What did the Bush administration do wrong with their granting of contracts to Haliburton?

Question

What's the big deal?

Answer 1

$9 billion US disappear

Iraqi workers are paid $10 a day but Haliburton charge the US goverment $600/hour for a worker

Answer 2

if I remember correctly, they were no-bid...

and wasn't Cheney it's CEO?

if I was a mayor pro-tem of a town, past owner of a business in a town... and that business got a huge no-bid contract...

people would talk, and rightfully so...

it doesn't exactly mean something was wrong... but it looks horrible... and Bush and Co. don't feel like explaining themselves...

Answer 3

According to some the bidding process was skipped for political reasons...but the real reason is Halliburton has extensive experience in it's work with the military and because of the quick response that was needed there wasn't time to spend months on going over bids and re bids...and the political squabble to supply the military with the essential needs.

This is a damned if you and damned if you don't situation..If there had been inexperienced contractor to get the work and things went wrong..would there have been forgiveness.I doubt it...the rhetoric would have been the same.

Answer 4

the contracts were "NO-BID" contracts-in other words the way the government normally does a contract is it announces what they are looking for and ask companies to bid on it.

Halliburton though was in a unique position.  The USA needed a company that had proven ability to supply the troops with supplies immediately

Halliburton had repeatedly shown that it could do the job.  The Clinton administration had used Halliburton the same way in Kosovo and Bosnia.

So Halliburton was picked to deliver meals, and supplies to the troops in IRAQ.  

A lot of people on the left don't realize this but Halliburton, by LAW, can only charge a 3% profit on these contracts.

So---Halliburton was actually able to use it's assets elsewhere and be more profitable but chose to accept the no bid contract in Iraq and afghanistan.

But then again--the liberals that attack halliburton are either unaware of this or purposely lie to the ignorant hoping to score political points against the Bush administration.

With the welfare a hundred and fifty thousand troops fighting in a far away country--it was diffinetly the way to go.  Instead it was attacked as some sort of nepotism.

But you can't trust a lib to look out for the troops

Answer 5

Nothing...one must keep the profits in the family....

Answer 6

The average American couldn't even tell you what Haliburton does? And that no other company on the planet does it, or does it as well. They still think Haliburton is an oil company.

The Clinton administration also relied on Haliburton during their tenure, and with no-bid contracts.

You see, to have a bidded contract requires another company also bidding.