Looks Like Halliburton Did Do It After All

[Nbadan]

The Secret Deal For Iraq's Oil
By Jason Leopold
The Public Record
Friday, August 15, 2008

Published in : Nation/World


Four months before the United States invaded Iraq, the Department of Defense was secretly working with Vice President Dick Cheney's old company, Halliburton Corp., on a secret deal that would give the world's second largest oil services company total control over Iraq's oil fields, according to interviews with Halliburton's most senior executives.

Previously undisclosed Halliburton documents obtained by The Public Record confirm that controlling the world's second largest oil reserves was a top priority for the Bush administration. Additionally, the deal between the Department of Defense and Halliburton unit Kellogg, Brown & Root to operate Iraq's oil industry saved Halliburton from imminent bankruptcy.

In October of 2002, Halliburton was saddled with a multibillion-dollar asbestos liability as well as a serious slowdown in domestic oil production. The company’s stock plummeted on the news falling to a low of $12.62 in October 2002 from a high of $22 the year before.

A month later, in November 2002, Halliburton’s financial troubles seemingly disappeared. At the urging of unnamed officials in the Office of the Vice President, according to the documents, the Department of Defense recommended The Army Corps of Engineers award a contract to Kellogg, Brown & Root to extinguish Iraqi oil well fires in addition to "assessing the condition of oil-related infrastructure; cleaning up oil spills or other environmental damage at oil facilities; engineering design and repair or reconstruction of damaged infrastructure; assisting in making facilities operational; distribution of petroleum products; and assisting the Iraqis in resuming Iraqi oil company operations."

That was a deal hatched five months before the start of the Iraq war, when the Bush administration said publicly that it had not been working on war plans.

"The fact that the Department was planning for the possibility that it would need to repair and provide for continuity of operations of the Iraqi oil infrastructure was classified until March 2003," the Army Corps of Engineers said on its web site. "This prevented earlier acknowledgement or announcement of potential requirements to the business community."

A March 6, 2003 internal Pentagon e-mail sent by an Army Corps of Engineers official says "action" on a multibillion-dollar Halliburton contract was "coordinated" within Cheney's office.

The e-mail says Douglas Feith, the former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, received authorization from then Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz to “execute” the Restore Iraqi Oil contract to Halliburton in 2002.

Feith was one of the architects of the Iraq war who operated the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans that exaggerated the Iraqi threat and provided the White House with bogus information about links between Iraq and al Qaeda.

The email said Feith approved elements in the contract "contingent on informing WH [White House] tomorrow. We anticipate no issues since action has been coordinated w VP's [Vice President's] office."

Cheney, who claims he has severed all ties with Halliburton, receives deferred compensation from the company annually.

Two days after the email was sent, the Army Corps of Engineers formally awarded Halliburton the contract, without reviewing bids from other companies.

Bunnatine Greenhouse, the Army Corps’ top civilian contracting expert, has said the Halliburton deal represented “the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed during the course of my professional career." Greenhouse, who testified before Congress in June 2005, was demoted for speaking out about contract fraud.

Linky (http://www.pubrecord.org/nationworld/262-the-secret-deal-for-iraqs-oil.html)

That, my friends, is organized crime at the highest level

[boutons_]

More confirmation that Iraq was an oil grab.

NOT about WMD

NOT about Saddam/WTC

NOT about US NatSec

NOT about GWOT

NOT about Saddam as Bad Guy

NOT about anything but OIL

[IceColdBrewski]

More confirmation that Iraq was an oil grab.

NOT about WMD

NOT about Saddam/WTC

NOT about US NatSec

NOT about GWOT

NOT about Saddam as Bad Guy

NOT about anything but OIL


So, mission accomplished?

[Heath Ledger]

Oil grab yet we haven't seen a drop of it?

[boutons_]

As Chris Rock jokes "When my family takes over IHOP, pancakes gonna be cheaper at our house"

The oil grab was fucked up.

Starting a bogus war in the Middle East has inflated oil prices, US oilcos vastly more wealthy. Mission Accomplished.

MIC vastly more wealthy. Mission Accomplished.

US Govt spent into crippling debt (requires more tax cuts for corps and super-wealthy). Mission Accomplished.

[johnsmith]

I don't agree with the way that Cheney deals with his former employer but this isn't really that big a deal.

They were obviously planning to invade Iraq 4 months prior to actually invading, so the "they told the public they weren't going to" shit is just that, shit.

And if you are planning to invade Iraq, you sort of need to plan for taking care of all that stuff that's there............you know, the oil.


Finally, the fact that you bolded the "they didn't review bids" shit just shows that you know nothing of how the process actually works. Low bidder wins on sealed bids, no review is necessary. Halliburton is the only company in America that would take a job like that off and do it at a reasonable price because all others would be frightened of the job (and rightfully so).

Oh, and the deferred comp. thing that everyone is always going nuts over, I have a family member that is an executive at a very large construction company. He has deferred 100% of his salary and bonuses until retirement because he doesn't need the money right now. Should the internet be buzzing with conspiracy theories about him?


Dan, you're a douchebag.

And remember everyone, in November, make sure you vote McBoutonsisafuckingwhackjob.

[Wild Cobra]

More confirmation?

I say that's bullshit. For something so important, I want a link to the photocopies of the documents.

I say the source is a liar.

[ChumpDumper]

More confirmation?

I say that's bullshit. For something so important, I want a link to the photocopies of the documents.

I say the source is a liar.Links to the documents can be found in the original article.

[Wild Cobra]

Links to the documents can be found in the original article.

Too bad the pdf file is a copy of a forgery. I knew it from the start. The format was suspicious, so I did some simple tests. Who uses that format with modern computers? Also, having seen, literally thousands of military documents from the Pentagon, NATO, USEUCOM, and JCS... It just does not look right from the start.

The scale does not pan out for any military equipment in use for fixed spacing. Use 6 or 8 lines per inch, and the spacing is not 10, 12, or 15 characters per inch, and believable. The type does fit as near as I can tell for 6 lines per inch as 10 CPI, but then the longer lines would be almost nine inches long! Then consider the three-hole punch spacing as well.

Then besides being a forgery, you have hearsay. One office saying to another that "We anticipate no issue; since action has been coordinated w VP's office." Hmmm... Even if so, with the tons of paperwork that crosses that office, it doesn't say it had Cheney's approval.

[xrayzebra]

Dan and boutons, I know a good lawyer who will file a suit for you.
Philip J. Berg, Esquire. Just filed one on The Messiah and filed one
on Bush and he is a dimm-o-crap. Right up your line.

[Wild Cobra]

LOL... I love it.

No disagreement that it's a forgery. The article in Judicial Watch (http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2007/nov/army-documents-related-halliburton-subsidiary-s-no-bid-iraq-contract) has a link to a large file (http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2004/kbr.pdf) that explains why it was a no-bid contract, and it has nothing to do with the VP! It cites a federal statute and the reason that KBR is the only company capable of meeting the needs. I do remember the facts laid out that the only other company that could do the work was a French company. Remember how things were between us and the French at the start of this? However, there is another valid reason to only use KBR. The fact that these oil structures were built by Halliburton/KBR to begin with. They already had the blueprints and spare parts. This was made public knowledge, but the Communist News Networks never revealed this fact. They just perpetrated the liberal lies.

Kind of hard to fix something without the proper documentation. Any technician knows that! If you need dealer level work on your Ford, and done quickly by someone who has the parts on hand, do you go to a Chevy dealer?

You liberal retards just don't understand such things. You let common sense fly out the window because you world rather believe a lie that supports your hatred.

Oh, that file is mentioned in the Judicial Watch article. However, the link no longer points to that forgery. My guess is that Judicial Watch learned the file was just that. A forgery. Most people don't delete archives, and thats the directory it's in. Archives are usually saved for various reasons even when invalid.

broken link: judicialwatch.org/files/2004/KBRemail_0.pdf (http://www.judicialwatch.org/files/2004/KBRemail_0.pdf)

archive: judicialwatch.org/archive/2004/030503.pdf (http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2004/030503.pdf)

[ChumpDumper]

No disagreement that it's a forgery.So you are saying the Army forged an email?

Wow. That's some accusation there.

[ChumpDumper]

Oh, that file is mentioned in the Judicial Watch article. However, the link no longer points to that forgery. My guess is that Judicial Watch learned the file was just that. A forgery.The link in the "Documents Uncovered" section of the article leads to the email's pdf file in the archive.

It's pretty clear you don't know what you are saying here.

[Wild Cobra]

The link in the "Documents Uncovered" section of the article leads to the email's pdf file in the archive.

I have seen the e-mail. I'm saying the link in the Judicial Watch article no longer points to it.



It's pretty clear you don't know what you are saying here.

And I don't know what you are saying either. "documents uncovered" section? I don't see that anywhere. What I do see with that name has links with the following titles:

* Judicial Watch Uncovers Documents Revealing Deaths Relating to HPV Vaccine
* Documents Detail Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America
* Documents Detail Mexican Government Incursions
* State Dept Analysis in 2002: Niger Uranium Sale to Iraq Unlikely
* Docs Show bin Laden Was Threat in 1996
* Border Patrol Surveys
* FBI Protects bin Laden’s Privacy Rights
* Docs Prove RU-486 Dangerous to Women
* Iraqi Oilfield Maps

You really need to give links rather than hot air.



So you are saying the Army forged an email?

Wow. That's some accusation there.

Not at all. You are pretty smart at times, but your syntactic analysis skills are lacking. The Judicial Watch uses the following phrase:

Through the request and lawsuit

It uses it twice, and doesn't distinguish if the email was given to them willingly by some activist insider, by request, or through the legal system. It can be assumed the lawsuit produced the large file I linked that was declassified. There is nothing that states the email was forced by the legal system. Anyone could have made it up and submitted it to Judicial Watch.

You should really do some fact checking before making such remarks. Maybe you just relied too much on the pubrecord site? Could they possible interject intentional bias? If you do some research you will find that Jason Leopold is a liberal pundit and writes for liberal magazines like "The Nation". Funny how Salon wouldn't print one of his articles ( http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0210/S00084.htm) because they couldn't authenticate an email, and more! They found they guy was a liar and also plagiarized other peoples work.

I never said the Army made the forgery. I suspect that Leopold or his insider friend is the forger.

[ChumpDumper]

Duplicate

[ChumpDumper]

I have seen the e-mail. I'm saying the link in the Judicial Watch article no longer points to it.There are two links to it in the Judicial Watch article.



And I don't know what you are saying either. "documents uncovered" section? I don't see that anywhere. What I do see with that name has links with the following titles:

* Judicial Watch Uncovers Documents Revealing Deaths Relating to HPV Vaccine
* Documents Detail Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America
* Documents Detail Mexican Government Incursions
* State Dept Analysis in 2002: Niger Uranium Sale to Iraq Unlikely
* Docs Show bin Laden Was Threat in 1996
* Border Patrol Surveys
* FBI Protects bin Laden’s Privacy Rights
* Docs Prove RU-486 Dangerous to Women
* Iraqi Oilfield Maps

You really need to give links rather than hot air.You really need to be spoon fed like a little baby? Well, you are whining like one, so it makes sense.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/litigation-department-army



Not at all. You are pretty smart at times, but your syntactic analysis skills are lacking. The Judicial Watch uses the following phrase:

Through the request and lawsuit

It uses it twice, and doesn't distinguish if the email was given to them willingly by some activist insider, by request, or through the legal system. It can be assumed the lawsuit produced the large file I linked that was declassified. There is nothing that states the email was forced by the legal system. Anyone could have made it up and submitted it to Judicial Watch.There is only one entity from which documents were requested:

The United States Army.

There is only one entity that produced documents:

The United States Army.

Is that clear enough for you? Do you need your bottle now?


You should really do some fact checking before making such remarks. Maybe you just relied too much on the pubrecord site? Could they possible interject intentional bias? If you do some research you will find that Jason Leopold is a liberal pundit and writes for liberal magazines like "The Nation". Funny how Salon wouldn't print one of his articles ( http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0210/S00084.htm) because they couldn't authenticate an email, and more! They found they guy was a liar and also plagiarized other peoples work.

I never said the Army made the forgery. I suspect that Leopold or his insider friend is the forger.You are too stupid to realize that this has nothing at all to do with Jason Leopold, since we are only discussing the Judicial Watch documents he cites.

Jason Leopold does not work for Judicial Watch.

Jason Leopold did not obtain the documents.

[ChumpDumper]

Funny how neither the Army nor Haliburton challenged the authenticity of the email or its content when they had their chance in court.

Why is that?

[Wild Cobra]

Funny how neither the Army nor Haliburton challenged the authenticity of the email or its content when they had their chance in court.

Why is that?
Bevcause Like I also said at the start, the e-mail is heresay.

[ChumpDumper]

They never said it was hearsay.

The existence of an email is not hearsay.

Do you even know what an FIOA case is about?

[Wild Cobra]

They never said it was hearsay.

The existence of an email is not hearsay.

Do you even know what an FIOA case is about?
Wrong.

The email was sent to one person from another claimng that Cheney was involved. It was then forwarded. We don't know the integrity of the originator. It could very well be a lie. All it is good for is to identify the originator of the email to testify. There is not need to challenge the email because it doesn't qualify as evidence. Any truth to be dicerned must come from the originator.

I still contend the email is a poor forgery, made on a word processor, then photocopied. The font spacing just doesn't line up right for printed material. It is more obvious than the Bush documnets were.

FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) has to do with aquiring documents. I don't know all the details, I won't pretend to. However, the original posted article claims proof of Cheney's involvement. The material Judicial Watch obtailed only indicates that as a unsubstantiated allegation. They even say correctly "possible ties."

Please. If there is unimpeachable evidence, I'd like to see it. Otherwise, this thread is a waste of cyberspace.

[ChumpDumper]

The existence of an email is not hearsay.
I still contend the email is a poor forgery, made on a word processor, then photocopied. The font spacing just doesn't line up right for printed material. It is more obvious than the Bush documnets were.No party has disputed the existence or validity of the email.


Please. If there is unimpeachable evidence, I'd like to see it. Otherwise, this thread is a waste of cyberspace. :lmao

Please. Quit talking out of your ass, making things up and get a fucking clue about hearsay and FOIA cases. Otherwise, your posts are a waste of cyberspace.

[Wild Cobra]

The existence of an email is not hearsay.No party has disputed the existence or validity of the email.

I never said it was heresay. I say the text of the email, if the email is valid, only amounts to hearsay. It is not evidence without the author of the forwarded email identified, testifies.

Don't you see? The email just doesn't matter. There is no reason to disput it's authenticity. It would be a waste od time. The originator of the email could have made the connection with Cheney up!

[ChumpDumper]

I never said it was heresay. I say the text of the email, if he email is valid, only amounts to hearsay. It is not evidence without the author of the forwarded email identified, testifies.And you learned this at which law school? What law is being broken here?


Don't you see? The email just doesn't matter. There is no reason to disput it's authenticity. It would be a waste od time. The originator of the email could have made the connection with Cheney up!Don't you see? If the email is such a clear forgery that some internets schmoe like you could figure it out by measuring fonts with a ruler, the Army could actually SAY it's a fake in court and in the press.

They didn't.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

So why isn't the Justice Department acting on this?

Further, why is it the only deals involving Iraqi oil I have seen signed so far are the Chinese?

[clambake]

So why isn't the Justice Department acting on this?

Further, why is it the only deals involving Iraqi oil I have seen signed so far are the Chinese?

aren't you the one that complained about that french oil firm cutting deals in iraq along with exxon, bp, and the others?

[ChumpDumper]

So why isn't the Justice Department acting on this?My question was if there was even a law broken. WC was the one who jumped straight to an impeachment trial.


Further, why is it the only deals involving Iraqi oil I have seen signed so far are the Chinese?Now that there is an actual bidding process? They probably have more money to spend.

[Wild Cobra]

My question was if there was even a law broken. WC was the one who jumped straight to an impeachment trial.

And just where do I say that?

I will say it is only circumstrantial evidence. Now that it's been brought up, I say there is still no credible evidence against either president Bush or VP Cheney for an impeachment to pass.

[ChumpDumper]

And just where do I say that?You are the one who described it in terms used for trial evidence. You went straight to its admissibility in an impeachment trial when this is only an FIOA case.

Go back to measuring fonts with a ruler.

[Wild Cobra]

You are the one who described it in terms used for trial evidence. You went straight to its admissibility in an impeachment trial when this is only an FIOA case.

Go back to measuring fonts with a ruler.

Sorry, I still don't see just a statement or close. Show me the exact quotes please.

[ChumpDumper]

Another baby that needs to be spoon fed -- his own fucking words no less.
....Then besides being a forgery, you have hearsay....

[Wild Cobra]

....Then besides being a forgery, you have hearsay....

Another baby that needs to be spoon fed -- his own fucking words no less.

Oh My God. You really are a fucking idiot!

Those words are far from limited to trial proceedings.

[ChumpDumper]

Oh My God. You really are a fucking idiot!

Those words are far from limited to trial proceedings.You're the guy arguing the evidence like it's a trial, counselor.

[johnsmith]

You're the guy arguing the evidence like it's a trial, counselor.

I object.












Sweet, got to work that in.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol Overruled!

[johnsmith]

:lol Overruled!

Fuck.

[JoeChalupa]

sustained

[johnsmith]

sustained

Son of a bitch.


I move for a recess then because you guys are fucking with me too much.


I need a new lawyer, either Kevin Costner in JFK or that blonde chick in Primal Fear.

[Wild Cobra]

Apparently there is no more usefulness to this thread. Wake me up when something important comes up.

[JoeChalupa]

Son of a bitch.


I move for a recess then because you guys are fucking with me too much.


I need a new lawyer, either Kevin Costner in JFK or that blonde chick in Primal Fear.

Recess granted. Now go play.

[johnsmith]

Recess granted. Now go play.

Sweet.

[johnsmith]

Apparently there is no more usefulness to this thread. Wake me up when something important comes up.

Really though, was there usefulness to the thread in the first place?

[ChumpDumper]

Really though, was there usefulness to the thread in the first place?I thought Wild Cobra's CSI-esque examination of the evidence was pretty entertaining.

[johnsmith]

I thought Wild Cobra's CSI-esque examination of the evidence was pretty entertaining.

noted.

[xrayzebra]

Apparently there is no more usefulness to this thread. Wake me up when something important comes up.

Did you hear Carter call Obama a "black boy". Yeah he did it last night
on PBS. But it's okay, he is a liberal.:lol

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

My question was if there was even a law broken. WC was the one who jumped straight to an impeachment trial.

I wasn't trying to be a smart ass with the first question. Just ask a question. If this was such an illegal thing (or true), you'd think the Demos would be having a field day with it.



Now that there is an actual bidding process? They probably have more money to spend.

But this doesn't make sense. Liberals keep screaming this was a war for Exxon's future profit margins...

[ChumpDumper]

I wasn't trying to be a smart ass with the first question. Just ask a question. If this was such an illegal thing (or true), you'd think the Demos would be having a field day with it.I'm sure more than that email would be needed to prove any impropriety. It's interesting to note the the information released through the FOIA case was a fraction of what Judicial Watch asked for.


But this doesn't make sense. Liberals keep screaming this was a war for Exxon's future profit margins...True, one would think US companies would be gobbling up every available lease everywhere -- but they aren't. I heard a foreign company got one of the new leases for drilling off the Louisiana coast. I'm not sure why they would let that one go after demanding for more leases.