Choose now: Clinton or Bush II?
While you’re dredging up images of blowjobs and cigars, ask yourself whether Clinton or Gore secured a $7 Billion (that’s with a capital B, that is) contract for his former employer. Oh, and that’s without an open bidding process. While one of the senior administration officials still is getting paid by said contractor.
That seems to be what’s happening with this administration. Halliburton, which is still paying Cheney, was awarded a no-bid contract that asks Halliburton (actually a subsidiary called KBR) “to run all phases of Iraq’s oil industry” during the immediate post-war period.
The Army has indicated that the contract is a short term contract, but there is now evidence that the contract may be worth up to $7 Billion. You can read and hear more about that at this morning’s Morning Edition or from the source at Rep. Henry Waxman’s web site. The link to Waxman’s site contains PDFs of the letters he sent to the Army Corps of Engineers, the GAO, as well as to the media.
Update: Fox News (of course) has the administration friendly explanation. Of course, they ignore the no-bid part of the issue. The stink this time around (it isn’t the first contact Halliburton has received since Bush II took the White House) is about the no-bid process utilized.
May 7th, 2003 at 1:59 PM
I also hearn this report on Morning Edition, and frankly, I’m really concerned about why it took NPR this long to do a story about it! This is not new news. Yet the media has “conveniently” neglected to report on it. Frankly, I prefer the White be a love den than a hideout for thieves.
May 8th, 2003 at 1:06 AM
“Halliburton, which is still paying Cheney…”
Let’s get the facts straight, shall we. Cheney receives insured deferred income from Halliburton. That is no different than a PENSION in essence. It neither goes up nor down, regardless of whether Halliburton does well or not. There is absolutely nothing sinister about these funds whatsoever, and the perpetuation of this myth shows that you are either willfully ignorant of the facts, or purposely trying to obscure them from your readers.
This issue has been played up over and over and over, despite the fact that theVice President has not only severed all professional ties with Halliburton–before the election in fact–and the fact that all financial records regarding his compensation by Halliburton have been made public.
As for the 7Bil, would you really have preferred to wait for an open bidding process while the oil fires burned? Because Halliburton was hired to help put OUT the fires, not to get oil out of the ground, or didn’t you check THAT fact either?
How would it have looked if we–a country that was still trying to handle this issue through the UN–were to open a bidding process in enough time to allow companies from all over the world, much less other companies in the US, before the diplomatic process had been seen through, and before the war even started. Because I’ll tell you what, in order to properly plan for the contingency of putting out the fires, we needed a company with the experience and ability to handle this ready to roll the day we went in–no, before then. Halliburton, having taken care of this in Gulf War 1 was the natural choice.
And by the way, why is it so wrong for the U.S.–whose blood and treasure were used to fight the war in the first place, and who would have been forced to deal with any and all negative consequences of having done so, regardless of the outcome or duration of the war–to have one of its companies profit from the exercise?
I don’t hear you crying “foul” that French companies like Total Fina Elf were making billions BEFORE the war, also without open bidding.
Get your facts straight, then go ahead and attack the administration at will. Just do it for something they’ve actually been proven to have done, not just things you hear at your tinfoil hat society meetings.
Monica sucked Bill’s dick on the company clock = FACT
Cheney gets money illicitly from Halliburton = PROPAGANDA
May 8th, 2003 at 11:05 AM
My tinfoil hat society? Wow, do you have a operating mode between guns blazing and off? It’s apparently OK for you to use ad hominem attacks against me and your opponents. If you want to stick with the facts, go ahead. If you want to resort to name calling, please take it elsewhere. I disagree with you, but I haven’t yet resorted to attacking you and those with your opinion. I also find it amusing that you ignored the vast majority of my post and conveniently tried to re-frame the issue. Let me try to explain.
First, about me trying to obscure my readers… on the contrary, I provided a link that “my readers” can follow for their own research. The article clearly states the parameters of the severance deal. What is at issue here is that he has an existing financial relationship with Halliburton that still pays him $1,000,000 a year. We all understand that it’s a deferred compensation plan, it doesn’t eliminate it as the cause of a conflict of interest. No where did I say that he was getting money illicitly.
I think we can agree that the cornerstone of any representative democracy is openness and transparency in government processes. That’s why we have an ideal of a free and unfettered press, things like the Freedom of Information Act, and campaign finance laws. This administration, and Cheney in particular, has had a poor track record with maintaining any sort of transparency at all. For example, when the White House had their meetings on energy policy, Cheney and Bush refused to detail participants of that meeting or provide any records at all. This is the minimum we expect from Congress when they have hearings on public policy issues. Why is the White House any different?
In this case, Halliburton was awarded a contract with no open bidding process even though other American firms were capable of delivering on the contract. The Houston Chronicle has a good story that runs down the concerns here. Important FACTS (as you like to say):
This also should answer your point about an “open bidding process while the oil fires burned.” There were no oil fires in the fall. The government has rules for expedited bidding processes, by the way. I know, I’ve been involved with a few of those with the Pentagon (well, the U.S. Navy, actually). All I’m saying is that they had alternatives that they chose not to use.
In the end, we have the appearance of at least some poor communication on the part of the White House, and at worst a conspiracy that makes Whitewater look like a kid’s lemonade stand. We spent millions on investigating Whitewater. The brilliant conclusion of that investigation was that, as you so eloquently put it, “Monica sucked Bill’s dick on the company clock.” Oh, and by the way, please let me know how those blow jobs affected the transparency of policy creation or the content of any bills at the time.
On the topic of TotalFinaElf (and you could include the Russians here, as well), I have two points. One, Halliburton was doing business in 2 of the 3 “axis-of-evil” countries while Cheney was CEO, and while the embargoes were still in place. See Waxman’s letter from April 30, 2003 for his citations and for details. The second point is that TotalFina’s work in Iraq was under the auspices of the UN’s Office of the Iraq Programme Oil for Food. This was a program supported by the U.S. and gave a legitimate foundation to the French companies in Iraq. Unlike Halliburton, I might add, in the cases I mentioned above.
As a result, I’m more upset about Halliburton setting up a Cayman Islands subsidiary to circumvent U.S. trade embargoes than I am about TotalFinaElf winning legitimate contracts in accordance with international law and multilateral policy. I also wonder why a company that has such little regard for U.S. policy should ever be on a short list for no-bid contracts from our government.
As for your blood and treasure point, well, your words raises imagery of an imperialistic path and a common excuse. The fact of the matter is that we said we’re fighting this war on behalf of the Iraqi people and on behalf of world peace. We should then let them choose their contracts as they will. To be honest, we don’t know what this administration is going to do yet about this, since all the contracts awarded so far have been for short-term repair contracts. This is clearly distinct from any long term oil or rebuilding contracts that will come later (though soon).
Just to wrap this up, the reason for my post, the headline I chose, and my initial question is that we have a situation here with this administration that has taken steps to intentionally obscure processes that otherwise should be transparent. The last president that did this was investigated for precisely this type of issue (influence peddling and obscuring facts). In the end, and after millions of dollars, the most damning evidence from Starr was an illicit affair and a sizzling tell-all report. At no time in the latter part of that investigation was there any question of influence over policy or over tax payer dollars.
In this case, we have the same appearance of impropriety and the influence peddling (and you can add the original energy debates to this, FCC deregulation hearings, and a few others). The primary difference is that in this case, we’re looking at policy issues and influence pertaining to real bills and real taxpayer dollars.
Which is more serious?
May 8th, 2003 at 11:52 AM
First of all, people can, and do make ad hominen attacks on opinion sites. You are not an elected official, and neither am I, and we are free to say whatever we want to each other without being held accountable by anyone other than each other and our own respective consciences. Mine is clear, that’s all I care about.
People who are PAID to deliver the “news” or to make policy have an obligation to strive to deliver factual information or at least opinions based upon facts, not just name-calling. I would hold people on BOTH sides of the aisle responsible in this manner by the way. I hold bloggers to different standards. I never accused you of ad hominem attacks, I accused the Democrats of today like Byrd of them, and in his case, they are both ineffective (my main point, if you read my post closely) and unseemly.
As for your points about Cheney, you stated that he has a “conflict of interest,” yet provide absolutely not one single fact to support such an accusation. You do provide facts to show that he still receives money from Halliburton, but he never disputed the fact. You conclude (and cite others who draw the same conclusions) that the mere fact that he still receives money–regardless of the nature of the funds, or the reason for their payment–constitutes a conflict of interest. This is NOT a fact. This is your opinion.
Because the deferred salary is insured, and must be paid to Cheney by contractual obligation and legal agreement, Halliburton would have to make good on the agreement even if Cheney stood up on national TV and said that everyone who works at Halliburton is a slimy snake who isn’t worth the skin they’re in. They’d still have to pay him even if they lost money this year–same amount, same terms. They’d still have to pay him if he–as if he has the power as VP to do this, it’s laughable that you would suggest he does–opened the bidding to any and all comers, or even shut them out entirely.
So where is the “conflict?” By definition, a conflict of interest would mean that he is “beholden” to Halliburton in some way, and he is not. You cannot show me a single fact to support the statement that he is. Does he favor them perhaps because he knows them? What if he did? He alone does not have the power to hand them the contract, and your insinuation that he does is ludicrous. Yes, there are other companies that could do this kind of work, but Halliburton has done it in the same region under the same circumstances before. They are highly qualified to do the work, and there is no factual evidence that other bidders would have bid lower.
To acknowledge your point, however, we’ll never know, but my issue is with you blaming Cheney for that and insinuating in the process (in your title) that there’s “corruption” and cronyism behind it. You have nothing but opinion to support such a statement.
As for “transparency,” where, praytell, are the Rose Law Firm files from Hillary’s office? Why were FBI files under the Clinton’s control, unbeknownst to the American people? How can you compare an administration like Bush’s to Clinton’s in any way outside of policy-making? They are just not comparable in terms of corruption. It is offensive to compare, for example (as you did on my site) Bill Clinton having oral sex with a subordinate (something you’d be fired for, by the way) in an anteroom to his office, while supposedly working, and then LYING about it to the American people when directly asked, to the current President putting on a little too much pomp and circumstance while celebrating the homecoming of sailors on the U.S.S. Lincoln. If you can’t see that, I don’t know how we can begin to have intelligent dialogue.
Also, there is nothing whatsoever imperialistic about feeling slightly entitled (and I was speaking for myself, not the government–I have no idea what their motives are) to have ONE of our companies benefit from the opportunities now existing in free Iraq. We are opening up the same opportunity to countries that supported us as well. If we were imperialists, we wouldn’t, and we wouldn’t be leaving. We’d stay and administer everything ourselves in perpetuity. We have no intention of doing that. One of the key issues anti-Bush people like you with the war in the first place was how it would affect our economy, and now you don’t want to try to recoup any of the treasure we spent liberating the Iraqis. Face it, you just want to find fault with Bush and the U.S. and refuse to see that the behavior of the French and Russians was much more imperialistic, much more sinister and much more worthy of your criticism.
Finally, regarding your repeated assertion that we fought the war to liberate the Iraqis,that’s bullshit. This was ONE of the reasons. The media, and indeed the administration, have been talking about it the most because right now, that’s the most visible sign that the war was worth fighting. When we find evidence of WMD (which we have and will continue to do) and when we find evidence of ties to terror (which we already have) and when we find evidence of corruption and complicity between Saddam and our so-called “allies” the French, Russians and Chinese (which we have) the media spends some time on it, but the imagery–in particular for TV news–just isn’t as compelling. Factor in media bias against the President and against the war, and you have underreporting on everything BUT the liberation and the efforts to rebuild/police Iraq. Still, it was not the reason we went. If it were, we’d be in Africa (pick a country, any country), in N. Korea, in Bellarusse, need I continue? We aren’t in the business of “freeing” people if those people aren’t under the thumb of a regime that is also posing an immediate threat to us, if those people don’t want to be liberated, or if those people have such powerful weapons already (N. Korea) that simply “going in” and liberating them isn’t an option without dire consequences for both sides.
I took particular offense at your comment that we need to “dehumanize” our opponents to fight against them. This is disgusting and untrue. Do you know any U.S. soldiers who are in Iraq? Do you know how many were killed because they tried to HELP their enemies and DID treat them as humans? Ours is one of the most humane military forces on the planet, and your comments show how truly deep your misunderstanding (most likely willfull) of this administration and this military is.
You are entitled to disagree with me, but I’m also entitled to disagree with you. I start with the same facts, but I draw very different conclusions, apparently.
May 21st, 2003 at 5:10 PM
I’m dropping this in general, but wanted to clarify two things.
First of all, it’s standard military procedure to dehumanize enemies while in combat. I’m not saying that the soldiers are actively thinking of Iraqis as less than human. I’m talking about normal military practice (of any military, not just our’s) using terms like “target”, “collateral damage”, “threat”, etc. When a gunner is targetting an enemy tank, he’s targetting the tank, not the 3-4 poor saps inside who are about to be killed.
The point? Well, it’s OK for them to do this… they couldn’t do their job without that distinction (to explore this, read about cops who shoot people in the line of duty… it’s not easy for them). I talk to many soldiers and members of our military nearly every night (by way of the Internet and a common interest). I’ve spoken to a member of the DOJ who was doing work in Pakistan until the start of combat. I have some understanding of how they feel as a result. I also came one objecting parent close to joining the navy out of high school…
It’s not OK for us, as political beings (all of us are participants in the public debate) to do the same, especially after combat is over. “Unavoidable casualties” should be on our mind when we make decisions. Real people are those casualties, with real families going through real pain. My point was that we keep that in mind when we consider the costs of war.
Next, as for the files from the Whitewater investigation, I agree with you. Transparency cuts both ways… I didn’t defend the files being anywhere. I just pointed out that we have a more relevant potential abuse here, in terms of policy and law, yet there is no independent counsel being set up.
I also didn’t compare the current president’s carrier landing to blowjob-gate. I have no idea where you’re drawing that conclusion.