was parading around with the decorative turkey. He wouldn't want to touch the real thing.)
Link: http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2003/3050halliburton.html
I would have to agree with this article and the fact no one else was able to bid for the contract ,Halliburton smells more like rotten fish then beef in my opinion. BIG TIME profiteering .Cheny the kingfishcateer
Is the rise of Halliburton a case study in political corruption or private enterprise at its finest ?
Cheyney's Haliburton
He's Our Vice President Folks
By Wahkonta Anathema
Posted Thursday, January 01, 2004 on conspiracy-history-news
Discussion: Politics
Since we'll be reading about our Vice-President's office involvement in betraying the American CIA, I thought I'd post this article as to his involvement with the Corp.'s getting contracts; just so you know where he's at BEFORE his lips start moving. I note the article is from LaRouche, who also has been calling for a world economic depression for over 10 years, and I inform I do not support him politically, but his research on this is pretty good with out the last sentence, which is gratuitous.
ARTICLE EXCERPT BEGINS
Cheney's Halliburton Becomes
The `Enron' of War Profiteers
by Carl Osgood
Vice President Dick Cheney's Halliburton Corporation has been caught, once again, ripping off U.S. taxpayers. This time, it's not just overcharging for gasoline or other contracted items; it's the very food being fed to American soldiers in Iraq; and it's not just taxpayers, but U.S. troops being exposed to filthy mess halls and rotten food, according to official Pentagon inspection reports.
According to a Dec. 12 NBC "Nightly News" investigative reportâconfirmed to EIR by other sourcesâa Pentagon audit found dirty and unsafe conditions in four mess halls that Halliburton's KBR subsidiary operates in Iraq. NBC also reported that KBR's promises to improve its food services "have not been followed through," and that the Pentagon warns that "serious repercussions may result" if the contractor does not clean up its act. The auditors reported finding "blood all over the floor ... dirty pans ... dirty salad bars ... rotting meats... and vegetables" during a series of inspections in August, September, and Octoberâincluding of the mess hall that President Bush visited during his Thanksgiving visit to Baghdad. (No wonder he was parading around with the decorative turkey. He wouldn't want to touch the real thing.)
Link: http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2003/3050halliburton.html
I would have to agree with this article and the fact no one else was able to bid for the contract ,Halliburton smells more like rotten fish then beef in my opinion. BIG TIME profiteering .Cheny the kingfishcateer
Edited to remove copyrighted materials.
Robert1, this is the first time I've seen a LaRouche source cited here at AD, and for good reason. Halliburton beat out DynCorp and Raytheon for the 2001 Logcap contract.
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Jun 28 2004, 03:43 PM)
Robert1, this is the first time I've seen a LaRouche source cited here at AD, and for good reason. Halliburton beat out DynCorp and Raytheon for the 2001 Logcap contract.
Sorry I was speaking of the no-bid contract. Was Mr cheny in anyway related to awarding the logcap contract?
The Brown and Root (now a wholly owned subsidiary of Halliburton) legacy is one of political intrigue and their lifeblood has always been federal money. Before the controversy surrounding Cheney and Halliburton there was Lyndon Johnson (LBJ) whose rise to prominence was financed by Brown and Root. The campaign finance corruption was the focus of an IRS investigation into LBJ's 1941 Senate race led by Treasury Secretary Henry Morgentau Jr. . Hundreds of thousands of dollars were funneled into the LBJ campaign through attorney’s fees and employee bonuses. Brown & Root faced criminal charges and the only reason they didn't go to prison was that LBJ managed to convince FDR to stop the investigation. Similarities between the Cheney/Halliburton connection and the Johnson/Brown and Root connection are staggering.
Halliburton/Chenney simularites to LBJ/Brown and Root
There is ample reason to question whether the LOGCAP contract, circa 1992 was even legal. The Code of Federal Regulations (Chapter 1, section 48, subsection 9.5) states the conflict of interest rules intended to prevent "the existence of conflicting roles that might bias a contractor's judment; and prevent unfair competitive advantage." The plan to create the first umbrella LOGCAP contract was drawn up by Brown and Root giving then an unfair advantage and once awarded a virtual monopoly on this multi-billion dollar contract.
September 14, 2003 on Meet the Press claimed that he had "severed all my ties with the company, getting rid of all my fincancial interests." However Cheney has been reveiving a deferred salary from Halliburton since he left. In 2001 he received $205,298. In 2002 he took in $162,392 and he still holds $433,333 in unexercised stock options. This has been documented in a report by the Congressional Research Service and at best reflects a potential conflict of interest and certainly a fincancial interest. The statement by Cheney that he had severed all financial ties to Halliburton is tantamount to Clinton's statement that he did not have sex with that woman. Both statements are equally bogus.
Why should we be thretened by the rise of Halliburton? Honestly, in light of their long history of political intrigue and their dominance as the number one construction and enginerring contractor in the U.S. the answer is simply this.
"We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. "
Eisenhower's Farewell Address to the Nation
January 17, 1961
Halliburton/Chenney simularites to LBJ/Brown and Root
There is ample reason to question whether the LOGCAP contract, circa 1992 was even legal. The Code of Federal Regulations (Chapter 1, section 48, subsection 9.5) states the conflict of interest rules intended to prevent "the existence of conflicting roles that might bias a contractor's judment; and prevent unfair competitive advantage." The plan to create the first umbrella LOGCAP contract was drawn up by Brown and Root giving then an unfair advantage and once awarded a virtual monopoly on this multi-billion dollar contract.
September 14, 2003 on Meet the Press claimed that he had "severed all my ties with the company, getting rid of all my fincancial interests." However Cheney has been reveiving a deferred salary from Halliburton since he left. In 2001 he received $205,298. In 2002 he took in $162,392 and he still holds $433,333 in unexercised stock options. This has been documented in a report by the Congressional Research Service and at best reflects a potential conflict of interest and certainly a fincancial interest. The statement by Cheney that he had severed all financial ties to Halliburton is tantamount to Clinton's statement that he did not have sex with that woman. Both statements are equally bogus.
Why should we be thretened by the rise of Halliburton? Honestly, in light of their long history of political intrigue and their dominance as the number one construction and enginerring contractor in the U.S. the answer is simply this.
"We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. "
Eisenhower's Farewell Address to the Nation
January 17, 1961
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.