The voice believed to be Osama bin Laden's went through a list of familiar enemies in the audiotape released to Arab television this week: President George W. Bush, Spain, Israel.
But though bin Laden decried the fact that "this is a war that is benefiting major companies with billions of dollars," he only mentioned one company by name: Halliburton and Company, the Houston-based oil and gas services company.
Asked for the company's reaction to being mentioned by bin Laden, a spokeswoman for Halliburton said, "This is an unprecedented time in American history. Beyond that, for security purposes, we have to refer all questions to the Pentagon."
On one level, the fact that the civilized world's biggest enemy criticized Halliburton can no doubt be worn as a badge of honor. But that a terrorist thinks he can evoke sympathy for his causes and animosity for the U.S. by mentioning its name also signifies how controversial Halliburton is and how the company is seen as a sort of shorthand for corporate greed and crony capitalism.
"I stopped briefly at a gas station," presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, said on March 30. "If prices stay that high, Dick Cheney and President Bush are going to have to car pool to work. Those aren't Exxon prices, they are Halliburton prices."
Vice President Cheney, who served as CEO of Halliburton for five years, recently told Dow Jones News Service that "Halliburton gets unfairly maligned simply because of their past association with me."
Countered Sen. Frank Lauternberg, D-N.J., one of the company's fiercest critics, to ABCNEWS: "Haliburton has a sorry record on its behavior. And the vice president ought to disavow any connection with them."
Whether the allegations and insinuations are unfair is in the eye of the beholder. But Cheney's relationship with the company is almost certainly the reason it has become a political lightning rod in America and now, apparently, the world.
But there are really two Halliburtons: One is the corporation; the other is made up of the thousands of American employees risking their lives to help rebuild Iraq.
Some might wonder why private employees are even in Iraq. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has long pushed for greater out-sourcing since the military is stretched thin both in terms of manpower and skills.
"Some studies have been conducted that show that there are something like 300,000 military people doing tasks that could be as easily done by civilians," Rumsfeld told troops in August of 2003.
Others say using contractors allows the Bush administration to enter into wars it wouldn't have the popular support to wage if it were relying upon armed forces and National Guard reserve units. "The reason that we're using [contractors] is that we didn't provide enough of our own military to do the job," Lautenberg told ABCNEWS.
The risks are great. "A lot of the times the contractors are taking greater risks because they're going into much more tense areas, but they're also going in packing less firepower," said P.W. Singer, author of the book Corporate Warriors, published last year.
And why would anyone take such a dangerous job?
"It's because of pride in their jobs, patriotism, for some a sense of adventure," said Singer. "And for some its because the money is quite good."
With overtime, employees can make up to $120,000 a year.