• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Let me eat cake. The rest of you could stand to lose some weight, frankly.

We still have time to mess this up!

Take your GOP plan out of the witness protection program.

The willow is too close to the house.

This really is a full service blog.

Shallow, uninformed, and lacking identity

Is it negotiation when the other party actually wants to shoot the hostage?

The next time the wall street journal editorial board speaks the truth will be the first.

The party of Reagan has become the party of Putin.

Too often we confuse noise with substance. too often we confuse setbacks with defeat.

Black Jesus loves a paper trail.

Prediction: the GOP will rethink its strategy of boycotting future committees.

Consistently wrong since 2002

Not all heroes wear capes.

The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand.

JFC, are there no editors left at that goddamn rag?

A sufficient plurality of insane, greedy people can tank any democratic system ever devised, apparently.

Thanks to your bullshit, we are now under siege.

You don’t get rid of your umbrella while it’s still raining.

Nancy smash is sick of your bullshit.

The GOP is a fucking disgrace.

No one could have predicted…

Let there be snark.

if you can’t see it, then you are useless in the fight to stop it.

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Balloon Juice 2023 Pet Calendar (coming soon)
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Halliburton- Not Guilty

Halliburton- Not Guilty

by John Cole|  January 6, 20043:18 pm| 112 Comments

This post is in: Democratic Stupidity

FacebookTweetEmail

I wonder if Oliver and Kevin will take the time to issue an apology to Halliburton, KB&R, Dick Cheney, and all of the good people who work for those vital corporations:

Halliburton Co. has been cleared of any wrongdoing in a Kuwait fuel-delivery contract that Pentagon auditors allege overcharged the U.S. government by more than $100 million, according to a published report Tuesday.

The head of the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Lt. Gen. Robert Flowers, said Halliburton’s Kellogg Brown & Root unit will not need to provide “any cost and pricing data” relating to a contract to deliver millions of gallons of gasoline from Kuwait to Iraq, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing a previously undisclosed Dec. 19 ruling.

The paper said Flowers’ ruling came after lower-level Army Corps officials concluded that KBR had provided enough information to show it had bought the fuel and its delivery to Iraq at a “fair and reasonable price.”

In other words, you Democrats owe them an apology for calling them war profiteers.

One other quick thing- I noticed a striking difference in the description of Halliburton and KB&R in these latest stories that clear them of any wrongdoing. Let’s look at the current stories:

CNN Money–

Halliburton Co. has been cleared of any wrongdoing in a Kuwait fuel-delivery contract that Pentagon auditors allege overcharged the U.S. government by more than $100 million, according to a published report Tuesday.

Matt Kelley- AP–

The Army apparently has sided with Halliburton in a dispute over the company’s charges for fuel delivered to Iraq.

Reuters–

The U.S. Army said on Tuesday it had granted Halliburton (HAL.N: Quote, Profile, Research) a special waiver to bring fuel into Iraq under a no-bid deal with a Kuwaiti supplier despite a draft Pentagon audit that found evidence of overcharging for fuel.

BBC–

A senior US army officer has cleared the American engineering company Halliburton of any wrongdoing in relation to a contract to deliver fuel from Kuwait to Iraq, according to a newspaper report.

Very interesting- what seems to be missing? Let’s look at the accusations as they were being leveled by these same news agencies. From a few weekws ago, when facts didn’t matter:

CNN–

President Bush Friday said if any company involved in Iraqi reconstruction has overcharged the government, it will have to repay the extra funds. “If there’s an overcharge, like we think there is, we expect that money to be repaid,” the president said when asked by a reporter about a Pentagon audit that may have uncovered a potential overcharge by Halliburton, the oil services company once run by Vice President Dick Cheney.

AP – Matt Kelley–

A Pentagon audit has found Vice President Dick Cheney’s former company may have overcharged the Army by $1.09 per gallon for nearly 57 million gallons of gasoline delivered to citizens in Iraq, senior defense officials say.

Reuters–

A Pentagon audit of Halliburton, the oil services firm once run by Vice President Dick Cheney, has found evidence the company may have overcharged for fuel it brought into Iraq from Kuwait, military sources said on Thursday.

BBC–

US President George W Bush says he expects an oil company once run by his vice-president to return money if it has overcharged for services in Iraq. Dick Cheney used to head Halliburton, which is under contract to deliver fuel to the US military in Iraq.

Hey Mr. Alterman- THAT liberal media. When there is an unsubstantiated and ill-informed charge of wrongdoing, every lead sentence has Cheney mentioned. When Halliburton is cleared of wrongdoing, it magically becomes Halliburton, rather than ‘the company once run by Vice President Dick Cheney.’

You don’t even have to try hard to find this stuff.

*** Update ***

CNN Money is changing their stories, causing my left wing friends to call me a hack (incorrectly) in the comments section. No worries. I have a paratrooper on my side. Thanks, BlackFive.

Also, go read this Charles Austin post.

*** Update #2 ***

Dead Parrot says I am all washed up. He misrepresents two points- one general, one specific.

In general, I do not dislike the media- nor do most bloggers. In fact, without the media, what would I blog about?

In specific, I did not go looking for certain information- I compared the accusations from last month with the coverage in what he calls the ‘breaking’ stories. While I understand his larger point about the evolving process of re-writes in news stories, with each re-write holding (hopefully) more accurate, more detailed information. However, I still stand by my original assertion that the media, when offering negative information or possible allegations about Halliburton, the inclination is to immediately attach Cheney’s name to the story. No such inclination has been demonstrated when the reverse is true.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Most Underblogged Story of 2003
Next Post: Game… Set… Match »

Reader Interactions

112Comments

  1. 1.

    Kimmitt

    January 6, 2004 at 3:34 pm

    Or, you know, corrections could always be much shorter than the originals, so whenever the media ends up sliming someone, the apologies always seem half-assed and pointless.

    What the hell happened recently? Did some socialist piss in your wheaties?

  2. 2.

    John Cole

    January 6, 2004 at 3:36 pm

    No- Kimmitt. There was a concerted effort to smear Cheney when these false charges were made. Period. Hell, go read the Kevin Drum and Oliver Willis pieces I linked to- they were pretty clear.

  3. 3.

    Michael Demmons

    January 6, 2004 at 3:42 pm

    John,

    Very nice post. Good work.

  4. 4.

    Jay

    January 6, 2004 at 3:58 pm

    Good stuff John.

  5. 5.

    drew

    January 6, 2004 at 4:23 pm

    Did the Pentagon not make the first over charging accusation?

    Lets roll the tapes!!!!

    “This is not linked to the draft audit and should be looked at as a separate issue,” Adkins said when asked to comment on a Wall Street Journal story that the waiver meant Halliburton had effectively been cleared of allegations of overpricing raised by Pentagon auditors.

    “What we are doing is a step to continue to have fuel flowing into the country,” he added. “This means they can have a sole source situation because there is no other source in the region for the fuel.”

    Cole, this is a waiver given to Halliburton in order to keep-up a steady flow of gasoline into Iraq. Atkins hasn’t cleared Halliburton.

    Wes Clark was going information he got from the Pentagon when he made his accusations. The Dems didn’t pull this Halliburton shit out of their ass. I think the Pentagon is, in general, pretty sympathetic to the administration. Thus if some went off faulty information from the Pentagon, then why must they apologize.

    Who is being stupid here? Not the Democrats.

    Fucking Hack.

  6. 6.

    Far North

    January 6, 2004 at 4:24 pm

    And nobody in the Bush administration knows anything about who leaked the name of the CIA agent…And Ronald Reagan didn’t know anything about the arms for hostages…

  7. 7.

    lowercase h harry

    January 6, 2004 at 4:32 pm

    Hold on a second with the media quotes!

    Let’s start with CNN. The new quote you cite mentions Cheney in the second paragraph. The earlier CNN cite mentions Cheney in the 2nd paragraph, too (how come your blockquote doesn’t make that clear?!?)

    The AP story moves Cheney down from the first to the third sentence and uses the same wording in both articles. That’s clear cut bias? Come on!!

    The new Reuters story mentions Cheney very clearly in the second sentence (which you omit).

    And the new BBC story, which is all of four paragraphs long and may yet be updated, makes a clear Cheney reference in the fourth paragraph!

    Look, I’m sympathetic, but I htink you’re being a bit misleading here. All the stories make a very explicit connection between Cheney and Halliburton.

    Finally, the Corps hasn’t completely cleared Halliburton, so maybe we should hold off just a moment on apologies?

  8. 8.

    John Cole

    January 6, 2004 at 4:44 pm

    Lowercase Harry- You kill me. In the first description of the corporation in the accusations, Cheney is linked EACH time. I am sorry it is no the lead sentence every time.

    Jeebus.

  9. 9.

    lowercase h harry

    January 6, 2004 at 5:08 pm

    John, I think it’s a bit ridiculous to aledge some sort of majr bias here! The CNN stories are the same (which your post fails to make clear by ommitting the paragraph distinctions). Reuters and the AP have minor distinctions!

    Anyway, since the original stories linked a major winner of a no bid government contract with possible mismanagement, it’s seems of the essence to note that the company’s former boss is now 2nd in command of the government alledgedly getting bilked. Not saying it would be bad journalism!

    PS- Pittsburgh plays VA Tech tonight. I’m telling you, this is your team!

  10. 10.

    Far North

    January 6, 2004 at 5:09 pm

    Let’s see:
    Army gives Halliburton no-bid contracts….
    Army is criticized because of appearance of impropriety because of Cheney’s connection to Halliburton….Halliburton is accused of price gouging….Army investigates Halliburton…SUPRRISE, SUPRISE, SUPRISE – Halliburton is cleared of any wrongdoing.

    The Bush administration is infested with corporate gansters. What else did anyone expect?

  11. 11.

    Far North

    January 6, 2004 at 5:13 pm

    That last paragraph should read “corporate gangsters”

  12. 12.

    Slartibartfast

    January 6, 2004 at 5:26 pm

    So, just because you take the other way around the circle, means your circular argument is somehow better than the strawman circular argument you’ve constructed? Pull the other one.

  13. 13.

    tbogg

    January 6, 2004 at 6:28 pm

    So does this mean that Cheney didn’t work for Halliburton?

    …and by the way, he still draws a check from them. Good work if you can get it.

  14. 14.

    Chuckg

    January 6, 2004 at 7:32 pm

    Yes, he still draws a check from them. It’s called a “retirement pension”. The only way VP Cheney can have Halliburton stop paying him his pension is to drop dead.

    i.e. — it’s not only not for services rendered, but they’d still have to pay him the $$$ even he spent every minute in office deliberately screwing Halliburton over just for grins.

  15. 15.

    Brian Jones

    January 6, 2004 at 7:37 pm

    “No-bid contract?” Any idea how that might have come about?

    I mean, I know what I believe. I’d be interested in what you believe.

    Man, the Dems seem to have made a new year’s resolution to be more combative this year. They’re challenging you here, Hannity had three calls in a row from them.

    Good!

    (I’m not being facetious.)

  16. 16.

    Bloggerhead

    January 6, 2004 at 7:39 pm

    “Halliburton Co. has been cleared of any wrongdoing in a Kuwait fuel-delivery contract that Pentagon auditors allege overcharged the U.S. government by more than $100 million, according to a published report Tuesday.”

    John,

    Unless CNNMoney redrafted this linked story since your post of 3:18 (which is possible since it is timestamped 4:06PM), you have completely misquoted the link. Hell, it looks like you made it up. Nothing in the link that I followed to CNNMoney appears to absolve Halliburton of wrongdoing. Indeed, the point of the story is that Halliburton needed to get a waiver for the present contract because of the pending audit and were granted the waiver by an Army officer on the ground who needed fuel yesterday.

    Too, I’d challenge anyone to find anything written in the last three years about Halliburton, pro or con, that doesn’t mention Cheney.

    John, I appreciate your site and sentiments, but this post reeks of haste, if not dishonesty.

  17. 17.

    am

    January 6, 2004 at 7:41 pm

    tbogg: crap. That check is of fixed value; Cheney gets zero benefit if Halliburton’s business improves.

    Halliburton makes less than 2c in the dollar on their Iraq operations – this is all just bullshit and lies.

  18. 18.

    capt joe

    January 6, 2004 at 7:42 pm

    far north, chill

    if the totality of your argument ends in invoking Godwin’s law then you suceeded, bye.

    Otherwise read Derzner’s analysis in TNR on how Haliburton got to where it is.

  19. 19.

    John Cole

    January 6, 2004 at 7:58 pm

    Bloggerhead- Cnn Money completely redrafted their version. I cut and paste the quote I have here from the original version, and I stand by it.

  20. 20.

    Mike

    January 6, 2004 at 8:06 pm

    No, John, don’t let up on those bastard-democrats when you’ve got them on the run!

    Now all you got to do is tell them how in 1983 — when White House memos were confirming Iraq was employing chemical weapons in warfare — you jumped in between Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein before they shook hands in Baghdad. That never took place, right?

    Hell, no republican should have to apologize for the lives of any soldiers lost or record deficit spending — they’re entitled!

  21. 21.

    Robert Crawford

    January 6, 2004 at 8:11 pm

    Brian Jones asked, ‘”No-bid contract?” Any idea how that might have come about?’

    Yes, they were awarded it during the Clinton administration, because of their unique capabilities and record of past performance.

  22. 22.

    blaster

    January 6, 2004 at 8:26 pm

    Yes, now that it is not an evil profiteer, it is no longer “VP Cheney’s former company.”

    Just like a sure sign that the economy is doing well now is that it is no longer called “the Bush economy.”

    Funny how that works.

  23. 23.

    Mike

    January 6, 2004 at 8:49 pm

    Yeah, and no head-in-there-ass democrat better come in here and wonder why Bush’s critics are anti-Semites, but Dick Cheney and Halliburton aren’t for taking money from those Jew-hating Iraqis during the Clinton admininstration, like Robert pointed out.

    Because if they did, they would just get their colon-shaped heads handed to them.

  24. 24.

    Jon Henke

    January 6, 2004 at 8:51 pm

    “Cheney gets zero benefit if Halliburton’s business improves”

    – – -Actually, Cheney securitized his exit check, so it doesn’t come from Halliburton at all. It is paid by an entirely different company, which pays regardless of the state of Halliburton. He did that in response to critics demands.

    About the Pentagon story cited by a commenter above….in their initial claim of “overcharging”, they made it clear that Halliburton did not appear to have profited.

    Now, this may come as a shock, but in order to “profiteer”, one must first “profit”.

  25. 25.

    Blackfive

    January 6, 2004 at 9:34 pm

    CNN Money changed the story. If you do a Google News Search with the text of the first quote, you get the link that John posted.

    Now, WHY did they change the story?

  26. 26.

    Ricky

    January 6, 2004 at 9:49 pm

    Congratulations, John Cole. You have the kneejerk partisans’ proverbial panties in a bunch.

    That means a job well done. I feel their pain, though.

  27. 27.

    charles austin

    January 6, 2004 at 9:55 pm

    John, if you are interested, you can check my site for a vivisection of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch’s lead editorial yesterday that still spent paragraphs slandering Halliburton and Cheney before finally admitting that they were innocent.

    Nice people.

  28. 28.

    HH

    January 6, 2004 at 9:58 pm

    Forbes has the same story.

  29. 29.

    Far North

    January 6, 2004 at 10:17 pm

    Memo to the conservative hypocrites:
    One of the primary reasons that government should avoid no bid contracts is because of the credibility issue when questions or concerns have been raised – just like now. The same people that gave Halliburton the contracts are the ones tasked with investigating these accusations. So you see, conservatives, it’s a credibility issue. I have a great idea……how about we eliminate no-bid contracts…especially with those companies whose CEO is the current vice-president? It’s not really that difficult of an issue if you think it through.

  30. 30.

    Jay

    January 6, 2004 at 10:20 pm

    So Far North, you’d rather neglect a country or project that needs help immediately to go through a 6-8 month bidding project just because you have a problem with credibility?

  31. 31.

    Far North

    January 6, 2004 at 10:23 pm

    I mean whose former CEO is the current vice-president.

    BTW, anyone that says Cheney has no interest whatsoever in Halliburton’s future has their head up their rear end.

  32. 32.

    Far North

    January 6, 2004 at 10:27 pm

    Jay,
    6 to 8 months? I don’t think so. First, it wouldn’t take that long. Second, how long before we invaded Iraq did Bush & Co know we were going to invade Iraq. It goes back to pre-planning for the post-war Irag. But, that’s right, there was no planning for post-war Iraq.

  33. 33.

    charles austin

    January 6, 2004 at 10:45 pm

    Far North, frankly sir, you don’t seem to know anything about the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) governing competitive contracts. Actually, it would probably take a lot longer.

  34. 34.

    Far North

    January 6, 2004 at 10:49 pm

    Are you telling me, Mr. Austin, that if the Gov’t can allow no-bid contracts, it can’t speed up the bidding process on others?

  35. 35.

    *** Dave

    January 6, 2004 at 10:57 pm

    As an employee of a major Federal contractor (and a competitor of KBR), I agree with Charles. Particularly with as open-ended a service contract as this is, it would have taken at least that long.

    And, yes, while there was certainly a likelihood of war with iraq in the months leading up to it, openly going out for bid on reconstruction before the fact would have been even more grotesque (unless it had been negotiated in secret — and then the same people would have been screaming about it).

  36. 36.

    Eric Sivula

    January 6, 2004 at 11:01 pm

    Ok, Far North, WHO was going to bid againsty Halliburton? Which companies had the necessary divisions to handle burning wells, pipeline repair/maintainence, refinery management, etc? Can you name any?

  37. 37.

    Ricky

    January 6, 2004 at 11:11 pm

    ***6 to 8 months? I don’t think so. First, it wouldn’t take that long.***

    Good enough for me!
    How can anyone argue with that?

  38. 38.

    Far North

    January 6, 2004 at 11:12 pm

    Dave,
    Your right. Dick Cheney is a smart man. I’m sure he knew how he was going to go about the task of giving the contract to Halliburton. And we all saw how it played out….Wait until the last minute, announce it’s too late for competitve bidding, and proclaim Halliburton the winner. I’ll bet Cheney knew this as far back as the summer of 2002.

    The federal gov’t can award contracts and hire private entities without competitive bidding in several emergency instances. Wildland fire is one instance. Other FEMA managed incidents such as floods or earthquakes are others. What I’m saying is that this was Cheney’s plan all along. And you are right, people would (and should) have screamed about it had it been mentioned. That’s my point. It ain’t good policy.

    BTW, this is one of the more civil exchanges I’ve had in a conservative environment. Thanks!

  39. 39.

    Trump

    January 6, 2004 at 11:14 pm

    A question for all who are so into this mythical Halliburton profiteering thing:

    1) Please look up all the cases of Halliburton being contracted to work for the government. During previous administrations. Why is Halliburton evil now, but it was ok then? Please explain

    Bonus question:
    -Please list some of the competitors who can provide the same level and scope of services as Halliburton

    Extra Credit Question:

    Why do you get your panties in a bunch because the White House has *GASP* ties to oil companies? Why not such a level of self righteousness when a White House is affiliated with Big Labor, Trial Lawyers, Enviro radicals, etc. Please be coherent in your explaination.

  40. 40.

    Far North

    January 6, 2004 at 11:18 pm

    Ricky,
    My point is that there is flexiblility in the gov’t bidding process. See my previous post. There was no reason to go the no-bid route. It’s not as if it’s either no bid or an 8-month bidding process.

    And no, Eric, I can’t name any other companies. I’m not in that line of work. Are you saying we should all just shut up and trust Dick Cheney because we can’t name any other companies?

  41. 41.

    Ryan

    January 6, 2004 at 11:19 pm

    Considering that the current versions of all the stories you link to *do* mention Cheney, I’m curious why you don’t issue an actual retraction in your post.

    I’m not accusing you of lying by any means. It seems pretty clear what happened; you hit “breaking” versions of wire service stories the first time around. These are commonly updated to add detail. In this case, if the “breaking” version of the story didn’t have the Cheney detail, the writethroughs brought that in. That’s how wire services work.

    This fact does not make you a hack or a liar. Not at all. But it does mean that your point is off-base. And considering that the blogosphere prides itself on its ability to self-correct, it seems you would want to note that. Bloggers would demand nothing less from a mainstream media outlet.

  42. 42.

    Kirk Parker

    January 6, 2004 at 11:23 pm

    > “No-bid contract?” Any idea how that
    > might have come about?

    Several folks have already address this briefly from their own experience, but in case you want a fuller exposition, see this three-part series on Government Contracting at Winds of Change:

    Part 1

    Part 2

    Part 3

  43. 43.

    Far North

    January 6, 2004 at 11:33 pm

    There we go, Trump. Clinton was in bed with trial lawyers and environmental radicals so nobody can dare question the Bush administration on the Halliburton issue. It’s always back to Clinton and those terrible days of budget surpluses, a strong economy and relative national stability. And don’t tell me how concerned everyone is about getting “help” to the Iraqis.

    It’s not that Halliburton is evil. The no-bid process is the problem. Dick Cheney was Halliburton CEO immediately before he was VP. Jump up and down and sing Halliburton’s praise all you want. There are rules in gov’t that prohibit this type of contract awarding to companies that were formerly run by current gov’t employees.

  44. 44.

    Far North

    January 6, 2004 at 11:46 pm

    Dave,
    “openly going out for bid for reconstruction before the fact would have even been more grotesque……..”
    More grotesque than what? Launching the war itself under the reason of the month? WMD? reconstituted Nucs?

  45. 45.

    Rich G

    January 7, 2004 at 12:00 am

    Just like a Dem. Lose an argument, change the subject.

  46. 46.

    Ricky

    January 7, 2004 at 12:06 am

    Are you saying we should all just shut up and trust Dick Cheney because we can’t name any other companies?

    Nah. Watching so many shoot their proverbial wads on non-starters is a hoot, such as accusing Cheney of malfeasance (or whatever you’d like to call it) via Halliburton within a post that details that the company did nothing _ NOTHING _ wrong.

    Flail away.

  47. 47.

    Far North

    January 7, 2004 at 12:11 am

    Do you have a comment on anything in particular. My only response to that is that there is nothing more stunning in politics than the hypocrisy of the new century conservative.

  48. 48.

    John Cole

    January 7, 2004 at 12:23 am

    Ryan-

    When the charges were leveled, it mentions Cheney.

    In the breaking news stories, exonerating Halliburton, it does not mention Cheney.

    In the revised news stories, it mentions that Halliburton may not necessarily be exonerated, and guess what? Cheney’s name appears again.

    Are you trying to prove my point?

  49. 49.

    Far North

    January 7, 2004 at 12:24 am

    Rich G,
    I was referring to a post back aways. Try adding something to the discussion.

  50. 50.

    Far North

    January 7, 2004 at 12:35 am

    Rich G,
    If you really want to change the subject, I’ve got a question for all the Bushbots:

    Why is Bush hiding all the information that the commission investigating the pre-9/11 sequence of events is seeking? What is he hiding?

  51. 51.

    Dennis Slater

    January 7, 2004 at 12:45 am

    Great post. Will those who continue to say that the media is not liberally biased shut up now?

    Which reminds me: why don’t you see stories containing the words “the impeached former President Clinton”? If linking Cheney and Halliburton in every story adds some sort of historical texture to a story, surely adding the word ‘the impeached’ to Clinton’s name would do the same. That would be fair and balanced.

  52. 52.

    Ryan

    January 7, 2004 at 12:46 am

    No, what I’m saying to you is that it’s not uncommon at all for wire service stories to gain detail over a few hours. These newer versions of stories are known as “writethroughs.” Perhaps you are of the opinion that the mainstream media is a giant, malicious beast, and because of this you see malicious intent here. By your response, it’s pretty clear to me that I’m not going to be able to change your mind. I’m just offering up a pretty reasonable explanation based on the technical processes of journalism.

  53. 53.

    Ryan

    January 7, 2004 at 12:56 am

    And I should note this as well. Upon further review, it appears you were dead wrong about the Associated Press story. I’m currently looking at each of the three versions of the Halliburton story that Matt Kelley filed today for the AP.

  54. The initial story was filed at 7:23:30, and mentions Cheney in the 2nd graf.
  55. The first writethrough was filed at 10:23:29. It is clearly the one you quoted in your post, with the lede: “The Army apparently has sided with Halliburton in a dispute over the company’s charges for fuel delivered to Iraq.” This story also mentions Cheney in the 2nd graf.
  56. The second writethrough of the story was filed at 13:43:21. It mentions Cheney in the 2nd graf.

    I do not have access to any of the other wire services you quote.

  57. 54.

    Eric Sivula

    January 7, 2004 at 1:14 am

    Far North, if there are no other companies that can provide the same breadth and depth of petroleum-related services as Halliburton, then who was going to bid against them?

    As for what Bush is ‘hiding’ it is called ‘classified information’. That information being his daily briefings. If the 9-11 Commision’s finding are going to be published, how classified could any info in it remain?

    One more question, Far North, are you one of the Canadians giving money to MoveOn.org to try and get rid of Bush? Because you seem to be spouting the same crap that they and Dean call ‘intersting theories’.

  58. 55.

    Ryan

    January 7, 2004 at 1:22 am

    You can, however, use the same procedure that BlackFive used to track down the different iterations of the Reuters story over the course of the day. By running a Google News query based on the Reuters lede that you quote above, then allowing redundant results and sorting by date, we have this list of Reuters writethroughs over the course of the day.

    Now, note that in the lede you quote, it uses the term “special waiver” instead of just “waiver.” At the moment, the oldest two Google News hits do *not* include the modifier “special,” so you must have grabbed a story from some point after that. Also note that you can mouse over each of the Reuters links and see the way the URLs are built. Each iteration of the story has a unique storyID number, which means that the Reuters site is *not* recycling URLs or simply updating text on the same page. When a writethrough is filed, the story gets its own ID, and its own URL. So the link you provided in your initial post is pointing to the exact same story you were looking at at the time.

    For that matter, the Google News results show that every version of the Reuters story mentions Cheney in the 2nd graf.

  59. 56.

    Ryan

    January 7, 2004 at 1:25 am

    Every version with the lede you quote, anyway.

    Honestly now, I am still not trying to accuse you of lying here. What I think is that the blogosphere has a pretty pervasive anti-media bias, and many bloggers are quite quick to leap on something that has the appearance of making the media look bad. In many cases, they are absolutely right to do so, but sometimes this leads to careless results.

  60. 57.

    Ryan

    January 7, 2004 at 1:29 am

    Presumably, based on BlackFive’s technique again, Google News would have snagged the various versions of the BBC story as well. By plugging in the lede you quote, it appears only one version was ever filed, though. It does not mention Cheney until the 4th graf.

  61. 58.

    Ryan

    January 7, 2004 at 1:36 am

    You are dead on with the CNN Money story though. Didn’t mention Cheney at all. Here are BlackFive’s Google News results, with redundant results included. This lets us see the original Reuters news flash that CNN Money ran on its site, and which you quoted for this blog post. (Because of that system of using unique storyIDs, the original story is still available on Reuters’ site, with no changes. I’m sure its text matches with what you saw at CNN Money.)

    I think it’s worth noting, though, that this is clearly a “news flash” type story. Very little detail. Filed at 1:18 a.m. Five paragraphs, 172 words. I note this because this fits precisely with what I was trying to present to you before — that wire services often file breaking news items that are bare-bones reports. These stories are devoid of detail not because of any malicious intent, but because their job is to “break” the news, and the writethroughs’ job is to bring in the background.

  62. 59.

    Far North

    January 7, 2004 at 1:50 am

    Eric,
    Cheney’s former company is the ONLY one that can provide the services? Funny how that worked out.

    Where did you get the Canada / MoveOn.org thing from? Talk radio? Limbaugh? Maybe it’s from all the cable news shows… the so-called liberal media being what it is. No, I live in the U.S.

    The reason I don’t take this administration at its word is things like the Cheney’s secret energy task force, the Enron scandal, the Plume scandal, the lie about the Texas education results. Last year at this time, I didn’t know if invading Iraq was the right thing to do or not. My government told me that it was. My gov’t gave me all reasons why it was necessary. But, one by one, my goverment’s claims have turned out to be exagerations, half-truths and outright lies. It seems that I just can’t beleive anything that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld tell me surrounding Iraq anymore.

  63. 60.

    HH

    January 7, 2004 at 2:16 am

    I can’t name any other companies either. Guess we were told to shut up and trust Bill Clinton too.

  64. 61.

    HH

    January 7, 2004 at 2:22 am

    What’s Dean hiding? Certainly not nuclear plant secrets…

  65. 62.

    HH

    January 7, 2004 at 2:29 am

    Well, let’s see, Dean had a questionable energy task force, everything out of his mouth these days is an ad hominem, a baseless smear, a distortion or an outright lie and the same can be said for the media’s main source for the Plame story, Joe Wilson. And I guarantee you that a large amount of the “Bush lies!!!” have been thoroughly refuted and/or debunked.

  66. 63.

    Eric Sivula

    January 7, 2004 at 3:50 am

    Well, Far North, if other petroleum companies had diversified the way that Halliburton had, they could have competed. You see a conspiracy in good business planning, hunh?

    As for the question about you being Canadian, well Canada is about as Far North as one can get in North America.

    So you dislike Cheney’s ‘secret’ energy meetings, but Dean’s are okay? You dislike that Enron had ties to the GOP, but what about Clinton’s ties to Enron, and the government backed loans he arranged for the comapny? As for the Plume ‘scandal’, you are angry that a White House official MIGHT have released info about somebody who MAY have been a covert operative, but Hillary collecting FBI dossiers on political and personal rivals is ok.

    Just a bit of a double standard here, no?

  67. 64.

    Cindy

    January 7, 2004 at 5:01 am

    Hey HH – do you know what an ad hominem attack is?

    Give me a Dean quote that is “ad hominem.” The only ad hominem attacks I see are yours against Howard Dean.

    Are ya scared?

    Fish. Barrel. Gun.

  68. 65.

    Darwin

    January 7, 2004 at 5:36 am

    Far North is a perfect example of what happens when you make up your mind _before_ having complete information.

    “Oh well, I don’t trust Cheney! You say I should trust Cheney, but I don’t trust him! Therefore anything he is alledged to have done must be true! After all, I don’t trust that guy!!”

    Yawn.

    =darwin

  69. 66.

    Ricky

    January 7, 2004 at 6:22 am

    Yes, Cindy, we’re scared.

    We’re frightened about a five foot eight self proclaimed metrosexual that we’ve been begging the Dems to nominate who is running on scaling back the WOT and raising taxes agaisnt a president at 60% in the polls.

    You’re onto us. And you even used the fish/barrel thingie to finish off your ingenius discovery. Drat.

    What to do, guys?

  70. 67.

    Mike

    January 7, 2004 at 8:47 am

    “When the charges were leveled, it mentions Cheney.

    “In the breaking news stories, exonerating Halliburton, it does not mention Cheney.

    “In the revised news stories, it mentions that Halliburton may not necessarily be exonerated, and guess what? Cheney’s name appears again.”

    Yes, in a conflict of interest story, it’s totally unreasonable to mention the conflict of interest. How unreasonable can you get?

  71. 68.

    Brian Jones

    January 7, 2004 at 9:24 am

    So the stories about possible wrongdoing are conflict-of-interest stories where Cheney must be invoked in the lead, but the stories about the exoneration just occur in a vacuum where Cheney’s Halliburton contacts are irrelevent.

    Is that correct, Mike?

  72. 69.

    Bullshark

    January 7, 2004 at 9:24 am

    I love it when someone trots out the Enron thing. Guess you think Enron is out of business don’t you?
    Surprise still in business. See Enron had something like 23 divisions. Only the energy futures trading took it in the shorts. Along with all the people who thought that they could get rich quick. My Dad worked for Enron until he retired on 29 Dec 03. He was recalled to finish up a project last summer and will continue on till the fall of 04. Still draws retirement and a paycheck from Enron (EOG).

  73. 70.

    rabidfox

    January 7, 2004 at 9:27 am

    The Govt can, by law and under certain compelling circumstances, can award a contract without competition. That’s what “No Bid” contract refers to. Getting fuel to the troops under war conditions generally counts as “urgent and compelling.” Something else that the DOD does from time to time is to “Direct Purchase” or require the prime contractor to use a certain subcontractor. There may be a number of reasons to do this, including international considerations. Halbirton was, in fact, directed to use a Kwaiti source. The contract was written for war time conditions and the Kwaiti Govt. won’t let Halbirton use another Kwaiti company. In fact, Haliberton is in the middle on this one.

  74. 71.

    Matt

    January 7, 2004 at 9:53 am

    I work for a government contractor, and I know from experience that it can take YEARS, not just MONTHS to negotiate a contract. Even sole-source contracts can take months to negotiate.

    And even more ironic, in my opnion, is that the majority of corruption in contracting is not going to be found in big ‘no bid’ contracts like Haliburton’s, but instead in the hundreds and hundreds of small contracts that have been awarded under 8-A programs and other minority preference an disadvantage business programs. These contracts are too small to attract national attention, and are a travesty of nepotism and boondoggles, if you ask me.

    And who’s administration do you suppose was respsonsible?

  75. 72.

    Slartibartfast

    January 7, 2004 at 10:04 am

    “My point is that there is flexiblility in the gov’t bidding process.”

    Oh, that gave me a chuckle, that did.

    Ok, regarding the so-called “no-bid” contract: wrong label. Halliburton won a competition to provide as-needed services to the government for the period of the contract. The opportunity was there for other contractors to underbid Halliburton, it just wasn’t when you thought it ought to be. The emplacement of these service contracts was intended to save the government money, not enrich select corporations.

    But why listen to me? Why not consider that:

    1) Cheney won’t get a different amount of money if Halliburton makes billions off this deal than he would if they went bankrupt.

    2) Halliburton hasn’t really profited that much from its endeavors since the war began. Look at their quarterlies and stock performance if you don’t believe me.

    3) The companies that are making the most noise from this are doing so because they are being denied an opportunity to become war profiteers. I’m not sure how this has earned them the sympathy of some on the Left, but I’m willing to listen to explanations. Consider this: it would cost more money to emplace a different company for any of the tasks that Halliburton is currently servicing. A percentage of all those extra cost will show up in the bottom line of the company that succeeds in wresting some of the work away. That’s how business works: you profit as a percentage of cost. But most importantly, the government would have to spend more money in order to emplace another contractor, in the name of “fairness”.

    Let’s examine another kind of service contract the government engages in: SETA. I believe Charles is more familiar with this than I am (I’m just a lowly engineer who’s worked one or two of these), but I’m going to take a mad stab at it. The Pentagon engages a SETA on some kinds of defense contract as required by law. It then goes and solicits bids based on the length of the program and the depth of service support it thinks it needs. Various contractors submit bids for hours and cost per hour, based on the level of expertise and (usually) associated pay scales. Now, here’s where it can get complicated: let’s take a Dem/Val program that’s proceeding less than ideally. The project office realizes that it needs to ride herd on the prime to a greater extent than planned, so the SETA contractor essentially uses up the contract earlier than planned. Now, the contract terminates on a date, not after the planned hours have been delivered. So, the contract has to be renegotiated to extend hours and possibly modify the nature and scope of future services. This costs money and time.

  76. 73.

    capt joe

    January 7, 2004 at 10:10 am

    Far north, I thought you were mad but now I see you are the other mad. There is no point arguing about anything with you becuase the facts don’t matter. Every response is either a ad-hominem, a non sequitor, a change of subject, invention of history, or a just “i don’t care, I hate him”. What is the point of arguing with people like you. Classic definition of a troll.

    Go back to indymedia and democraticunderground and whine.

  77. 74.

    KMan

    January 7, 2004 at 10:23 am

    FarNorth “And no, Eric, I can’t name any other companies. I’m not in that line of work. Are you saying we should all just shut up and trust Dick Cheney because we can’t name any other companies?”

    Nope, genius. But maybe it is time for you to educate yourself and have a learned opinion on things, rather than continually quoting things you believe to be true, but have no basis in reality.

    Nobody is telling you not to have a critical opinion, but when you cite illogical and incorrect statements as facts, you make yourself look stupid and it makes it easier for us to laugh at you.

  78. 75.

    jmoconn

    January 7, 2004 at 10:45 am

    Bottom line: Halliburton will make $46 million in profits on around 1 billion in revenue in 2003. That’s a 4% gross profit margin, boys and girls. 4% before interest, taxes and depreciation & amortization are taken out…the best Halliburton can hope to do is break even in Iraq in 2003.

    This “profiteering” attack is idiotic.

  79. 76.

    Slartibartfast

    January 7, 2004 at 11:09 am

    Ding! Hand the man a prize.

    Of course, it’s only a matter of time before we’ll hear suggestions that most of that money was distributed to corporate officers as bonus, and then slipped into Cheney’s back pocket while playing golf, in non-serially numbered $20 bills. Then we’ll have to do a great deal more of someone else’s homework for them.

  80. 77.

    Erik

    January 7, 2004 at 11:31 am

    No, I wouldn’t call the “profiteering” attack idiotic, it’s a very calculated and clever way to blow lots of smoke up lots of peoples asses, hoping they will believe there must be a fire somewhere…

    What’s even better with that technique is that after a while, the smokeblowers can quote eachother, thus being able to show that they have sources…

    Facts has nothing to do with it, since facts would be devastating to their argument…

    I keep hearing Jim Carrey in “Liar, Liar”:
    “Your honor, I object!”
    “What for???”
    “Because it’s devastating to my case!”

  81. 78.

    HH

    January 7, 2004 at 11:43 am

    One example off the top of my head:

    Former Vermont governor Howard Dean, for instance, said, “John Ashcroft is not a patriot. John Ashcroft is a descendant of Joseph McCarthy.”

  82. 79.

    Far North

    January 7, 2004 at 12:27 pm

    So many stupid comments to respond to…so little time. Unfortunately work calls. Remember, nothing is more stunning in American politics than the hypocrisy of the new century conservative.

  83. 80.

    Angry

    January 7, 2004 at 12:40 pm

    Great post!

  84. 81.

    Mike

    January 7, 2004 at 12:55 pm

    “So the stories about possible wrongdoing are conflict-of-interest stories where Cheney must be invoked in the lead, but the stories about the exoneration just occur in a vacuum where Cheney’s Halliburton contacts are irrelevent.”

    No, a conflict of interest story is a conflict of interest story. Avoiding a charge is not a story that there is no conflict of interest. It’s a story that a charge has been avoided.

    The post this discussion is based on is very long to wind up at this short, simple truth.

  85. 82.

    Eric Sivula

    January 7, 2004 at 1:11 pm

    HH, this article makes that quote from Dean even more ridiculous. If Ashcroft had called for a “re-evaluation” of our civil liberties, the media would have been all over him. Yet no one asks Dean about this, and he wants to be President. Why?

  86. 83.

    Slartibartfast

    January 7, 2004 at 2:07 pm

    “So many stupid comments to respond to…so little time.”

    The classic dodge of those too ill-equipped or lazy to make a decent attempt at a counterpoint. Good luck with that.

  87. 84.

    Rosanne

    January 7, 2004 at 3:23 pm

    Speaking of sole-source, the CPA in Iraq awarded a sole-source contract for new pistols for the Iraqi police and military forces.

    The winner?

    I’m sure it’ll surprise no one that it went to a Cheney-owned company in a key swing state—the Glock company.

    [Pssst. Glock is a EUROPEAN firm, and there’s no evidence that it has the least thing to do w/ Cheney.—-ed.]

    Uh, er, ne-ver mind.

  88. 85.

    MikeM

    January 7, 2004 at 3:28 pm

    I haven’t seen anybody address the Haliburton issue quite like this before. Below is some information on why Haliburton has the current contract and also how President Clinton used them in Bosnia (even though they didn’t have a contract. The information is from the Dec 1, 2003 Nealz Nuze (www.boortz.com) site).

    “Part of the perceived evil that is Halliburton is the fact that Dick Cheney once ran the company. As everyone knows, we should strive mightily to avoid ever placing anyone with the know-how and ability to run a multi-million dollar corporation in a position of responsibility in the political realm. Actually making a success of yourself in the private sector disqualifies you for public service, while not having any actual discernable private sector job skills is the supreme qualification for public service.

    So … let’s get to the bottom of this. Did Bush or Cheney do something underhanded or illegal in handing some rather lucrative contracts to Halliburton for infrastructure and other work in Iraq?

    We’ll start with another question you can ask your bedwetting leftist friends. Ask them if they’ve ever heard of LOGCAP. They will tell you that they don’t know what that is. You won’t be at all surprised. LOGCAP is the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program created by the United States Army. It is a program that uses a competitive bidding process to award a contract to a corporation to be on call to provide whatever services the Army might need … right then. Some brilliant thinkers in the Army came to the conclusion that it might not be such a swell idea to screw around with competitive bidding processes for logistics and other services during wartime. Imagine that.

    Halliburton won the competitive bidding process for LOGCAP in 1992. They then lost that bidding process five years later in 1997. In spite of the fact that Halliburton no longer held the LOGCAP contract, Bill Clinton went ahead and awarded a no-bid contract to Halliburton to do some work in the Balkans supporting U.S. peacekeeping actions. Odd, isn’t it. The same people who are screaming about Halliburton right now had absolutely nothing .. nada .. nunca .. not one thing to say about Halliburton when it was the Clinton Administration that was handing out contracts .. with no bidding, by the way. You might also be interested in knowing that Al Gore was quite a fan of Halliburton. Gore’s reinventing government panel had some very complimentary things to say about Halliburton and the services it provides to the U.S. government. Ahhh … but what does Al Gore know, right?

    That brings us to 2001. It’s time for bidding on the LOGCAP contract again. Halliburton is right in there, and wins the bid. This means that at the time of the Iraq War Halliburton had the bid for providing logistical and other services to the U.S. government. They were the go-to company. So, along comes the U.S. Army with a fat contract for Halliburton to put out oil-well fires in Iraq and all hell breaks loose. To the left this is all the proof you needed to show that this whole war was about oil and enriching Bush pals.

    Recap: Clinton awards no-bid contract to Halliburton at a time when Halliburton did not hold the LOGCAP contract. Bush awards contract to Halliburton at a time when Halliburton DID hold the LOGCAP contract.

    So … one last question for your mindless leftist friends. Well .. make that two questions. Ask them if Clinton went into the Balkans to enrich Halliburton. They’ll say no. Then ask them if Bush went to Iraq to enrich Halliburton. They’ll say yes. At this point do all that you can to have your friend institutionalized .. for they are beyond all help.”

    Hope this helps some folks.

  89. 86.

    Slartibartfast

    January 7, 2004 at 3:29 pm

    Heh. You just never know what that evil, wicked Cheney’s got his grubby mitts into these days.

  90. 87.

    KMan

    January 7, 2004 at 4:27 pm

    I thought liberals were supposed to be the party of the ‘educated elites’ who were smarter than us commoners.

    Far North, I think you are bringing down the average.

  91. 88.

    Slartibartfast

    January 7, 2004 at 4:37 pm

    No, us country folk are just too dumb to grasp his arguments. Or something like that.

  92. 89.

    Robin Roberts

    January 7, 2004 at 6:48 pm

    Far North, we’ve yet to see you do anything except post factually false and easily rebutted slander.

  93. 90.

    Mike

    January 7, 2004 at 9:34 pm

    Ha Ha! All that money in the reelection warchest, and the conflict of interest story still hurts your little Republican feelings!

  94. 91.

    Ed

    January 8, 2004 at 7:18 am

    How can it be an “unsubstantiated and ill-informed charge of wrongdoing” when it was thePentagon itself that initially made the charge?

    Unless the PEntagon is part of the vast left wing media conspiracy.

    My god….

  95. 92.

    Slartibartfast

    January 8, 2004 at 9:36 am

    No, Ed, the Left was foaming at the mouth about Halliburton in general long, long before the Pentagon decided to investigate what appeared to be overcharging on fuel.

  96. 93.

    Sandy P.

    January 8, 2004 at 10:47 am

    Far North, do you know how long the UN bidding process takes?

    You should check, somewhere around 18 months, IIRC, according to what I read somewhere.

    Maybe that’s one reason Kosovo’s still in a mess.

  97. 94.

    Bloggerhead

    January 8, 2004 at 1:09 pm

    John:

    Seeing how this thread lives, I’d just like to apologize for using upthread the word “dishonesty,” when I suspected that the link had been updated. Still, your principal points are not really valid. I don’t think Halliburton can be exonerated prior to the audit, and the linking of Cheney to Halliburton is ubiquitous, even in this context of suggesting exoneration. It’s a linking that both Cheney and Halliburton undoubtedly make themselves, and have cultivated for riches and glory. Again, please accept my apology.

  98. 95.

    Far North

    January 8, 2004 at 3:59 pm

    Some of my favorite comments are “I work for a federal govt contractor so I know blah blah blah…..” I didn’t realize that contracting employees were such experts on govt regulations…just shows how “smart” you conservatives are.

    I have one question for all you Bushbots:
    Of buildup to the war and all the claims that have turned out to be false, the post war cluster, the Hallibuton thing, the record setting deficits, are you not willing to criticize this administration on anything? And please don’t give me the Clinton did this or that nonsense. That would be changing the subject now, wouldn’t it.

  99. 96.

    Slartibartfast

    January 8, 2004 at 4:20 pm

    Another “my opponents are stupid” pseudo-rebuttal from FN. No, it’s absolutely inconceivable that some of us might have learned a thing or two about government contracting, having been in the business for a couple of decades. Damn, you got us there, skippy.

    Quickly followed by an attempted subject change. Elegant.

  100. 97.

    Far North

    January 8, 2004 at 6:50 pm

    It actually all ties back to one basic issue. If you’re not willing to criticize Bush and the deception of the Iraq war, it tends to reason that you’ll defend the administration on anything, despite the facts. This includes the Halliburton case.

    I liked one spoofed headline:
    “Pentagon invesigates self, finds self and Halliburton not guilty”

  101. 98.

    Far North

    January 8, 2004 at 8:58 pm

    Hey Slart,
    If you go back you’ll see those taking exception to my arguments started personally attacking me rather than my points. But, no matter, conservative hypocrisy is alive and well.

    My original point was that the gov’t shouldn’t be letting no-bid contracts. Even the appearance of cronyism is reason enough. The gov’t knew we were going to war back in the summer of 02 so the argument that there was no time for competitive bidding is nonsense.

    Some here said Halliburton was the only entity that could have provided the services so no-bid was fine on those grounds. I say BS. If Halliburton is the only company, then they’d be the only bidder on the contract. Then everything is above board and fine.

    Some here said that it would take to long. BS, if the gov’t can allow no-bid, they most certainly can shorten the bidding process. Besides, the administration knew we were going to war back in the summer of 02.

    Cheney got his CEO job with Halliburton because of one thing – his connection with govt officials and the perception that he’d be helpful in securing contracts through his connections. He had little to no experience as a corporate CEO. Why does the conservative get so indignant, then, when people draw the conclusion that Cheney’s position helped secure the Halliburton contract? This is why no-bid gov’t contracts are a bad idea.

    To all the “experts” here on gov’t contracts, I stated in an earlier post that govt can speed up and alter the bidding process in many instances. Go back and check. Yet, no one has commented on that. All I heard was how so and so was an expert because they worked for an employee of a contractor. That’s great. Then go refute my point about the situations where govt can and does alter the bidding process and rules.

    Others in this thread couldn’t resist resorting to “yea but Clinton did………..”.

    But, hey, whatever. The hypocrisy of the new-century conservative is the most stunning in American political history.

  102. 99.

    Slartibartfast

    January 9, 2004 at 12:17 am

    First, hypocrisy has absolutely nothing to do with debate. Nothing at all. I could be the most degenerate, immoral fellow in the world and still kick your ass in debate if I’m better armed with facts and logic. Not saying I am; just making a point.

    Second, nothing else has any bearing on this discussion, aside from details relating specifically to Halliburton and Cheney and their actions. You might think it’s a prerequisite that I be a critic of Bush in order to be able to offer up a compelling argument, but you don’t get to make the rules.

    Third, and last, you continue to be mistaken about the nature of the Halliburton contract. There isn’t any bidding done on any of their services provided in Iraq precisely because they already bid on and won a contract that entitles them to that work. That’s the nature of the service contract, to provide any and all services as needed during the span of the contract. Got anything counter to that? Provide cites.

  103. 100.

    Ricky

    January 9, 2004 at 9:55 am

    Far North,
    There’s quite a difference in criticizing the administration on runaway spending, keeping the energy meeting minutes secret or implementing tarriffs and pointing out the ludicrous assertions of a DNC kneepadder who offers little other than comments that could be found with a click to Democratic Underground.

    Debate.
    Challenge others.
    Make your points.

    I promise you’ll be engaged likewise. Sitting at your PC & spouting something we can see in the comments section of Eschaton is boring and a waste of time.

    Halliburton was found not guilty.
    Get over it.

  104. 101.

    Edwin

    April 28, 2004 at 10:39 pm

    Just a ?.
    Has anyone taken the time to inquire as to the LB Johnson family ties to Halliburton company. I once worked for Taylor Diving &Savage, Brown & Root Hallburton. I had heard on several occassions that the LBJ family had some very close connections.
    2nd ? what party was in office when we became involved in Viet Nam, and what party got us out?

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. Oliver Willis: Like Kryptonite To Stupid says:
    January 6, 2004 at 3:46 pm

    Halliburton Cleared

    The Pentagon investigated itself and declared that Halliburton wasn’t guilty of price-gouging. In other, related, news OJ was still on the hunt for the real killer….

  2. DiscountBlogger says:
    January 6, 2004 at 4:50 pm

    THAT LIBERAL MEDIA

    Take a look at this post by John Cole. He compares the coverage of the “Halliburton Fiasco” after they were cleared of any wrongdoing to the coverage before they were cleared. Very interesting….

  3. Cold Fury says:
    January 6, 2004 at 4:58 pm

    Lah lah lah lah lah lah lah

    Hmmm – I wonder how much attention this followup story is going to get? (Via Cato) Update! John Cole has…

  4. Blackfive - The Paratrooper of Love says:
    January 6, 2004 at 9:31 pm

    John Cole is no Hack!

    John Cole at Balloon Juice posted several media quotes about the government’s clearing of Halliburton of any charges of wrong-doing and compared them to quotes from the same sources when the Halliburton overcharges were alledged. Read the comments. I f…

  5. The Dead Parrot Society says:
    January 7, 2004 at 3:40 pm

    Checking up on the media critics II

    Well, I didn’t really want to do another “media critic watch” post so soon, but I can’t help it. Because this one’s already getting re-cited in high places. So ignore if you like. Yesterday John Cole of Balloon-Juice wrote a post in the wake of a Wall …

  6. Daily Pundit says:
    January 8, 2004 at 2:57 am

    What Bias? This Bias.

    John Cole documents the odd difference in the way the Halliburton overcharge “scandal” was reported before and after the company’s exhoneration….

  7. Croooow Blog says:
    January 8, 2004 at 3:58 am

    http://tvh.rjwest.com/archives/003441.html

    Cole hits it out of the park (it clearly inspired a “Grapevine” item on “Special Report with Brit Hume”)……

  8. The Dead Parrot Society says:
    January 8, 2004 at 4:15 pm

    Critic post addendum

    John Cole and Glenn Reynolds have both linked to my post from yesterday following up on John’s analysis of the recent round of Halliburton stories. I noted these links there, but I’m also putting the information here because I think that in most cases,…

  9. Blog o'RAM says:
    January 10, 2004 at 10:34 pm

    News Imitates Blogosphere

    Here is further evidence that members of the media read blogs. Jack Kelly a writer for the Toledo Blade wrote an op ed piece that starts… WEB logger John Cole noted a fascinating difference between the news accounts accusing Halliburton…

  10. Nieuws says:
    September 7, 2004 at 9:15 am

    Schijnverdeeldheid in militair-industri

  11. The Left Coaster says:
    April 7, 2005 at 9:38 am

    How the Liberal Media Myth is Created – Part 11

    This is a continuation of a series on how the "liberal media" myth is created. Previous installments covered myth-creation using "tone" of media coverage (Part 1), "catch-phrases" like ‘right-wing extremist’ v. ‘left-wing …

Primary Sidebar

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8

Recent Comments

  • Suzanne on More Bad News for Trump and His Minions! (Mar 24, 2023 @ 2:41pm)
  • trollhattan on More Bad News for Trump and His Minions! (Mar 24, 2023 @ 2:41pm)
  • StringOnAStick on WSJ Begs House Goobers to Stop Taking the Bait (Open Thread) (Mar 24, 2023 @ 2:41pm)
  • lowtechcyclist on More Bad News for Trump and His Minions! (Mar 24, 2023 @ 2:40pm)
  • Roger Moore on More Bad News for Trump and His Minions! (Mar 24, 2023 @ 2:40pm)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
Classified Documents: A Primer
State & Local Elections Discussion

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
TaMara
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Join the Fight!

Join the Fight Signup Form
All Join the Fight Posts

Balloon Juice Events

5/14  The Apocalypse
5/20  Home Away from Home
5/29  We’re Back, Baby
7/21  Merging!

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!