Mi verso es un ciervo herido, que en el bosque busca amparo

August 28, 2003 9:39 AM

Guantanamo is growing
... and a Halliburton subsidiary lands yet another no-bid contract. Its total bill for the U.S. government last year: 1.3 billion. Maybe more
posted by magullo (13 comments total)

Big story in today's Washington Post

Halliburton, the company formerly headed by Vice President Cheney, has won contracts worth more than $1.7 billion under Operation Iraqi Freedom and stands to make hundreds of millions more dollars under a no-bid contract awarded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, according to newly available documents.

The size and scope of the government contracts awarded to Halliburton in connection with the war in Iraq are significantly greater than was previously disclosed and demonstrate the U.S. military's increasing reliance on for-profit corporations to run its logistical operations. Independent experts estimate that as much as one-third of the monthly $3.9 billion cost of keeping U.S. troops in Iraq is going to independent contractors.

Services performed by Halliburton, through its Brown and Root subsidiary, include building and managing military bases, logistical support for the 1,200 intelligence officers hunting Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, delivering mail and producing millions of hot meals. Often dressed in Army fatigues with civilian patches on their shoulders, Halliburton employees and contract personnel have become an integral part of Army life in Iraq.

Post Staff Writer Michael Dobbs is online now
posted by matteo at 9:54 AM on August 28, 2003

D'oh! I didn't see your second link before I posted my FPP. Well, I feel stupid.
posted by dejah420 at 10:17 AM on August 28, 2003

The Guantanamo build up is something that should frighten everyone. I mean, yes it's outrageous that Halliburton got another contract without bidding...but this "prison" is an affront to everything our judicial system and international policies stand for.

I'm almost speechless at how fast fascism and lawlessness have been accepted by the vast majority of the American population.
posted by dejah420 at 10:29 AM on August 28, 2003

And in other news, President Bush is cutting raises to federal workers. "Bush said he was using his authority to change the pay structure in times of 'national emergency or serious economic conditions' to limit raises to 2 percent. "

"Bleah" as Snoopy would say.
posted by Eekacat at 11:17 AM on August 28, 2003

The Post reported that Halliburton, the world's second-largest oil field service company, could make hundreds of millions more dollars than earlier disclosed for services such as maintaining Iraqi oil fields under a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers contract, according to documents surveyed by the newspaper.

Make, take that means profit. Minus the money for operating costs, why are they not using the profit To Rebuild Iraq ? instead Bush will ask Congress for more funds. Am I missing the simplicity here?

Also, how many fires did Halliburton actually put out? Live in Dallas(Cheney's home town) a lot of services charge by a contract, one lumped sum, not by the actual job performed. Notice you can really profit this way, do nothing and still be paid if the service is never completed. Seems as you are buying insurance than a labor contract. Everyday example, a prepaid phone card that is bought but never used.
posted by thomcatspike at 11:21 AM on August 28, 2003

limit raises to 2 percent. "
About what has been seen for non-federal employees for the last two years. That just may be the economic times.
posted by thomcatspike at 11:25 AM on August 28, 2003

YEah, I really have no problem with limiting Federal Employees automatic yearly raise. Much of the private sector has seen little or no raises, and layoffs.
posted by pjgulliver at 11:48 AM on August 28, 2003

Much of the private sector has seen little or no raises, and layoffs.

True, but couching it in terms that suggest doing otherwise would 'threaten our efforts against terrorism or force deep cuts in discretionary spending or federal employment to stay within budget' is just a bit fucking rich given that the $800m tax cut, targetted mainly at the top earners, seems not to have threatened efforts against terrorism or forced deep cuts in discretionary spending. Or am I just a little sensitive to patriotic bullshit used in the service of hypocrisy? And I'd call no-bid contracts a pretty decent example of 'discretionary spending', too.
posted by riviera at 1:12 PM on August 28, 2003

efforts against terrorism
Does seem like this has made more security positions too, in a bad way.
posted by thomcatspike at 1:26 PM on August 28, 2003

I'm glad you caught my irony riviera.
posted by Eekacat at 3:31 PM on August 28, 2003

dejah stole my link! dejah stole my link!

* begins sobbing incontrollably *
posted by matteo at 3:45 PM on August 28, 2003

I know... I'm so ashamed. I apparently have an itchy posting digit and cannot be trusted.

*hangs head, shuffles feet, looks embarrassed.*
posted by dejah420 at 7:58 PM on August 28, 2003

dejah420 - I agree on that Guantanamo is the biggest shame
posted by magullo at 4:41 AM on August 29, 2003