Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Welcome to kingsnake.com's message board system. Here you may share and discuss information with others about your favorite reptile and amphibian related topics such as care and feeding, caging requirements, permits and licenses, and more. Launched in 1997, the kingsnake.com message board system is one of the oldest and largest systems on the internet.

Click for 65% off Shipping with Reptiles 2 You
Click for ZooMed
Click here to visit Classifieds

Halliburton Rip-off

sobek May 24, 2004 08:41 PM

Trucks made to drive without cargo in dangerous areas of Iraq

BY SETH BORENSTEIN

WASHINGTON - (KRT) - Empty flatbed trucks crisscrossed Iraq more than 100 times as their drivers and the soldiers who guarded them dodged bullets, bricks and homemade bombs.

Twelve current and former truckers who regularly made the 300-mile re-supply run from Camp Cedar in southern Iraq to Camp Anaconda near Baghdad told Knight Ridder that they risked their lives driving empty trucks while their employer, a subsidiary of Halliburton Inc., billed the government for hauling what they derisively called "sailboat fuel."

Defense Department records show that Kellogg Brown and Root, a Halliburton subsidiary, has been paid $327 million for "theater transportation" of war materiel and supplies for U.S. forces in Iraq and is earmarked to be paid $230 million more. The convoys are a lifeline for U.S. troops in Iraq hauling tires for Humvees, Army boots, filing cabinets, tools, engine parts and even an unmanned Predator reconnaissance plane.

KBR's contract with the Defense Department allows the company to pass on the cost of the transportation and add 1 percent to 3 percent for profit, but neither KBR nor the U.S. Army Field Support Command in Rock Island, Ill., which oversees the contract, was able to provide cost estimates for the empty trucks. Trucking experts estimate that each round trip costs taxpayers thousands of dollars.

Seven of the 12 truckers who talked to Knight Ridder asked that they not be identified by name. Six of the 12 were fired by KBR for allegedly running Iraqi drivers off the road when they attempted to break into the convoy. The drivers disputed that accusation.

In addition to interviewing the drivers, Knight Ridder reviewed KBR records of the empty trips, dozens of photographs of empty flatbeds and a videotape that showed 15 empty trucks in one convoy.

The 12 drivers, all interviewed separately over the course of more than a month, told similar stories about their trips through hostile territory.

"Thor," a driver who quit KBR and got his nickname for using a hammer to fight off a knife-wielding Iraqi who tried to climb into the cab of his truck, said his doctor recently told him he might lose the use of his right eye after a December attack. Iraqis shattered his windshield with machine gunfire and bullets whizzed by his ear. Glass got in his eye, and he broke two bones in his shoulder, he said.

His truck was empty at the time.

"I thought, `What good is this?'" he recalled.

Shane "Nitro" Ratliff of Ruby, S.C., who quit working for KBR in February, recalled a harrowing trip in December.

As he was hauling an empty truck to Baghdad International Airport, Iraqis threw spikes under his tires and a brick, a cement-like clot of sand and gasoline through his windshield, scattering shards of glass all over him and into his eyes.

"We didn't have no weapons; I had two rocks and a can of ravioli to fight with," Ratliff said.

Ratliff caught up with his fleeing convoy in his damaged truck and made it to the airport safely. He figured he'd pick up a load there, but he was told to return with another empty trailer.

Iraqi insurgents have killed two civilian drivers.

Kellogg Brown and Root, the Army and the truckers gave different reasons for why empty trucks were driven through areas that the drivers nicknamed "rockville" and "slaughterhouse" for the dangers they presented.

Some of the truckers charged that KBR is billing the Pentagon for unnecessary work. KBR described the practice as normal, given the large number of trucks it has delivering goods throughout Iraq. Army officials said longer convoys may provide better security.

The Army's contract with KBR calls for daily truck runs, but doesn't dictate how many trucks must be in a convoy or whether they must be full, said Linda Theis, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Army Field Support Command in Rock Island, Ill. The area military commander or KBR officials might choose to run empty trucks as a security measure, she said.

KBR denied there was any problem with the truck runs. "KBR is proud of the work we do for the military in Iraq. It is difficult and dangerous work and requires a lot from our employees," said Cathy Gist, a KBR spokeswoman. KBR truckers say they can earn about $80,000 a year, which is tax-free if they remain in Iraq for a year.

The empty trailer runs in Iraq peaked in January, February and March of this year but have dwindled as violence has escalated and forced contractors to reduce the number of trucks in each convoy and how far they travel, the drivers said.

Earlier this year, as many as a third of all the flatbed trucks in a 30-truck convoy were empty, they said. Much of the time, drivers would drop off one empty trailer and pick up another empty one for the return trip.

"There was one time we ran 28 trucks, one trailer had one pallet (a trailer can hold as many as 26 four-foot square pallets) and the rest of them were empty," said David Wilson, who was the convoy commander on more than 100 runs. Four other drivers who were with Wilson confirmed his account.

James Warren of Rutherfordton, N.C., one of the fired KBR drivers, said he drove empty trucks through Iraq more than a dozen times. Besides the risks to the truckers, the six National Guard or Army escorts who provided security were also in danger, he said.

The KBR driver who shot the videotape of the 15 empty trailers on the road in January described it this way: "This is just a sample of the empty trailers we're hauling called `sustainer.' And there's more behind me. There's another one right there. ... This is fraud and abuse right here."

KBR documents viewed by Knight Ridder showed that one February run included 11 "MT" (trucker lingo for empty) trailers, 11 containers (which could be full or empty) and six with pallets on them. On another February day, three of 15 trucks were empty.

KBR officials said empty runs resulted from the lack of cargo at one depot. The company ran all the trucks so they'd be available to pick up cargo for the return trip. "This is the same as typical commercial trucking operations work in the U.S.," said Gist.

Drivers discounted that explanation.

"Sometimes we would go with empty trailers; we would go both ways," said one driver who goes by the nickname Swerve and declined to be named for fear of retribution. "We'd turn around and go back with empty trailers."

An independent expert on trucking economics put the cost of a 300-mile one-way run at a minimum of $1,050. Researcher Mark Berwick at the Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute at North Dakota State University used a computer model, the fuel costs that Halliburton charged the Army and the truckers' salaries to come up with that figure.

Wilson and Michael Stroud, of the Seattle area, another former KBR trucking convoy commander, said the actual costs were probably far higher.

"It was supposed to be critical supplies that the troops had to have to operate," said Wilson, who returned to his home in southwest Florida after being fired by KBR. "It was one thing to risk your life to haul things the military needed. It's another to haul empty trailers."

Peter Singer, a scholar at the Brookings Institution and the author of "Corporate Warrior," a book on privatization of the military, said the use of empty trucks illustrates how the government's contracting system is broken.

The government gives out large cost-plus contracts in which "essentially it rewards firms when they add to costs rather than rewarding them for cost savings," Singer said.

Despite a massive increase in contracts for the war and occupation of Iraq, the Army hasn't increased the number of officials who oversee those contractors. Only 180 Army officials monitor defense contracts and only a little more than a handful of them are in Iraq, Singer said.

---

Replies (7)

Fred Albury May 25, 2004 01:24 PM

The drivers were driving EMPTY vehicles back and forth?

Risking their lives? Running Iraqis off the road?

Fighting Iraqis with hammers and a can of RAVIOLI?

And Halliburton got paid for it? And paid WELL?

Man...this IS THEATRE! It proves what some here have said all along. This war is nothing but a SHAM for the Bush administration
to reap the assets of Iraqs natural resources and a machine to help make major corporations money....lots of money.....for nothing evidently...

I have said it before,I'll say it again. Not one more American life should be lost over there. Not one more Iraq citzen should be d or killed. Our sons and daughters shouldn't have to fight this battle for the well being of corporate greed.

Support the troops...bring them home now.

Sincerely,

Fred Albury

sobek May 25, 2004 02:24 PM

Houston, We Have a Problem
Corpwatch, May 25, 2004

This week, twelve current and former truckers for the Halliburton subsidiary Kellog, Brown and Root told Knight-Ridder that they made runs through some of the most dangerous areas of Iraq with empty payloads. The truckers called their non-existant cargo "sailboat fuel." The useless trips cost taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars, if not more. The allegations are just the tip of the iceberg in what critics call a multi-billion dollar scheme by Halliburton, the world's second largest energy services company, to illegally profit from the war in Iraq. Our friends at CorpWatch have a new report detailing the company's dubious operations:

Houston, May 18, 2004: CorpWatch today released an alternative annual report on Halliburton corporation, the day before its shareholders meet for its annual meeting, that charges that the company is the "most unpatriotic corporation in America".

"Houston, We Have A Problem" is an in-depth, hard-hitting report that provides a detailed look at Halliburton's military and energy operations around the world as well as its political connections. It includes a series of recommendations for the company and its shareholders as well as for the United States policymakers.

Halliburton is one of the 10 largest contractors to the U.S. military, with several lucrative deals in Iraq. It earned $3.9 billion from the armed forces in 2003, a whopping 680 percent more than in 2002, when the company brought in just $483 million from the military.

"Houston: We Have a Problem," also provides numerous case studies of Halliburton's business dealings with some of the most brutal and corrupt regimes in the world, including Burma, Iran, Kazakhstan, Libya, Nigeria, and with Iraqi dictator and former president, Saddam Hussein.

Principal author Pratap Chatterjee, managing editor of Corpwatch, says the report provides answers to the following important questions: "Has the military taken what was clearly intended to be a cost-saving emergency measure and turned it into a boondoggle that will end up costing taxpayers more than we would have paid under the original system?" and "Has this system of outsourcing military work changed the dynamic of the war?"

"With $9 billion and counting, Halliburton has made a killing. Its connection to former CEO Dick Cheney and other high-level contacts in the Bush administration would have made Republicans like General Eisenhower blush with embarrassment," said HalliburtonWatch coordinator Jim Donahue. "The combination of Halliburton's abuse of offshore tax havens, flouting of accounting rules, and dealings with so-called 'axis-of-evil' countries suggests that, for Halliburton, pumping profits is far more important than patriotism."

The report comes on the heels of a recommendation from the Defence Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) that the Pentagon suspend a payment to Halliburton of nearly $160 million for allegedly overcharging for meals in Iraq in 2003. The Pentagon is also conducting a criminal investigation into military audits that show Halliburton overcharged the U.S. Army by $61 million dollars for gasoline trucked into Iraq.

Co-author Andrea Buffa of Global Exchange, who is organizing a protest outside the shareholder meeting, said: "We're going to tell the shareholders and the CEO of Halliburton to bring their employees home from Iraq and stop ripping off U.S. taxpayers and Iraqis."

rodmalm May 25, 2004 06:01 PM

Halliburton is one of the 10 largest contractors to the U.S. military, with several lucrative deals in Iraq. It earned $3.9 billion from the armed forces in 2003, a whopping 680 percent more than in 2002, when the company brought in just $483 million from the military.

So, let's see. The above statement says that 1% of a huge amount of money is more than 1% of a small amount of money? Duh!!!! You mean to tell me that a company that does a lot more business (with one customer, the military) this year than last, will make more money off that customer this year? I am shocked?

If I sold 10 cars last year, and 10,000 cars this year, why aren't my profits exactly the same?---Again, DUH!

Will liberals ever understand that percentages are what is important when discussing profits? I guess that is why so few of them are able to own a successful business, relative to the numbers of conservatives who do.

Why won't that article state relevant points, like the profit percentages made off the military? Isn't their article inflammatory when it is represented accurately?

-----
Here's a couple of questions for all you liberals out there.

If you made $1000 selling KoolAid (and it cost you $10 for supplies), at a sidewalk KoolAid stand, (since you are a KoolAid drinker, I though this was a good example for you.) and you made $1000 selling a house (and it cost you $500,000) which would be considered profiteering?
Would it be making a huge profit on a very small expense item or making a small profit on a huge expense item?
Which one of these examples closly applies to Halliburton?
Which is more important to the consumer, having a place to live, or having KoolAid instead of water to drink?

Rodney

rodmalm May 26, 2004 12:42 AM

There is no possible chance that trucks could drive all the way across Iraq over 100 times in less than a year. If they worked 7 day a week, they would have to drive across Iraq every 3-4 days for the entire time of the war, all with empty trucks and on Iraqi "dirt" roads. This one "fabricated fact" should tell anyone with common sense that this whole article is nonsense and made-up, or editorial at best.

Doesn't anyone know how impossible this feat would be, even if they were on paved roads, and were driving 7 days a week, with no days off, and weren't being shot at, diverted, etc. And then when you throw in the gravel roads, poor driving conditions (sand storms), days off, repairs to the trucks (desert conditions are hard on equipment!) that would slow them considerably, it wouldn't even be possible to maintain that average (over 100 trips across Iraq in a year) for an entire year.

And if you were one of those drivers, wouldn't you have quit long before your 100th trip, of driving while empty and being shot at, if you were now so upset about doing this more than 100 times? And they found a dozen drivers to say this?

Common sense should tell anyone this is nonsense, just by doing the math and using some logic. But, Oh well, since when has common sense stopped a liberal article with fabricated "facts" from being printed?

Again, the real story is probably something like, the truckers had to be diverted a couple of times to keep them out of harms way, by avoiding heavy combat areas. They were empty because it wasn't safe to bring them to the "loading" areas. This diversion made some of the truckers mad. The ones that were happy with the safety measures weren't interviewed, or they were interviewed and then ignored because the article wouldn't be sensational enough.

Rodney

rodmalm May 25, 2004 04:39 PM

I bet some liberal brainwashed reporter got a picture of some empty trucks returning to base, to pick up another load, after having just dropped one off, and figured he could make up good story. Or maybe, the military re-routed them to try and keep these "civilians" out of "higher" combat zones in order to protect them. Undoubtedly, some of these drivers were also brainwashed liberals and were easy to get say things like this without facts to back them up. Sounds like this reporter learned this "make up a good story, and the brainwashed left will believe it" tactic from Michael Moore. What are they called again? KoolAid drinkers? I wonder how they got that description?

I still find it amazing how people are happy to pay a couple of bucks for $.10 worth of coffee, or pay tens of thousands of times more for bottled water (that is far dirtier than tap), getting reamed every time, and they complain about a business making too much profit (when they actually show a loss!) (a $820 million loss last year from $16 billion in sales) and they employ hundreds of thousands. Huge profits being made on "yuppie", comfort items, are fine, but if you don't make any money at all, supporting americans that are defending their country overseas, you are suddenly called a profiteer and "EVIL". Then they try to show that somehow, that company must be linked to the Bush administration, (even if they can't show how, and all links were broken between Chaney and Halliburtion long ago) and that then means the Bush administration must be corrupt? Then they try to link "possible problems" with subcontractors or subsidiaries, to Halliburton and then to the Bush administration, as though Bush supported this alleged fraud?.--Pretty delusional if you ask me. Even if there was profiteering by Halliburtion, which there wasn't, (or one of their subsidiaries, as is alleged here) so what? That doesn't in any way have a negative impact on the Bush administration. After all, congress has been awarding Hallibuton contracts for many, many years, long before Bush was even in the picture. Unless you are brainwashed and ignore the facts, then I guess you could "feel" there is a link. Using your emotions to over-ride your intellect once again?

Just curious, but if this war was done to help companies profit, why wouldn't you spend money on infrastructure inside this country, (or even infrastructure inside other countries) and get the same profits, for the same companies, without all the risks?--Oops, sorry all you liberals out there, I didn't mean to be logical. I know that it hurts!

Rodney

sobek May 25, 2004 09:23 PM

>>I bet some liberal brainwashed reporter got a picture of some empty trucks returning to base, to pick up another load, after having just dropped one off, and figured he could make up good story.

Thats sad Rodney. Maybe you need to re-read the post. lol

rodmalm May 26, 2004 01:05 AM

What's sad is that you believe it.

Over 100 trips across Iraq in a year? On those awful roads? total nonsense.

Just curious, but how many times have you driven cross-country?

I have about 4 times (from the West coast to Illinois). Doing it in 4 days is pretty rough, even with our outstanding highway system and with well running, fast vehicles. Doing what they claim, on crappy roads for over year, making more than 100 trips, with all the delays of Iraq's weather, the war, bad roads, repairs, days off, etc. is ridiculous. And no-one complained until now that they have been driving for a year (over 100 trips) with empty trucks, while being shot at? -nonsense.

While Iraq is only about the size of California, only about 1/2 their highways are even paved! And it takes longer than a day, traveling at very good speeds, in good weather, in a good car, to cross California from the North to South. And you think they could average a trip like this, every 3 days for an entire year, in trucks? And with empty trucks? And they didn't complain until now? Wow, Gullibility is thy name!

Rodney

Site Tools