HALLIBURTON BRIBES, LOOTS ... AND MAKES A "HEALTHY PROFIT"

Twit... There were only 2 companies that could have done it, and one of
those is French owned. There was no reason to advertise for bids.
There was only one choice.


George Z. Bush wrote:
"Ron" wrote in message
...

Better Halliburton than Schlumberger.

Didn't you undrerstand what $10 oil has done to oilfield service companies?


If so, I have a bridge in New York City to sell you.

You have a buttload of ignorance that only the stupid are buying.

John, They dont seem to realize even what oil field services companies are, or
what they do. Probaly most of the people who criticize Halliburton, probably
think they own wells, and sell oil.

There really are only two companies with that kind of techinical expertise

that

is needed, Halliburton and Schlumberger.
And if you need something done right now, rather than months from now, the

only

choice is no bid contract. Once you do open up bids, you have to allow time

to

publicize it, time to allow the bids to come in, then to study the bids, award
them, and deal with any appeals that come up.

Bidding for contracts is great if its a future need, but not an option when

you

need something done immediately


I think the point is that before the war even started, we should have
anticipated that we were going to need certain services to be performed.
Surely, somebody could have devised a method of bidding for performance of those
services without tipping off our war plans. It doesn't seem so insoluble that
no-bid contracts were the only possibility.

George Z.

KenG wrote:
Twit... There were only 2 companies that could have done it, and one of
those is French owned. There was no reason to advertise for bids.
There was only one choice.

Why? If the government can save the taxpayers' money by outsourcing their
contracts, what's wrong with that? Why wasn't the French company, whoever it
was, permitted to bid on the contract if they were competent to do the necessary
work? Politics? We pay so the government can play politics with its
international rivals? Is that a valid reason to spend more than is possibly
necessary to have certain work done?

BTW, Ken, the name is George, not Twit, or does Twit mean something other than a
disparaging name? If you intended to be obnoxious, you succeeded, although I
saw no good reason for it since I hadn't been insulting to you. Let's try to be
civil, shall we?

George Z.




George Z. Bush wrote:
"Ron" wrote in message
...

Better Halliburton than Schlumberger.

Didn't you undrerstand what $10 oil has done to oilfield service companies?


If so, I have a bridge in New York City to sell you.

You have a buttload of ignorance that only the stupid are buying.

John, They dont seem to realize even what oil field services companies are,
or what they do. Probaly most of the people who criticize Halliburton,
probably think they own wells, and sell oil.

There really are only two companies with that kind of techinical expertise

that

is needed, Halliburton and Schlumberger.
And if you need something done right now, rather than months from now, the

only

choice is no bid contract. Once you do open up bids, you have to allow time

to

publicize it, time to allow the bids to come in, then to study the bids,
award them, and deal with any appeals that come up.

Bidding for contracts is great if its a future need, but not an option when

you

need something done immediately


I think the point is that before the war even started, we should have
anticipated that we were going to need certain services to be performed.
Surely, somebody could have devised a method of bidding for performance of
those services without tipping off our war plans. It doesn't seem so
insoluble that no-bid contracts were the only possibility.

George Z.

Steve Hix wrote:
In article ,
"John?]
"
wrote:

In article , Polybus
wrote:

Halliburton staff sacked 'for taking bribes'

Halliburton, the oil services company formerly run by the US
vice-president, Dick Cheney, was yesterday embroiled in new
accusations of corruption after it sacked two workers over allegations
that they took kickbacks for awarding sub-contracts in Iraq.
The company disclosed that investigations were going on into whether
two of its staff took up to $6m (£3.3m) from a Kuwaiti-based company
providing support for US troops.


The company detected the irregularity with their own internal controls,
reported it promptly to the government, fired the employees involved,
and volunteered to repay the overcharge.

Your problem with that is...?

They didn't fix the problem before it happened.

BTW, if Halliburton discovered that two of their employees had taken $6m in
kickbacks from a Kuwaiti supplier, why did they(Halliburton) make the
reimbursement to the feds instead of the fired crooks who got the money?
Where's that $6m as we speak?

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
Steve Hix wrote:
In article ,
"John?]
"
wrote:

In article , Polybus
wrote:

Halliburton staff sacked 'for taking bribes'

Halliburton, the oil services company formerly run by the US
vice-president, Dick Cheney, was yesterday embroiled in new
accusations of corruption after it sacked two workers over allegations
that they took kickbacks for awarding sub-contracts in Iraq.
The company disclosed that investigations were going on into whether
two of its staff took up to $6m (£3.3m) from a Kuwaiti-based company
providing support for US troops.


The company detected the irregularity with their own internal controls,
reported it promptly to the government, fired the employees involved,
and volunteered to repay the overcharge.

Your problem with that is...?

They didn't fix the problem before it happened.

BTW, if Halliburton discovered that two of their employees had taken $6m
in
kickbacks from a Kuwaiti supplier, why did they(Halliburton) make the
reimbursement to the feds instead of the fired crooks who got the money?

Yes.

"George Z. Bush" wrote:

Steve Hix wrote:
In article ,
"John?]
"
wrote:

In article , Polybus
wrote:

Halliburton staff sacked 'for taking bribes'

Halliburton, the oil services company formerly run by the US
vice-president, Dick Cheney, was yesterday embroiled in new
accusations of corruption after it sacked two workers over allegations
that they took kickbacks for awarding sub-contracts in Iraq.
The company disclosed that investigations were going on into whether
two of its staff took up to $6m (£3.3m) from a Kuwaiti-based company
providing support for US troops.


The company detected the irregularity with their own internal controls,
reported it promptly to the government, fired the employees involved,
and volunteered to repay the overcharge.

Your problem with that is...?

They didn't fix the problem before it happened.

BTW, if Halliburton discovered that two of their employees had taken $6m in
kickbacks from a Kuwaiti supplier, why did they(Halliburton) make the
reimbursement to the feds instead of the fired crooks who got the money?
Where's that $6m as we speak?

Ye the rotten stink of Cheny's Hallitosis. A foetid stench so foul
that it as driven the man into complete isolation! A rancid green
stonk effectively removing him from public view (is shaueffeur wears a
rebreather! heh heh.
wally
wally