In one of his shoddier posts, Kevin Drum comes to the conclusion that Haliburton is nothing more than a ‘War Profiteer.” Of course, Kevin is a good Democrat, so he has probably thought that all along and just waited for the slightest bit of evidence before making his defamatory proclamation. Go read his post, and then ask these basic questions:
1.) Did he factor into the price differential of the labor costs of each provider? Certainly Kevin is aware that the military labor costs are fixed (they never paid overtime when I was in the service), and certainly Halliburton employees in the region deserve a decent wage. After all, Kevin believes that grocery clerks should command $17.90 an hour.
2.) I am pretty certain Kevin did not factor underwriting costs. The military doesn’t have to pay for private insurance on their employees and their equipment, and it would not be factored into the cost per gallon as it most certainly would for Halliburton.
3.) Kevin completely ignores the cost of captial outlays for things such as, say FUEL TANKERS. The military’s are paid for- you and I paid for them. Bet hat does not get factored into the price per gallon, either.
4.) If he really wanted to compare like services, he should compare the costs of Halliburton vs. another independent company, rather than comparing the military to Halliburton.
5.) Halliburton, in order to receive government contracts, must adhere to the workplace and environmental standards set forth by Congress. Not so for the Kuwaiti source, and the military eats the cost.
6.) There is going to be a markup of some sort- Halliburton is a profit business. Kevin needs to let us know what an appropriate markup is, and then maybe he can tell us above and beyond what number is actual war profiteering.
It is like liberal Tourette’s anymore. “Ch-Ch-Ch-Cheney! Halliburton! No Blood for Oil! War Profiteering!”
*** Update ***
Cripes. Here is another doozy from our favorite left coaster:
….Conservative bloggers are up in arms: there was an anti-terrorist demonstration in Baghdad yesterday that attracted about 10,000 people but the U.S. press said almost nothing about it. Here’s Instapundit:
Had these demonstrators been marching on the other side, this would have been a big story instead of the closest thing to a non-story. So why isn’t it a big story when it’s good news? Because they want us to lose?
I got a couple of emails about this too, so I got curious. Did anyone cover it?
This isn’t exhaustive, but after a few minutes of checking the answer is no. The New York Times, LA Times, and Washington Post had nothing (or next to nothing). But neither did the conservative Washington Times. The Guardian didn’t report it, but neither did the conservative Telegraph. Among Mideastern newspapers, it was almost universally ignored too: I found a front page link in the Bahrain Tribune and a picture but no story in the Jordan Times, but nothing else. Even Iraq Today doesn’t have anything up yet. Ditto for the Israeli papers and the Asian papers.
In other words, as near as I can tell, this just isn’t big news. CNN and Fox covered it briefly because demonstrations make for good TV images, but aside from that neither liberal nor conservative news outlets cared much. This isn’t any kind of anti-war bias, it’s just news judgment: there was lots of other news yesterday, some of it Iraq related, that was more important.
In short, Instapundit and others claim it should be big news, questioning the judgement of those presenting the news. Kevin confirms their argument- it wasn’t big news, therefore it isn’t big news. Just the judgement of the mainstream media.
Thanks for our daily dose of circular logic. My head is spinning.
*** Update #2 ***
Oliver reads a different version of the same story Calpundit originally linked to, except the version Oliver read uses more inflammatory language than the analysis Kevin originally linked to in his post. He then asserts that I am wrong. I am going to start checking lefties for reading comprehension.
BTW- If KBR really is overcharging, I have no sympathy for them. I am just tired of this whole Cheney/Halliburton/War Profiteeriong mantra that the left brings out whenever anything regarding the countries is metioned. At any rate, since Oliver didn’t get past the headline of his story, I would recommend that you read it, since it is far less clear cut than Oliver would have you believe.
I really don’t know where the left is coming from anymore. If Halliburton and KBR are overcharging, I am getting screwed to- I pay taxes just like everyone else on the planet, so it certainly is not in my interest for this to go on, if accurate. I am also not a Halliburton employee or stockholder. What irks me is the knee-jerk response and the automatic assumption that this administration has done something wrong (why else mention that Cheney once led Halliburton?). IN essence, Oliver would like you to believe we went to war to make Cheney rich. Thatis what you are saying, isn’t it, Oliver?
Actually, that is exactly what Oliver is saying:
We were right to go into Afghanistan. The Taliban government provided aid, refuge and cover to Osama Bin Laden, and refused to turn him and his organization over to international authorities after 9.11 – but the lack of attention, and the diversion of resources to Iraq has undercut the authority of the Karzai government and makes an example to the world that we’re more interested in carving up contracts for Halliburton than aiding the people of the middle east.
Moderate Oliver is pretty deep into the kool-aid today.
Slartibartfast
I particularly enjoyed the comment that compared price of oil at the pump with price of gasoline at the pump and concluded that Halliburton was cheating the world of the difference.
As if one gallon of oil yields one gallon of gasoline, and as if it’s absolutely free to transport and refine it, store it, and provide locations from which to sell it at no profit.
HH
The “conservative Washington Times” covered the Nov. 28 smaller protest, something that a cursory reading of Instapundit (or Drudge) would confirm.
Terry
As someone on this site once commented, Kevin Drum’s opinions have all the gravitas of the hole in a donut.
Kimmitt
Drum’s point, I think, was that if neither conservative nor liberal newspapers thought it was big news, it’s hard to detect what bias is causing the disagreement.
Media Minder
The Washington Times, like most media outlets, would be dependent on a wire service for most Iraq coverage. Blame AP, Reuters, KNR, etc., for no story, which I think is something that deserves more than a paragraph in the New York Times.
John Y.
Nice try. But it seems that the Pentagon has audited Halliburton and agrees that they’re price gouging.
charles austin
I have some experience comparing costs for government workers and private contractors. Generally speaking, the government workers come out far cheaper at first glance, until you realize that all the government generally counts is base pay while ignoring benefits, infrastructure, logistics, security, and other costs incurred on behalf of these government employees. They aren’t being evil or malicious when they do this, it’s just that it comes out of somebody else’s budget and they don’t always realize this. The fact is, somebody payed to pave that parking lot they park in, even if they aren’t asked to include those costs in their bids — which I as a private contractor must. As usual, it’s all a lot more complicated than it seems at first blush. Senior folks I have worked with in the government who understand what goes into the cost buildup for our services (and theirs) have admitted to me that contractors are in fact cheaper in the long run. That, my friend, is why outsourcing of non-essential government services continues unabated.
Hipocrite
Shorter Update 2:
Sorry about that – CalPundit was right.
Steve
John,
Regarding your post on the gasoline, I thought of doing a post on it, but decided not to waste my time. Kevin is convinced he is right and wont see it the way you do…of course, you have a number of excellent points. Kevin is basically comparing apples to oranges and then pretending the comparison is apples to apples.
A for profit company is going to have costs the military wont have. The military routinely underpays its personel in current terms in that many of the benefits are deferred (VA benefits, college tuition benefits, etc.). Halliburton doesn’t work quite that way. So many of their costs are current period costs.
A careful analysis (or comparing to another private firm) is the best way to see if their is war profiteering.
Max
Article on Reuters:
Pentagon Audit Finds Halliburton Overcharged
“A Pentagon audit of Halliburton, the oil services company once run by Vice President Dick Cheney, has found it overcharged for fuel it brought into Iraq from Kuwait, military sources said on Thursday….”
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=3979898
John Cole
Thanks for the links- the AP and Reuters story are based on the same audit that Calpundit linked to in the NY Times.
The difference of course, is that AP and Reuters have decided it is fact that they are overcharging…
Jeebus.
Pootie Tang
Maybe the Iraqi protesters were a bunch of commies.
http://shock-awe.info/archive/001213.php
Stephen
I wonder if CalP has read this?
Purely for background.
Emma
All right, what do I have to do to become your favorite (ahem) left coaster?
Ricky
Apparently, lose touch with reality, rationality & common sense. :)
HH
A bunch of commies protesting has hardly stopped the media from covering something before… Besides there’s a difference between ANSWER types showing up at your rallies and ANSWER types putting together your rallies.
HH
Lefty blogger makes point. Point blown apart. Commenters post mainstream press article making lefty blogger’s point. Now tell us there’s no bias.
JKC
Well, HH, maybe the article in the mainstream press blows your point apart?
Oliver
John,in this case (Afghanistan) I’m not saying we went to war for Halliburton. But this administration KNOWS that there’s a perception of impropriety by Americans and a lot of the world. Why give them a bone to chew on? It’s just tin ear politics, especially right before we ask ’em to contribute money/troops to our cause. I think its you that’s drinking the kool-aid on this one.
HH: maybe because the facts are contrary to your spin. Or is just the “liberal media” when right-wing assertions are so much hoo-hah?
Oliver
A further point: pointing out the Cheney/Halliburton connection also says something about his ethics. He was the head of this company, not just a figurehead on its board (that was Bush’s role before he was elected). Its not like Halliburton just decided over night to be a slimy corporate contractor. Things like this Halliburton/asbestos deal (http://www.forbes.com/markets/newswire/2003/11/18/rtr1151849.html) happened on Cheney’s watch – now he’s a heartbeat away from the presidency, and probably the most powerful veep ever.
You also say “If Halliburton and KBR are overcharging, I am getting screwed to” YES, damn it, and as an American of any political affiliation you should want this issue looked into. Yet your reaction appears to be “These damn libruls are just making mountains out of molehills. Respect the president’s authoritah!”
John Cole
Oliver- I want it looked into. But I would prefer if chants of ‘War PROFITEER’ were held off until after the investigation. Too much to ask from you, I guess.
BTW- nice sliming of Cheney again there…
HH
When the article just regurgitates the same crap that was refuted earlier, it’s rather silly to say “well maybe the article is right.” This is approaching the same sort of circular logic mentioned in the post.
Hipocrite
Could you point out where in story 1 it mentions an audit by the DCAA? Thanks.
John Cole
Here is the updated story that calpundit originally linked to:
http://nytimes.com/2003/12/12/international/middleeast/12PENT.html?hp
Oliver
You say: “nice sliming of Cheney again there…”
I can’t help it when the facts line up like that.
Andrew Lazarus
Where’s Harry Truman when we need him?
(Am I the only geek to remember Arthur Miller’s “All My Sons”?)
Ricky
If Halliburton overcharged, fine their asses & give the contract to someone else.
Next.
Oliver, stop hyperventilating & overreaching (again) in hopes of some great political scandal so your beloved Democrats can come out on top (finally). They were able to find the billing records….
SDN
Am I the only one who’s noticing that the biggest reason for all the “scandals” (Enron, Global Crossing, Halliburton) showing up now is that President Bush’s administration is actually launching investigations. Or did Clinton’s Administration also launch them, but the press didn’t report them? Because high Dem officials (Terry McAuliffe in Global Crossing) might have been made to look bad? Questions, Questions…..
Hipocrite
That’s not an update, it’s a new story. See, when the writer is different, the dateline is different and the story is different, we here in reality know it’s a new story.
Hipocrite
How exactly does the fact that Clinton didn’t investigate wrongdoings that didn’t happen in any way justify Bush doing things wrong?
Ricky
Hipocrite,
The Enron stuff happened when Clinton was Prez (not his fault, mind you) & no one noticed. It wasn’t a “scandal” until the DNC saw an opportunity to try to smear Bush. JUST LIKE WHAT IS HAPPENING with a company that Dick Cheney divested from when he ran for office 3 years ago.
Politics and whining in the hopes of bringing the ‘other guys down’ so ‘your guys’ will come out on top.
Now, you’re already blaming Bush for ‘doing things wrong’ on a topic where Haliburton potentially overcharged. You’re blaming the prez for a company that he has nothing to do with.
Understand, now?
Oliver
Leave it to Ricky to bring up yet another one of the so-called Clinton “scandals”. If my memory is correct, I don’t think Senator Clinton was charged with anything regarding those allegations. These little episodes with Bush/Cheney (can’t call ’em scandals, because that would require the press to actually look into them like they did with every two-bit anti-Clinton story) wouldn’t be an issue if the president and his lieutenants didn’t pursue profit so nakedly.
HH
Searching and searching for where Ricky said Enron (or anything else) was a “Clinton scandal”…
Karen
I see what you guys mean about circular logic now.
Q – “Why do you think Bush,Cheney and cronies are culpable for Enron, Halliburton, etc.?”
A – “Because they pursue profit so nakedly.”
Q – “Can you give an example of them doing so?”
A – “Yes, Enron, Halliburton, etc.”
Very good.
Ricky
****If my memory is correct, I don’t think Senator Clinton was charged with anything regarding those allegations.****
If charges from an official law enforcement body are what now constitutes the barrier for critique, you need to delete about half your blog, Oliver & just leave up the eye candy. :)
I love the double standard where the missing billing records are okay because Hillary wasn’t charged officially (where were they, again? How did they end up on her desk?), but Bush & his buddes are trying to profit from the war because you say so.
But you hate his policies, not him.
Hipocrite
I guess my question wasn’t clear. Because apparently you heard me ask the question “What did Clinton do wrong that’s being blamed on Bush?”
The question I asked was “How exactly does the fact that Clinton didn’t investigate wrongdoings that didn’t happen in any way justify Bush doing things wrong?”
Of course, no answer.
Ricky
Apparently, the part where I said it wasn’t Clinton’s fault was translated differently through your browser, Hipocrite.
Maybe I can make things simpler by asking you exactly what – under the auspices of the subject of this thread – has Bush done wrong?
Hipocrite
Let’s just be clear, here, then.
If Bush has done wrong, and Clinton did the same thing, then Bush is bad, right?
Ricky
I don’t need a caveat — if Bush does something wrong (like spending out of control, signing Kennedy’s education bill, instituting tarriffs, etc.) I have no problem admonishing him for it.
The only reason Clinton was brought in was to note that the Enron accounting shenanigans actually happened while he was in the WH (and – again – I don’t think he had anything to do with it so please don’t assume that I am) and the DNC then tried to somehow smear Bush with what happened before he was prez.
Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it. If Bush is somehow involved in helping someone gauge taxpayers, I’ll be out front slamming him for it. I’m not a hypocrite…er….Hipocrite. :)
Again — what are you saying he did wrong?
Hipocrite
Imagine that Bush had back-door contacts with Haliburton at various times. Imagine further that these contacts led to him pressuring agencies to give them a contract in Iraq. Imagine further that they then defrauded American taxpayers of millions of dollars.
If this happened, would that be enough to be “wrong?” If so, when will we see you pressuring Cheney to release minutes from his Energy Task Force meetings?
Ricky
Over a year ago, actually.
Enjoyed the conspiratorial musings that led up to your strawman, however. Making up the worst scenarios possible like that helps fuel the Bush-hatred.