Cheney's company turning huge profits on Army contracts

[Corn]

Okay, sir...will do:

LMAO!!! That was classic.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

September 12, 2002 - "Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

That was the entire speech...one sentence? Wow, did Bush just walk up to the podium, say that one sentence and walk away?

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

Can you disprove that Bush in fact had no sources indicating this?

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

Hey, great, more statements not...taken...out...of...context or edited.

Can you prove that the available intelligence did not indicate that these things were highly probable, with the exception of the Niger uranium acquisition attempt, which we all know was shady?

Intelligence is rarely about absolutes. We are extremely fortunate to have the rare instances of absolution that intelligence yields.

Intelligence is about probabilities, likelihoods, reasonable deductions, and inferences. You do understand that, right?

It is quite apparent the Bush administration and George Bush himself used only the intelligence which fit their agenda and is now occupying Iraq at the cost of American lives, Iraqi lives as well as billions upon billions of dollars.

None of the claims they made about WMD, terrorist ties, nuclear material and the supposed imminent threat Iraq posed have ever been proven. No one I have discussed this with who supports Bush has been able to answer the simple question, if there is no proof of any of the reasons Bush gave for invading and occupying Iraq why are we there?

I believe there are several reasons. I believe Bush is easily led. I believe people in his administration led him into this conflict in Iraq. Bush may have had good intentions but this invasion is wasting resources we desperately need to fight the real enemy, the terrorists who have now made Iraq their rallying point.

I believe there are those as well in the Bush administration who saw Iraq as just another investment opportunity. They used the tragedy of 9/11 to their advantage. This is a despicable act. There are members of the Bush administration and their close business associates who are profiting from the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

I believe the Bush administration is being run by radicals, neo-cons, who see the US position as the greatest military power in the world as an opportunity to advance their agenda of world domination.

I believe the Bush administration and Bush himself are alienating our allies and destroying any hope for cooperation among nations to solve the problems which contribute to the cycle of violence in the world. Problems which contribute to the view of America many nations hold as a dominant military oppressor.

The statements above you claim are taken out of context and edited are from George Bush. If the intelligence was faulty it was ultimately his job as commander-in-chief to ascertain their veracity before using them to invade a nation where it is completely clear the statements are false. You can't keep passing the buck on this.

I don't believe Iraq will be a successful venture. Except, as the thread implies, for certain large US corporations. But in the end Iraq will become the quick sand that swallows the Bush administration.

The American people will put up with the cost for a little while. I'm surprised they've put up with the loss of American lives this long. But very soon they will realize the Bush administration has led them down the wrong road. A road where the good will of our allies has been lost, our economy has been damaged and the lives of Americans are being sacrificed for reasons that were never real. The Bush administration has sent us on a course which ignores the real threat and instead has used the war on terror to enter into a dangerous no-win conflict in a nation which posed no threat to us. While providing a theater for terrorists which will allow them to grow at the very point in time when we had the opportunity to stop them.

 

[BOBDN]

...proof is in the proverbial pudding.

Okay, sir...will do:

LMAO!!! That was classic.

Three more non-answers. Two from galt, one from corn.

Stop evading the subject.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

The majority of Iraqi citizens are glad the US ousted Saddam.

Is that your opinion or do you have proof of that? It seems to me that Iraqi's dislike America as much as they did Hussien.

The majority of Iraqis may very well be glad the US ousted Saddam. But I believe they now resent the US even more than they did Saddam.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: dabuddha

BOBDN: I have a feeling that even if someone showed you an apple, and it smelled like an apple, and even tasted like an apple, you'd be too blinded by your hatred for apples and tell everyone it's an orange. I hope you'll actually think about that for a minute. As per the topic, Halliburton is best suited for the job. And I do think the administration knows a lot more than you do

Your reply does not address the central topic.

Did the US need to invade Iraq?

Were there US corporations which stood to profit from the invasion?

The question is not whether Halliburton is qualified to handle the job in Iraq. The question is, how did we get to the point where Halliburton's services were needed?

I have one more question for you, dabuddah. Why do you feel it is necessary to equate my questioning the Bush administration on what has proved to be an invasion based on false reasons with hatred?

This is the second time I've noticed that you have started a thread with a topic, started arguing about something completely different then accused the people that are on topic of being off topic. Pot. Kettle. Black

The central topic of this thread that YOU POSTED had NOTHING to with wether the US needed to invade Iraq. Period, end of story, get back on topic and discuss the implications of a no-bid contract awarded a company that the Vice-President used to be CEO of and sold all his stock and ownership in after becoming Vice president. That is the topic, not your attempt to divert it to your raving about the invasion.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: dabuddha

BOBDN: I have a feeling that even if someone showed you an apple, and it smelled like an apple, and even tasted like an apple, you'd be too blinded by your hatred for apples and tell everyone it's an orange. I hope you'll actually think about that for a minute. As per the topic, Halliburton is best suited for the job. And I do think the administration knows a lot more than you do

Your reply does not address the central topic.

Did the US need to invade Iraq?

Were there US corporations which stood to profit from the invasion?

The question is not whether Halliburton is qualified to handle the job in Iraq. The question is, how did we get to the point where Halliburton's services were needed?

I have one more question for you, dabuddah. Why do you feel it is necessary to equate my questioning the Bush administration on what has proved to be an invasion based on false reasons with hatred?

This is the second time I've noticed that you have started a thread with a topic, started arguing about something completely different then accused the people that are on topic of being off topic. Pot. Kettle. Black

The central topic of this thread that YOU POSTED had NOTHING to with wether the US needed to invade Iraq. Period, end of story, get back on topic and discuss the implications of a no-bid contract awarded a company that the Vice-President used to be CEO of and sold all his stock and ownership in after becoming Vice president. That is the topic, not your attempt to divert it to your raving about the invasion.

How can you possibly separate the Bush/Cheney led invasion of Iraq and the billions of dollars in contracts secured by Halliburton? If not for the invasion there would be no need for Halliburton in Iraq. The two are inextricably linked.

Invasion. Contracts. Profiteering.

The invasion was unnecessary.
The contracts were therefore unnecessary as well.
Halliburton is now profiteering off of an unnecessary invasion while their former CEO is VP.

You may consider my posts raving about the invasion but the truth may be closer to this. No one can excuse the Bush administration's actions. The invasion was sold to America based on lies. And Halliburton, along with several other politically connected corporations, is now earning billions in US taxpayer dollars because of it.

That is the topic.

 

[adlep]

You go BOBDN...
Look people, the fact that he or I do not support the war in Iraq, does not mean that we are not patriotic, or damm
"liberals".....
Our military has a terrifying might and potential...
Lets not waste it in a country which hates us....
The bottom line is that the entire war plan and reconstruction plan doesnt work very well.
Apparently right now Mr. Bush is trying to get the UN's support for the reconstruction effort, which he should not get....
We are all going to pay for this war a lot of money and hopefully it will teach us to be not as ignorant as we are right now....
To all war supporters:
Billions of dollars for the reconstruction of Iraq?
Why?
And what for?

 

[DealMonkey]

If you look at Halliburton's stock prices over the last 12 months, you'll see a nice steady increase. Considering Cheney is still on the Halliburton payroll, it certainly LOOKS like a conflict of interests. One would think that Cheney would divest any connections to Halliburton whatsoever considering the political furor over lucrative contracts they're getting in Iraq. I don' t think anyone can deny Halliburton's doing pretty nicely with the Iraqi contracts rolling in -- contracts that up until now were awarded secretly and without competition. Not that that means anything

CNN.com - Halliburton seeks more Iraq work

Oilfield services company, already in Iraq, seeks contracts for final phase of oilfield repairs.

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Halliburton Inc. said Monday it had placed a bid for a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers contract to finish repairing Iraqi oil fields -- though it's likely the company has already done the most lucrative part of the work.

Friday was the last day to submit bids for two Army contracts, each of which will have a minimum value of $500,000 and a maximum value of $500 million.

Other firms who submitted bids included Alisa Viejo, Calif.-based Fluor Corp. (FLR: up $1.07 to $36.95, Research, Estimates) and Parsons Corp., of Pasedena, Calif.

...

According to the Army, the third and final phase of the project, which must be completed by March 3, 2004, is worth only $176 million -- compared with the $967 million value of the rest of the contract.

The structure of the contract has led to some anonymous criticism, in recent reports by the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, that the process has been skewed in favor of Houston-based Halliburton (HAL: up $0.03 to $23.44, Research, Estimates), which was led by Vice President Dick Cheney until his resignation before the 2000 election.

The Army has denied showing any favoritism to Halliburton, and pointed out that the recent sabotage of a critical Iraqi oil pipeline only highlights the chance that there could be more work in Iraq than is currently expected.

...

Halliburton's Kellogg Brown & Root unit has been working in Iraq since March, helping repair damage to Iraq's oil infrastructure, in a contract it won secretly, without competitive bidding. The political furor over that contract led the Army to agree to issue replacement contracts.

Cheney divested himself of most of his interest in Halliburton in 2000. He has stock options in a trust, but has promised to donate any profits from those options to charity. He is still paid a set amount by Halliburton, but that money is guaranteed, even if Halliburton goes bankrupt.

 

[DealMonkey]

Also, see this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56429-2003Aug27.html

Halliburton's Deals Greater Than Thought

Halliburton, the company formerly headed by Vice President Cheney, has won contracts worth more than $1.7 billion under Operation Iraqi Freedom and stands to make hundreds of millions more dollars under a no-bid contract awarded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, according to newly available documents.

The size and scope of the government contracts awarded to Halliburton in connection with the war in Iraq are significantly greater than was previously disclosed and demonstrate the U.S. military's increasing reliance on for-profit corporations to run its logistical operations. Independent experts estimate that as much as one-third of the monthly $3.9 billion cost of keeping U.S. troops in Iraq is going to independent contractors.

Services performed by Halliburton, through its Brown and Root subsidiary, include building and managing military bases, logistical support for the 1,200 intelligence officers hunting Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, delivering mail and producing millions of hot meals. Often dressed in Army fatigues with civilian patches on their shoulders, Halliburton employees and contract personnel have become an integral part of Army life in Iraq.

Spreadsheets drawn up by the Army Joint Munitions Command show that about $1 billion had been allocated to Brown and Root Services through mid-August for contracts associated with Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Pentagon's name for the U.S.-led war and occupation. In addition, the company has earned about $705 million for an initial round of oil field rehabilitation work for the Army Corps of Engineers, a corps spokesman said.

Specific work orders assigned to the subsidiary under Operation Iraqi Freedom include $142 million for base camp operations in Kuwait, $170 million for logistical support for the Iraqi reconstruction effort and $28 million for the construction of prisoner of war camps, the Army spreadsheet shows. The company was also allocated $39 million for building and operating U.S. base camps in Jordan, the existence of which the Pentagon has not previously publicly acknowledged.

....

 

[Tab]

Of course its going to go up! They've got more work to do, what do you expect?

 

[Corn]

Considering Cheney is still on the Halliburton payroll, it certainly LOOKS like a conflict of interests.

Why the dishonest misrepresentation?

Evidently the author of the CNN article dumbed down the following excerpt so as to not confuse the unsophisticated reader:

He is still paid a set amount by Halliburton, but that money is guaranteed, even if Halliburton goes bankrupt.

Cheney is currently receiving deferred comp. This is not "new" money he's earning, he's simply being paid back what he already had earned, but has not yet received. Cheney received a "whopping" $160K in wages from Halliburton last year for 1999 earnings not yet paid, and will continue to do so for 2 more tax years. LINK.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Tabb
Of course its going to go up! They've got more work to do, what do you expect?

That is precisely the point. Halliburton has more work BECAUSE the Bush/Cheney administration has involved the US in an invasion in Iraq FOR NO APPARENT REASON. Or to be more precise for none of the reasons given.

The plan worked very well for Cheney. CEO of Halliburton. VP in Bush administration. Get America to invade Iraq. Get contracts to rebuild Iraq.

And all at the expense of the American taxpayers.

Little wonder Halliburton's stock is rising.

 

[Corn]

The plan worked very well for Cheney. CEO of Halliburton.

Cheney is not CEO of Halliburton. Please enlighten me, what has Cheney gained from all this? This is a pretty disturbing plan, enough to get him reviled by millions of people, surely he must get something out of this deal, right?

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Corn

The plan worked very well for Cheney. CEO of Halliburton.

Cheney is not CEO of Halliburton. Please enlighten me, what has Cheney gained from all this?

The office Cheney holds is a temporary position. He will be returning to the private sector someday. He will have a place secured for him by his deeds while in government.

Realistically, do you believe Cheney can be CEO of Halliburton one minute, VP of the US the next, create conditions wherein Halliburton earns billions of dollars from US government contracts and still you deny any conflict of interest?

I don't believe Cheney's motives are altruistic. I believe an administration which is willing to trump up evidence to start a war must have ulterior motives. Greed chief among them.

Cheney will benefit from his connections with Halliburton just as Halliburton is benefitting from their connections with VP Cheney.

 

[Tab]

So what should we should do BOBDN? Use a different company? You can debate as much as you want about the war not being 'right'. Reguardless we've got to repair, use a different company for all I care.

 

[Corn]

Cheney will benefit from his connections with Halliburton just as Halliburton is benefitting from their connections with VP Cheney.

Cheney was CEO, *he's* the damned "connection", they benefit from him, not the other way around. You still haven't shown what he has to gain. You say he isn't altruistic, yet you claim he's starting a war so his "buddies" can profit, well that sounds pretty altruistic to me. It also sounds like the typical and tired argument that republicans are motivated solely by greed.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Tabb
So what should we should do BOBDN? Use a different company? You can debate as much as you want about the war not being 'right'. Reguardless we've got to repair, use a different company for all I care.

The point I'm trying to make is this. We are now forced to sacrifice American lives, billion of dollars, our credibility around the world and our economic and personal security because the Bush administration has set a course that caused us to invade Iraq without reason. It's too late to use a different company. That's not the point. There was no need to use any company to rebuild Iraq. This is the greatest misadventure in American history.

These people are not fit to lead. I can't imagine anyone screwing up any worse.

If you or I were to screw up our jobs like this we'd be out on the street looking for work. I just want to make sure America recognizes what has happened to us because of the Bush administration. I want to make sure the Bush administration is out on the street looking for work instead of in Washington advancing their secret agenda, telling more lies, costing the lives of American troops as well as billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars which companies they are closely aligned with are profiting from.

The Bush administration is a disgrace. It's time to set the record straight. It's time for them to pay the price for their lies, their intentional mistakes. Just as they would have us pay for our mistakes if we were working for them and screwed up on this grand a scale.

I want the people who support this madness to come to their senses. Stop making excuses for this madness. Stop making excuses for these people. Demand accountability.

 

[Corn]

I've been hearing "lies, lies, lies" for months now, but still haven't been provided any sufficient proof that anyone actually "lied", other than the whining Bush haters who have misrepresented certain facts, such as has been demonstrated in this very thread.

 

[Corn]

What I find most amusing is that every morning that Cheney wakes up, he probably breathes a sigh of relief that he's still among the living.......only to be charged by the haters that his sole motivation in everything he does is greed, or altruistism to his "buddies", yet none of that will matter tomorrow--or next week--when his ticker stops working......and that he would risk his reputation, or legacy, as a reviled war monger, to attain these supposed "future riches" that BOBDN keeps telling me he's gonna get that he may never live to attain.

Although you never know, some people are plain crazy.......hard to tell though who it is that's crazy.....could be Cheney, could be BOBDN. I'm leaning toward BOBDN though, simply because he spends a significant amount of time and effort spewing vitriolic hatred on Bush/Cheney and those who don't follow lockstep into his Bush/Cheney bashing.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Corn

Considering Cheney is still on the Halliburton payroll, it certainly LOOKS like a conflict of interests.

Why the dishonest misrepresentation?

There's nothing dishonest. He's on the payroll. Halliburton is fed billions in contracts. If that's not quid pro quo, then what is?

Evidently the author of the CNN article dumbed down the following excerpt so as to not confuse the unsophisticated reader:

He is still paid a set amount by Halliburton, but that money is guaranteed, even if Halliburton goes bankrupt.

Right, I saw that too. I understand there appears to be no outright incentive for Cheney to ensure that Halliburton succeeds financially as he gets the money either way. However, my point is that how can we be sure Cheney is acting in a neutral fashion w/ Halliburton? We really can't. He was the former CEO, he's on the payroll, how could he NOT be influenced by those factors?

Cheney is currently receiving deferred comp. This is not "new" money he's earning, he's simply being paid back what he already had earned, but has not yet received. Cheney received a "whopping" $160K in wages from Halliburton last year for 1999 earnings not yet paid, and will continue to do so for 2 more tax years. LINK.

[/quote]

Right, I understand that. However, you would think, in order to avoid any appearances of conflicts, why not just suspend his interests in Halliburton until after his tenure as VP is over? While I agree we can't prove (yet) that Cheney is being influenced by Halliburton and/or giving Halliburton preferential treatment, certainly it seems like it would be a possibility. Why can't he just divest himself completely so we don't have to sit around wondering?

Let me put it this way: Let's say my city's mayor was formerly the CEO of a large waste management company. After winning the election, he continued receiving deferred pay from the same waste management company. During the mayor's tenure, the waste management company started receiving lucrative contracts and winning contracts for the city's waste disposal often without competition and often after secret negotiations. Would you not wonder if the mayor was giving preferential treatment to his former company? IMO, you'd have to be a fool to ignore it.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

There's nothing dishonest. He's on the payroll. Halliburton is fed billions in contracts. If that's not quid pro quo, then what is?

...having your brother-in-law sell pardons while playing the back-9?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Corn
What I find most amusing is that every morning that Cheney wakes up, he probably breathes a sigh of relief that he's still among the living.......only to be charged by the haters that his sole motivation in everything he does is greed, or altruistism to his "buddies", yet none of that will matter tomorrow--or next week--when his ticker stops working......and that he would risk his reputation, or legacy, as a reviled war monger, to attain these supposed "future riches" that BOBDN keeps telling me he's gonna get that he may never live to attain.

Although you never know, some people are plain crazy.......hard to tell though who it is that's crazy.....could be Cheney, could be BOBDN. I'm leaning toward BOBDN though, simply because he spends a significant amount of time and effort spewing vitriolic hatred on Bush/Cheney and those who don't follow lockstep into his Bush/Cheney bashing.

Damn good of you to leave the door open like that, Corn. That's about the best we can do. You should appreciate, I hope, how I can look at the same data and conclude the other way.

 

[Corn]

However, you would think, in order to avoid any appearances of conflicts, why not just suspend his interests in Halliburton until after his tenure as VP is over?

What practical diffrence would it make, really? This is money he is *owed*, not earning. You would simply have the same argument if he were to "suspend" (assuming it would even be legal to suspend this deferred comp--the IRS might not allow these payments to be suspended if they were structured to defer the payroll taxes until the wages were claimed by Cheney) his owed wages. As stated earlier, he's gonna get this money anyway, so you tell me, what is the practical difference between receiving it now as opposed to 6 years from now?

 

[LunarRay]

Cheney's deferred compensation is of little, if any, importance to anything he does in office. Unless he has some 'under the table' agreement that we know nothing about. I doubt he does. Nor do I think he would do anything that would see the light of day that could undermine the Administration's Agenda. Just too much risk involved.
The IRS could impute the tax on any deferred comp that he somehow altered to further delay receipt without additional incentive to do so which in itself would be taxable and questionable but, legal.

edit to add a possive (')

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: Tabb
So what should we should do BOBDN? Use a different company? You can debate as much as you want about the war not being 'right'. Reguardless we've got to repair, use a different company for all I care.

The point I'm trying to make is this. We are now forced to sacrifice American lives, billion of dollars, our credibility around the world and our economic and personal security because the Bush administration has set a course that caused us to invade Iraq without reason. It's too late to use a different company. That's not the point. There was no need to use any company to rebuild Iraq. This is the greatest misadventure in American history.

These people are not fit to lead. I can't imagine anyone screwing up any worse.

If you or I were to screw up our jobs like this we'd be out on the street looking for work. I just want to make sure America recognizes what has happened to us because of the Bush administration. I want to make sure the Bush administration is out on the street looking for work instead of in Washington advancing their secret agenda, telling more lies, costing the lives of American troops as well as billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars which companies they are closely aligned with are profiting from.

The Bush administration is a disgrace. It's time to set the record straight. It's time for them to pay the price for their lies, their intentional mistakes. Just as they would have us pay for our mistakes if we were working for them and screwed up on this grand a scale.

I want the people who support this madness to come to their senses. Stop making excuses for this madness. Stop making excuses for these people. Demand accountability.

Yea, okay but uh you didnt really answer my question. Have you've got another company with the size and expertise as Haliburton that can help the industry in Iraq? You can say bush lied to the american public in which that can be debated for your hearts content and you can debate about the all you want. The fact is you cant really do anything about it BOBDN. So have you got another company that could replace haliburton or not?