Grumble ... Halliburton ... Grumble ... Questions

Sometimes, when I ask my neo-liberal friends questions about this administration's policies I get a short grumbling treatise on something about Halliburton, corporate corruption, a little more about Halliburton, and maybe no-bid contracts.

These dots, I take, I am supposed to connect to reveal a sinister portrait of this man, the Vice President of the United States (and almost assuredly the President of Vice), Dick Cheney:

You've probably heard of all the corruption yourself. I admit, it looks pretty bad that the former CEO of Halliburton becomes VPUS, then, a few years later, his former company gets billions in a 'no bid' contract to profit from the war. But it might not be as bad as it looks. A quick read of Jim Geraghty's piece in the National Review today reveals the following:

  • Cheney has released documents showing that most of his deferred salary was paid after he resigned to run in 2000 but before he took office in January 2001. He has also arranged for his stock options to be sold without his input and all proceeds to be donated to charity. Democrats say Cheney nonetheless retains a financial interest in Halliburton's success.
  •  
  • Halliburton's work in Iraq includes a wide-ranging contract, called a LogCAP, that it won through competitive bidding in 2001 to provide food, fuel, and other logistical services to troops worldwide. That contract — most of which is for services in the Middle East — and the oil infrastructure contract are estimated to be worth a total of $11 billion. Most of that work has gone to KBR, Halliburton's construction and engineering unit.
  •  
  • A Kerry ad implies Cheney has a financial interest in Halliburton and is profiting from the company's contracts in Iraq. The fact is, Cheney doesn't gain a penny from Halliburton's contracts, and almost certainly won't lose even if Halliburton goes bankrupt.

    The ad claims Cheney got $2 million from Halliburton "as vice president," which is false. Actually, nearly $1.6 million of that was paid before Cheney took office. More importantly, all of it was earned before he was a candidate, when he was the company's chief executive.

Dick Cheney is, as Bill Shakespeare might say, 'churlish as a bear', and he certainly seems like he could be some sort of nefarioius, illuminatic puppet master, but I ask you...would that kind of man do this?

love it, hate it, there's more of it at Pacetown.

Article tags

Spread the word
Bookmark and Share
Read comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own

Article comments

  • 1 - David Flanagan

    Oct 05, 2004 at 1:56 pm

    Eric: Could you please BAN Professor3's IP? Nasty spammer!

    Thanks,

    David

  • 2 - Eric Olsen

    Oct 05, 2004 at 1:59 pm

    he does seem to be repeating himself, doesn't he?

  • 3 - David Flanagan

    Oct 05, 2004 at 2:05 pm

    a few years later, his former company gets billions in a 'no bid' contract to profit from the war.

    Jeremy,

    I think it's ironic that Democrats were the ones who insisted that Cheney divest himself fully from Halliburton before he officially took office in 2001. He did exactly as they demanded, and now they are trying to say that he's still connected! And these folks accuse President Bush of lying and dishonesty? Yeesh!

    Another point is this; how is it that Kerry can continually complain that President Bush is allowing American jobs to be outsourced, yet turn around and complain when the US Government awards an $11 BILLION DOLLAR CONTRACT TO AN AMERICAN COMPANY?!

    Pardon my shouting, but, again, it's hypocrisy of the first order. Should Kerry REALLY complain that the President insists that government contracts NOT be outsourced?

    Now, if Halliburton has made errors in billing, fine, let there be penalties. They should return the difference and pay a penalty for the error. But with the size of the contracts being dealt with, this is not necessarily an unusual thing.

    I'm not making excuses for Halliburton, but they get are getting a bad rap because Democrats are trying to smear Cheney, not because they are unusual in terms of the mistakes they make. They are an American company employing American workers and doing a job that very few companies in the world has the capability to do.

    Can you tell it's an election year?

    Thanks for your post.

    David

  • 4 - David Flanagan

    Oct 05, 2004 at 2:08 pm

    Eric,

    Damn that was fast! Thanks! :-)

    David

  • 5 - Eric Olsen

    Oct 05, 2004 at 2:39 pm

    that's what she said - but I jest

  • 6 - Eric Olsen

    Oct 05, 2004 at 2:41 pm

    in that top pic, Cheney looks like the misbegotten spawn of Bob Hope and the Penguin

  • 7 - David Flanagan

    Oct 05, 2004 at 2:43 pm

    I was thinking he looked like the guy from "Sling Blade," or whatever the movie was with the guy whose jaw stuck out like a shelf.

    David

  • 8 - boomcrashbaby

    Oct 05, 2004 at 3:31 pm

    Most of them probably say 'grumble....halliburton...grumble' because the actual specifics are very drawn out.

    Here's a good case illustrating that Cheney probably had knowledge that the books at Halliburton were being cooked under his watch: source.

    Here's also a few paragraphs of issues liberals have with Cheney's business practices: source.

    I think most liberals don't memorize the dates, the testimony, the reports, etc...so it's probably easier to say 'grumble...corruption...'

  • 9 - Jeremy Chrysler

    Oct 05, 2004 at 4:48 pm

    BCB,

    Thanks for pointing the links out. I hadn't seen them before. It brings to light the rather standoffish attitude towards disclosure that I have been annoyed at for some time. If there's no problem why not disclose. I don't know much about this 1998 topic in particular to comment much more.

    Honestly, i specified some of the folks that I've spoken with as 'neo-liberals' because, well, I don't think there's anything but grumble behind their complaints. Indeed, I would be surprised if most of them were able to describe in detail, or for that matter, even refer to the incidents you cite.

    I can't put myself in much better territory though. The more I know, the more woefully ignorant I sometimes feel to be, especially when interacting with the crowd here at BC.

    But, as iron sharpens iron...

  • 10 - Jim Carruthers

    Oct 05, 2004 at 6:19 pm

    couple of thoughts:

    What kind of man can succeed at riding a Segway, the VP, not the Pres.

    What, anyway is a "neo-liberal", I thought ideals about freedom, equality, and respect were part of the core of democracy? And without them, you don't have a democracy. Or is this a "tell"?

  • 11 - Jim Carruthers

    Oct 05, 2004 at 6:41 pm

    Say, Jeremy, you seem like an ideal young man to put his faith into reinforcing capitalism against the naysayer hordes. And here's how you do it. Buy some stock from me.

    Honest, it's good stock, and it's well managed. In fact, if you don't "invest", you'll probably be looked as not supporting the administration. They've set up an office here in Canada where the terrorists can't find it, and since Canadians are so trustworthy, you know your money is safe with us. Any descrprencies (sic - a trademark of the Stock Investment Commission) are simply to keep things "fluid" as they call it in the markets.

    In fact you can transfer funds via PayPal, send to jimc1@braingarage.ca via your PP account, and Dick says he'll give it the full attention he gives to all his business decisions. Hey, where do you think his undisclosed location was anyways but in the Great White North?

  • 12 - Jeremy Chrysler

    Oct 05, 2004 at 7:16 pm

    Jim, you must be speaking canadian, because I'm not understanding...and in my narrow American education I didn't learn it...

  • 13 - Jim Carruthers

    Oct 05, 2004 at 7:39 pm

    I dug out my Franklin W. Dickson phrasebook.

    You are in great danger of losing all your money because of bad men. Dick Cheney knows all about bad men and the terrible, horrible things they do, and will do, unless you trust him. Dick Cheney is a close, personal friend of mine, and he says I will never do bad things.

    Your only hope to protect your money is to send it to me to "invest", and Dick Cheney assures you he trusts me.

    So send me your money, and you, yourself will have prevented the bad men from doing bad things to America. Think of it as protection, you send me the money, and bad things won't happen to you.

    And you'll make Dick Cheney happy, almost gay in fact.

  • 14 - boomcrashbaby

    Oct 05, 2004 at 8:22 pm

    Cheney's Energy Task Force documents from March 2001,
    that contain maps of Iraqi oilfields. Hmmm.

    Here's some more info on how individuals, including Cheney, craft national energy policy for their own personal benefit.

    Here is a list of Cheney/Halliburton 'scandals' (right side of the page), currently they are up to number 11.

    Now I'm beginning to think that when people grumble, it's probably because they are thinking 'where do I begin?'

    If you label someone as 'nothing but a grumble behind a complaint' as a neo-liberal, then is that the definition of a neo-con too?

  • 15 - RJ

    Oct 05, 2004 at 11:52 pm

    I love it when Libs get their feathers all ruffled over putting a "neo" in front of their ideology.

    How do they think conservatives feel when Leftists do the same thing to them?

    The "neo" prefix is a tacit way of calling present-day conservatives NAZIs, without having the guts to actually do so.

  • 16 - Hal Pawluk

    Oct 06, 2004 at 12:20 am

    No, RJ - you can stop the neoconservative propaganda now.

    The neoconservatives proudly took the name for themselves a few decades ago.

    They started denying it and distancing themselves from the term about a year ago (check my site, search term "neoconservative").

    And during the last few of years, they have started exhibiting at least hints of fascism.

    This is not too surprising, as their entire history has shown them to be Shape Shifters in their search for control of the levers of power.

    They started as Trotskyists in New York in the 1930's, swung towards socialism post-WW II. When that didn't work, they moved over to the Democrats (Scoop Jackson variety), and finally became "Republicans," where this adminstration gave them what they wanted.

    And now they have to live with it.

  • 17 - Lono

    Oct 06, 2004 at 12:22 am

    Dick Cheney eats babies for fuel. Then, he kicks puppies and unwed mothers. I have proof.

  • 18 - boomcrashbaby

    Oct 06, 2004 at 1:05 am

    I'm not 'ruffled' by the term neo-liberal, I was just asking if his definition of neo-liberal applied to anything 'neo'.

  • 19 - jack e. jett

    Oct 06, 2004 at 2:44 pm

    i sure love the term "neo liberal". have not heard that one before, but as usual, will steal it, re-use it, and abuse it.

    jack e. jett
    neo-lib

  • 20 - Jeremy Chrysler

    Oct 06, 2004 at 3:12 pm

    Jack,

    As progenitor of the term, I will allow you to do so with impunity. Perhaps, like neo-con, my little compound word will grow into something other than it was upon its creation, in this case a way to desrcribe the new crop of anti-bush liberals who were before neither anti-bush nor liberal.

    Blossom of snow won't you bloom and grow, bloom and grow forever!

  • 21 - boomcrashbaby

    Oct 06, 2004 at 4:41 pm

    in this case a way to desrcribe the new crop of anti-bush liberals who were before neither anti-bush nor liberal.

    That's clearer. Thanks. By that definition, I am not a neo-liberal.

    By this definition, I am.

  • 22 - Jim Carruthers

    Oct 06, 2004 at 5:01 pm

    The definition of a "neo-liberal"? Easy: there is no spoon.

Add your comment, speak your mind

Personal attacks are NOT allowed.
Please read our comment policy.
Please preview your comment.

blogcritics lists for Nov 24, 2009

fresh articles Most recent articles site-wide

fresh comments Most recent comments site-wide

most comments Most comments in 24hrs

top writers Most prolific Blogcritics for October

top commenters Most prolific Commenters in 24 hrs