This Certainly Could Look REALLY Bad. :(

N

Natoma

Veteran
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 said:
Somebody's got to do it, and Halliburton is one of the most qualified companies in the US.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Crusher said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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. :?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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 :rolleyes: 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 said:
Natoma said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

How's the fishing in your world?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Kudos to Blair :)
Replies
6
Views
2K
JF_Aidan_Pryde
J
C
The "Liberal" media...
2 3
Replies
51
Views
6K
nonamer
N
P
Saudis Make Peace Proposal to U.S., Iraq
Replies
17
Views
2K
kyleb
K
H
IBM backstabbing sony and neglected Apple ? (long read)
5 6 7
Replies
126
Views
44K
Fox5
F
P
The Second American Revolution
3 4 5
Replies
81
Views
9K
Crusher
C
Back
Top