Halliburton

Since John Edwards goes around saying "Halliburton, Halliburton" like a mantra, I thought I'd look into it a bit.

Halliburton is a huge company, employing about 100,000 people (though one of its webpages puts the number at about 83,000) in 120 countries, working in energy services and engineering and construction. Founded in 1919, Halliburton grew and expanded, eventually acquiring three other large companies doing the same kind of work.

That growth made Halliburton the only company big enough and experienced enough to do the work that was needed in Iraq, such as helping to rebuild the infrastructure, (most of which was long-neglected by Hussein, and some of which was damaged either in the war or by the terrorists), helping to rebuild Iraq's oil industry, feeding U.S. troops, and assisting with the transporting of supplies and equipment.

One of the Kerry/Edwards' charges is that Halliburton shouldn't have received these contracts, or at least not without competitive bidding. However, there's apparently no basis for such a charge. Here's a relevant quote from the New York Times:

Halliburton contracts awarded in the last six months have been won in competitive bidding. But the administration has said it would have been impractical to have open bidding on the oil wells contract [Ed. note: the first contract, just before the war started] since Halliburton already had an established position in Iraq and since making the contract public before the invasion would have compromised this country's war plans.

The nonpartisan investigative Government Accountability Office, formerly the General Accounting Office, agreed with the administration's assessment. It reported in June that the Halliburton subsidiary had been the only company ''in a position to provide the services within the required time.'' David M. Walker, who as comptroller general is chief of the G.A.O., told a House committee that the no-bid contract was justified ''given the war in Iraq and the urgent need for reconstruction efforts.''

To read major newspaper articles about Halliburton, click here for Halliburton's "News" page. My perusal of these articles, from the New York Times, L.A. Times, and others, indicates that Cheney does not have any improper financial arrangement with the company, that Halliburton did not gouge the U.S. on the Iraq contracts, that the initial no-bid arrangement was probably necessary, and that Cheney went beyond the minimum that was necessary to ensure that nothing improper happened because of his past association with Halliburton.

This very recent Houston Chronicle article takes a sneering tone, but says Cheney has done nothing improper financially in regard to Halliburton, and that Edwards was not being truthful in his charges against Cheney.

Here is Halliburton's website for more information on the company in general. To learn more about their work on the frontlines in Iraq, click here. Be sure to read the letters from workers doing very difficult work in Iraq.

Halliburton has made its share of mistakes over the past 100 years, and, like every organization, has on occasion used poor judgment, no doubt. But it's easy to see that the "Halliburton" mantra nothing more than a shameless pandering to the non-thinking, America-blaming, corporate-hating, Michael Moore wing of the Democratic party.