Big Bucks from Iraqui Conflict
 

One of the things that outrages me as much as anything else is how Bush and Cheney are profiting financially by the fiasco in Iraq. I refer, of course, to Cheney’s connection with the Halliburton conglomerate.

Cheney was CEO of Halliburton before he left to become our VP. By sheer coincidence, I’m sure, Kellog, Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton, was given a multi-year contract to provide support services for our military in the Mid East. This contract is worth one billion dollars. Halliburton and its subsidiaries are also in the running to for USAID contracts to rebuild Iraq to the tune anywhere from $30 billion to $105 billion dollars. This is American taxpayer money going to a foreign nation, and the recipient is a company with close ties to the Bush administration.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the Bush administration is putting thousands of Americans out on the streets in order to cut $200 million from housing assistance for the elderly and the disabled. $105 BILLION in taxpayer dollars to Iraq while our own people are thrown to the wolves, and the cronies of the current administration get skim the profits?

As further proof of Halliburton’s close ties with the Bush administration, a week after the scandal broke involving photos of American troops torturing Iraqi prisoners, KBR pulled the plug on our soldiers’ private electronic communications with the folks back home. Wouldn’t want to take the chance on any more politically damaging pictures or reports getting out, now would we? Members of the military can still write letters home, a process which takes 14 days for the letter to arrive. As the daughter of of a soldier who served in the Vietnam conflict, I can tell you what hell that 10 -14 day delay causes in the minds of people back home wondering if their loved one is still OK.

If ever their was an example of our government being taking over by big business, Halliburton and KBR has got to be one of the most glaring ones around.

(edited for: ok, forget it already. If you want to discuss Composition 101, start a thread of your own)

Re: Big Bucks from Iraqui Conflict
 

snicker.....:D

Re: Big Bucks from Iraqui Conflict
 

You have the mother of your parents proofread for you? She might need new glasses.

Try colombia, hundreds of millions in aid which is used to buy military hardware from US firms.

Re: Re: Big Bucks from Iraqui Conflict
 

Hay! Yew shudda seed hit befor!:p

I'd rather not.

Re: Big Bucks from Iraqui Conflict
 

Where did you get this info? According to a couple of army wives I talk to regularly, there has been no change. Still getting email from spouses in Iraq.

My last email from Falluja was on the 15th.:confused:

Re: Re: Big Bucks from Iraqui Conflict
 

That's what it said on this site http://www.kathryncramer.com/wblog/archives/000549.html

The e-mail thing is relatively minor when compared to the other. I wish someone would respond to the first part of my post and fergit my granma and ms-spellins.

I think it was in LBJ's time that Haliburton started investing in politicians [cough]LBJ[/cough]. They went from being a road construction company to the very locus of evil in a pretty short time. Cheney was brought on board to increase government contacts, so lets not think of him as a businessman but rather as a politician owned by a business. I heard somewhere his compensation is being deferred until he leaves office,.. hate to have a conflict of interest between business and the needs of the Republic [sic].Remember how they lost control of Hitler? That won't happen this time.

Invest in america, buy a senator.

I read an article in the newspaper Le Monde (ok it's french, but maybe they're not always wrong ;)

Well, Cheney's qualifications for becoming the C.E.O. of Halliburton was that he was the former Secretary of Defense. I mean, this was just a classic case of the revolving door between high government position and very well paid corporate jobs. So, I think, it was one guy at Halliburton that very much said, 'The reason Cheney was hired was because he had an extensive rolodex.' It certainly wasn't because what he knew about the oil business, it was because who he knew.

The Washington Post concurs, "Cheney delivered fast, embarking on months of globe-trotting that got Halliburton top-level attention from prime ministers and oil sheikhs from Riyadh and Baku to Lagos and Caracas."

When Cheney left Halliburton, its board decided to pay him $10 million more than they were obligated to under the terms of his contract. According to Bryce, Cheney is taking a substantial amount of deferred compensation from Halliburton even now. According to Cheney's disclosure papers, he is receiving from 100,000 dollars to $1 million dollars annually from Hallliburton.

For the record Le Monde is a very, very respected paper.

All this buying of politicians must be expensive for Halliburton because they show a net loss through 2003. And the three years previous.

So do all Hollywood movies. ;)

Here's the most recent brokerage info on Halliburton which I got off the net:

RECOMMENDATION TRENDS

Current Month Last Month Two Months Ago Three Months Ago
Strong Buy 10 8 9 9
Buy 11 9 9 8
Hold 5 7 7 7
Sell 1 1 1 1
Strong Sell 0 0 0 0

Period Period End Mean EPS # of Estimates Year Ago Actual
Q1 Jun 04 0.33 20 0.29
Q2 Sep 04 0.35 19 0.34
Q3 Dec 04 0.36 19 0.32
Q4 Mar 05 0.35 6 0.06
P/E Ratio: 21.34
Consensus Recommendation: Buy
5-Year Growth Rate: 7.04

They don't look like they're hurting to me.

(sorry about the table format, for some reason it won't preserve it when I post this, but you get the general idea.)

That's just people trying to figure out whether their stock price is going to increase. In real life it has pretty much tracked the market and has yet to reach the prices it was at before the market tanked.

Before which market tanked?

Just talking about the stock market in general, which I suppose didn't "tank" ala the NASDAQ portion of it, but it did have years of weakness.

But in any case here's a graph of DOW vs HAL for the last five years.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=HAL&...z=m&q=l&c=^DJI

I don't know, but somebody must with all those "strong buy" recommendatios. A lot of people must expect great things of them, and for good reason. Stupid market analysts don't keep their jobs very long.

(okay I'll try to finish my message before my computer breaks down again). So in this article they say that the whole trade with civilians doing military njobs in the world has been increasing an that there is a very strong lobbying. And that actually Halliburton stopped to give a lot of money to lobbying since Cheney has been VP, but that Halliburton got a lot more contracts since then... strange isn't it?
BTW over here, there are some people thinking that Bush is only a puppet in the hands of men like Cheney and that he (Cheney) is the real boss. Nobody really knows him or knows what he's doing. As if Bush wasn't smart enough to imagine all this shit himself and that Cheney "leads" the country...

Now THERE'S a really interesting thought which would explain a lot of things. Hmmmmm.....

I thought everyone worked on that basis.

Which Halliburton? IOW which part of Halliburton is really important. The corporate bottom line or the executive compensations?

Welcome to big business. Commodore enriched its top executives all the while fleecing customers, stock holders, and suppliers. Then when the stockholders sued, executives simply moved Commodore to the Bahamas - ending the lawsuit and a stockholders revolt.

Where did George Jr get all his money? He never ran a successful company but got so rich as to even buy his ranch, etc.

If Halliburton is really so unprofitable, then why is their cash flow so strong? A large cash flow can also coverup fraud - especially when the SEC is so understaffed as to only prosecute what is politically expedient. Large cashflows were the trick in hiding massive fraud at Enron. Fraud so profitable that even Ken Lay is not prosecuted.

In short, marichiko has properly identified the classic "enrich your friends" tactic. Nothing new here. CBS 60 Minutes was asking the same questions of Halliburton over one year ago. With no bid contracts, then enriching your friends for peronsal gain is quite legal. Just like it is legal to violate the Geneva Convention in Guantanamo (at same time) and no one, even in the Cellar, questioned it.

Lets not forget all the companies that fleeced America and were not being prosecuted. 26 November 2002 in a principles meeting, the prosecution of illegal corporate activities was discouraged at the highest levels - by George Jr himself. Exact quotes from that meeting:

Karen Hughes: But there is uncertainty in the economy. Real uncertainty that this won't solve [refering to the tax cut and no taxes on stock dividends].

George Jr: The real uncertainty is because of SEC overreach. Until we get rid of Saddam Hussein, we won't get rid of uncertainty.

Don't prosecute crooked corporate leaders. Instead attack Saddam. That will fix the economy? Since then he attacked Saddam and corporate fraud continued completely unprosecuted except where Congress demanded action. Harvey Pitts of the SEC (and obviously because it is what George Jr wanted) even refused to have the SEC budget doubled by Congress. With rich friends, why would the president want corporate fraud investigated. This is why the lowest paid lawyers in government are still in the SEC and why the average life expectancy of an SEC lawyer is only three years. Don't prosecute companies that can enrich the politican and his 'legalized bribery' fund.

Since a Republican dominated Congress has not demanded all Halliburton contracts be reviewed, then economic mismanagement in the executive branch (no-bid contracts) is situation normal. Halliburton is only one example.

BTW the Boeing deal (ariel tanker rentals that will protect Boeing from free market competition) will be reviewed and decided in November - after the elections. It was just announced by the George Jr administration. Therefore rewards to corporate campaign contributors and top executives will be obvious only after the elections - when such questionable deals cannot hurt those rewarded or a reelected George Jr.

We are still not prosecuting massive corporate fraud except where Congress made demands or where even the states started the prosecution. (Or where the corporate fraud was by someone who did not make campaign contributions to the Republicans - ie Martha Stewart). The no-bid Halliburton contracts are but the tip of a very large iceberg that may even include Boeing's 767 tanker deals. Its only illegal if you get caught - a direct quote from one executive branch spokesman.

didn't read the replies - sorry if it's been said - ding 5:30 time to go
 

I'm still getting e-mails from buddies over there, but they seem a bit jumpy about what they say these days. They've always been monitored, but technically so does my job.

"They" don't control the internet.

If you really want to get riled up, check out some of the backgrounds of companies like oh say WorldCom that are getting contracts. I thought they were going to bring accountability back to the Whitehouse and yet they are using companies that I wouldn't invest in because of unethical business practices. Then there is the wicked huge contract that Acenture is about to nail. (aka Anderson Consulting - remeber Enron - yea them) They are one of those companies dodging taxes by having their headquarters in Bermuda. So they're too good to pay taxes, but they'll sure as hell take tax money.

Enron's was Andersen Accounting, not Andersen Consulting -- Andersen was one of the earlier consulting firms to separate off its consulting wing. I'm sure Andersen Consulting had its fingers in Enron too, just a different part of the pie.

Different fingers in the same pussy, still smell the same.;)

BTW-I also assumed everyone thought Cheney was the power behind the throne.

ewww! bruce, i'm shocked! that's nasty!

:D

same shit, different color
 

Acenture was and was not Anderson. All of the big X (4 these days) accounting firms have consulting wings. Theoretically they operate as a separate business entity, but it’s more structural. Deloitte and Deloitte Consulting here in town are in the same floor of the same building, go to the same X-mas parties, and share client information. They have to maintain them as separate entities more for SEC requirements than business functions.

Re: Big Bucks from Iraqui Conflict
 

Yes, that outrages me too. Now I cant profit from the oil for cash, cash.

Andersen Consulting actually sued its parent company to break free of them. They won, but couldn't keep the Andersen name, thus the really stupid name "Accenture" -- which turned out to be one of the best things to happen to them.

And global corporations everywhere lived happily ever after with the occasional help of the US 3rd Infantry Division.:rolleyes:

Most have their own private forces under the likes of Sandline and Global Risk Management. BIg game these days, GSG (Gurka Security Guards) was one of the biggest until their leader fgot tortured to death in Sierra Leone in '99 or so, kinda put them off it.

Yeah, but you can't beat having the 3rd infantry at your beck and call, especially when you don't even have to pay for it. That's why you hire the former secretary of defense to be one of your CEO's. ;)

Don't ask Cheney about Halliburton, or you might get your ears singed!


edit: Here's a less squeamish account.

One of our local news anchorettes referred to it as "a popular curse word that starts with the letter 'F'."

Am I the only one that immidietly thought of them all sitting in rows wearing shorts? With a teacher off to one side? God knows some of them could do with a good session with a wooden ruler.

Reminds me off a behavior control technique that was described to me. Using a small recorder, that the student knows about, you give a play by play of the behavior and tape any outbursts. "Dick is standing on his desk with his right arm toward Patrick. His middle finger extended. 'FU Pat you party traitor'. 'Dick I'm going to play this tape for your Dad.' 'I don't need his vote!' "

Yeah, wrong-doers get a bit testy when called upon their actions.:D

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. :haha:

Interesting that people are surprised and amazed by Cheney saying it ...

I'll betcha no one woulda blinked had such verbiage come from the lips of Messrs. Clinton or Gore. (okay, people would have noticed Gore dropping an f-bomb, but only because of the whole Tipper and the Mothers of Prevention connection).

Actually, what makes it funny is all the false outrage when Kerry said it in a Rolling Stone interview.

What the vice president needs is this .