Not in this case. See the article someone posted above. The contract in question is from this administration (there was a fair amount of controversy when it was first awarded) -- and it was expanded without additional bidding in March.

Slightly off topic:

I was at a conference a few months ago. At the lunch break, I was alone and looking for a seat. All of the tables were full except for one with a man and a woman. I approached and asked if they would mind me sitting there. They said sure, but asked me if I really wanted to sit with them. They worked at Haliburton, and no one else would sit with or talk to them.

Sounds to me like the conference attendees were a bunch of A#$holes. Why would working for Halibyrtin make a difference?

I think the contract in question was signed under the current administration but I could be wrong.

It was the Intenational Anittrust Law & Policy Conference. The conference attendees were corporate and government lawyers as well as judges. The Halliburton people were prepared for people not to talk to them because it wasn't the first time it had happened. They didn't go into details, and I didn't ask. Just a glimpse into the corporate world.

The money's being paid back.

-Rudey
--Relax

Yes Rudey is right, Bush today said they had to pay back what was over charged. But now haliburton is under fire for their food services they run for the troops because they are unsafe and unhealthy. Even the kitchen Bush ate at was cited for unhealthy conditions. You would figure they would at least clean up because he was there but since it was a "suprize" they didn't know to.

Well, I won't bash lawyers, I have a family filled with them. But, it seems a bit immature to me. Are you a lawyer?

No, I'm not a lawyer. I don't think that it was immaturity. I think that there was a legal or ethical reason that the lawyers couldn't talk to them. I won't speculate why. :)

Props to the Republican congressman from Nevada joining with the Democrats calling on congress to investigate Haliburton.

I heard on the radio on the way to work that Haliburton is declaring Chapter 11 for "several of it's smaller subsidiaries."

I wonder which ones?

OK, you all know I can be cynical, but if the one(s) in question are part of the legal action, would that "protect" them from the government recovering the alleged overages?

Halliburton Files Subsidiary Bankruptcy
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: December 16, 2003

Filed at 5:01 p.m. ET

HOUSTON (AP) -- Halliburton Co. filed for a long-awaited bankruptcy for some of its subsidiaries in Pittsburgh on Tuesday, moving ahead on a $4 billion settlement of asbestos claims.

The Houston-based oilfield services and construction company said the pre-negotiated Chapter 11 filings won't affect normal operations of subsidiaries DII Industries, Kellogg, Brown & Root and others. The parent company and KBR's government services business, which provides services in Iraq, are not part of the bankruptcy.

Last week, most of the claimants in more than 370,000 asbestos claims against Halliburton voted in favor of the proposed reorganization plans. The company will discuss the Chapter 11 proceedings in a conference call Wednesday.

``The reorganization plan provides permanent and final resolution of Halliburton's asbestos issues,'' said company spokeswoman Wendy Hall. ``It is important to note that none of KBR and the Halliburton companies are going out of business and that this reorganization will have no impact on any of our present or future projects.''

A year ago Halliburton agreed to settle the claims for about $4 billion in cash and stock.

Halliburton, once run by Vice President Dick Cheney, inherited most of the claims four years ago when the conglomerate, under Cheney's leadership, acquired Dresser Industries Inc. for $7.7 billion. Cheney left the company in 2000 to be George W. Bush's running mate.

The bankruptcy was filed in Pittsburgh because most of the asbestos claims were filed against a former Dresser subsidiary, Pittsburgh-based Harbison-Walker Refractories Co. That company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy last year.

Shares of Halliburton closed higher Tuesday, up 48 cents at $25.14 on the New York Stock Exchange.

Thanks Cream,

Looks like the sub in question in Iraq is NOT part of the action. Appreciate the post.

You're welcome, DeltAlum.

OK this is beyond ridiculous.

At the end of the day all of these military contractors (Halliburton is but one) are raping US tax payers and it's got nothing to do with politics. This is just beyond dirty and if our country would try and shoot some of these executives for treason, I bet all of the companies would fall in line.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/25/wo...rtner=homepage

When Robert Sanders was sent by the Army to inspect the construction work an American company was doing on the banks of the Tigris River, 130 miles north of Baghdad, he expected to see workers drilling holes beneath the riverbed to restore a crucial set of large oil pipelines, which had been bombed during the invasion of Iraq.What he found instead that day in July 2004 looked like some gargantuan heart-bypass operation gone nightmarishly bad. A crew had bulldozed a 300-foot-long trench along a giant drill bit in their desperate attempt to yank it loose from the riverbed. A supervisor later told him that the project's crews knew that drilling the holes was not possible, but that they had been instructed by the company in charge of the project to continue anyway.

A few weeks later, after the project had burned up all of the $75.7 million allocated to it, the work came to a halt.

The Fatah project went ahead despite warnings from experts that it could not succeed because the underground terrain was shattered and unstable.

It continued chewing up astonishing amounts of cash when the predicted problems bogged the work down, with a contract that allowed crews to charge as much as $100,000 a day as they waited on standby.

The company in charge engaged in what some American officials saw as a self-serving attempt to limit communications with the government until all the money was gone.

The Halliburton subsidiary, KBR, formerly Kellogg Brown & Root, had commissioned a geotechnical report that warned in August 2003 that it would be courting disaster to drill without extensive underground tests.

"No driller in his right mind would have gone ahead," said Mr. Sanders, a geologist who came across the report when he arrived at the site.

KBR defended its performance on the project, and said that the information in the geotechnical report was too general to serve as a warning.

Still, interviews by The New York Times reveal that at least two other technical experts, including the northern project manager for the Army Corps, warned that the effort would fail if carried out as designed. None of the dozen or so American government and military officials contacted by The Times remembered being told of the geotechnical report, and the company pressed ahead.

Once the project started going bad, senior American officials said, an array of management failures by both KBR and the Corps allowed it to continue. First, some of those officials said, they seldom received status reports from the company, even when they suspected problems and made direct requests.

Although independent experts have noted that it is one of a handful of companies with the experience and size to handle enormous jobs like the reconstruction effort, KBR is often sheltered by a military that is heavily dependent on it.

-Rudey