Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (19739)	12/14/2003 5:22:24 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793688

Another analysis from "Timeswatch" Halliburton's Front-Page Non-Scandal Friday front-page story by Douglas Jehl, "U.S. Sees Evidence Of Overcharging In Iraq Contract," begins breathlessly with hints of Halliburton-enriching scandal: "A Pentagon investigation has found evidence that a subsidiary of the politically connected Halliburton Company overcharged the government by as much as $61 million for fuel delivered to Iraq under huge no-bid reconstruction contracts, senior military officials said Thursday." By the third paragraph, Jehl duly reminds readers of the old Halliburton-Dick Cheney connection: "The problems involving Halliburton, where Vice President Dick Cheney was chief executive, were described in a preliminary report by auditors, the officials said. The Pentagon contracts were awarded without competitive bidding and have a potential value of $15.6 billion; recent estimates by the Army have put the current value of the Halliburton contracts at about $5 billion." Not until the ninth paragraph do we get this deflating sentence: "The officials said Halliburton did not appear to have profited from overcharging for fuel, but had instead paid a subcontractor too much for the gasoline in the first place." Slate's Eric Umansky makes the point in his column "Today's Papers": "In a point that the NYT, inexcusably, doesn't make until the ninth paragraph (after the jump), the paper acknowledges that Halliburton doesn't appear to have profited from the overcharging." (The Washington Post's account provides some perspective: "Halliburton isn't being accused of wrongdoing, and the government isn't yet seeking reimbursement this is the first instance the Pentagon has said it believes that major contracts for the war in Iraq and its reconstruction have been mishandled.") timeswatch.org