> Straw men and women set up and mowed down in a tidy fashion. Plus, no
> mention of Halliburton's (among other US-connected companies) involvement
> with Saddam during the 90s, under UN cover, and oftentimes through a German
> company front. I think Cheney and gang scored something like $73 million
> during this period, but that's ok, sez Hitch, 'cause you're either for
> Halliburton or for Saddam, and there's no middle ground, and if you opposed
> the war you don't have a right to speak about it now anyway, as he told me
> privately a couple weeks ago.
>
>
For Saddam or for Halliburton? Why didn' t he just advocate we write checks
directly to Halliburton? Why bother with the pretense of bidding?
Besides, there's nothing in this article that bears any resemblance to fact:
>"At any rate, a burning well is a tough proposition and an uncapped well—
permitting >a wholesale discharge—an even tougher one. The situation was
being handled by >Boots and Coots, a fire-control company with an almost
parodically American >name, which is based in Houston. Boots and Coots, which
also worked in Kurdistan >and Kuwait after the much worse conflagrations of
1991, is subcontracted for the >task by Kellogg, Brown, and Root (another
name Harold Pinter might have coined >for an American oil company), which is
in turn a subdivision of Halliburton. And >"Halliburton," which admittedly
sounds more British and toney than Boots and >Coots, was once headed by—cue
mood music of sinister corporate skyscraper as >the camera pans up in the
pretitle sequence—Vice President Dick Cheney."
True, Boots and Coots (I don't know why that's a parodically American name, or what he means by that) was contracted to put out the oil well fires in Kuwait, but at the time, the total cost of putting out all 750 fires was $1.5bln. This time around, the no-bid pre-war declaration contract to Halliburton, and subcontracted to Halliburton's Kellogg, Brown, and Root (again he brings up the American name thing, still don't get it) was capped at $7 bln. After some intense congressional scrutiny from Dingell and Waxman, the Army Corps of Engineers stated it would cost more like $680mln.
Still, that would be $1.5bln for 750 fires last time, and $680 mln for 10 fires this time. Somehow, without other countries involved in even seeing the bidding process, the cost of putting out these fires seems to have increased by 34 times since 1991. Hitchens probably sees nothing wrong with this.
>"Well, if that doesn't give away the true motive for the war, I don't know
what does. >But unless the anti-war forces believe Saddam's fires should be
allowed to burn out >of control indefinitely, they must presumably have an
idea of which outfit should >have got the contract instead of Boots and
Coots. I think we can be sure that the >contract would not have gone to some
windmill-power concern run by Naomi Klein >or the anti-Starbucks Seattle
coalition, in the hope of just blowing out the flames or >of extinguishing
them with Buddhist mantras. The number of companies able to >deliver such
expertise is very limited."
The majority of oil well fires put out during the last war were extinguished using sea water. Besides, Boots and Coots is an almost bankrupt company. To me that signals bad financial management, bad services provision or a combination of both. The last earnings report of B&C had their revenues down 23%, it has defaulted on all its loans, and is trading at 46 cents. Maybe Naomi Klein's "windmill power concern" would be more competent.
Nomi
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20030421/e310eac8/attachment.htm>