Irregularities in Iraq

Squiggy

Squiggy

ThunderDick
Pentagon Finds Halliburton Overcharged
Pentagon Probe Finds Overcharging, Other Problems With Cheney's Former Company Halliburton

The Associated Press


WASHINGTON Dec. 11 — A Pentagon investigation has found overcharging and other violations in Iraq reconstruction contracts worth $15.6 billion that were awarded to Vice President Dick Cheney's former company, two defense officials said Thursday.

An audit of Halliburton's Kellogg, Brown & Root subsidiary found substantial overcharging for fuel and other items, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity. The problems go beyond overcharging, they said, declining to elaborate.


AP Story


So...what was this war about?

:retard:
 
How is obscene overcharging, cooking the books, and graft considered irregular? I thought it was the status quo.
 
It is for Haliburton. They were found guilty of defrauding the government after the first Iraq invasion too...
 
You'd think they would've learned last time, too, but "Clown and Hoot" have always been involved with the pentagon in one way or another. Did you know every president since Carter has been involved with Brown and Root in one way or another?
 
unclehobart said:
*gasp* what? ...or *gasp* at what?
Click to expand...

Businesses here in the U.S. of A. are corrupt and dishonest????
The government should do something. Oh, umm...

It was meant as a sarcastic joke unc.
 
ok. I just didn't know if it was a gasp at me, my words, or the sarcastic jab at 'business as usual'. juuuust checkin. ;)
 
Seems like the contracts are worth $15.6 billion, but the overcharges were just over $61 million...still a lot, but not quite as much as the $15.6 billion the AP alluded to...

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A Pentagon audit has raised questions about whether a subsidiary of Halliburton -- an oil services company once run by Vice President Dick Cheney -- overcharged the U.S. government $61 million for gasoline imported from Kuwait to Iraq.
Click to expand...

Kudo's, Squiggy for bringing that to our attention. : :thumbup:
Shame, Squiggy for not including everything. :nono:
 
:confused: Shame on me? I provided the link to the story. I had even mentioned it the day before in the 'accomplishments' thread. $61M in just a few months of an ongoing contract is nothing to be dismissed. And the fact that this is a repeat offense should bring the curtain down. I'm seeing the entire Iraq situation as a joke the way everyone is dismissing its faults.
 
Squiggy said:
:confused: Shame on me? I provided the link to the story. I had even mentioned it the day before in the 'accomplishments' thread. $61M in just a few months of an ongoing contract is nothing to be dismissed. And the fact that this is a repeat offense should bring the curtain down. I'm seeing the entire Iraq situation as a joke the way everyone is dismissing its faults.
Click to expand...

Your post only mentioned the $15 billion contract and, if the source wasn't read fully, implied that the entire overcharge was $15 billion. That's what the :nono: was for.
 
Gato_Solo said:
Your post only mentioned the $15 billion contract and, if the source wasn't read fully, implied that the entire overcharge was $15 billion. That's what the :nono: was for.
Click to expand...

I didn't read it that way. I assumed the $15 billion was the total amount for the contracts. I didn't see any number for the amount that was overcharged until I went to the link. :confused:
 
the quoted bit does say 'overcharging in contracts worth 15billion', i don't see an attempt to mislead or hide owt.
 
Ms Ann Thrope said:
I didn't read it that way. I assumed the $15 billion was the total amount for the contracts. I didn't see any number for the amount that was overcharged until I went to the link. :confused:
Click to expand...

That's what I meant. If one doesn't go to the link, as some folks here do, then it looks as though the entire overcharge was $15 billion.
 
I too thought that the oversight was to the tune of 15 billion for a few moments because Squiggy highlighted the amount as emphasis.
 
Gato_Solo said:
That's what I meant. If one doesn't go to the link, as some folks here do, then it looks as though the entire overcharge was $15 billion.
Click to expand...

That's not how I read it. The amount for the contracts, not the overcharge, was for $15 billion. I knew that if I wanted to know the amount for the overcharge, I needed to go to the link. I never assumed that the $15 billion was for the overcharge. That makes no sense. :retard:
 
A Pentagon investigation has found overcharging and other violations in Iraq reconstruction contracts worth $15.6 billion...
Click to expand...

That looks like what AP intended. A grossly high number to startle the reader, most of whom won't contiinue to read.

It should have been written more like this:

A Pentagon investigation into Haliburtons $15.6 billion dollar Iraq reconstruction contracts show overcharrging & other violations.

That leads the reader to look for the amount or the simple knowledge that Haliburton is doing something wrong. It doesn't provide a political edge.
 
If they would have wanted people to read the article, the by-line should have read something like: BRITNEY SPEARS NUDE! (click here)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top