Another source of rant from David Batstone (see previous post): Halliburton. This too, riles me up. The seemingly EXTREMELY suspicious ties of VP Cheney, the ineptitude of the “work” this crew has done, and the “clear-to-any-sane-individual” priority placed on “siezing of Iraqi oil” —all of this renews longings for some fresh blood in investigative reporting to the blow the lid off of this brazen evil and corruption.

Flipping the corrupt tables__more from David Batstone’s sojomail article
“Looking ahead, the Bush team has requested $2.4 billion from Congress for humanitarian aid and reconstruction projects in Iraq; requests for billions more will follow once the war ends. Big business is lining up to sign lucrative contracts. The bidders represent some of the country’s largest construction companies, all of them major donors to political campaigns. Halliburton shows up on the list of corporations that will benefit from the seizure of Iraq’s oil wells. Vice President Dick Cheney, of course, was the chief executive of Halliburton before moving to public office.”

In light of this public scrutiny, one would imagine that Halliburton would take extra care to execute efficiently in Iraq. To the contrary, within a year reports began leaking out of Iraq that malfeasance at Halliburton had become standard operating procedure. The Pentagon itself issued audits that confirmed Halliburton’s dismal performance, and suggested that funds had been misdirected. Pentagon investigators concluded that Halliburton and KBR in Iraq had created “profound systemic problems,” “exorbitant indirect costs,” “misleading” and “distorted” cost reports, and an “obstructive” corporate attitude toward oversight.

How is this allowed to go on? The Pentagon’s own investigator’s. But I suppose they gather FACTS and put two and two together. The Bush administration goes on “gut insitinct”. And they have their Press Secretary (on assignment from Fox News—-oh yeah, he did actually take that new position with the White House staff)

But like the other piece of this article (on Krugman’s observations about Exxon Mobile’s “alternative science” thinktank) , the SpinZones keep crankin’ it out, which has some sort of “dulling” effect on the faculties of the general public, so that such evidence doesn’t seem to sink in. I suppose it’s easy for the public at large to unconsciously dismiss this stuff, even though they may recognize that “something” is fishy; easy to dismiss becuase then somethign would have to be done, and that something might mean a change in the environmentally irresponsible momentum that has gone unchecked by this administration (who now have the idea that someone might buy their “concern” about our present oil crisis, and the need for “alternative” fuel) They remind me in these efforts of the tobacco companies “don’t smoke” campaigns. Pure posturing BS that boggles the mind.