SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: jackhach who wrote (401899)5/2/2003 11:34:52 AM
From: Skywatcher  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
and the Crooks in the White House continue to make money FROM the TERRORIST nations!!!!!!!
Oil Firm's Work for Terrorist Sponsors Challenged
David R. Baker
San Francisco Chronicle

Thursday 1 May 2003

Giving contracts to Halliburton questioned

Oil giant Halliburton's work in countries considered sponsors of terrorism came under fire
Wednesday from California Rep. Henry Waxman, who questioned whether the company should
receive lucrative government contracts.

In a letter to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Waxman said Halliburton Co. subsidiaries and
joint ventures had done business in Iran, Iraq and Libya, in spite of U.S. sanctions against those
countries.

"It appears that a company that has performed -- and apparently is continuing to perform -- work
for state sponsors of terrorism is being given a prominent role in the administration's war on
terrorism," Waxman wrote.

Waxman's letter did not directly accuse Halliburton of breaking the law. Instead, Waxman, D-Los
Angeles, asked Rumsfeld whether the White House had examined the legality of Halliburton's
work in Iraq, Iran and Libya. He also asked whether the administration plans to do so before
awarding Halliburton more contracts.

SUBSIDIARY HIRED

Halliburton won a prominent role this spring in American efforts to rebuild Iraq when the Pentagon
hired one of its subsidiaries to put out oil well fires set during the war. The company now will
compete with other firms, possibly including San Francisco's Bechtel Corp., to repair Iraq's
dilapidated oil facilities.

A Halliburton spokeswoman said Wednesday that her company had done no prewar business in
Iraq since pulling out of two joint ventures in 1999. Overseas subsidiaries of the Texas company
work in Iran and Libya, she said.

"The company believes that the operations of its subsidiaries are in compliance with U.S. laws,"
spokeswoman Wendy Hall said. "These activities and entities are staffed and managed by
non-U.S. personnel. We do not always agree with policies or actions of governments in every
place that we do business and make no excuses for their behaviors."

A Defense Department spokesman said Wednesday that he did not know whether Rumsfeld, still
traveling in the Middle East, had yet seen Waxman's letter.

PREVIOUS REQUEST

Waxman has targeted Halliburton before. Last month, he asked the General Accounting Office to
investigate whether the company, once run by Vice President Dick Cheney, received favorable
treatment in winning government contracts.

Halliburton's work in Iraq came through two joint ventures that sold equipment to the country's oil
industry. Although much trade with Iraq was banned after the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the United
Nations oil-for-food program allowed the sale of spare parts to keep Iraq's oil fields operating.
Halliburton sold off its share in the joint ventures in 1999.

One of Halliburton's overseas subsidiaries opened an office in Iran's capital, Tehran, in 2000 and
has worked on two offshore Iranian drilling contracts, according to Waxman's letter. In Libya,
another Halliburton subsidiary worked on a large-scale, underground water pipeline project,
Waxman wrote.
CC



To: jackhach who wrote (401899)5/2/2003 11:35:12 AM
From: JakeStraw  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Believe what you want to believe! The fact is that it's a done deal, so stop whining and move on!



To: jackhach who wrote (401899)5/2/2003 11:49:53 AM
From: username  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
You spelled "sight" wrong.