BS: Cheney Payback: Halliburton Licks Chops

Subject: BS: Cheney Payback: Halliburton Licks Chops
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 07:27 PM

Say it ain't so, but looks like Dick Cheney's old buddies at Halliburton are in line for some big bucks in a post war Iraq. And lets not forget the Bechtel Group which contributed big time to the Bush campaign!

Yeah, the American working man is gonna get a big old texas sized mugging.

Yeah, what ever happened to fairness? Or honesty?

These Bush folks make Richatrd Nixon look like the Pope!

"Companies *Selected* to Bid on Iraq Reconstruction", Washington Post, March 11th.

www.washingtonpost.com

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Payback: Halliburton Licks Chops
From: Mark Clark
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 08:49 PM

Don't forget that the biggest share of Halliburton, Brown & Root, enriched itself during the Vietnam war thanks to LBJ. The complete corruption of this organization and of Texas politicians goes waaaaayyyyyy back.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Payback: Halliburton Licks Chops
From: DougR
Date: 12 Mar 03 - 01:13 AM

Gee, another conspiracy theory. How exciting.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Payback: Halliburton Licks Chops
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Mar 03 - 07:10 AM

Yo Doug:

This is not a conspiracy theory. Go to washingtonpost.com and read it for yourself. No one is denying any of this. That just how arrogant your guys are. The don't give a tinker's damn who knows that this administration is *corrupt*.

You don't find it curious that these contracts were put out for bidding? That is the American way! That's the way highways projects get built, and guns, and office typewriters, and, and...

The fact that Cheney is so closely tied to Halliburton makes the deal look rather smelly. I guess they think that absolutley no one is watching?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Payback: Halliburton Licks Chops
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Mar 03 - 07:57 AM

Thanks for providing the details about that article Bobert, read it with interest.

My apologies for pissing in your Cornflakes BUT:

1. I thought that it was general knowledge that a condition of American Aid is that the money is spent in America - that goes back to the Marshall Plan era.

2. With regard to the oil industry - world-wide it is very much an American game - in this game it is a mistake to believe that the major players are those "Big Bad Oil Companies" - they are not - the real players are the major service companies - guess who they are Bobert - they are Halliburton; Schlumberger; Fluor and Bechtel - all American. It wouldn't matter a jot if current contracts in Iraq were honoured. The French and the Russians would still have to go to - Yep you've guessed it again - Halliburton; Schlumberger; Fluor and Bechtel - if they wanted to get anything done.

3. The work that has to be done, irrespective of war is massive. To actually attempt to undertake that work using anyone other than the major service companies would be totally irresponsible and terribly inefficient. The type of contracts to be awarded would be massive EPCI contracts - those are not awarded to anyone other than those you as customer, are convinced can deliver on time, on budget.

The one advantage of contracting such work to the companies mentioned above is that they bring a particular American trait to the enterprise - They are not overwhelmed by magnitude - I have personally seen that on numerous occasions.

Sorry Bobert - no corruption reeking to high heaven - just merely the application of good common sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Payback: Halliburton Licks Chops
From: DougR
Date: 12 Mar 03 - 05:27 PM

I wasn't sure, but suspected what Teribus has reported. There just aren't that many service companies that could do the job.

Just another example of Ole Bobert shooting from the hip! You got to take aim, Bobert, and squeeze the trigger don't pull it!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Payback: Halliburton Licks Chops
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Mar 03 - 05:42 PM

Not so, T!

Just because Bechtel and Halliburton have enjoyed a cozy relationship in the past as contractors, that doesn't mean they are the only ones that can offer these services. Like Halliburton had the contract to build the base in DaNang in the Vietnam war. Are you going to tell me that with all the construction companies in the world, that Halliburton is the only company capable of building temporary buildings? Hmmmmm?

Yes, it may give the governemnt a level of comfort but isn't "level of comfort" a centerpiece of any corrup scheme? Yeah, Vinny get Vido to beat up the guy whop made a psass at Vinny's girl because ofr the "level of comfort". The danger here is that when there is an assumption that only one contarctor be considered for a particular job guess who is running the show? The contractor, that's who. Not the customer! Happens all the time at all levels of business. Competition is the main tool in keeping business honest. You take that away and you get lousy product for more money. Doesn't matter what business it is! Don't believe me. Ask anyone teaching Business 101...

Man, these cornflakes taste bad. Real bad...

(Hey, P-Vine, you din't see the cat up on the table again, did ya?)

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Payback: Halliburton Licks Chops
From: Barry Finn
Date: 13 Mar 03 - 02:15 AM

See the "Big Dig" Bechtel. Yrs behind & millions in suspect extras. Mass is going after millions, it's gonna be one hell of a fight. Bechtel is bigger than Bush never mind the gov. of Mass. Iraq will be cut up, drawn & quartered before they even realize they've been raped first. Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Payback: Halliburton Licks Chops
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Mar 03 - 06:21 AM

Bobert,

From your post above - you obviously haven't got the foggiest notion of what you are talking about.

Example - the reconstruction of the entire infrastructure of a country amounts to putting up a few temporary buildings - Ha! bloody lamentable.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Payback: Halliburton Licks Chops
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Mar 03 - 08:45 AM

That's not what I said, T, and you know it. You just enjoy splitting hairs. Admit it or not, you must realize the not only are you mistaken that Halliburton is the only company that can handle this job but in limiting Halliburton's competitors, will not produce a *better* product. Where is the *free enterprise*?

And if the *entire reconstruction* is turned over to just one or two mega corportaions then who really in control? Not the governemnt. Now we're going to end up with more $300 toilet seats because those who tend to profit, will do so.

Competition is the American way! Right?

Not in this corrupt administration, Bobert!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Payback: Halliburton Licks Chops
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Mar 03 - 10:11 AM

Bobert,

At no time have I said that Halliburton is the only company capable of doing the job. You are the one who already has this job awarded to Halliburton - which of course is not the case - but no doubt you will continue to spout that as existing fact.

In any post-war reconstruction, potentially the sheer sized and complexity of the contracts would be enormous. Who would you award them to Bobert? How many contracts would you award, who would determine the interfaces and division of those contracts Bobert? And most importantly who and how would you co-ordinate it?

Now you could, as you seem to suggest, have a multitude of different smaller companies working on the various parts of the work under control of the government. To do this each part of the work would have to go through a bidding and tendering phase, with it's subsequent clarification phase. Contract award and establishment of Client (Government) site teams to follow the work through for each contractor. The government would then have to have an overall Project Team to oversee the whole thing. In other words you would have massive duplication of effort with its associated costs and scope for error consequent foul-ups.

On the other hand you could issue the work as a lump sum EPCI contract - that's one contract Bobert, just one. The responsibility for running the job goes to the Contractor - he's better at it than than any government official or civil servant. It is far cheaper to run and monitor. It's far more efficient and cost effective.

You seem to believe that having the government in control is somehow beneficial. Governments and their civil servants are notoriously non-commercial in outlook and experience, they are far from efficient. I can think of quite a few government run projects that were complete unmitigated disasters in terms of schedule, cost and end product. In all those cases they would have been far better leaving it to the people who know what they are doing - the contractors.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Payback: Halliburton Licks Chops
From: Beccy
Date: 13 Mar 03 - 12:38 PM

Does anyone remember that all these nefarious "oil buddies" took a TOTAL financial bath after the last gulf war? Oil went down to $15 a barrel.   

Oh- and that pesky little divestment of all of his Haliburton stock that Cheney had to do prior to running for Veep...

I'm not seeing the huge American conspiracy, here.

Beccy

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Payback: Halliburton Licks Chops
From: katlaughing
Date: 13 Mar 03 - 12:55 PM

I just posted this link in the Arafat thread, but it seems just as relevant here: click to go to an extensive article in the Guardian about the Bush family and the oil business, which, of course, entails all of the other players already mentioned. Well worth the read by any and everyone, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Payback: Halliburton Licks Chops
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Mar 03 - 12:57 PM

Hey, guys, I'm just reproting what the Washington Post reported about contractors being *selected* without any other companies being able to so much as bid. The fact that Dick Cheney sill collects over $1M a year from Hallibrton gives the appearance on impropriety. Had Bill Clinton done this, you alkl would be screaming at the top of your partisan lungs for a $40M investigation and impeachment and all that...

But when your *crooks* do it, it's fine. This is total hypocrisy.

Since when did Halliburton become a quasi-governmental corportaion? No thanks. I'd rather see 15 samll companies that are hungry and motivated than one or two big dinousaur corporations who think they can get away with whatever they want to. It's my dough! I work hard for it. And I don't want it forked over to the Bush/Cheney *wink, wink, good ol' boy* network, thank you very much!

You all won't be happy until the fabric of American enterprisre is ripped to shreads and in it's place one massive corporation!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Payback: Halliburton Licks Chops
From: DougR
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 12:43 AM

You are offering that article from "The Guardian" as a what, kat? Opinion piece? A report written by an objective reporter? I read it and it is obvious the writer is biased against: Texas, Big oil, Big money, and a family with the last name, Bush.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Payback: Halliburton Licks Chops
From: GUEST,Phil.
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 08:38 AM

" thought that it was general knowledge that a condition of American Aid is that the money is spent in America - that goes back to the Marshall Plan era." (Teribus 12 March)

I wonder if the general public is so aware of aid policies? Yes, it is a common condition of development aid, and the US isn't the only country which ties these conditions to aid packages. Some NGO development agencies have been very critical of the way foreign aid is granted. I can understand that it is much easier to get legislators and other authorities to agree to give aid if it can be clearly shown that their own country will also benefit from the aid. But where local contractors and/or supplies are available, using them will probably cost less and will certainly do more for building the economy of the developing country.

Even more crucial, the requirement that aid money is spent in the donor country may be the determining factor in deciding what projects are funded, rather than the needs and best interests of the recipient country. Thus big construction projects such as dams are likely to be preferred to smaller and more sustainable intermediate technology projects.

In development aid, at least the aid is given to deal with an existent problem. At the moment, the US government are talking about awarding construction contracts to rebuild after it does the damage it is planning. The fact that the bidding has been offered to a small list of powerful companies only intensifies the deep suspicion that many of have about the true motivations of the US government and military in acting so aggressively on the Iraqui issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Payback: Halliburton Licks Chops
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 09:21 AM

Thanks fir the assist, Phil.

Some folks around here are so *partisan* that if Bush proposed eating babies, they'd be posting their favorite recipes...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Payback: Halliburton Licks Chops
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 09:59 AM

Hi there Bobert,

Really, you'd, "...rather see 15 small companies that are hungry and motivated than one or two big dinousaur corporations who think they can get away with whatever they want to."

Which you follow with:

"It's my dough! I work hard for it." - And you appear to be only too happy to squander it.

By going the route you seem to prefer, you automatically:

1. Increase the amount of work to be done up front during contract preparation.

2. Increase the amount of work in any pre-qualification process.

3. Increase, dramatically, the amount of work associated with bid evaluation, tender clarification and award.

4. Increase the degree of client involvement throughout detailed, engineering, procurement and construction phases.

5. Decreases the opportunity of synergi advantages you would otherwise have in terms of utilisation of resources and in procurement.

6. Increase the likelyhood of error and subsequent additional work to rectify those errors.

Points 1 to 5 of the above mean that the work you want done starts later than it otherwise could and costs you a great deal more.

And when it comes to work relating to Iraq's oil fields Bobert, even with your 15 small companies doing the job - guess where they will have to go to get the equipment to do the job - Yep you've guessed it - Halliburton; Schlumberger; Fluor and Bechtel. The only draw-back being that your 15 small companies will have to pay more for it - that cost will be reflected in their tenders Bobert - i.e. you will pay for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Payback: Halliburton Licks Chops
From: katlaughing
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 10:29 AM

Whatever, Doug, seems to me a fair piece of fact-reporting, but then what do I know...it seems you are so entrenched that nothing, not even from his own read-my-lips mouth would convince you of anything untoward.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Payback: Halliburton Licks Chops
From: Troll
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 11:31 AM

I don't think that Doug is the only one who is entrenched in his/her thinking.
Cheney has ties to Big Business and Bill Clinton does not? That could be because the only jobs Bill Clinton has had since college have been as a politico. He would have NO first-hand experience in working with a company like Halliburton and would have to rely on staff reports.
Bobert, put your political biases aside for a moment and you will see that hiring the biggest and best for such a mammoth undertaking is the fiscally responsible route. I know it hurts your soul to know that Haliburton, with its ties to Dick Cheney, is going to get the contract, but the choices are limited, and it is your money and mine.
As far as having a whole bunch of small companies do the work? I'm reminded of a poem I saw many, many years ago in the Saturday Evening Post.
"They told the young man that it couldn't be done,
With a smile he went right to it.
He tackled that job that couldn't be done,
They were right. He couldn't do it."
We were all brought up on "The Little Engine That Could", but the bitter reality is that it doesn't always work out that way.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Payback: Halliburton Licks Chops
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 12:52 PM

Well, I appreciate all these informative posts but if it's true that no one can do these reconstruction contracts but Halliburton and Bechtel then why not just open up the bidding? If you *protectionists* are correct then there won't be any other bids. What am I missing here?

And, T, your opinion that allowing ohter companies into the game will end up costing more is an *opinion*. Competition tends bring prices down. Monopolies? Different story...

My small independent car rental company gives the franchises fits in my area because I don't have to support an upper tier of high priced CEO's. It's the same with lots of companies. The big corpoprations have within them their own forms of beurocracies with lots of dead wood. Xerox is a good example. Here is a big corporation that serves as a good example. They got too big, less hungry and the smaller guys took 'em a part. Now if the governemnt had *protected* them by not opening bidding to other corportaions then mnay of these smaller repro/document companies wouldn't have made it. But the governemnt didn't *protect* Xerox and now we have better products at competitive prices in that market.

Okay, so some company has the equipement to put out fires at well sites. This shouldn't give the right to have exclusive contracts for building housing, providing food, rebuilding water treatment plants, building hospital and schools, etc., etc. All they are going to end up doing is subbing out that work anyway and marking it up, just like general contractors do...

I'm not convinced T & t that limiting competion is anything but political.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Payback: Halliburton Licks Chops
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 01:15 PM

Hang on Bobert, as a businessman, surely, you do realise what the scope of this work would be?

The re-build of an entire country's infrastructure - a whole string of multi-facetted and integrated projects. Doing it your way it would take between 3 and 5 years before you would be in a position to award the first contract. What happens in the interim?

Have you any idea how run down the Iraqi oil fields are? Just to get back to pre-war levels of production will require an investment of $7 billion dollars and about three years work - if you want that revenue stream on line and operating efficiently, it is common-sense to give that work to people who know what they are doing - and believe me those guys do, that is the how and why of where they are in the industry today - it certainly cannot be simply put down to any old-boy network and back-room deals - to suggest so is naive in the extreme.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Payback: Halliburton Licks Chops
From: Felipa
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 03:21 PM

in the UK we are not amused
What's coming across on British tv news is that 'our troops are standing alongside yours but we're not getting any of the spoils"
BP is also said to be concerned about share of the oil

Until now the emphasis was on the moral high ground, that war was necessary because Sadaam is a tyrant and his stocks of weapons are a threat to humanity.
(though there is, as you know, a lot of dissent in the UK on this issue)

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Payback: Halliburton Licks Chops
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 07:17 PM

Sure...it's just like bombing a small country into ruins...you wouldn't want to give that job to some inexperienced outfit who might screw it up (like the Iraquis, who failed miserably in their USA-sponsored attempt to destroy Iran back in the 80's)! And that is why we can all breathe easy knowing that the Pentagon and the US military are on the job, just like Haliburton is, making the World safe for the rich and powerful.

Nothing succeeds like success!

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Payback: Halliburton Licks Chops
From: Barry Finn
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 11:52 PM

Neither Bechtel nor Halliburton are capable of rebuilding Iraq if it comes to that. They are capable as construction managers of a project of that scope though. Bechtel is a privately held family company (& I believe the largest construction company in the world) & therefore trying to get any info about there dealings (because they are private) would be equall to walking into Fort Knox & coming out with the gold. They've been working the Arab states for quite sometime & their roots, I'd think, would go deep with the Royal Saudi family with all the work they've done there. Weither or not there's a conflict of interest having Halliburtion carve up part of the pie is IMHO 2nd to not even trying to explain away any fowl smelling deals. The American people (& the rest of the world) are on a need to know basis & that's the kind of arragance that's is unexceptable even a dog won't shit where it eats & that's about the respect our government has for We The People. Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Payback: Halliburton Licks Chops
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Mar 03 - 08:11 AM

Well said, Barry! Well said.

Yo, T&t, what Barry says!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Payback: Halliburton Licks Chops
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 03:06 AM

Yes Bobert - What Barry says:

"They are capable as construction managers of a project of that scope"

Whereas the means outlined in your preferred strategy multiplies clients cost by a factor of 15 - and that is before a single brick has been put in place.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Payback: Halliburton Licks Chops
From: Troll
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 06:31 AM

Teribus. Save your time.don't try to confuse the issue with facts. Their minds are made up.
As Mark Twain said, "You cannot argue with invincible ignorance."
And remember, "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and it annoys the pig."

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Payback: Halliburton Licks Chops
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 10:39 AM

Which is exactly what the people on both sides of any highly charged issue always think about their opponents. Funny, ain't it?

Maybe they are both wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Payback: Halliburton Licks Chops
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Jul 03 - 01:38 PM

Smoking Gun

Judicial Watch has been the hardest fighter for release of the 'Energy Task Force's' documents. Cheney's group which met after GW took office. Private business shaping govt policy. Illegally. Cheney has refused to release info about the meetings, but now this comes out. Maps of Iraq's oil fields from a meeting in April of 2001. They were planning to take the oil in April of 2001, but they needed some kind of event. Now lets see...how 'bout some planes...

This is earth-shaking.

DG

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Payback: Halliburton Licks Chops
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jul 03 - 12:00 AM

"...the real players are the major service companies - guess who they are Bobert - they are Halliburton; Schlumberger; Fluor and Bechtel - all American..."

A little late to set the record straight, but Schlumberger is a French company.

BTW, NPR ran an interview with an expert on privatizing military matters last week. I was shocked to hear of another case in which Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Haliiburton, had received a contract worth over a $1 billion that did not go through normal procurement procedures. It seems that the Clinton administration couldn't support the peacekeeping mission in Bosnia without calling up reservists, difficult with the mission so unpopular in the US. So they awarded Brown and Root the contract sole source to get it done quickly and keep it under Congress's radar. Shocking. I didn't know Cheney and Clinton were that close.

Finding a map of Iraqi reserves on their papers is news, but hardly a smoking gun. You can't evaluate world wide production if you don't have the information. They had similar maps for Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Have we invaded them and someone forgot to tell me? From the AP story:

Tom Fitton, the group's (Judicial Watch) president, said he had no way to guess what interest the task force had in the information, but "it shows why it is important that we learn what was going on in the task force."

"Opponents of the war are going to point to the documents as evidence that oil was on the minds of the Bush administration in the run-up to the war in Iraq," said Fitton. "Supporters will say they were only evaluating oil reserves in the Mideast, and the likelihood of future oil production."

The task force report was released in May 2001. In it, a chapter titled "Strengthening Global Alliances" calls the Middle East "central to world oil security" and urges support for initiatives by the region's oil producers to open their energy sectors to foreign investment. The chapter does not mention Iraq, which has the world's second largest oil reserves after Saudi Arabia.

Italics added.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Payback: Halliburton Licks Chops
From: kendall
Date: 19 Jul 03 - 07:08 AM

Hey Troll, speaking of Clinton's work history, how about Bush (the lesser) when did he sober up long enough to work? While you are at it, check his "military history"

60 Minutes had the head of a company that puts out oil fires and he was pissed that even though he submitted the lowest bid, AND has a good job history, he still lost it to Hillibuton.
I hope you conservatives like the taste of crow, it's just a matter of time. When Americans wake up to what is really going on, he is going down.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Payback: Halliburton Licks Chops
From: Strick
Date: 19 Jul 03 - 07:48 AM

I don't post often, but came out as a guest because my cookie went missing. If you object to someone posting part of the truth you're a troll? Even the head of Judicial Watch acknowleges that they have nothing that indicates what role the map played in any event. As the Brown and Root story, I was just pointing out that that giving out bids without going through the formal bid process is fairly common. B&R's been a major contractor to the US military since WWII. They've a bit of a legend.

Didn't see the 60 Minutes you refer to kendall, was the company Boots and Coots or Red Adair's (is Red's company still in business?)? Those two are the only ones who have much credibility in the industry and neither had any experience putting out fires on the scale expected in Iraq. This is hardly the first instance where the low bid didn't get the job. Methodology, depth of experience, proven resources, williness to commit to deadlines, lots of things go into evaluating and awarding a contract.

I'm familiar with both Bush's military records. I am also old enough to have a draft card and to know that a huge percentage of the population did roughly the same thing, including my brother who went into the Naval Reserve. Remember when they gave amnesty to the folks that went to Canada? People of a certain age should be careful how they portray military service or their objections to using drugs don't you think?

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Payback: Halliburton Licks Chops
From: Strick
Date: 19 Jul 03 - 08:56 AM

Oh, and kendall, if you have to label me at all (or call me a name given how the term "conservative" is viewed on Mudcat), try to remember I'm a moderate. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Payback: Halliburton Licks Chops
From: Alba
Date: 19 Jul 03 - 09:44 AM

Ok so it's a purely Business decision that Halliburton got the contract and it is only a detail that the Vice President is part of that Company, but it sure seems like a very handy situation for Mr Cheney to find himself in...Country needs rebuilding and he part of a Company that could do the Job and part of the Administration that invaded the Country therefore requiring said Country to be rebuilt!!!! Now that's handy eh!
I did see the 60 Minutes you mentioned Kendall and I found the FACTS very distrubing but then I find a lot of the FACTS about this Administration distrubing and IF I was a Conservative even a Moderate one and slightly blinded by my Loyalty, I would still be very uncomfortable with a lot of things that are coming to light here.
As for people of Certain age having to be careful when they talk about Miltary Careers and Drugs.....why.....in my opinion when you put yourself forward for one of the most Powerful Jobs in the World and when the People that Interview you are the Citizens of the Country you wish to lead, it is not the People's past activities that are in question.
I personally think that on a Moral basis, there should be no Financial Ties to Goverment Contracts and Members of the Administration in Office at the time. That is an abuse of Power, pure and simple. It's the Administration of the President of The United States here, not a Good Old Boy's Club with the Contracts going to your Buddies!

JD

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Payback: Halliburton Licks Chops
From: Strick
Date: 19 Jul 03 - 10:06 AM

If the facts are disturbing, I would agree some major changes should be made. But don't be shocked to learn that it's part of a pattern that's gone on in government procurement for most of the last century and is nothing new to this administration. There's a whole system for recusing members of the administration when dealing with issues that might cause conflicts. Is it inadequate? Do you really have the facts? Work to change it.

People move into industry when their party is not in power. On both sides of the isle.   The only ones who don't are career politicians who take on party positions. The thought of the whole government being given over to people who have done nothing but be politicians isn't very appealing to most of the country. Is that what you want?

If you decide to exclude anyone who has any business experience with a company that does business the US government, you're excluding the vast majority of people who are competent to serve. Not that long ago, during the last administration, there was a minor uproar about the demands of government service, the massive pay cuts, the constant attention to one's personal life. No surprise people were refusing to serve. Now we don't want them even if there's no credible evidence they've done anything wrong?

At least this represents a major change in the history of the US in one respect. It is universally agreed that the Vice Presidency "isn't worth a pitcher of warm spit". Now Cheney in and is able to influence military procurements. Amazing. Of course he's not doing a very good job of it, since Halliburton's winning about as many contracts of the same types as it always has. How does that square with your facts?

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Payback: Halliburton Licks Chops
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jul 03 - 02:12 PM

The release of the Iraqi oil field maps from Cheney's energy task force, coupled with the command five hours after the 9-11 attacks to find intelligence implicating Hussein, is damning. Especially since Cheney and other PNAC members talked about needing an 'event like Pearl Harbor' to get a foothold in the middle east. This is why Cheney has blocked probes into the Energy Task Force and Bush has blocked probes into Sept 11. They orchestrated a terrorist event and are a tad reluctant to let us in on it. They announce the locations of a hundred new level 4 biological facilities across the nation, but they have to sit on the Task Force minutes for reasons of national security. How stupid DO you have to not see what's going on? And how much below that level of stupidity do you have to sink to become an apologist for a govt that is intent on killing your family? Terrorists seized the US govt some time ago and are using both Democrats and Republicans to further their interests.

DG

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Payback: Halliburton Licks Chops
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jul 03 - 03:49 PM

For some odd reason, the rest of the world has known about this for sometime:

Sidney Morning Herald story on US national security & cheap oil

Which does beg the question, if the rest of the world knows, why doesn't the US mainstream media?

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Payback: Halliburton Licks Chops
From: Strick
Date: 19 Jul 03 - 05:49 PM

The thing about the article in the Smoking Gun that make me interested enough to post was this: "Tom Fitton, the group's (Judicial Watch) president, said he had no way to guess what interest the task force had in the information...". He's not leaping to conclusions on flimsy evidence. I respect that.

One thing in the article from the Sidney Morning Herald: "Simultaneously, the energy task force of the Vice-President, Dick Cheney, was working to tackle a looming US oil crisis." What looming oil crisis? This must be the part the US media doesn't know. For that matter, neither did anyone in the oil business in the US. It just wasn't about to happen. Longer term concerns of course; looming? No. The whole article falls apart if you realize that there was no reason for concern at this time.

While I can understand some policy wonks wrote papers arguing for direct action to defend the US's oil supply, I've never seen anything that suggested that there was any eminent threat to it. That's actually one of the more baffling things about the timing of the war with Iraq. If it was just about neutralizing the threat Iraq posed to the stability of the region, why this year? If you really knew they didn't have WMDs, if it was all a lie, why bother? Frankly if all you want is cheap oil supplies, the smarter move would have been to lift the Iraqi embargo. That would have dropped oil prices into the $12 a barrel range without costing a drop of blood. The course finally chosen was the longest, most costly way to get access to the oil if that's all it was about.

Likewise, simply discovering all the discussions in military journals and white papers related to defending oil supplies doesn't prove anything. That's what military planners do. The US military had been studying plans for war with Japan for 20 years prior to WWII. These plans were not the reason the US went to war with Japan. They were plans, nothing more. You'll have to come up with better than this if you want to "prove" all that been said here.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Payback: Halliburton Licks Chops
From: NicoleC
Date: 19 Jul 03 - 08:59 PM

It might be a difference in opinion over "looming" -- in America looming would be within a few months or maybe years. To the Sydney Morning Herald? I dunno.

There IS an oil crisis coming, but it's decades years away. How far away depends on how much we use alternate energy sources between now and then, and whether or not any major new supplies are found -- which is doubtful. Estimates of 30-50 years include the development of typical new supplies, with only fairly marginal movement toward alternate energy sources per current policy.

Fact is, there's a finite amount of oil in the world, and we use a lot of it.

You're right -- dropping the embargo would have worked easier. The money wouldn't have been flowing exclusively into US corporate pockets, though, and there was no way to control how much and to whom oil was sold. But whenever someone talks about oil supplies, it's not about ownership of it and it's not about the access to it, it's about CONTROL of it.

Maps and documents aside, I think the clearest indication of the priorities of the US in Iraq were when the oil fields and refineries were secured and repaired -- while hospitals were looted, medicines were unavailable, and water treatment plants shut down for lack of supplies during the sanctions and (more importantly) water distribution was disrupted were neglected -- until the oil was under control. Clearly, the oil was more important than the lives of Iraqis.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Payback: Halliburton Licks Chops
From: Strick
Date: 19 Jul 03 - 09:43 PM

I'm beginning to feel like a one man band here, so don't be offended if I don't reply much after this.

The oil fields where secured early because it was thought they would be set afire. The Kuwait remains an ecological disaster from the last time the Iraqi's did that and it is true that they would have been a major problem to get under control, something fairly relevant to the original topic of this thread. I wasn't aware that much had gone into repairing the oil fields yet; production's still a trickle. It's going to take years to get them anywhere near full production. Iraqi refineries are only useful for meeting Iraqi needs, as their refined product would never be put on the world market except to Jordon. If they've made any repairs, it's to provide for local consumption.

Didn't water distribution break down in Baghdad when the Iraqi's sabotaged their own electical production? The cities had to be completely under control before anything could be done about that. Electrical production and water distribution are still being sabotaged at least in part out of resentment for that fact that they're being distributed more equitably, beyond the privileged areas Ba'ath party members lived in. Coalition forces did distribute water where they could during the war but that was subject to their logisitical supply lines and combat. They bypassed most towns and cities. So long as they were under Iraqi control, there wasn't much change of getting water to the general population. What could anyone have done about that?

I admit the looting shouldn't have been that much of a surprise. There was significant looting when the Allies fought through France and Germany. They couldn't really control they looting in Europe when they declared marshal law and were shooting looters. Despite the carnage, the militar was making a concerted effort not to shoot civilians, at least not until it became hard to tell the combatants from civilians. Not a surprise perhaps, but difficult to control.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Payback: Halliburton Licks Chops
From: kendall
Date: 19 Jul 03 - 11:45 PM

I see a hell of a big difference between a young man evading the draft by going to Canada, and, another signing up for the very dangerous job of Texas National Guard, then going A.W.O.L.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Payback: Halliburton Licks Chops
From: Strick
Date: 20 Jul 03 - 01:58 PM

LOL, kendall, being AWOL's a serious charge and there's no statute of limitations. Maybe those folks pining for the return of Ken Starr have a point after all. Heaven forbid that time Bush spent on authorized detached duty be considered anything but dereliction of duty.

And there is a difference between the two young men. One abandoned his country and the other served. Don't forget that the National Guard were eventually called up on active duty and Bush had to know that was possible. My oldest brother went from being a Naval Reservist to being a medic with the Marines during some of the more exciting times in and around Da Nang. It was all a matter of timing and the luck of the draw.

Like me turning 18 and getting 326 in the 1973 draft lottery when the war was so nearly over. I remember it vividly. They didn't take anyone that year. By 1972 when Bush supposedly abandoned the National Guard, the war was nearly over for the US. The public had turned completely against it and US was withdrawing forces. The National Guard was hardly at its highest state of alert. I'm not surprised they found they could let him go for a while.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Payback: Halliburton Licks Chops
From: kendall
Date: 20 Jul 03 - 04:42 PM

Especially since daddy had his records whitewashed.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Payback: Halliburton Licks Chops
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Jul 03 - 04:17 AM

DG's Smoking Gun Link.

The answer to the question asked about why Halliburton's Energy Task Group would compile such maps (Iraq, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates) is simple - commercial intelligence. I dare say they have similar information on a great number of other regions. They will use the information for the following:

1. Status of existing oil reservoirs - as older fields come to what is perceived to be their end of life - a business opportunity exists to offer the services of reservoir engineers and modern technology to extend the life of those fields. Example UK's Argyll Field in the North Sea.

2. Keeping track on how long oil-field infrastructure has been in place lets you know when such infrastructure will require inspection, remedial maintenance and/or replacement.

3. Keeping yourself informed of the status of fields allows you to identify and maket new technology to improve those fields.


Another myth that should also be exploded regarding Halliburton being awarded work without competition. Halliburton is a Frame Work Contractor for the US Army - Halliburton won that competitive contract with the US Army about five years ago under the Clinton Administration - Source for this information is a letter, dated 8th April, 2003, from the US Army to a Senator Waxman, in response to his letter of 26th March, 2003.

Establishing Frame Work Agreements greatly reduces the cost of tendering and awarding contracts - with regard to the oil-field fire contract that would be why Halliburton got the job - they already had won a competitive contract, and that Frame Work Contract was in place.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Payback: Halliburton Licks Chops
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Jul 03 - 09:51 AM

Boy...that's a load off my mind, Terribus. You sure can answer things. I guess it's time for the big one. Why did the NORAD interceptor jets remain on the ground for 75 minutes after 4 airliners were hijacked on Sept 11? Cheney and Rumsfeld were indicating to subordinates 5 hours later that they should find 'evidence' linking Hussein to the business, and 6 months before that they were poring over oilfield maps of Iraq, so why were those interceptors held on the ground?

DG

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Payback: Halliburton Licks Chops
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Jul 03 - 10:29 AM

Hi there Dreaded,

How many hi-jacking incidents have there been in the United States of America? (World-wide there have been 897 between the years 1967 to 1996)

On how many occasions have NORAD interceptors been scrambled to intervene on those hi-jackings?

Were the subordinates, you refer to, told to find evidence linking the events of 11th September to Iraq and Saddam Hussein? Or were they asked to investigate the possibility of Iraqi involvement? I know during the very early stages of the diplomatic effort to get a new UN Security Council Resolution on Iraq, Colin Powell clearly stated that there were no links with Iraq - AlQaeda. And that Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks of September 11th.

Dreaded, do you know what the design field life is of the various bits and pieces that make up the infrastructure of an oil-field? - It's normally about 25 years. So if you are a major service company with a large interest in oil-field construction, seems to me that it would be a fairly logical step to identify areas where things might need replacing, inspecting, recertifying or removing. Although I somehow think that that explanation might just be a little too mundane for you to put any credence in it.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Payback: Halliburton Licks Chops
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Jul 03 - 05:46 PM

The 'looming crisis' over oil isn't about an oil shortage. It is about the amount of time a US president serves, and how much an oil energy president can exploit their power for their own financial benefit, and the benefit of their cronies. Four years minimum, eight years maximum. In other words, critics of the Bush administration are concerned about much more than the idiotic 'energy policy' proposed by the administration. Those critics are also concerned with a corporate monopolization of the energy industry, with the industry created California "energy crisis" and with corporate and government corruption at the highest levels of government, to benefit those in power in both government and industry who are, through their association with the Bush administration officials at the highest levels.

The first problem with the Cheney Energy Task Force is it's secrecy, and refusal by the White House, Justice Department, DoE, and other government agencies, to allow the public to be privy to and part of the process of setting energy policy.

The second problem is with the privatization of government services, well underway during the Clinton administration, and now running rampant and roughshod over the best interests of the US citizenry in the Bush administration. The US government is not a corporation, and executive privlege in the administrative branch of the US government is not equatable to propriety information for US corporations. The Bush administration has always been clear that it intends to privatize/corporatize as much of the government process as it can get away with on their watch, and to run the government as if it were a corporation. Perhaps that is acceptable to some US citizens, but many US citizens disagree strongly with the privatization of government services (particularly with the level of corruption it engenders in both the public and private sectors), and with the philosophical underpinnings of those who believe the mission of government is best achieved by serving private interests before public interests, in a vain pursuit of what they now refer to as "accountability".

Another problem that was raised by Teribus, is the process which grants Framework Contractors exclusive commercial rights to doing the government's business. There is absolutely no evidence that shows this is a more efficient and cost effective way to accomplish governmental tasks and provide government services. No studies on how best to accomplish the tasks and provide services has ever been done. It is clear, however, that the current process of granting exclusive commercial rights to corporations with strong ties to the government officials who grant those rights, is extremely lucrative to those corporations who gain such favored status from the government.

The setting of policy by a democratically elected government is meant to be transparent, and the information upon which the making of public policy is based, must always be available to the public. Please note Teribus and Stark, that I said public policy, not the privleging of corporate marauders. There is no legitimate argument that can be made that information gathered about the oil resources of the planet, is sensitive intelligence that rises to the level of national security. The information gathered and disseminated regarding the use and exploitation of the planet's oil and gas reserves is a matter of public policy, not national security.

However, there is a whole lot of information being gathered by our government to benefit the corporations this current administration wishes to favor with government contracts. As has been noted here, there is nothing sinister about the information being gathered (ie the maps, etc.) that was brought to light by the Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit. What is sinister and highly suspect, is the insistence of the Bush administration, the participating corporations, and the Energy Task Force Committee's refusal to make the process transparent and accountable to the public. We are talking about energy, not military affairs and national defense. There is no reason for the secrecy surrounding the making of US government energy policies, unless there is corruption involved, and/or there is the appearance (at the very least) of impropriety in terms of who will benefit from the policy. We as citizens have the right to know who will benefit, at what cost, and to whom.

Considering the track record of corruption and government influence buying by major players involved in the Energy Task Force, including Enron and Kenneth Lay, every genuine citizen of the US should be demanding a high level inquiry into the Energy Task Force, to investigate the accountability and transparency of the process, including but not limited to the granting of government energy contracts, and the very real possibility that the Bush administration had, prior to 9/11, established a timeline for seizing control of Caspian and Middle East oil fields either by military intervention, or by proxy (ie via Israel and Arab allies in the region) under the guise of national security.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Payback: Halliburton Licks Chops
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Jul 03 - 06:02 PM

Teribus asks:

"How many hi-jacking incidents have there been in the United States of America? (World-wide there have been 897 between the years 1967 to 1996)"

Hardly the point. The point is, how could four commercial airliners be simultaneously hijacked, and the US military not respond? At all?

There are profound, serious problems being covered up regarding national security and 9/11 by the Bush administration. The refusal of the Bush administration to cooperate with the investigations, their obsession with secrecy, and their arrogance towards anyone with a genuine, legitimate interest in investigating the facts surrounding events and circumstances leading up the biggest national security lapse since Pearl Harbor, is nothing less than evil. And the word 'evil' is not one I bandy about or use lightly. I personally reserve use of the word to circumstances that fit the dictionary definition of it.

There is a pattern of secrecy, spinning, lying, deception, and cover-up in this administration that hasn't been seen since I don't even know when. One never really had the sense that Nixon's lawbreaking and exploitation of his power at the expense of his so-called "enemies", could result in what we are seeing now. Which is a gutting of civil liberties in the US, so that this administration can complete their imperial march to conquer the oil and gas regions of the planet by January 2009.

Brave New World Order, indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Payback: Halliburton Licks Chops
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Jul 03 - 03:57 AM

As DG seems reluctant to provide the information I asked for, here are some details about hi-jacking.

Since an early rash of hi-jackings of US civilian aircraft to Cuba during the 60's, the US has been relatively untroubled by the hi-jacking problem. In the period I referred to in my question, almost every single hi-jacking has had some fundamentalist Islamic dimension to it, all have taken place outside the USA.

The response to hi-jacking has never been to launch interceptor aircraft, not in the USA, nor anywhere else for that matter.

Remember DG's big question to me was - "Why did the NORAD interceptor jets remain on the ground for 75 minutes after 4 airliners were hijacked on Sept 11?"

Had the administration been previously advised that an attack such as the attack on 11th September, 2001, was possible? - Yes it had, on the basis that anything is possible. Had the administration been previously advised that such an attack was probable? - No it had not, because there was absolutely no precedent, or information, upon which such an assessment could be made. The balance of probability on 11th September was that Islamic fundamentalists had hi-jacked four aircraft, and that the administration was faced with a "normal" hi-jacking incident.

Another question for you DG - How many hi-jacking's have there been subsequent to 11th September, 2001? There is a reason for that - tell me what it is?

To assist you in arriving at the correct answer, look at how many El-Al aircraft have been hi-jacket - look at hostage taking in general, and ask yourself why no-one takes Israelis hostage.