Grex Agora46 Conference

Item 173: Bush protects his invest...err, his contributors.

Entered by gull on Sun Aug 24 02:58:42 2003:

Yet another example of Bush granting favors to his favorite oil company:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030522-15.html

It's an emergency executive order that was quietly passed months ago.  
It grants total immunity from lawsuits to any company involved with 
Iraqi petroleum.
33 responses total.

#1 of 33 by pvn on Sun Aug 24 03:40:18 2003:

On the other hand it means that any US corporation dealing with
Iraqi oil is not liable for offenses against anyone committed by
a prior regime such as Sadaam which is what I think the actual 
intent.  (Blow it out your ear, dustbunny!)


#2 of 33 by sj2 on Sun Aug 24 09:44:37 2003:

Old story. I posted it earlier. They also got the UN to pass a similar 
resolution in favour of US companies.


#3 of 33 by gull on Wed Aug 27 01:22:03 2003:

In other news, a Halliburton subsidiary has been awarded a no-bid contract
to build a permanent prison facility on Guantanamo.  Last year the Bush
administration gifted Halliburton with $1.3 billion in government business,
most of it on a no-bid basis.

But hey, it's only corruption if a Democrat does it, right?


#4 of 33 by pvn on Wed Aug 27 05:01:48 2003:

You'd probably want to research it yourself but Halliburton as a
corporation did better during the Clinton years.


#5 of 33 by rcurl on Wed Aug 27 06:30:52 2003:

The whole economy did better during the Clinton years. "A rising sea lifts
all boats." 


#6 of 33 by carson on Wed Aug 27 21:00:52 2003:

("a blind eye allows rats to prosper.")


#7 of 33 by tod on Wed Aug 27 21:47:18 2003:

This response has been erased.



#8 of 33 by mvpel on Thu Aug 28 00:22:04 2003:

Re: 5 - the whole economy, populated by the likes of Tyco, Enron, Worldcom,
Global Crossing, etc, to whom the SEC turned a blind eye under Clinton?


#9 of 33 by tod on Thu Aug 28 00:26:36 2003:

This response has been erased.



#10 of 33 by pvn on Thu Aug 28 05:55:28 2003:

(re#5: Halliburton received far more under government contracts from the
Clinton administration than the current.)

It is also interesting to note that when the supposedly no-bid contract
that was in fact a bid contract was awarded to Halliburton the media
were screaming about the 'billions', now we find out that to date it is
several orders of magnitude less.  Isn't that interesting.


#11 of 33 by gull on Thu Aug 28 13:03:02 2003:

Re #8: We both know that if the SEC had gone after those companies,
Republicans would have accused the Clinton administration of "attacking
them for being too successful", just like they did when the Microsoft
anti-trust suit was launched.

Re #9: All I'm saying is it doesn't pass the smell test.  Halliburton
gets awarded contract after contract by this administration, and it's
hard to believe that that's a coincidence.


#12 of 33 by tod on Thu Aug 28 13:33:07 2003:

This response has been erased.



#13 of 33 by gull on Fri Aug 29 00:20:48 2003:

MSNBC article today:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/958312.asp?cp1=1
"Halliburton Scores Big Off Iraq"
"Size, scope of work greater than previously disclosed"

Excerpts:

'...according to Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) and other critics, the
Iraq war and occupation have provided a handful of companies with good
political connections, particularly Halliburton, with unprecedented
money-making opportunities.  The amount of money [earned by Halliburton]
is quite staggering, far more than we were originally led to believe, 
Waxman said.  This is clearly a trend under this administration, and it
concerns me because often the privatization of government services ends
up costing the taxpayers more money rather than less. '
...
'Waxman aides said they have been told by the General Accounting Office
that Brown and Root is likely to earn  several hundred million more
dollars  from the no-bid Army Corps of Engineers contract to
rehabilitate Iraqi oil fields. Waxman, the ranking minority member on
the House Government Reform Committee, had asked the GAO to investigate
the corps  decision not to bid out the contract.'
...
'Independent experts said the trend toward outsourcing logistic
operations has resulted in new problems, such as a lack of
accountability and transparency on the part of private military firms
and sometimes questionable billing practices.
       A major problem in Iraq, Singer said, has been the phenomenon of
 no-shows  caused by the inhospitable security environment, and the
killing of contract workers, including a Halliburton mail delivery
employee earlier this month.  At the end of the day, neither these
companies nor their employees are bound by military justice, and it is
up to them whether to show up or not,  Singer said.  The result is that
there have been delays in setting up showers for soldiers, getting them
cooked meals and so on. 
       A related concern is the rising cost of hiring contract workers
because of skyrocketing insurance premiums. Singer estimates that
premiums have increased by 300 percent to 400 percent this year, costs
that are passed on to the taxpayer under the cost-plus-award fee system
that is the basis for most contracts.'


#14 of 33 by tod on Fri Aug 29 17:46:28 2003:

This response has been erased.



#15 of 33 by sj2 on Fri Aug 29 21:49:43 2003:

Re #7, It is definitely informative. I wish the US Army had posted this 
earlier and hadn't waited for Waxman's inquiry.


#16 of 33 by tod on Fri Aug 29 23:20:03 2003:

This response has been erased.



#17 of 33 by pvn on Sat Aug 30 04:25:55 2003:

Explain again under a "cost plus" contract how a company makes *more*
money?


#18 of 33 by sj2 on Sat Aug 30 05:50:12 2003:

Re #17 - The information released to Waxman wasn't classified, I 
suppose. So if it was fit to be released to the public they should've 
done that earlier when the media was questioning the deals. 

My point is that its bad PR management for the US Army. Release 
information when its relevant. Maybe they could've held a press 
conference in response to the media reports of wrong-doings in the 
deal. Now that would've really made an impact.


#19 of 33 by pvn on Sat Aug 30 07:09:10 2003:

Yeah, the US Army generally sucks at PR/Political stuff.  But they sure
kick butt in war-fighting, which is their job...  (Personally I'd get
really nervious about politically savy military much less even aware...)


#20 of 33 by tod on Sat Aug 30 20:10:28 2003:

This response has been erased.



#21 of 33 by pvn on Sun Aug 31 06:13:33 2003:

(ain't that the truth.  One of the funnier parts to me of the Kennedy
Assasination nutty theories is that it would have required a
multi-juristicional conspiracy between agencies that can't even normally
get their act together when they are supposed to be cooperating with
each other.)


#22 of 33 by mcnally on Sun Aug 31 06:38:37 2003:

  But of course that's just what "they" *WANT* you to think..


#23 of 33 by tod on Sun Aug 31 14:41:12 2003:

This response has been erased.



#24 of 33 by gull on Sun Aug 31 23:10:13 2003:

Re #17: Their profit margin is protected when insurance costs and the like
go up.


#25 of 33 by happyboy on Mon Sep 1 01:20:17 2003:

re23: isn't that a brand of toothpaste?


#26 of 33 by gull on Mon Sep 1 01:41:29 2003:

'Columbus - The head of a company vying to sell voting machines in Ohio 
told Republicans in a recent fund-raising letter that he is "committed 
to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year.
"' 

'The Aug. 14 letter from Walden O'Dell, chief executive of Diebold Inc. 
- who has become active in the re-election effort of President Bush - 
prompted Democrats this week to question the propriety of allowing O
'Dell's company to calculate votes in the 2004 presidential election
.'

(Source: http://www.ohiocitizen.org/moneypolitics/2003/controversy.htm)

This raises a scary thought:  What if the lack of paper confirmation and 
audit trails on electronic voting machines isn't an oversight, but an 
intentional design choice to allow vote manipulation?
 


#27 of 33 by gelinas on Mon Sep 1 01:53:58 2003:

After all the discussion of the matter, it can NOT be called an 'oversight'.


#28 of 33 by mcnally on Mon Sep 1 05:05:38 2003:

  It can't *honestly* be called an "oversight" but I have no doubt that 
  someone will try to make that claim anyway..


#29 of 33 by russ on Mon Sep 1 16:01:18 2003:

Clean voter lists, audit trails and recounts interfere with a political
machine's ability to steal elections fair and square.  Of course they'll
exercise their right to get around those nuisances!


#30 of 33 by bru on Mon Sep 1 23:35:15 2003:

Damned right, the Democrats have been using these machines for that purtpose
from day one.


#31 of 33 by russ on Tue Sep 2 03:27:56 2003:

Re #30:  Ah, so the endemic abuses of the Democrats in places like
Chicago makes it right for the Republicans to one-up them all over
the country?  Nice to see where you stand on the morality, Bruce.


#32 of 33 by bru on Tue Sep 2 16:38:01 2003:

I didn't say that.  I just find it strange that they make more noise when they
fear it is they who will get spurned as aoopesed to their opposition.


#33 of 33 by gull on Tue Sep 2 17:15:42 2003:

Well, duh.  People tend to complain more about stuff that affects them
personally.



There are no more items selected.

You have several choices: