Cheny gets his hand caught in the Iraqi cookie jar
 

"The Paper Trail
Did Cheney Okay a Deal?
By TIMOTHY J. BURGER AND ADAM ZAGORIN

Sunday, May. 30, 2004
Vice President Dick Cheney was a guest on NBC's Meet the Press last September when host Tim Russert brought up Halliburton. Citing the company's role in rebuilding Iraq as well as Cheney's prior service as Halliburton's CEO, Russert asked, "Were you involved in any way in the awarding of those contracts?" Cheney's reply: "Of course not, Tim ... And as Vice President, I have absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of in any way, shape or form of contracts led by the [Army] Corps of Engineers or anybody else in the Federal Government."

Cheney's relationship with Halliburton has been nothing but trouble since he left the company in 2000. Both he and the company say they have no ongoing connections. But TIME has obtained an internal Pentagon e-mail sent by an Army Corps of Engineers official—whose name was blacked out by the Pentagon—that raises questions about Cheney's arm's-length policy toward his old employer. Dated March 5, 2003, the e-mail says "action" on a multibillion-dollar Halliburton contract was "coordinated" with Cheney's office. The e-mail says Douglas Feith, a high-ranking Pentagon hawk, got the "authority to execute RIO," or Restore Iraqi Oil, from his boss, who is Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. RIO is one of several large contracts the U.S. awarded to Halliburton last year.

The e-mail says Feith approved arrangements for the contract "contingent on informing WH [White House] tomorrow. We anticipate no issues since action has been coordinated w VP's [Vice President's] office." Three days later, the Army Corps of Engineers gave Halliburton the contract, without seeking other bids. TIME located the e-mail among documents provided by Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group.

Cheney spokesman Kevin Kellems says the Vice President "has played no role whatsoever in government-contract decisions involving Halliburton" since 2000. A Pentagon spokesman says the e-mail means merely that "in anticipation of controversy over the award of a sole-source contract to Halliburton, we wanted to give the Vice President's staff a heads-up."

Cheney is linked to his old firm in at least one other way. His recently filed 2003 financial-disclosure form reveals that Halliburton last year invoked an insurance policy to indemnify Cheney for what could be steep legal bills "arising from his service" at the company. Past and present Halliburton execs face an array of potentially costly litigation, including multibillion-dollar asbestos claims.

From the Jun. 07, 2004 issue of TIME magazine"

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...644111,00.html

I'm thinking this will take a month to fully come-out and will make November even more intresting. Anyone else have any thoughts or speculation, particulary if a more credible evidence source is found ?

Could it be that Haliburton just does good work? I know Clinton/Gore gave them contracts for various things, I realize Cheney having connections and everyone's hatred of Bush raises questions, but I dunno.

1. The focus is on Cheney's absolute denial of any involvement with Haliburton since his VP-ship and the idea that maybe that isn't the truth. Hailburton's quality on the job has nothing to do with Cheney's ethical stance.

2. Clinton has nothing to do with Cheny's Haliburtion relationship. Strawmen are good for crows and not political discussions.

3. I question Cheny's actions, and thus I'm a Bush hater. I could poke-fun at your logic or the farce that you are mascaraing as political discourse, but I think your statements speak for themselves.

IMO the bidding issue paints a clear enough picture for me. The rest of what I'd like to say probably belongs in tilted paranoia.

Go ahead label me a Bush lover (there are worse things to be called) but "coordinating" with the VP's office is a little vague don't you think? What are the details of it? It could just as easily be innocuous as incendiary.

Do I like it? No. But it sure isn't a "smoking gun" at this point. Those who want it to be will tout it as such and those who remain neutral or pro-Bush see it for what it is, something that needs to be investigated further and, if other evidence is turned up, something that they should be held accountable for.

Oh and as far as these terrible ties with his old firm with regard to lawsuits, it's fairly common practice between executives and firms they've worked for. Would you expect former company leaders to foot their own legal bills for actions from years past while representing the company being sued? It just doesn't happen that way very often. If it did, companies who are often faced with lawsuits would never be able to find leaders.

I fail to see anything substantial in this story (or others like it) to warrant a thread title like "Cheny [sic] gets his hand caught in the Iraqi cookie jar."

:rolleyes: Revelation after revelation, after a while, it gets truly amazing to observe the steadfast denials of any wrong-doing by Bush administration apologists. The point is, there is a pattern here of lies and deceptions and this just another example of the administration fitting that pattern.

The Halliburton Agenda: The Politics of Oil and Money

It's just as amazing to us how you can spin one line from an email into a vast conspiracy.

Haliburton is the smart choice for what they do best.
It would be absurd to not use their expertise for work that's in the national interest.
The vast majority of the deception occurring during this administration's tenure is being practiced by its detractors.

It may well have been smart to pick haliburton, but it wasn't a choice, because there was no competition - that's what "no-bid" means.

Your last point doesn't hold water. Not until this Administration is some years behind us will we have an idea as to the truth of that statement. 30 years later, and details are still emerging about the Nixon whitehouse's lies and maneuvering in the run-up to the '72 election. But to bring us back to the present, how about an article looking at the current presidential campaign:

As for "deception" as applied to our elected representatives.
I do not expect full disclosure in any way shape or form. I expect only that they act from their own personal convictions. No country tells its citizens anything more than it wants them to know. Nor should they, IMO. I have a job description and it is not "complete and ultimate policy reviewer."

Could not have been said better. Bravo sir.

News flash: Politicians do, in fact, lie.

Now, Onward with eradicating the world of 14th Century barbarian fanatics.

I agree.

How healthy is a democracy work when those in charge only have to tell us what is convenient for them? It seems like you'd be just fine writing all politicians an ethical blank check. I much prefer an elected representative to act in a way that benefits his/her constituents as much as possible instead of acting out their own personal convictions. Sometimes the two overlap, but often they don't.

Yes. That's what the election process is about. It's our opportunity to hire and fire them.

To continue the H.R. analogy: The more information you have the easier it is to evaluate someone's perfomance. Who isn't curious about the people on and the discussions of bush's energy task force? Who hasn't wondered just a little bit about what bush and cheney talked about in front of the 9/11 comission?

I'll tell ya what, both of Bob Woodward's recent books are very good. Both "Bush at War" and "Plan of Attack" do an excellent job of fleshing out the sort of thing that goes on behind the scenes in the offices of the world's most powerful person who executes the world's hardest job.

They are so far above the level of daily journalism that one gets a palpable sense of how truly deceptive are the daily headlines and their small stories, no matter from what source they issue.

Well, i guess i know what i'm going to read when school's done.:D

I'm half-way through Plan of Attack. The process is all very interesting, in a macabre sort of way, but I haven't yet read a "why now" or "why is it necessary to go in now" quote that didn't come from Powell.

On a related note, a very disturbing thought entered my head the other day amid the talk of Chalabi spying for the Iranians - could the Iranians somehow have instigated this, by having their agent, Chalabi, and his gang making false intelligence claims to the CIA and others? Were we duped into this war by the Iranians? I haven't been able to get it out of my head this entire week...

I've thought along those lines (not so much about them "duping" us into it but why they might actually want us there). The only real reason why I could see them wanting us there is the thinking that our presence would incite a hard line Muslim resurgence. This hope would be far outweighed by the possibility that our presence would encourage the reformers within Iran. So, I think overall, the last thing they would want is the US in Iraq.

Just my .02

The past months elections in Iran showed that the reformers more or less rolled over and just gave up when the hard line leadership beared down on them. The average Iranian is tired of fighting the system as well.

Reform in Iran is slowly dying. I think our presence is helping the fundies there by giving them a target to attack and rally support on.

The reformers didn't have all that much recourse in the "election". They pushed for their cause but the leadership did an end run and beat them. The movement isn't dead it just lost a battle.

It lost a significant battle. And the lack of general outrage throughout the country shows just how weak the reformers have become. There were no mass protests in the streets like previous years. From the reports I have read and heard Iranians are tired of fighting it and giving up on the reform effort. They see it as weak and incapable. And this is probrably the most egregious crackdown the clerics have made in over a decade.

Reform is dying. They need a charismatic speaker to rally the troops and gain converts. I don't see one. Khatami appears to have been defeated both politically and in spirit.

Certainly wasn't a good election for them but I believe they will be resilient. They may, in fact, have changed tactics from more public to private efforts. I think there is still support for reform and I do believe a Democratic(ish) Iraq will increase the reformer's power base as Iraqis prosper (assuming of course Iraq doesn't fall apart before becoming prosperous).

But I suspect we are sidetracking this discussion significantly and should probably either stop here or start a new thread. ;)

and in further news....water is wet.

the tiny little optimist spark in me wants to beleive there is a lack of outrage because we all knew it all along.

(as to why we've never cared, I don't know, too busy just trying to keep up I 'spose).