Halliburton contracts in Iraq...ehhhhh?

FlameBlade · Post by **FlameBlade** » Sat May 31, 2003 3:24 am

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Vice President Dick Cheney's former company already has garnered more than $600 million in military work related to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and potentially could earn billions more without having to compete with other companies.

As the Army's sole provider of troop support services, Halliburton's Kellogg Brown & Root subsidiary has received work orders totaling $529.4 million related to the two wars under a 10-year contract that has no spending ceiling.

Rather than put the Iraq work up for bidding, the government has used the 2001 Halliburton contract to place the various work orders in Iraq, prompting criticism from some Democrats that Cheney's former company is receiving favored treatment.

"The amount Halliburton could receive in the future is virtually limitless," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-California, who disclosed the troop support work orders Thursday. "It is simply remarkable that a single company could earn so much money from the war in Iraq."

Halliburton, a Houston-based oilfield-services and construction company, disputes those characterizations, noting it had to compete to win the original contract and that each of its work orders is covered by strict guidelines and costs controls.

"U.S. government contracts are awarded, not by politicians, but by government civil servants, under strict guidelines," company spokeswoman Wendy Hall said. "Government civil servants are well aware of and consistently abide by the requirements of the process. Privatizing this work allows the military to concentrate on its mission.

"Any allegation that this contract is set up to encourage unwarranted spending is unfounded and untrue," she said. "The vice president has nothing to do with the awarding of contracts, the bidding process or task orders."
Cheney's tenure

Cheney headed Halliburton from 1995 until George W. Bush picked him as his running mate in July 2000.

The Army Corps of Engineers, using a separate no-bid contract, has awarded Kellogg Brown & Root $71.3 million in work orders to repair and operate oil wells in Iraq. That contract has a two-year duration of a spending ceiling of $7 billion.

Kellogg Brown & Root competed with two other companies in 2001 to win the logistics contract that makes it the Army's only private supplier of troop support services such as housing, amenities and food over the next decade.

The initial logistics contract award carried no value. The Army negotiates each task order with the company and then verifies the costs as they are billed.

There is no ceiling on spending, because the contract is designed to provide rapid troop support wherever and whenever U.S. forces move into action overseas.

Under similar contracts, the Army paid Kellogg Brown & Root $1.2 billion from 1992 through 1999 to support U.S. troops, mainly in the Balkans. An extension of that contract from 1999 through 2004 is projected to cost $1.8 billion.

Since March 2002, the Army has issued 24 task orders totaling $425.5 million under the contract for work related to Operation Iraqi Freedom, according to Army records provided Waxman. Eleven more work orders totaling $103.9 million have been issued under the same contract for work related to the war in Afghanistan.

Dan Carlson, spokesman for the Army Field Support Command, said the Army has paid $42 million to Kellogg Brown & Root through April for work under the contract related to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Carlson said the more than $500 million in work orders under the logistics contract represents the Army's best estimate of the final costs of the projects. He said the company must justify its spending to Army contract officials before it can be paid.

"Costs are verified as they are billed," he said. "We may spend more or we may spend less."

Much of a $60 million obligation to Brown & Root to provide logistical supply line services and locations in Turkey was never spent because the Turkish government refused to allow U.S. troops to launch an invasion of Iraq from Turkey, Carlson said.

Consider that Cheney used to be a significant part of Halliburton...

Consider Bush's connections with various people...

This makes me uneasy.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Sat May 31, 2003 3:28 am

Why exactly?

I mean sure Cheney, like every politician I can name abuses his position for his own profit/aims/goals/pleasure, whats new? Maybe scale, maybe, but I mean a poloticians sole purpose is to keep himself elected until he can pad his pockets enough to golf and drink umbrella drinks right?

Cheney is simply the guy doing it this four years.

The question for me is, will Haliburton do the job?

3278 · Post by **3278** » Sat May 31, 2003 3:41 am

It seems like there'd be some kind of conflict-of-interest legislation that would forbid this kind of abuse. I mean, I'd be curious to see what the "strict guidelines" are.

FlameBlade · Post by **FlameBlade** » Sat May 31, 2003 3:44 am

I remember from my experiences at NASA working with budget analysts...

Basically, we have contracts...corps compete for them. Then we award the contract.

It doesn't take much to convince someone, or place someone in such position where certain corp can get the contract easily, from my experience...

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Sat May 31, 2003 4:16 am

What, exactly, does Dick Cheney stand to gain from any of this?

EvanMoore · Post by **EvanMoore** » Sat May 31, 2003 4:58 am

As I recall, Lyndon B. Johnson sent nearly every GI to Viet Nam aboard a private airline called "Flying Tigers". It just so happened that his wife owned major stock in said airline.

Why didn't the military use their own transports?

Good question.

But, no different than what you see here. (Not to mention that two one-month long "wars" don't even hold a candle to the the 12+ years of the Viet Nam "conflict".)

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Sat May 31, 2003 5:05 am

Contracting is cheaper. It means you don't have to maintain depreciating capital for stretches of time when you don't require the excess capacity.

DV8 · Post by **DV8** » Sat May 31, 2003 5:14 am

Marius wrote:What, exactly, does Dick Cheney stand to gain from any of this?

Favours?

Cazmonster · Post by **Cazmonster** » Sat May 31, 2003 5:37 am

Connections with a company that will have unlimited capital.

Now the thing I really want to see is if there are major contributions from Halliburton into election funds. The short answer there could be that there's now a wonderfully huge spigot for Republican party warchests.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Sat May 31, 2003 9:39 am

And so what's your point? Anyone?

As Paul pointed out, even if this is flat out corruption (which I disagree with), it's nothing new under the sun.

The initial logistics contract award carried no value. The Army negotiates each task order with the company and then verifies the costs as they are billed.

This is a very common practice in Public Works. I'm curently assigned to a contract like this. My company contracted with IDOT to supply them with $X of "Various Engineering Services". This means that IDOT just calls my boss up whenever they need an extra Engineer or Inspector on a project, and my Boss sends one of us out there. The Contract goes until the money is spent.

Another reason to use this system is because you want to award these contracts to companies that you /know/ can handle them. It's not like Haliburton is new to Military Contracts. The military needs someone On Call who they can ring up, say "How much will this cost? Good, get it done". They can't be sending out every little thing to be bid on. It's just not logistically possible.

Again, I see nothing wrong here.

Maelwys · Post by **Maelwys** » Sat May 31, 2003 9:48 am

Okay...so under a contract they competed for and won in 2001, they're being paid for services that they're providing (the 600 million). The future money that they may make, would be the money paid to them after they bill the army for services they perform (housing and amenities).

And the only problems with this, is that Kellog and Brown was once headed by Dick Cheney, and that another contract, one to cover what Haliburton is already contracted to cover, hasn't been issued in Afghanistan.

This about sum it up?

3278 · Post by **3278** » Sat May 31, 2003 1:44 pm

MooCow wrote:As Paul pointed out, even if this is flat out corruption (which I disagree with), it's nothing new under the sun.

Yes, because after all, if something really bad happens once, it's really bad, but once it's been going on for a while, it's no big deal.

PMWrestler · Post by **PMWrestler** » Sat May 31, 2003 2:09 pm

So we've seen one end of the spectrum, you guys (for the most part) think that because Cheney used to be involved with the company, it's not fair that they got the contract. My question is: Should the company be penalized for his former involvment, and not be allowed to do any government work for his term?

What if said company is actually the best in the industry? Maybe it wasn't corruption, maybe it was just picking the best company for the job. I don't remember seeing anywhere in the article that said they weren't. (Granted I mostly skimmed it though)

3278 · Post by **3278** » Sat May 31, 2003 2:18 pm

Well, that's really the question, isn't it? That's what the "strict guidelines" are supposed to make certain is true. That's why I'd like to know what those guidelines are - and how strictly they're enforced - before I make a judgement as to the possibility of wrongdoing in this case.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Sat May 31, 2003 2:19 pm

Yes, because after all, if something really bad happens once, it's really bad, but once it's been going on for a while, it's no big deal.

You meant that as sarcasm, but it's true. It's like getting upset because death exists. Death is just par for the coarse. It's the cost of living. Just like corruption is the cost for having a government. It's the way things go.

And "really bad" is kind of an exageration. Are they doing the work they are getting paid for? Yes they are, and that's what is important.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Sat May 31, 2003 6:49 pm

MooCow wrote:
3278 wrote: Yes, because after all, if something really bad happens once, it's really bad, but once it's been going on for a while, it's no big deal.
You meant that as sarcasm, but it's true. It's like getting upset because death exists. Death is just par for the coarse. It's the cost of living.

And yet, medical science keeps trying to find ways to delay or prevent it.

MooCow wrote:Just like corruption is the cost for having a government. It's the way things go.

Corruption is not an inevitable and inherent property of government as death is inherent [so far] to life. The comparison is flawed.

MooCow wrote:Are they doing the work they are getting paid for? Yes they are, and that's what is important.

In addition to that, I can think of two other things that are important:
1. Are they doing the best work for the lowest cost?
2. Is someone recieving unfair and illegal benefits from the arrangement?

I don't understand how you can be so quick to approve of something when you only know the most very basic facts of the situation.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Sat May 31, 2003 7:11 pm

I don't understand how you can be so quick to approve of something when you only know the most very basic facts of the situation.

Because I don't care about corruption. I'm a civil engineer in /Chicago/. Construction in this city is so corrupt it's ridiculous. But I profit off of it, so it's all good. I'd be a hypocrite if I were to blast Cheney for taking kickbacks to steer contracts a certain way.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Sat May 31, 2003 7:24 pm

Ah. See, I care about corruption, because I don't benefit from it.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Sat May 31, 2003 7:46 pm

Ah. See, I care about corruption, because I don't benefit from it.

You should try it some time, it's pretty nice.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Sat May 31, 2003 7:47 pm

All my corruption is personal.

Maybe I /should/ try to benefit from the corruption of an institution...hmm. Could I run for Congress?

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Sat May 31, 2003 7:49 pm

I'd vote for you. Can't be anymore corrupt then most the other guys up there......

FlakJacket · Post by **FlakJacket** » Sat May 31, 2003 8:14 pm

Oh I don't know. I'd like to think that Earl, backed with a BD support staff, could at least give them a run for their- dirty- money.

Reika · Post by **Reika** » Sat May 31, 2003 10:54 pm

Earl in a political office, I'd vote for him just to see the reactions of the other politians. And as Flak said, he definately give them a run for their money.

Say, can anyone else see banners saying "32 to the '08" for the 2008 campaign?

I'd say '78 except that's not an election year, and Earl would be a bit too decrepit by that time as well.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Sat May 31, 2003 11:02 pm

Hell, no. I personally am planning on living forever.

FlameBlade · Post by **FlameBlade** » Sat May 31, 2003 11:17 pm

will you be 35 by the time you run for prez in 2012?

3278 · Post by **3278** » Sat May 31, 2003 11:26 pm

And then some.

Maelwys · Post by **Maelwys** » Sat May 31, 2003 11:31 pm

3278 wrote: Yes, because after all, if something really bad I don't understand how you can be so quick to approve of something when you only know the most very basic facts of the situation.

The same way people can quickly disapprove of the situation knowing only the very basic facts of the situation. All the article states is that a company previously run by Cheney is making money off of a contract it has with the government.

Yet Cazmonster brings to play "Unlimited Capital" and election funding. Flameblade is "uneasy". Corruption is mentioned. How can they be so quick to disapprove?

FlameBlade · Post by **FlameBlade** » Sat May 31, 2003 11:47 pm

Maybe it has something do with my upbringing?

3278 · Post by **3278** » Sun Jun 01, 2003 12:34 am

Maelwys wrote:How can they be so quick to disapprove?

I have no idea.

PMWrestler · Post by **PMWrestler** » Sun Jun 01, 2003 12:35 am

The same way people can quickly disapprove of the situation knowing only the very basic facts of the situation. All the article states is that a company previously run by Cheney is making money off of a contract it has with the government.

Exactly. Damn you for posting that before I got a chance.

FlakJacket · Post by **FlakJacket** » Sun Jun 01, 2003 12:41 am

Reika wrote:Earl in a political office, I'd vote for him just to see the reactions of the other politians.

Although. Now that I think about it, if we really wanted to fuck with them, we should get Caz elected. Just imagine the reactions to his turning up for the inaugeration in something like a Hawaiian shirt.

Perhaps a double ticket? Earl as the primary candidate with Caz as his VP nomination? 'Drek in '08!

Reika · Post by **Reika** » Sun Jun 01, 2003 12:44 am

FlakJacket wrote: Perhaps a double ticket? Earl as the primary candidate with Caz as his VP nomination? 'Drek in '08!

That works.

Wonder how many people would get to write them in?

3278 · Post by **3278** » Sun Jun 01, 2003 1:08 am

"Vote for me! Or deal with <i>him</i>!"

Reika · Post by **Reika** » Sun Jun 01, 2003 4:25 am

3278 wrote:"Vote for me! Or deal with <i>him</i>!"

Exactly.

Thorn · Post by **Thorn** » Sun Jun 01, 2003 7:47 pm

Okay, as much as I'd vote for the 32/Caz ticket (and I sooooo claim campaign manager, btw), I'm gonna swing this back around to serious again.

MooCow wrote:
3278 wrote: Yes, because after all, if something really bad happens once, it's really bad, but once it's been going on for a while, it's no big deal.
You meant that as sarcasm, but it's true. It's like getting upset because death exists. Death is just par for the coarse. It's the cost of living. Just like corruption is the cost for having a government. It's the way things go.

And "really bad" is kind of an exageration. Are they doing the work they are getting paid for? Yes they are, and that's what is important.

Okay, work with me a second here, okay?

If a person gets caught stealing from their employer, chances are really really high that person is going to get fired, right? I know that's what would happen to me. (Hell, if I get caught parking in "Patient" parking, instead of parking out where Jesus dropped his bike with the rest of the employees, I could very well get fired. But that's hopefully just me.)

Now, when politicians campaign, what they're really doing is asking for a job. And they're asking, you, the voter, because /you/ are their employer. Your money pays their salaries. All that money that you pay out in federal, state and local taxes, whether you want to or not? That's paying the salaries of these politicians. You, indirectly (sadly), are their boss.

Political campaigning is like interviewing for a job. They're going to tell you all about their experience, their plans for your district/city/state/whatever, and stress to you how serving /you/ is what they're all about. So Politician A gets the job, let's say.

But once he has the job, he suddenly doesn't give a shit about what you want or all the promises he's made you. He's in the office stealing supplies, spending all day on the phone talking to his friends instead of doing work, etc. That's the kind of shit that gets the rest of us fired.

Okay, so with Tim Smith, our politician, he said "I won't raise your taxes" and "I'll do what's best for the district/city/state/whatever". Then, once he has the job, instead of doing what is strictly best for the district/city/state, he starts doing what's best for him. The contract goes not to the company that would do the best work for the best price, but rather to the company whose president sits on the board of the college Tim Smith wants to send his kid to. The difference in work quality and whatever extra we pay out monetarily has, effectively, been stolen from us, Tim Smith's employer. So your taxes go up not because it's necessary for the continued efficient running of your state, but rather because Tim Smith wants his kid to go to an Ivy League school or something.

That's bullshit. These people, while "interviewing" for these jobs, tell us one thing, and then come in and do another. You know, if you were to interview for a job claiming to have certain skills, and then once you had the job your employer found out you'd lied? You'd be out on your ass in no time.

So why in the hell should these people, who we hire to represent our districts/cities/states/etc., be held to a lower standard than we are? If you, say... handled the supply ordering for a company, and decided to order ABC staplers instead of XYZ staplers, despite the fact that ABC staplers were more expensive and/or lower quality, because you owned stock in ABC Stapler Company? If you got busted for it, chances are you'd be out of a job in no time.

Corruption is not just a natural side-effect of having a government. Corruption is why our taxes continue to go up while government programs continue to get cut (whether you think the programs should exist or not is another matter). Corruption means they're /not/ doing the job they're getting paid for, or certainly not doing it as well as they could be, and I don't see why we, the freakin' /employers/ of these people, should just lie back and accept it. Your boss wouldn't accept that kind of bullshit argument from you. Why should we?

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Sun Jun 01, 2003 8:04 pm

Because no one votes for an honest politician.

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Sun Jun 01, 2003 8:09 pm

So... uh... is this actually corruption, or merely the appearance thereof?

Anyone been through a government bidding process? Do you realize how time-consuming such things are? And do I really want to give every contract in the world to the lowest bidder? There such a thing as quality and getting what you pay for. On something like this where there are issues of national security and foriegn policy, etc, it's understandable if the big mucky-mucks are sitting around discussing what needs to be done, and one of 'em pipes up with--"Yeah, I know a company that does exactly that. I know the people and they'll be trustworthy and efficient. They've helped us out before, and I know they'll give us a reasonable price and be able to get stuff done quickly." Which is the process by which decisions are usually expected to be made in every area of business except government.

And as for these companies filling the coffers of the Republicans, the truth is that most of them give heavily to both sides, because they want to be in good with whoever wins.

Is there some unfairness present? Undoubtably. But how serious is it, and how does it stack up against any benefits that may accrue from such a process?

PMWrestler · Post by **PMWrestler** » Sun Jun 01, 2003 9:07 pm

For the past 3 or 4 summers I've worked for my school district, in the buildings and grounds department. Helping to put in sprinklers, helping the electricians, stuff like that. The way things used to be done, was the head of the department would bid out all of the outside work that needed to be done,and would decide based on cost/predicted quality, who would get the job.

It sucked. Every single company we worked with was difficult to get in touch with. We would have work sitting around that needed to get done, or plans that needed to be changed, and the secretaries from the respective sides would play phone tag for days.

Then last summer, they hired a new guy. When the first job of the summer was about to go to bid, he told the head of the department, "My buddy owns a sprinkler business. He'd be perfect for the job." So they gave his friend the contract and things were a hell of a lot easier, at least for the workers. There was an instant rapport with the owner, he was easier to get in touch with, and a bunch of other little things that just got work done faster.

Now I know this is kind of differant, but I'm just saying sometimes nepotism is a good thing.

FlameBlade · Post by **FlameBlade** » Sun Jun 01, 2003 10:17 pm

Personally, I am not supporting either side. (I know, records may show otherwise) Personally, I favor greater efficiency in government. Since there are so much friction within government, it seems that 1 dollar into the government, no matter which, 1 cent goes to us.

So, if we have college-oriented politicans...money is most likely to go that way. Industry-oriented politicans...Money is most likely to go that way. Oil-oriented politicans. Money is most likely to go that way. It is obvious that voters, us are necessary to say where politicans are supposed to go. But how do you all explain low voter turnouts in many of recent elections? Is it because people don't care what politicans are doing? Or "All politicans are so corrupt that why should I bother to vote?" Or...?

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Mon Jun 02, 2003 12:31 am

I am with Bethyaga on this. Corruption isn't always so easily defined. And as always some of us can live with more graft than others-Thorn obviously would be less likely to live with it than me-I blame my government upbringing.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Mon Jun 02, 2003 3:07 pm

According to all the references I've seen, Dick Cheney put all of his stock, including his Halliburton stock and stock options, into a blind trust when he was elected. That means, in theory, he doesn't know if he still owns the stock or not, and won't be informed until he leaves office. However, Cheney also had 140,000 in unvested options that would not mature until 2002-- meaning, they could not be sold or traded in any way until then.

Combined, that means that it's likely Cheney is still a major shareholder in Halliburton; any major divesture of Halliburton stock would have made major ripples on the market pages. Even assuming much of his original stock was divested or traded, that only leaves one year for an additional 140,000 shares to be dealt with. And while the trust is "blind", it's not stupid-- the trust holders are still supposed to try and make money with the resources they hold. If a company looks like it will do well, they won't divest. (And, to be blunt, why should they?)

Now, none of this is proof of corruption, or conflict-of-interest. However, given Cheney's close ties to Halliburton, and the liklihood of him garnering a massive profit from this, I think we can all agree that it's suspicious at the very least.

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Mon Jun 02, 2003 9:37 pm

Suspicious? Sure. Worthy of a further look? Yeah, probably that too. Immoral or unethical or corrupt or detrimental to the American people in any way? I don't have enough information to make any sort of judgement on that.

FlameBlade · Post by **FlameBlade** » Mon Jun 02, 2003 11:02 pm

How about determinal to businesses that doesn't get the contract?

Maelwys · Post by **Maelwys** » Mon Jun 02, 2003 11:56 pm

Damn, why don't you people read the article? They were awarded the contract in 1992 (3 years before Cheney was the head of it) and the contract was renewed before he was in office. <sarcasm> Oh the corruption, the graft, oh woe is me, woe is me! </sarcasm>

FlameBlade wrote:source CNN.com

Halliburton Contracts

Under similar contracts, the Army paid Kellogg Brown & Root $1.2 billion from 1992 through 1999 to support U.S. troops, mainly in the Balkans. An extension of that contract from 1999 through 2004 is projected to cost $1.8 billion.

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Tue Jun 03, 2003 1:32 am

FlameBlade wrote:How about determinal to businesses that doesn't get the contract?

That's just foolish, FB. No matter who got the contract, there would still be only one winner and umpteen losers for whom this is "detrimental." So what?

And thank you, Maelwys. I had heard that once before, but it fell off my radar.

FlameBlade · Post by **FlameBlade** » Tue Jun 03, 2003 1:53 am

I'm not talking about winners or losers. I'm talking about even field of competition for the contract itself based on company's skills. Unless I'm missing something....or jumping to conclusion here...

and Maelwys: read again: "similar contracts" Similar, not exactly the same. Again, I don't know anything. I guess I'll have to back out and actually attempt to do some kind of unbiased research.

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Tue Jun 03, 2003 4:26 am

FlameBlade wrote:I'm not talking about winners or losers. I'm talking about even field of competition for the contract itself based on company's skills.

And what does that mean exactly? I'm very serious here. Is "skills" the only thing a potential contractor brings to the table? Or does proven loyalty, valuable contacts, and an existing working relationship have value as well?

Yes--I think our hiring (and contracting) processes in government need to be "fair" to a large degree, but I've worked in government for almost a decade, and I can tell you from first hand experience that attempts at creating "fairness" seem to lead to what I consider an unacceptably difficult and unweildy process. When I worked as a social worker, the process for hiring a new worker typically took three months from the moment the position came open to the moment a new worker began training. Three months. That's unacceptable. In a large office with 50 workers, they may not notice one or two workers missing for a few months, but in my office, where we had 4, it was devastating. The contracting process can take a similarly long time, and how sad when your requirements change in the middle of a four month search for contractors, and then you have to decide to shoulder on and hope that whoever you choose can adequately match the new requirements or else start the process over.

The best contracting process (in my experience) has been where we go through the bidding and examination process and then contract a company long term to fill all needs in a specific area. We found one company to supply all our computers for a five year period, rather than bidding for every new batch that comes out. We hired a single contractor to handle our wiring needs across twenty counties, and they come out whenever we have a new project. We have a good working relationship, so there's no need to go fishing for each new project, even if someone else might get it to us cheaper. The cost savings in not having to repeat the search process and not having to re-establish a relationship makes it worth it.

So how did Haliburton and its subsidiaries win this contract originally way back in 1992? Were appropriate processes used? I assume so. And if they provided this sort of support reliably for a good eight years, then why wouldn't we extend the same contract into the current administration?

WillyGilligan · Post by **WillyGilligan** » Tue Jun 03, 2003 4:37 am

And if they provided this sort of support reliably for a good eight years, then why wouldn't we extend the same contract into the current administration?

Umm...because we have to punish the rich? Because thanks to the news media the slightest appearance of cause for concern is equivalent to guilt? Both?

Btw, which movie is that quote from, Bethyaga? I remember the line, but not even the actor's faces.

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Tue Jun 03, 2003 4:41 am

WillyGilligan wrote:Btw, which movie is that quote from, Bethyaga? I remember the line, but not even the actor's faces.

TV show. Sports Night. Aaron Sorkin rules, and Jeremy's my hero.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Tue Jun 03, 2003 5:48 am

Bethyaga wrote:Suspicious? Sure. Worthy of a further look? Yeah, probably that too. Immoral or unethical or corrupt or detrimental to the American people in any way? I don't have enough information to make any sort of judgement on that.

Neither do I; but I feel a large degree of suspicion, as well as an unbiased investigation, is in order.

There have been two major charges of corporate favoritism leveled at Cheney-- the Enron scandal, and anything to do with Halliburton. Taken singly, either one is certainly worthy of investigation, although I wouldn't reccomend any other action. Taken together, the idea that Cheney is playing corporate favoritism, making it so him and his buddies are profiting at the expense of the average American investor-- well, it's not so hard to believe anymore. It's pushed me over the edge, inasmuch as I feel fairly certain Cheney is pulling a fast one.

What then becomes suspicious is that attempts to investigate these cases have been stonewalled at the White House. After Watergate, no president or vice-president should even consider trying to keep secret talks "secret" after a judge tried to subpoena the records.

Bottom line? Something's up. Exactly how bad it is, I have no idea. But there's likely some form of corporate favoritism going on here, done to the detriment of the average investor, and likely in violation of several insider trading laws. What's worse, any investigation has been blocked, making things even more suspicious. After enough suspicion, the circumstancial evidence becomes enough for a conviction. While I'm not sure Cheney's at that point yet, things are definitely pointed in that direction.

Halliburton contracts in Iraq...ehhhhh?

Halliburton contracts in Iraq...ehhhhh?

Re: Halliburton contracts in Iraq...ehhhhh?