Does this smell?---Halliburton awarded an iraqi contract
- Thread starter AR182
- Start date
Did a cursory search on Haliburton's Iraq contracts and the best I could discover was that the contract was specifically for putting out oil field fires and no more. This contract was offered without open bidding which could raise eyebrows. Contracts to reconstruct the oil fields will be subject to an open bid process. Most of the information available was on sites with obvious left/right bias so take it for what it is worth. However, that is how I understood it was done prior to this discussion. I wouldn't be overly concerned unless they are not acknowledged as the tops in their field in this regard. If they are not at or near the top, it is in the very least poor judgement and certainly open to question.
August 4, 2002
AP) Since Dick Cheney became vice president, a subsidiary of his former company was chosen the exclusive contractor for overseas Army troop support and Navy construction despite being under federal investigation for fraud.
The Navy contract went to the Halliburton Co. subsidiary, Brown & Root Services, despite a recommendation from the auditing arm of Congress that new bids be solicited for the construction contract. That recommendation was ignored.
The Army deal is unusual because its stretches 10 years and has a payment structure that critics say encourages Brown & Root to spend whatever it takes to keep the troops happy.
Halliburton officials say Cheney played no role in the selection of Houston-based Brown & Root for the two contracts, potentially worth billions of dollars over the next decade.
Cheney, a former secretary of defense with experience in Congress and at the White House, headed Halliburton from 1995 until George W. Bush picked him as his running mate in July 2000.
"Cheney steadfastly refused to engage in any activities to sell Halliburton's or its subsidiaries' services to the government during his tenure with the company," Halliburton spokeswoman Zelma Branch said.
"Halliburton has made no attempt to ask for his assistance in obtaining federal contracts since he left the company."
Both Army and Navy contracting officials say they were unaware, when the contracts were awarded, that federal officials in California were investigating allegations that Brown & Root had defrauded the government on another defense contract.
The investigation ended in February when Brown & Root agreed to pay the government $2 million to settle charges it inflated contract prices for maintenance and repairs at Fort Ord, a now-closed military installation near Monterey, California.
Even had the Army known about the investigation, officials said, it would not have affected the decision to award the troop support contract to Brown & Root.
"They did not admit to any wrongdoing, and the government did not find them guilty of any wrongdoing, so legally we could not use that," said Gale Smith, spokeswoman for the Army Operations and Support Command.
The contract makes Brown & Root the Army's only private supplier of troop support services over the next decade.
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 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.
"It is close to unprecedented for the government to have given so much of the solution to one contractor," said Steven Spooner, a George Washington University professor who specializes in federal contracting.
Spooner said government contracts for services almost never exceed five years, while the Army's deal with Brown & Root is renewable for a decade. He said the contract also is structured so that the more the company spends to support the troops, the more it earns.
"But it's hard to criticize it, because they've convinced the Army from the bottom up that they're taking care of the troops," he said. "To the extent that they are making money hand over fist, they're taking care of the people who have the crappiest job on the planet."
The Army has paid Brown & Root $13.7 million since the contract began Feb. 1 to provide food, laundry and other support services to U.S. troops in the former Soviet republics of Georgia and Uzbekistan. The Army will not disclose other locations where the contract has been used.
The $300 million, five-year Navy contract was awarded to Brown & Root in April 2001, three months after Cheney became vice president. It followed a November 2000 recommendation from the General Accounting Office that upheld a protest of the original Navy decision in June 2000 to give the Halliburton subsidiary the contract.
The GAO arbitrator questioned the criteria used by the Navy in evaluating the bidders, as well as the Navy's cost analysis, and recommended that new bids be solicited.
Instead, the Navy decided to re-evaluate the original bids "with requested changes in criteria and the result was the same," Navy spokesman John Peters said.
The Navy has given Brown & Root $53 million in work orders in the past 15 months, including $37.3 million to build 816 detention cells at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where terrorist suspects captured in Afghanistan are held.
Both contracts enable the Army and Navy to use Brown & Root for their troop support or construction services, without having to seek out competitive bids from other companies.
AP) Since Dick Cheney became vice president, a subsidiary of his former company was chosen the exclusive contractor for overseas Army troop support and Navy construction despite being under federal investigation for fraud.
The Navy contract went to the Halliburton Co. subsidiary, Brown & Root Services, despite a recommendation from the auditing arm of Congress that new bids be solicited for the construction contract. That recommendation was ignored.
The Army deal is unusual because its stretches 10 years and has a payment structure that critics say encourages Brown & Root to spend whatever it takes to keep the troops happy.
Halliburton officials say Cheney played no role in the selection of Houston-based Brown & Root for the two contracts, potentially worth billions of dollars over the next decade.
Cheney, a former secretary of defense with experience in Congress and at the White House, headed Halliburton from 1995 until George W. Bush picked him as his running mate in July 2000.
"Cheney steadfastly refused to engage in any activities to sell Halliburton's or its subsidiaries' services to the government during his tenure with the company," Halliburton spokeswoman Zelma Branch said.
"Halliburton has made no attempt to ask for his assistance in obtaining federal contracts since he left the company."
Both Army and Navy contracting officials say they were unaware, when the contracts were awarded, that federal officials in California were investigating allegations that Brown & Root had defrauded the government on another defense contract.
The investigation ended in February when Brown & Root agreed to pay the government $2 million to settle charges it inflated contract prices for maintenance and repairs at Fort Ord, a now-closed military installation near Monterey, California.
Even had the Army known about the investigation, officials said, it would not have affected the decision to award the troop support contract to Brown & Root.
"They did not admit to any wrongdoing, and the government did not find them guilty of any wrongdoing, so legally we could not use that," said Gale Smith, spokeswoman for the Army Operations and Support Command.
The contract makes Brown & Root the Army's only private supplier of troop support services over the next decade.
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 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.
"It is close to unprecedented for the government to have given so much of the solution to one contractor," said Steven Spooner, a George Washington University professor who specializes in federal contracting.
Spooner said government contracts for services almost never exceed five years, while the Army's deal with Brown & Root is renewable for a decade. He said the contract also is structured so that the more the company spends to support the troops, the more it earns.
"But it's hard to criticize it, because they've convinced the Army from the bottom up that they're taking care of the troops," he said. "To the extent that they are making money hand over fist, they're taking care of the people who have the crappiest job on the planet."
The Army has paid Brown & Root $13.7 million since the contract began Feb. 1 to provide food, laundry and other support services to U.S. troops in the former Soviet republics of Georgia and Uzbekistan. The Army will not disclose other locations where the contract has been used.
The $300 million, five-year Navy contract was awarded to Brown & Root in April 2001, three months after Cheney became vice president. It followed a November 2000 recommendation from the General Accounting Office that upheld a protest of the original Navy decision in June 2000 to give the Halliburton subsidiary the contract.
The GAO arbitrator questioned the criteria used by the Navy in evaluating the bidders, as well as the Navy's cost analysis, and recommended that new bids be solicited.
Instead, the Navy decided to re-evaluate the original bids "with requested changes in criteria and the result was the same," Navy spokesman John Peters said.
The Navy has given Brown & Root $53 million in work orders in the past 15 months, including $37.3 million to build 816 detention cells at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where terrorist suspects captured in Afghanistan are held.
Both contracts enable the Army and Navy to use Brown & Root for their troop support or construction services, without having to seek out competitive bids from other companies.
hey Steve, thanks for having the balls to post this, although I'm sure you'll be slammed for being anti American. Unfortunately not many know about this shit going on. Of course no media wants to touch it for fear they will be tagged non patriotic & hammered out of business.
Amazing the stuff you can learn when you obtain your knowledge from sources other than mainstream television. I mean I'm sure Fox has never uttered a word of any of this, after all they are "fair and balanced". You know.....with the Red White & Blue backdrop And all.
This guy Cheney is incredible, its no wonder he has been flying low under the radar for 2 years now doing & accomplishing nothing. Thank God for subsidiarys, complicates the money trail a little bit. Dam sweet looking deal though if you can get it. Wonder how many other ordinary American companies could score this type of deal??
Makes you wonder why that gigantic severance package from Haillburton, you don't figure anybody had a idea this was coming do you??? Figure Haillburton was planning on getting a bone thrown their way after that severance??
Let me get this straight,
sole contracting provider for ALL Army & Navy support & Construction in a record setting long open ended contract.
ABSOLUTELY NO CEILING ON SPENDING, NO LIMITS OF ANY KIND.
this is the best part of all, NO COMPETITIVE BIDDING OF ANY KIND, certainly no need for any competitive bidding process, why would you want that.
Yep this sounds like quite a deal, mighty American wouldn't you say??
Where you figure all those kids are heading after Iraq?? Come on there's lots of money to be made in this war thing....don't you know??
you figure Cheney has a job at Haillburton after his distinguished Washington career?? Then again depending on how things go, probably won't need much more.
shamrock
Amazing the stuff you can learn when you obtain your knowledge from sources other than mainstream television. I mean I'm sure Fox has never uttered a word of any of this, after all they are "fair and balanced". You know.....with the Red White & Blue backdrop And all.
This guy Cheney is incredible, its no wonder he has been flying low under the radar for 2 years now doing & accomplishing nothing. Thank God for subsidiarys, complicates the money trail a little bit. Dam sweet looking deal though if you can get it. Wonder how many other ordinary American companies could score this type of deal??
Makes you wonder why that gigantic severance package from Haillburton, you don't figure anybody had a idea this was coming do you??? Figure Haillburton was planning on getting a bone thrown their way after that severance??
Let me get this straight,
sole contracting provider for ALL Army & Navy support & Construction in a record setting long open ended contract.
ABSOLUTELY NO CEILING ON SPENDING, NO LIMITS OF ANY KIND.
this is the best part of all, NO COMPETITIVE BIDDING OF ANY KIND, certainly no need for any competitive bidding process, why would you want that.
Yep this sounds like quite a deal, mighty American wouldn't you say??
Where you figure all those kids are heading after Iraq?? Come on there's lots of money to be made in this war thing....don't you know??
you figure Cheney has a job at Haillburton after his distinguished Washington career?? Then again depending on how things go, probably won't need much more.
shamrock
I tell you if thats all on the up and up. It does look that way. It dam near smacks of the Nixon white house.
I think we are talking about 2 different things - though both have strong elements of stink. My reference was to a recently granted contract to put out the oil fires, not this apparent open-ended atm machine spoken of in your article. However, I am still reading and hearing that future contracts are up for bid - but again, I believe this is in reference to the oil fields only. I cannot imagine that the Los Angeles Times or the New York Times would not be making this front page news if the implications are what they appear to be. These newspapers in our two most influential cities have no fear of any backlash from the right. Both states are almost automatic Democratic winners year after year- who is to offend? Hopefully there will be more news forthcoming.
Shamrock, thanks and oh yes I have been called anti-American many times on this board. The surprising thing is that I have been called it by guys who appear to be pretty sharp in most matters. When we first discussed this on this board I was told by 4 different people that Halliburton was out of the bidding. Halliburten did take themselves out of the bidding on a small contract and that was played up to the hilt by Fox and MSNBC and probably all the right wing radio trash that is out there.
The sad thing is that today you can't even trust the news.
As for Chaney if he and Halliburton was doing business with Hussein in violation of US laws he should be tried for treason!
The sad thing is that today you can't even trust the news.
As for Chaney if he and Halliburton was doing business with Hussein in violation of US laws he should be tried for treason!
StevieD help me out here becuase I do not want to throw dirt in the wrong place. First I must say it does have bad smell to it.
But didn't a investigation start up on this matter but fade away after the election.
But didn't a investigation start up on this matter but fade away after the election.
Details given on contract Halliburton was awarded
Details given on contract Halliburton was awarded
By ELIZABETH BECKER
ASHINGTON, April 10 ? The Pentagon contract given without competition to a Halliburton subsidiary to fight oil well fires in Iraq is worth as much as $7 billion over two years, according to a letter from the Army Corps of Engineers that was released today.
The contract also allows Kellogg Brown & Root, the Halliburton subsidiary, to earn as much as 7 percent profit. That could amount to $490 million.
The corps released these new details in a letter to Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California and one of the two senior lawmakers who asked the General Accounting Office to investigate how the Bush administration is awarding contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq.
The reconstruction effort could cost up to $100 billion and become one of the most lucrative building programs in decades.
The contract to Kellogg Brown & Root was cited in the lawmakers' request to the G.A.O., the investigative arm of Congress. Mr. Waxman and Representative John D. Dingell, Democrat of Michigan, asked that special attention be paid to "allegations that Halliburton has received special treatment from the administration."
Vice President Dick Cheney was Halliburton's chief executive from 1995 until 2000. When he left the company to run for vice president, Mr. Cheney received over $30 million in compensation, Mr. Waxman said.
Since the attacks of Sept. 11, Kellogg Brown & Root has won significant additional business from the federal government and the Pentagon. It has built cells for detainees at Guant?namo Bay in Cuba and is the exclusive logistics supplier for the Navy and the Army, providing services like cooking, construction, power generation and fuel transportation.
Since the war with Iraq began, Mr. Cheney has been repeatedly questioned about his ties to his old employer and the oil industry.
But the administration said that these contracts and all other contracts to rebuild Iraq were awarded without any comment from Mr. Cheney or anyone else in the White House.
"The White House has no role in selecting individual contractors," said Michael Anton, spokesman for the National Security Council.
Lt. Gen. Robert B. Flowers, the commander of the Corps of Engineers, wrote in his letter that Kellogg Brown & Root was chosen because it was the only contractor considered capable of developing what he called "complex, classified contingency plans" and then to carry them out "on extremely short notice."
"No other contractor could satisfy mission requirements in the time available," General Flowers wrote.
He also said that the Defense Department could not follow public procedures for awarding the contract, including a public notice, because the war plans and the need to fight oil fires in Iraq were then classified information. In the future, however, General Flowers promised "ample opportunity for competition" to restore Iraq's oil infrastructure.
The most sought-after contract will be awarded by the United States Agency for International Development and will cover the initial work to rebuild Iraq's roads, water and power systems, schools and hospitals. Bidding was restricted to five American companies for the same reasons that Kellogg Brown & Root won its contract without any competition: the need for speed and for security clearances.
But government contract experts say that those needs have been exaggerated and that they may be violations of international trade agreements as well as federal rules.
Mr. Waxman responded to the letter from General Flowers with several new questions.
While accepting that the administration may have had valid reasons for giving the two-year contract to Kellogg Brown & Root for emergency work during the war, Mr. Waxman wrote, "It is harder to understand, however, what the rationale would be for a sole-source contract that has a multiyear duration and a multibillion-dollar price tag."
He asked General Flowers in a letter today how the Army determined the cost of the work to be done by Kellogg Brown & Root and when the Army would replace the current contract with one up for competition.
Details given on contract Halliburton was awarded
By ELIZABETH BECKER
ASHINGTON, April 10 ? The Pentagon contract given without competition to a Halliburton subsidiary to fight oil well fires in Iraq is worth as much as $7 billion over two years, according to a letter from the Army Corps of Engineers that was released today.
The contract also allows Kellogg Brown & Root, the Halliburton subsidiary, to earn as much as 7 percent profit. That could amount to $490 million.
The corps released these new details in a letter to Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California and one of the two senior lawmakers who asked the General Accounting Office to investigate how the Bush administration is awarding contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq.
The reconstruction effort could cost up to $100 billion and become one of the most lucrative building programs in decades.
The contract to Kellogg Brown & Root was cited in the lawmakers' request to the G.A.O., the investigative arm of Congress. Mr. Waxman and Representative John D. Dingell, Democrat of Michigan, asked that special attention be paid to "allegations that Halliburton has received special treatment from the administration."
Vice President Dick Cheney was Halliburton's chief executive from 1995 until 2000. When he left the company to run for vice president, Mr. Cheney received over $30 million in compensation, Mr. Waxman said.
Since the attacks of Sept. 11, Kellogg Brown & Root has won significant additional business from the federal government and the Pentagon. It has built cells for detainees at Guant?namo Bay in Cuba and is the exclusive logistics supplier for the Navy and the Army, providing services like cooking, construction, power generation and fuel transportation.
Since the war with Iraq began, Mr. Cheney has been repeatedly questioned about his ties to his old employer and the oil industry.
But the administration said that these contracts and all other contracts to rebuild Iraq were awarded without any comment from Mr. Cheney or anyone else in the White House.
"The White House has no role in selecting individual contractors," said Michael Anton, spokesman for the National Security Council.
Lt. Gen. Robert B. Flowers, the commander of the Corps of Engineers, wrote in his letter that Kellogg Brown & Root was chosen because it was the only contractor considered capable of developing what he called "complex, classified contingency plans" and then to carry them out "on extremely short notice."
"No other contractor could satisfy mission requirements in the time available," General Flowers wrote.
He also said that the Defense Department could not follow public procedures for awarding the contract, including a public notice, because the war plans and the need to fight oil fires in Iraq were then classified information. In the future, however, General Flowers promised "ample opportunity for competition" to restore Iraq's oil infrastructure.
The most sought-after contract will be awarded by the United States Agency for International Development and will cover the initial work to rebuild Iraq's roads, water and power systems, schools and hospitals. Bidding was restricted to five American companies for the same reasons that Kellogg Brown & Root won its contract without any competition: the need for speed and for security clearances.
But government contract experts say that those needs have been exaggerated and that they may be violations of international trade agreements as well as federal rules.
Mr. Waxman responded to the letter from General Flowers with several new questions.
While accepting that the administration may have had valid reasons for giving the two-year contract to Kellogg Brown & Root for emergency work during the war, Mr. Waxman wrote, "It is harder to understand, however, what the rationale would be for a sole-source contract that has a multiyear duration and a multibillion-dollar price tag."
He asked General Flowers in a letter today how the Army determined the cost of the work to be done by Kellogg Brown & Root and when the Army would replace the current contract with one up for competition.
must be nice to be the EXCLUSIVE LOGISTICS & CONSTRUCTION PROVIDER for the U.S. Army & Navy, and also control where & when we go to war. Nice little racket.
But then again there are WMD.....AND uhhhhh all that liberating.
Like I mentioned before, being that there is so much money to be made in war, any takers on where Americas finest will be sent next??
Shamrock
But then again there are WMD.....AND uhhhhh all that liberating.
Like I mentioned before, being that there is so much money to be made in war, any takers on where Americas finest will be sent next??
Shamrock
StevieD,
I am glad that you stick to your guns, & that you don't let others sway you.I probably agree with you on issues more than not.But I do not agree with you & others who oppose this war, & think that those who are against the war are as wrong as wrong can be.I feel that the people who oppose this conflict simply don't understand the enemy & their cohorts, & how to deal with them.
You may be correct with this Cheney- Halliburton connection. I know liberals are always thinking that the gov't. is always up to no good. But before you subscribe to the oliver stone way of thinking that there are always some kind of conspiracy happening with the gov't., I think we should let it play out. There is an explanation( which is explained in the above article) on why Halliburton received this contract without competitive bidding.Is this general telling the truth, I don't know.But at this point I am willing to give the explanation the benefit of the doubt.Until proven otherwise.And if Cheney is involved with trading with the enemy & it is proven, then he should be should be hung out to dry.But lets see how this plays out.
shamrock,
I enjoy your posts as well. But with respect, my definition "of having balls" is different that yours. To me, having balls is what andy rooney did on national radio.Rooney,who I am not a fan of, strongly opposed the war & was very critical of bush.But either last week or the week before he was on the "imus in the morning" show & admitted that he was very wrong in his thinking of the war.He apoligized for being wrong & said that is why bush is the president & he wasn't.Here is a man in the national spotlight openly admitting that he was wrong. To me this shows balls & he earned my respect for this.I wonder how many other celebrities would openly admit that they were wrong on an issue.
Posting, anonymously contrary views on a forum, in my view doesn't take balls.
I hope that I didn't insult either one of you, because I do enjoy reading your posts & respect both of you as posters.
I am glad that you stick to your guns, & that you don't let others sway you.I probably agree with you on issues more than not.But I do not agree with you & others who oppose this war, & think that those who are against the war are as wrong as wrong can be.I feel that the people who oppose this conflict simply don't understand the enemy & their cohorts, & how to deal with them.
You may be correct with this Cheney- Halliburton connection. I know liberals are always thinking that the gov't. is always up to no good. But before you subscribe to the oliver stone way of thinking that there are always some kind of conspiracy happening with the gov't., I think we should let it play out. There is an explanation( which is explained in the above article) on why Halliburton received this contract without competitive bidding.Is this general telling the truth, I don't know.But at this point I am willing to give the explanation the benefit of the doubt.Until proven otherwise.And if Cheney is involved with trading with the enemy & it is proven, then he should be should be hung out to dry.But lets see how this plays out.
shamrock,
I enjoy your posts as well. But with respect, my definition "of having balls" is different that yours. To me, having balls is what andy rooney did on national radio.Rooney,who I am not a fan of, strongly opposed the war & was very critical of bush.But either last week or the week before he was on the "imus in the morning" show & admitted that he was very wrong in his thinking of the war.He apoligized for being wrong & said that is why bush is the president & he wasn't.Here is a man in the national spotlight openly admitting that he was wrong. To me this shows balls & he earned my respect for this.I wonder how many other celebrities would openly admit that they were wrong on an issue.
Posting, anonymously contrary views on a forum, in my view doesn't take balls.
I hope that I didn't insult either one of you, because I do enjoy reading your posts & respect both of you as posters.
Ar182, Thank you for the postings. No hard feelings taken.
DJV I think that AR just posted about the most recent stories about these contracts that were given to Halliburton. I think it is still up in the air. I think Smashmouth said it best when he said he thought it smelled bad when he first heard about it 8 months ago. The fact that it still doesn't smell good today speaks volumes.
DJV I think that AR just posted about the most recent stories about these contracts that were given to Halliburton. I think it is still up in the air. I think Smashmouth said it best when he said he thought it smelled bad when he first heard about it 8 months ago. The fact that it still doesn't smell good today speaks volumes.
AR- no offence taken my friend, actually I thank you for posting so many interesting and relevant articles. Obviously you are a intelligent and observing person, naturally you are entitled to your opinion, which I can tell is well thought and researched. Maybe to your surprise, my thoughts and opinions aren't terribly different from most of yours, at least from what I surmise from your posts on this forum. Hopefully one day I can make it out to SuperBowl Party and can personally meet more of the people personally here at jacks over a couple cocktails.
Point taken regarding the "balls" comment. I imagine everything is relative, for instance a fireman charging into a raging fire would certainly trump Mr. Rooney' s recant of his original statement. Never the less IMHO it takes some courage to post, a opinion that is sure to draw negative and labelistic response even if it is in fact anonymous.
Politically speaking I'm really not against war. The world without argument has become a Complex and volatile place. Absolutely I concur that we need to protect ourselves against terrorism. And force seems to be one of the few alternatives the radical extremists respect. Retaliation against the Taliban in Afghanistan in my opinion was not only justified, but necessary. The military response was worthy and effective. I guess where I disagree with some, is as to why exactly we are in Iraq. I mean if it is terrorism we are defending ourselves from through military action, than I can think of many countries more volatile and able, than Iraq. Several countries with arms and weapons vastly superior to Iraq hate Americans And our way of life. Lebanon, Syria, Saudi, Jordan, Pakistan N Korea, and of course Iran to mention a few. Everything I have studied states Iran is exponentially more dangerous than Iraq, both militarily and in their despise of Americans, also in their development of nuclear weapons I might add. Being that we already occupied Afghanistan who shares a 1, 500 mile border with Iran, who BTW is much more accessible to Naval deployment than Iraqi, why would we for all intensive purposes put Afghanistan & OBL on the back burner in this Hell bent all important invasion of Iraq, who in the grand scheme of terror is without dispute minimal at this point.
Also I would not necessarily label SteveD a liberal with Oliver Stone conspiracy notions because he possesses the belief that government motives aren't always what they seem, by definition that is what propaganda is, and our present day world is rampant with it. Conversely I congratulate and respect anyone with the desire to study and dig a little deeper than the 6 p.m. news. Additionally its shameful those who do pursue motives & answers are abundantly and ignorantly label unpatriotic, because they don't blindly and half witted jump on the bandwagon.
Rather than labeling everyone lefty, right, hawk, dove, liberal conservative and everything else, I would hope people would actually do some thinking & see where they stand on matters, more importantly where there elected stand. I can't believe the amount of people I know who blindly vote straight down the R OR D column without taking the time to learn at least a little about the individuals beliefs. Seems to me we should be better than that.
Regarding vice president Cheney' s position, I think his association with Haillburton is extremely undesirable at best, possibly criminal at worst. How in the Hell can we have the people we elect to decide when & where we go to war, be simultaneously profiting immensely in the private sector. Its just way to coincidental a circumstance for my liking. If that's not a conflict of interest, I have never seen one. As you stated, we will have to see what happens, although I don't think anyone can deny it is a extremely undesirable position the country and more specifically the troops are in when the second in command stands to make untold millions on the prospects of war. But indeed you are correct, we will see.
Best
shamrock
Point taken regarding the "balls" comment. I imagine everything is relative, for instance a fireman charging into a raging fire would certainly trump Mr. Rooney' s recant of his original statement. Never the less IMHO it takes some courage to post, a opinion that is sure to draw negative and labelistic response even if it is in fact anonymous.
Politically speaking I'm really not against war. The world without argument has become a Complex and volatile place. Absolutely I concur that we need to protect ourselves against terrorism. And force seems to be one of the few alternatives the radical extremists respect. Retaliation against the Taliban in Afghanistan in my opinion was not only justified, but necessary. The military response was worthy and effective. I guess where I disagree with some, is as to why exactly we are in Iraq. I mean if it is terrorism we are defending ourselves from through military action, than I can think of many countries more volatile and able, than Iraq. Several countries with arms and weapons vastly superior to Iraq hate Americans And our way of life. Lebanon, Syria, Saudi, Jordan, Pakistan N Korea, and of course Iran to mention a few. Everything I have studied states Iran is exponentially more dangerous than Iraq, both militarily and in their despise of Americans, also in their development of nuclear weapons I might add. Being that we already occupied Afghanistan who shares a 1, 500 mile border with Iran, who BTW is much more accessible to Naval deployment than Iraqi, why would we for all intensive purposes put Afghanistan & OBL on the back burner in this Hell bent all important invasion of Iraq, who in the grand scheme of terror is without dispute minimal at this point.
Also I would not necessarily label SteveD a liberal with Oliver Stone conspiracy notions because he possesses the belief that government motives aren't always what they seem, by definition that is what propaganda is, and our present day world is rampant with it. Conversely I congratulate and respect anyone with the desire to study and dig a little deeper than the 6 p.m. news. Additionally its shameful those who do pursue motives & answers are abundantly and ignorantly label unpatriotic, because they don't blindly and half witted jump on the bandwagon.
Rather than labeling everyone lefty, right, hawk, dove, liberal conservative and everything else, I would hope people would actually do some thinking & see where they stand on matters, more importantly where there elected stand. I can't believe the amount of people I know who blindly vote straight down the R OR D column without taking the time to learn at least a little about the individuals beliefs. Seems to me we should be better than that.
Regarding vice president Cheney' s position, I think his association with Haillburton is extremely undesirable at best, possibly criminal at worst. How in the Hell can we have the people we elect to decide when & where we go to war, be simultaneously profiting immensely in the private sector. Its just way to coincidental a circumstance for my liking. If that's not a conflict of interest, I have never seen one. As you stated, we will have to see what happens, although I don't think anyone can deny it is a extremely undesirable position the country and more specifically the troops are in when the second in command stands to make untold millions on the prospects of war. But indeed you are correct, we will see.
Best
shamrock
Stevie,
Thanks for understanding my intent.
Shamrock,
Excellent post & thanks for the kind words. Last year was the first time I went to the superbowl party & was very impressed how friendly everyone was. I plan to keep attending these gatherings, as long as Jack has them. I am always looking forward to meeting new people & hope you & others plan to attend.Shamrock, first two are on me.
A few points,I agree that crediting someone with "balls" is all relative & in hindsite I should not have commented on that.Whether we admit it or not we all tend to label posters, even if we keep it to ourselves.But I am glad that we have such diverse people & opinions from all over the country, the continent,& the world.It gives everybody a different perspective on issues & gambling.I have learned alot by browsing the different forums at this site.
I am not going to rehash why iraq was attacked because it was covered in many threads on this forum, but it seems that the only thing these rogue nations & extremtists understand is force. And I think we are starting to see the repercussions of the allies dominance over saddam & his thugs.Iran, n. korea, the palestinians, & even israel are starting to soften their positions on their respective issues.
As far as questioning our gov't., I fully understand what you & Stevie are saying. I grew up in the 60's & we questioned everything that the "man" said.I just think that you both found cheney quilty before anything was investigated.As that great attorney, johnny cochran(sp?) stated,"you are rushing to judgement"(lol).
Boy, I can't wait for football to start!(lol)
Thanks for understanding my intent.
Shamrock,
Excellent post & thanks for the kind words. Last year was the first time I went to the superbowl party & was very impressed how friendly everyone was. I plan to keep attending these gatherings, as long as Jack has them. I am always looking forward to meeting new people & hope you & others plan to attend.Shamrock, first two are on me.
A few points,I agree that crediting someone with "balls" is all relative & in hindsite I should not have commented on that.Whether we admit it or not we all tend to label posters, even if we keep it to ourselves.But I am glad that we have such diverse people & opinions from all over the country, the continent,& the world.It gives everybody a different perspective on issues & gambling.I have learned alot by browsing the different forums at this site.
I am not going to rehash why iraq was attacked because it was covered in many threads on this forum, but it seems that the only thing these rogue nations & extremtists understand is force. And I think we are starting to see the repercussions of the allies dominance over saddam & his thugs.Iran, n. korea, the palestinians, & even israel are starting to soften their positions on their respective issues.
As far as questioning our gov't., I fully understand what you & Stevie are saying. I grew up in the 60's & we questioned everything that the "man" said.I just think that you both found cheney quilty before anything was investigated.As that great attorney, johnny cochran(sp?) stated,"you are rushing to judgement"(lol).
Boy, I can't wait for football to start!(lol)
Real reason Chretien was against war in Iraq
Real reason Chretien was against war in Iraq
Iraq's wealth potential is so massive that the France, China and Russia obviously became willing to sabotage the United Nations Security Council in order to exploit Iraq's oil resources.
By 2001, oil companies in those three countries had signed deals with Hussein, pledging to spend up to US$38-billion in exploration, improvements and expansions to bring production up to at least five million barrels a day.
Most lucrative of all, and least surprisingly, was the deal between Hussein and France's largest corporation, TotalFinaElf, to exploit the country's largest oil field on the Iranian border north of Basra.
TotalFinaElf signed a deal in 2001 with Iraq on development rights for Majnoon oilfield which could ultimately lead to production of 450,000 barrels per day in two years for US$4-billion and could eventually produce about one million barrels per day.
Total's biggest shareholder is Montreal's Paul Desmarais, whose youngest son is married to Prime Minister Jean Chr?tien's daughter. Mr. Desmarais Sr. also sits on Total's board of directors, along with other ranking members of France's establishment.
And who is Canada's Ambassador to France? Chretien's nephew Raymond. The one who used to publicly ridicule Bush while he was Canada's Ambassador to UN.
Real reason Chretien was against war in Iraq
Iraq's wealth potential is so massive that the France, China and Russia obviously became willing to sabotage the United Nations Security Council in order to exploit Iraq's oil resources.
By 2001, oil companies in those three countries had signed deals with Hussein, pledging to spend up to US$38-billion in exploration, improvements and expansions to bring production up to at least five million barrels a day.
Most lucrative of all, and least surprisingly, was the deal between Hussein and France's largest corporation, TotalFinaElf, to exploit the country's largest oil field on the Iranian border north of Basra.
TotalFinaElf signed a deal in 2001 with Iraq on development rights for Majnoon oilfield which could ultimately lead to production of 450,000 barrels per day in two years for US$4-billion and could eventually produce about one million barrels per day.
Total's biggest shareholder is Montreal's Paul Desmarais, whose youngest son is married to Prime Minister Jean Chr?tien's daughter. Mr. Desmarais Sr. also sits on Total's board of directors, along with other ranking members of France's establishment.
And who is Canada's Ambassador to France? Chretien's nephew Raymond. The one who used to publicly ridicule Bush while he was Canada's Ambassador to UN.
Last edited:
A little off topic, but...
I heard a reporter who was with Boots & Coots on the radio a few weeks ago. He was saying that when they put out fires they basically, put them out (the easy part), then they're stuck with oil spouting out of a hole in the ground. They work all day to try to plug it up, getting oil all over themselves. If they don't have it stopped up when it's bedtime, they LIGHT IT ON FIRE AGAIN because it causes less pollution then letting oil spill out.
One of those leaks uses up about 20000 (gallons or barrels, can't recall) of oil per day.
He said to plug leaks, they'll use anything from golf balls to tampons to a big cone they drop down in the hole from a crane.
Just thought someone might find that interesting.
I heard a reporter who was with Boots & Coots on the radio a few weeks ago. He was saying that when they put out fires they basically, put them out (the easy part), then they're stuck with oil spouting out of a hole in the ground. They work all day to try to plug it up, getting oil all over themselves. If they don't have it stopped up when it's bedtime, they LIGHT IT ON FIRE AGAIN because it causes less pollution then letting oil spill out.
One of those leaks uses up about 20000 (gallons or barrels, can't recall) of oil per day.
He said to plug leaks, they'll use anything from golf balls to tampons to a big cone they drop down in the hole from a crane.
Just thought someone might find that interesting.
There was atotal of 14 well fires. 7 Billion? even 100 million? Golf war 91 over 125 well fires. Cost estimated to put out and clear them make them useful again. 1.1 billion. Chit they had huge huge lakes of oil on the ground they had to work around and clear. Twisted metal every where.
60 minutes had a update on this last night. To say it was not on the up and up. Well that would be true. But the dudes running the show wrote most of the rules. So even if they smell and are crooks. Looks like they will get by with it. Another company CBS talked with that put out a ton of fires in 91 war and helped build Kuwait back up. Well they did not get to quote. There was no open bidding as said above. What pissed me of is this other companies bid that was rejected. Was 25% less. Thats our money boys. Oh by the way. One of Chaneys best budd's is now CEO of Halliburton. Strange he is a retired General that was on Chaneys staff when he was Secreatary of Defense. That was back in 90/92 for Bush 41. As always we the tax payers take it in the ass.
This Chaney Halliburton thing goes much deeper then this. When Chaney was CEO of Halliburton they did business with Iraq. To get around Us Laws they did it through a foeign leg of the company. Seems to me there might be some French in old boy Chaney!
