Much political hay has been made about supposed overcharges by Halliburton during the war with Iraq. Now even The New York Times is backing down from those claims. As they note:
An examination of what has grown into a multibillion-dollar contract to restore Iraq’s oil infrastructure shows no evidence of profiteering by Halliburton, the Houston-based oil services company, but it does demonstrate a struggle between price controls and the uncertainties of war, with price controls frequently losing.
Furthermore, Winds of Change has done a masterful job of presenting the relevant facts about Halliburton, Kellogg, Brown and Root, and other government contractors in a three-part series on the subject (Part 2 is available here and Part 3 is available here.)
The New York Times‘ David Brooks puts it best:
The fact is that unlike the Congressional pork barrel machine, the federal procurement system is a highly structured process, which is largely insulated from crass political pressures … The lesson of this Halliburton business is that some parts of our government really do make their decisions on the merits.
In other words, the only conspiracy is an invented one. Halliburton is the best company for the job, and the accusations of overcharging and profiteering have little merit. Of course, like all conspiracy theories, don’t expect the wild-eyed rantings about Halliburton, oil, and Dick Cheney to stop any time soon.
