The Halliburton huff
The oil services firm did nothing wrong in Iraq
Sunday, January 11, 2004
By Jack Kelly, Columnist, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
<font size=4>
Web logger John Cole noted a fascinating difference between the news accounts accusing Halliburton of overcharging on a contract to deliver oil in Iraq, and the accounts of Halliburton's subsequent exoneration.
<font size=3>
Jack Kelly is national security writer for the Post-Gazette and The Blade of Toledo, Ohio (jkelly@post-gazette.com, 412-263-1476).
<font size=4>
Here's the AP's Matt Kelley on the original charge: "A Pentagon audit has found Vice President Dick Cheney's former company may have overcharged the Army by $1.09 a gallon for nearly 57 million gallons of gasoline delivered to citizens in Iraq, senior defense officials say."
Here's Reuters: "A Pentagon audit of Halliburton, the oil services firm once run by Vice President Dick Cheney, has found evidence the company may have overcharged for fuel it brought into Iraq from Kuwait, military sources said on Thursday.
And now the AP on Halliburton's exoneration: "The Army apparently has sided with Halliburton in a dispute over the company's charges for fuel in Iraq."
And here's Reuters again: "The U.S. Army said on Tuesday it had granted Halliburton a special waiver to bring fuel into Iraq under a no-bid deal with a Kuwaiti supplier despite a draft Pentagon audit that found evidence of overcharging for fuel."
<font size=5>
When Halliburton was exonerated, Cheney -- prominently
featured in the accusation stories -- apparently was back
in his bunker at an undisclosed location.
There is no Halliburton scandal. But Democrats and their
allies in the news media think that if they blow enough
smoke, people will think there must be a fire somewhere.
They imply that Halliburton has been getting government
contracts it does not deserve because of the influence of
Cheney. They imply further that he has been putting the
interests of his former firm ahead of the interests of the
United States.
This is absurd. Cheney's only possible motivation for
doing so would be greed. But if greed were his primary
motivation, why would he give up a job that paid him
nearly $1 million a year in salary -- and much more than
that in annual bonuses and stock options -- for a job that
pays less than $200,000 a year?
Cheney served in Congress for 12 years and as secretary of
defense for four years before becoming Halliburton's CEO,
and did so without a hint of scandal. Unless there is
powerful evidence to the contrary, we should assume that
his primary motivation for public service is public
service, even if we disagree with his views.
<font size=4>
There is not a shred of evidence to indicate that Cheney has intervened to obtain contracts for his former firm, or that the contracting officers in the Department of Defense -- who are career civil servants -- have been awarding contracts in response to political pressure. The smear of Cheney is also a smear of them.
Nor is there evidence to indicate that Halliburton is undeserving of the contracts it has won, has performed poorly on them or profited excessively from them. Halliburton's Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR) subsidiary has decades of experience in major construction projects in the Middle East. It is thus ostensibly better qualified for rebuilding Iraq than, say, the Marin County Marijuana Growers Association. The Army said KBR got the Iraqi oil field contract because it was the only firm that possessed the skills, resources and security clearances necessary to do the job.
<font size=5>
The great growth in KBR's government work took place
during the Clinton administration. By the end of Clinton's
second term, one of every seven Pentagon dollars passed
through KBR, according to Dan Baum in The New York Times
magazine. Those harping about Halliburton now saw nothing
untoward about Halliburton then.
Those in high dudgeon about Halliburton also had little to
say when former Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin
sought favors for Enron, a client of his firm. (Bush
turned him down.) But then, Rubin is a Democrat.
It's not so much that there is a double standard. When the
truth clashes with their political ambitions, the fever-
swamp left has no standards at all. |
