Halliburton Serves Up Dirty, Rotten Food to U.S. Soldiers in Iraq

[Guest guest]

Poisoning our troops huh???

 

Halliburton Serves Up " Dirty, Rotten " Food to U.S. Soldiers in Iraq

 

THE AGRIBUSINESS EXAMINER

December 18, 2003, Issue #313

Monitoring Corporate Agribusiness

>From a Public Interest Perspective

 

EDITOR\PUBLISHER; A.V. Krebs

E-MAIL: avkrebs

WEB SITE: http://www.ea1.com/CARP/

TO RECEIVE: Send name and address

 

PENTAGON HAS REPEATEDLY WARNED HALLIBURTON THAT

THE FOOD IT SERVES U.S TROOPS IN IRAQ IS " DIRTY "

 

TAIPEI TIMES: The Pentagon repeatedly warned contractor Halliburton-KBR that

the food it served to US troops in Iraq was " dirty, " as were as the kitchens

it was served in, NBC News reported on [December 12].

 

Halliburton-Kellogg Brown and Root's promises to improve " have not been

followed through, " according to a Pentagon report that warned " serious

repercussions may result " if the contractor did not clean up.

 

The Pentagon reported finding " blood all over the floor, " " dirty pans, "

" dirty grills, " " dirty salad bars " and " rotting meats ... and vegetables " in

four of the military messes the company operates in Iraq, NBC said, citing

Pentagon documents.

 

The report came as President George W. Bush fended off Pentagon reports that

Halliburton-KBR overcharged US$61 million for gasoline it sold the military

in Iraq. Dick Cheney ran Halliburton for five years until becoming vice

president.

 

The company feeds 110,000 US and coalition troops daily at a cost of $28 per

troop per day, NBC said.

 

The Pentagon found unclean conditions at four locations in Iraq, including

one in Baghdad and two in Tikrit. Even the mess hall where Bush served

troops their Thanksgiving dinner was dirty in August, September and October,

according to NBC.

 

This adds up to " a company that arrogantly is overcharging when they can get

away with it and not providing the quality of service that they agreed to

do, " Representative Henry Waxman, Democrat of California, told NBC.

 

Halliburton-Kellogg Brown and Root told NBC that " hostile conditions " pose

special challenges as they served the 21 million meals so far to the troops

at 45 sites in Iraq.

 

" We have taken quick action to improve, " the company said.

___________

PAUL KRUGMAN:

AS IRAQI PROFITEERING SCANDALS

MOUNT U.S. GOVERNMENT DEALINGS

RECEIVE LESS AND LESS SCRUTINY

 

PAUL KRUGMAN, NEW YORK TIMES: Last week there were major news stories about

possible profiteering by Halliburton and other American contractors in Iraq.

These stories have, inevitably and appropriately, been pushed temporarily

into the background by the news of Saddam's capture. But the questions

remain. In fact, the more you look into this issue, the more you worry that

we have entered a new era of excess for the military-industrial complex.

 

The story about Halliburton's strangely expensive gasoline imports into Iraq

gets curiouser and curiouser. High-priced gasoline was purchased from a

supplier whose name is unfamiliar to industry experts, but that appears to

be run by a prominent Kuwaiti family (no doubt still grateful for the 1991

liberation). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers documents seen by The Wall Street

Journal refer to " political pressures " from Kuwait's government and the U.S.

embassy in Kuwait to deal only with that firm. I wonder where that trail

leads.

 

Meanwhile, NBC News has obtained Pentagon inspection reports of unsanitary

conditions at mess halls run by Halliburton in Iraq: " Blood all over the

floors of refrigerators, dirty pans, dirty grills, dirty salad bars, rotting

meat and vegetables. " An October report complains that Halliburton had

promised to fix the problem but didn't.

 

And more detail has been emerging about Bechtel's much-touted school

repairs. Again, a Pentagon report found " horrible " work: dangerous debris

left in playground areas, sloppy paint jobs and broken toilets.

 

Are these isolated bad examples, or part of a pattern? It's impossible to be

sure without a broad, scrupulously independent investigation. Yet such an

inquiry is hard to imagine in the current political environment --- which is

precisely why one can't help suspecting the worst.

 

Let's be clear: worries about profiteering aren't a left-right issue.

Conservatives have long warned that regulatory agencies tend to be

" captured " by the industries they regulate; the same must be true of

agencies that hand out contracts. Halliburton, Bechtel and other major

contractors in Iraq have invested heavily in political influence, not just

through campaign contributions, but by enriching people they believe might

be helpful. Dick Cheney is part of a long if not exactly proud tradition:

Brown & Root, which later became the Halliburton subsidiary doing those

dubious deals in Iraq, profited handsomely from its early support of a young

politician named Lyndon Johnson.

 

So is there any reason to think that things are worse now? Yes.

 

The biggest curb on profiteering in government contracts is the threat of

exposure: sunshine is the best disinfectant. Yet it's hard to think of a

time when U.S. government dealings have been less subject to scrutiny.

 

First of all, we have one-party rule --- and it's a highly disciplined,

follow-your-orders party. There are members of Congress eager and willing to

take on the profiteers, but they don't have the power to issue subpoenas.

 

And getting information without subpoena power has become much harder

because, as a new report in U.S. News & World Report puts it, the Bush

administration has " dropped a shroud of secrecy across many critical

operations of the federal government. " Since 9/11, the administration has

invoked national security to justify this secrecy, but it actually began the

day President Bush took office.

 

To top it all off, after September 11 the U.S. media --- which eagerly

played up the merest hint of scandal during the Clinton years --- became

highly protective of the majesty of the office. As the stories I've cited

indicate, they have become more searching lately. But even now, compare

British and U.S. coverage of the Neil Bush saga.

 

The point is that we've had an environment in which officials inclined to do

favors for their business friends, and contractors inclined to pad their

bills or do shoddy work, didn't have to worry much about being exposed.

Human nature being what it is, then, the odds are that the troubling stories

that have come to light aren't isolated examples.

 

Some Americans still seem to feel that even suggesting the possibility of

profiteering is somehow unpatriotic. They should learn the story of Harry

Truman, a congressman who rose to prominence during World War II by leading

a campaign against profiteering. Truman believed, correctly, that he was

serving his country.

 

On the strength of that record, Franklin Roosevelt chose Truman as his vice

president. George Bush, of course, chose Dick Cheney.

 

 

 

 

karl theis jr

 

 

http://groups.msn.com/exposureofthetruth

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Search - Find what you’re looking for faster.