View Full Version : This Certainly Could Look REALLY Bad. :(
http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/25/news/companies/war_contracts/index.htm
Is it just me or does this not seem a conflict of interest, or typical political back scratching?
So Cheney's former company gets a huge ass contract for the oil in Iraq once this war is over. I'm sorry, but even if this is simply coincidence, this certainly doesn't help our cause.
Most of the middle east, hell, the world at large, thinks this war is a grab for oil.
Now this. Sigh.
RussSchultz
25-Mar-2003, 22:17
Somebody's got to do it, and Halliburton is one of the most qualified companies in the US.
Somebody's got to do it, and Halliburton is one of the most qualified companies in the US.
I agree, however, this certainly doesn't help the situation. We require judges, prosecutors, etc to recuse themselves from situations that could even potentially appear to be conflicts of interest. I would think that this would be a similar situation. I'm sure there are other oil companies that could do just as good a job as Halliburton in Iraq.
People have been chanting for months "No Blood For Oil" among other things. And this occurs. You can see how people are going to twist this into something.
Like I said, whether this was coincidence or no, it doesn't help us at this point in the game.
Crusher
25-Mar-2003, 22:21
Already started this line of debate in another thread (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=97351), but I guess a new thread is probably a better place to talk about it, especially since this is a different contract, so I'll copy my comments from there:
The question is, did Halliburton get the contracts because its former CEO is the vice president, or was Cheney chosen to run as vice president because he was the CEO of a successful international company that has proven itself to be worthy of major defense contracts? I don't think there is overwhelming proof one way or the other, and you could easily argue it from both sides. Until someone finds out that a single penny has been paid to Cheney as a direct result of Halliburton winning this contract, it doesn't bother me one bit. Someone has to do the work, and AFAIC Halliburton is as good as anyone. And as long as they're doing the work, I don't have a problem with them making a profit from it. I don't think any business would do what they're doing as a charity, and it's not like the government is just giving the company money, they're still earning it. The money would be spent whether it was Halliburton, Chevron Texaco, or Bob's Tent Rentals putting up the tents.
Already started this line of debate in another thread (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=97351), but I guess a new thread is probably a better place to talk about it, especially since this is a different contract, so I'll copy my comments from there:
The question is, did Halliburton get the contracts because its former CEO is the vice president, or was Cheney chosen to run as vice president because he was the CEO of a successful international company that has proven itself to be worthy of major defense contracts? I don't think there is overwhelming proof one way or the other, and you could easily argue it from both sides. Until someone finds out that a single penny has been paid to Cheney as a direct result of Halliburton winning this contract, it doesn't bother me one bit. Someone has to do the work, and AFAIC Halliburton is as good as anyone. And as long as they're doing the work, I don't have a problem with them making a profit from it. I don't think any business would do what they're doing as a charity, and it's not like the government is just giving the company money, they're still earning it. The money would be spent whether it was Halliburton, Chevron Texaco, or Bob's Tent Rentals putting up the tents.
I think you are correct. Halliburton shouldn't, in an ideal world, be penalized for who they've hired in the past. But in this case, with the former CEO now being the Vice President, it does tend to creep into my mind, "Did he use any influence to help select Halliburton?"
I'd consider myself fairly moderate on the issue of this war. But even so this has got my attention, because of the fact that so often we require people in offices to recuse themselves whenever potential conflicts of interest arise.
Considering the people in the middle east, a ripe ground for terrorist activities, already see this as a grab for oil, why give them any further fuel? As I said, I think there have got to be other oil companies that are worthy to help rebuild Iraq.
I think that should have been part of the decision making process, and weighed heavily actually. We need all the PR help we can get to win this war in the long term.
PurplePigeon
25-Mar-2003, 22:30
Well, as you pointed out, it is Cheney's -former- company. So he did get rid of any direct conflict of interest. Lots of politicians are former businessmen, so there are inevitably some connections.
Still, there are some dubious relationships out there. The New Yorker had an article a few weeks ago discussing the fact that Richard Perle is a "managing partner in a venture-capital company called Trireme Partners L.P." whose main business is "to invest in companies dealing in technology, goods, and services that are of value to homeland security and defence." The article certainly doesn't accuse Perle of anything, but simply points out that such connections do not help the administration and furthermore gives fuel to those who are looking for conflicts of interest.
well he is still receiving an undisclosed from the company over the next 5 years as part of his retirement from it. :?
Mariner
25-Mar-2003, 22:45
It's not surprising really, as Halliburton have been working in Iraq for years:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/24/80648.shtml
Seriously, though, what does anyone expect when both the US President and Vice President are former oil men?
I've also read reports that Hamid Karzai used to work for Unocol (Le Monde did a story at one time) and I note that the US Special Envoy to Afghanistan worked for the same company:
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/islam/p123101.htm
Oddly enough, since the Taliban were removed from power a great deal of progress has been made as regards pipelines through Afghanistan:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1984459.stm
I'm not really a conspiracy theorist usually, but once you see all the information build up you do begin to wonder. Perhaps Karzai and the other chap were the best men for the job. But then again perhaps not.
Babel-17
25-Mar-2003, 22:59
I can't comment on this case in point but I do think it directly relates to the current situation wherein some executives have contracts that give bonuses if they quit to accept government jobs. I'm amazed that at least is not illegal.
Naturally this raises the question if Cheney did or did not have an informal defacto version of this clause. Was his renumeration based on the likelihood he would eventually do his former company some good.
Imo very little can be done via legislation to ward off such hypothetical situations. We can't afford to bar highly capable people in the private sector from eventually serving us in government or going back to the private sector after serving. I feel it is more a matter of the press having a duty to present the facts and for the public to strive to pay attention ....... and to care.
Joe DeFuria
25-Mar-2003, 23:26
I agree, however, this certainly doesn't help the situation.
Of course...as long as conspiracy theorists are around to promote the idea, it doesn't help at all.
It was already discussed but a little more about conspiracy: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,912515,00.htmlCheney is still paid by Pentagon contractor Sorry I could not resist :wink:
Of course...as long as conspiracy theorists are around to promote the idea, it doesn't help at all.
well it doesn't help any conspiracies anyway. :wink:
It also doesn't help that the President & administration doesn't like to open up the books and minutes of meetings to public scrutiny.
PurplePigeon
28-Mar-2003, 00:40
Still, there are some dubious relationships out there. The New Yorker had an article a few weeks ago discussing the fact that Richard Perle is a "managing partner in a venture-capital company called Trireme Partners L.P." whose main business is "to invest in companies dealing in technology, goods, and services that are of value to homeland security and defence." The article certainly doesn't accuse Perle of anything, but simply points out that such connections do not help the administration and furthermore gives fuel to those who are looking for conflicts of interest.
Well, looks like it came back to haunt Perle in the end... He has resigned from a Pentagon panel: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/27/politics/27CND-PERLE.html
RussSchultz
28-Mar-2003, 02:20
I believe he only resigned as chairman. He's still on the panel.
duncan36
28-Mar-2003, 18:10
Its not exactly a conspiracy if its right in front of your friggin face is it.
Actually Duncan, it is a conspiracy theory since you have no evidence that there is any causal link between this act, and the resolve to go to war. Not to mention the fact that you neglect any sort of random correlation.
Eg. Duncan, please site American oil companies that have the capability and desire to perform this task (probably a short list). Now, list for me all democrats in the US congress (probably a long list). You will most likely (since the congress is very large) randomly find certain members that have some sort of link to the various candidates. Particularly b/c the pool of oil companies is fairly small, have a certain presence in government by the highly political stature of energy companies, and the pool of potential conspirators is fairly large.
Now, please go apeshit on those members of Congress as well please, b/c indeed, they most certainly are involved in the conspiracy as well!
We see what we want to see don't we kiddies!
Well Fred, I think the reason why the 'conspiracy' theorists are out on the Bush Administration, but not the democrats, is because the bush administration have been pushing for this war for over a year now publically, while the democrats have been trying to avoid war. Well, save for their spineless cave-in during the mid-term elections when they basically gave up their congressional power to authorize war.
Damn them to hell for that one. It's ridiculous to give up your powers, and then complain in the aftermath that hey, someone needs to stand up to the president! I :roll: whenever dems say that crap these days. They voted away their chance for a debate last year, in the hopes of winning the mid-term elections. And it backfired on them anyways..
mboeller
28-Mar-2003, 18:51
http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/25/news/companies/war_contracts/index.htm
Most of the middle east, hell, the world at large, thinks this war is a grab for oil.
We don't think so. we _know_ that it is so!
Bush more or less confirmed it in the meeting with Blair that the US is not willing to allow the UN to govern or control the Iraq after the war. The US will do this to be able to control/expoit the oil.
Crusher
28-Mar-2003, 19:13
http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/25/news/companies/war_contracts/index.htm
Most of the middle east, hell, the world at large, thinks this war is a grab for oil.
We don't think so. we _know_ that it is so!
Bush more or less confirmed it in the meeting with Blair that the US is not willing to allow the UN to govern or control the Iraq after the war. The US will do this to be able to control/expoit the oil.
How's the fishing in your world?
DemoCoder
28-Mar-2003, 19:22
Maybe they are just following the Germany and Japan model after WW2: for-profit reconstruction using private companies, iraqi exiles, MBAs, etc rather than UN relief agencies and charities. Capitalist rebuilding vs Socialist model.
The traditional leftwingers will piss and moan about people "making a profit off the suffering of the Iraqis", and they expect top talent people to be incentivized to fly into Iraq and help them rebuild for reasons of charity, but the reality is, if you want to rapidly rebuild the country, employ the iraqis, and channel in foreign investment, you will need to allow people to profit from it.
I simply do not trust the UN welfare-style approaches where you trickle in money and aid to what the UN thinks Iraq needs money for. Let capital flow into the country and let what gets built be driven by demand and by profit.
RM. Andersson
28-Mar-2003, 20:01
http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/25/news/companies/war_contracts/index.htm
Most of the middle east, hell, the world at large, thinks this war is a grab for oil.
We don't think so. we _know_ that it is so!
Bush more or less confirmed it in the meeting with Blair that the US is not willing to allow the UN to govern or control the Iraq after the war. The US will do this to be able to control/expoit the oil.
After the war things need to be done fast. There is no time for endless discussions in the UN. There will be lots of problems that must be solved.
The democratic process must start. There must be order and stability. The people must get food, medicin and other essential supplys.
Actually. In most places UN have made conflicts permanent rather than solving them. And there is a big chanse that there will be conflicts between the different groups of people in Iraq.
Looks like it *did* look really bad. Halliburton is now officially out of the running due to political pressure regarding Cheney's ties to the company, and the awarding of oil contracts.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/892259.asp?0cv=CB10
Maybe they are just following the Germany and Japan model after WW2: for-profit reconstruction using private companies, iraqi exiles, MBAs, etc rather than UN relief agencies and charities. Capitalist rebuilding vs Socialist model.
The traditional leftwingers will piss and moan about people "making a profit off the suffering of the Iraqis", and they expect top talent people to be incentivized to fly into Iraq and help them rebuild for reasons of charity, but the reality is, if you want to rapidly rebuild the country, employ the iraqis, and channel in foreign investment, you will need to allow people to profit from it.
I simply do not trust the UN welfare-style approaches where you trickle in money and aid to what the UN thinks Iraq needs money for. Let capital flow into the country and let what gets built be driven by demand and by profit.
Personally, as a social-democrat (somewhat as politically im inclined to change) I have no probs with private investement in Iraq if that is the choice of Iraqis. I think the fears some liberals express on the issue is that they dont want carpet baggers to rape the country as has so often happened before and happened recently and continue to happen with the world bank scams... Legitimate concerns about Iraqis getting fucked over by westerners relying on desperate situations to grab assets dime on the dollar...
DemoCoder
29-Mar-2003, 18:48
Looks like it *did* look really bad. Halliburton is now officially out of the running due to political pressure regarding Cheney's ties to the company, and the awarding of oil contracts.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/892259.asp?0cv=CB10
That's too bad, since Halliburton (their sub division) had experience putting out 700 Kuwaiti oilwell fires. I just hope whoever wins the contract has the wisdom to hire away from advisers from HalliBurton who were in Kuwait last time.
Joe DeFuria
30-Mar-2003, 14:26
Yeah, looks like another case of "politics" getting in the way of what is actually the best thing to do...sad, really.
RussSchultz
30-Mar-2003, 15:35
Looks like it *did* look really bad. Halliburton is now officially out of the running due to political pressure regarding Cheney's ties to the company, and the awarding of oil contracts.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/892259.asp?0cv=CB10
That's too bad, since Halliburton (their sub division) had experience putting out 700 Kuwaiti oilwell fires. I just hope whoever wins the contract has the wisdom to hire away from advisers from HalliBurton who were in Kuwait last time.
Boots and Coots is already there, doing the same job they did in Kuwait the last time.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/1833169
Yeah, looks like another case of "politics" getting in the way of what is actually the best thing to do...sad, really.
So you completely disagree with the concept of "conflict of interest" then? I mean, that's basically what caused this. It's what caused the resignation of Richard Perle. It's what caused Henry Kissinger to resign from the 9/11 investigationary board, etc etc etc.
I don't see this as politics as all. I see it as a good resolution of a big time conflict of interest that would only further the arguments of those that stress that we're only in Iraq to have long term control over their oil, and in the big picture, the entire region.
Nagorak
31-Mar-2003, 07:12
I think more aptly we went to war because of this administration's link to the oil companies. The truth is, there are no weapons of mass destruction.
There's two factors: GW dislikes Saddam because he tried to have his daddy assassinated and is dumb enough to be easily influenced by those close to him.
Cheney just sees the oil being available to US companies to exploit.
As for the rest, maybe Rumsfeld and co really are stupid enough to think the Iraqis would welcome us with open arms. I mean, apparently they actually thought dropping bombs on buildings causes "shock and awe", when anyone who has watched the Israeli-Palestinian conflict knows that blowing up buildings just causes people to become ENRAGED. And I suppose civilian casualties are just "collateral damage" to the military, but to the Iraqi public I suppose it's seen in an entirely different light.
Even if we win the war we're basically screwed. We will not be welcomed with open arms, we'll be welcomed by suicide bombers.
Well, as you pointed out, it is Cheney's -former- company. So he did get rid of any direct conflict of interest. Lots of politicians are former businessmen, so there are inevitably some connections.
I think you're in denial as to how this country works. Only those with money can run and those who do get it from big corporations. Inevitably there are connections because the companies own the politicians.
I mean, really, "conflict of interest" is pretty much a joke. Companies are the interests, the public doesn't matter.
In other words: The problem isn't that Haliburton was in the running to get the contract, the problem is Cheney is Vice President. The answer isn't to bar people from running for office, it is to produce some real campaign reforms that prevent people from just buying office. Until that time the U.S. government is more or less a corporate proxy, and I'm not under any illusions that will change.
But, hey, anyone can grow up to be President. As long as he is born into the rich political aristocracy. If George W. had been anyone besides Bush, he'd never have even been considered to run for office.
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.