Well isn't that just swell.... Lets see, if I was caught stealing 61 million would they just ask me to return it with no penalty? Better yet I think Halliburton has learned their lesson, lets just let them keep the money if they promise not to do it again...ok? I mean we have already blown 150 billion in Iraq and all we have to show for it is dead Americans, ballooning deficit and really pissed off Iraqies. So what is a puny 61 million among friends?
Bush Sees Need for Repayment if Fee Was High
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON
Published: December 13, 2003
ASHINGTON, Dec. 12 — President Bush said Friday that he expected the Halliburton Company to repay $61 million if a susidiary was found to have overcharged the Pentagon on a contract to deliver fuel to Iraq.
The Pentagon said Thursday that it had evidence that Halliburton, while not profiteering, had failed to get a reasonable price for the fuel from a subcontractor in Kuwait and had passed the inflated price along to the government.
On Friday, Mr. Bush said he was satisfied with the Defense Department's investigation of the matter. The contract has taken on political overtones because Vice President Dick Cheney was chief executive of Halliburton from 1995 until he was chosen by Mr. Bush to be his running mate in 2000.
"We're going to watch, we're going to make sure that as we spend the money in Iraq, that it's spent well and spent wisely," Mr. Bush said in a short question-and-answer session with reporters at the White House. "And their investigation will lay the facts out for everybody to see. And if there's an overcharge, like we think there is, we expect that money to be repaid."
Mr. Bush also defended his choice of James A. Baker III, a former secretary of state and treasury secretary, as his envoy for talks with other nations on forgiving Iraq's debts.
Mr. Baker's law firm, Baker Botts, and an investment firm where he is a counsellor, the Carlyle Group, have business interests in the Middle East.
When asked if Mr. Baker's role at these concerns posed a conflict of interest in renegotiating Iraq's debt, the president described Mr. Baker as a "man of high integrity" and of "enormous experience."
Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said Mr. Baker "is fully complying with all laws and rules on the books, and has taken significant steps to avoid even the potential for a conflict of interest."
Mr. McClellan said Mr. Baker would renounce his partnership share of any fees his law firm received from clients who might pose a conflict of interest. Baker Botts's clients include Halliburton.
Mr. Baker is taking similar steps at the Carlyle Group, Mr. McClellan said. Carlyle is an international investment company that has had dealings with the Saudi royal family.
Last year Mr. Bush appointed Henry A. Kissinger, the former secretary of state, to lead an inquiry into the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But Mr. Kissinger, who heads an international consulting firm, withdrew after encountering demands that he cut his ties to the firm to assure the public that he would conduct the investigation without regard to how it might affect his clients.
Mr. Bush said that the United States was "fortunate to have Jim Baker agree to serve," and that Mr. Baker would proceed with a planned five-day, five-nation trip next week.
That trip has been complicated by the administration's decision, made public by the Pentagon this week, to bar companies from nations that did not back the war in Iraq from receiving prime contracts for $18.6 billion in American-financed reconstruction work in Iraq. Companies from those countries can take part as subcontractors.
Among the nations disqualified were France, Germany and Russia, three of the countries Mr. Baker will ask to help put Iraq, which has more than $100 billion in foreign debt, on a sounder financial footing.
At the center of the disputes over the reconstruction of Iraq stands Halliburton, which was awarded a lucrative contract by the United States, without competitive bidding, to play a major role in the rebuilding.
Pentagon officials said their reviews of the Halliburton contracts had turned up two problems, both related to a subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown & Root.
In one case, they said, the company submitted a proposal for cafeteria services that appeared to be $67 million higher than what Halliburton had agreed to pay a subcontractor to carry out the services. The Pentagon rejected Halliburton's proposal, but attributed it to miscommunication rather than to an effort to defraud the government. |
