Pentagon auditors found that Vice President Dick Cheney former company overcharged by possibly as much as $61 million for gasoline in Iraq (news - web sites), senior defense officials said Thursday.
Halliburton’s subsidiary, Kellogg Brown & Root, also submitted a proposal for cafeteria services that was $67 million too high, the officials said speaking on the condition of anonymity. The officials said the Pentagon rejected that proposal.
“Contractor improprieties and/or contract mischarging on department contracts will neither be condoned nor allowed to continue,” Dov Zakheim, the Pentagon’s budget chief, said Thursday.
Yes, we’re talking about gasoline… in IRAQ! Greed greed greed!
The auditors start their new jobs in Alaska next week.
Gee, Bob, Chet is right. That quote you tossed off is nowhere in the body of the linked article. So, maybe you’d like to provide a source for it? Or did you expect that everyone would fail to read the article, and assume it came from there, as you stated?
This is the version with the additional quote. And here’s the pertinent quote:
Halliburton apparently didn’t profit from the overcharging, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity. The problem, the officials said, was that Halliburton paid a subcontractor too much for the gasoline in the first place.
In short, it looks like these are not the droids you are looking for. Find the smoking gun somewhere else.
Depending on the circumstances, location, timeframe and other various criteria, having to deal with a 90% price differential isn’t necessarily extreme. 26 million gallons of gasoline is also a wee bit of gas. And while pricey, $2.27 a gallon including transport is a long way from a $600 toilet seat. It gets much much more expensive, you don’t want to know how much it costs to deal with fuel logisitics for an armor division.
Because you quoted a non-linked article and pretended that the quote came from the article that was linked? Or was I “pw0ned” when you provided an entirely different link, to a different article? Or was it just when you tried to hide the fact that you cited a line that didn’t appear in the original linked article, and had to have someone entirely different provide the link for you?