Political Topics And Discussion > Oil for food scandal

Political Topics And Discussion > All Things Political > US Political Topics

expat

Apr 16 2005, 02:29 AM

Only, by Halliburton. reported in the Washington Post in 2001. heres the link.

Looks like halliburton was doing oil business in Iran Iraq and Libya - despite sanctions, and despite Cheney's denials.

QUOTE

Halliburton held stakes in two firms that signed contracts to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq while Cheney was chairman and chief executive officer of the Dallas-based company.

Two former senior executives of the Halliburton subsidiaries say that, as far as they knew, there was no policy against doing business with Iraq. One of the executives also says that although he never spoke directly to Cheney about the Iraqi contracts, he is certain Cheney knew about them.

QUOTE

The trade was perfectly legal. Indeed, it is a case study of how U.S. firms routinely use foreign subsidiaries and joint ventures to avoid the opprobrium of doing business with Baghdad, which does not violate U.S. law as long as it occurs within the "oil-for-food" program run by the United Nations.

QUOTE

Halliburton's trade with Iraq was first reported by The Washington Post in February 2000. But U.N. records recently obtained by The Post show that the dealings were more extensive than originally reported and than Vice President Cheney has acknowledged.

Why should they be embarrased? Why would Cheney lie about this?

Cheney is one of the architects of the Iraqi sactions, as the Secretary of Defense under GB Sr.

QUOTE

Cheney has offered contradictory accounts of how much he knew about Halliburton's dealings with Iraq. In a July 30, 2000, interview on ABC-TV's "This Week," he denied that Halliburton or its subsidiaries traded with Baghdad.

"I had a firm policy that we wouldn't do anything in Iraq, even arrangements that were supposedly legal," he said. "We've not done any business in Iraq since U.N. sanctions were imposed on Iraq in 1990, and I had a standing policy that I wouldn't do that."

Uh huh. Sure ya did.

dkward2

Apr 19 2005, 07:26 AM

QUOTE

Halliburton's primary concern, added Ingersoll-Rand's former chairman, James E. Perrella, "was that if we did business with [the Iraqi regime], that it be allowed by the United States government. If it wasn't allowed, we wouldn't do it."

QUOTE

"In a joint venture, he would not have reviewed all their [subsidiaries'] existing contracts," Matalin said. "The nature of those joint ventures was that they had a separate governing structure, so he had no control over them."

QUOTE

Mary Matalin, Cheney's counselor, said that if he "was ever in a conversation or meeting where there was a question of pursuing a project with someone in Iraq, he said, 'No.' "

QUOTE

They [the subsidiaries] returned to dealing with Iraq after the council established the "oil-for-food" program in December 1996, permitting Iraq to export oil under U.N. supervision and use the proceeds to buy food, medicine and humanitarian goods. The program was expanded in 1998 to allow Iraq to import spare parts for its oil facilities.

The Halliburton subsidiaries joined dozens of American and foreign oil supply companies that helped Iraq increase its crude exports from $4 billion in 1997 to nearly $18 billion in 2000. Since the program began, Iraq has exported oil worth more than $40 billion

It sounds to me like Cheney didn't do anything wrong. Odd how two people can read the same page and take different views of it. It sounds to me like many US companies, including Halliburton’s subsidiaries, used the Oil-For-Food program to make money. I didn't hear any mention that they were helping Saddam skim money off the top. What I do know is that many in the UN knew about it, and many French officials. I even heard that Jacq may have known about it.

Most importantly, Halliburton’s subsidiaries were not run by Cheney. They were separate entities. As you said, Halliburton had stakes in these companies. That could mean anything. When I buy a share of stock, I have a stake in the company.

I won’t say that American companies are innocent. I'm sure there are companies that had some shady dealings with Saddam. I heard recently on FOX that a Texan has been charged with something like that. He, along with two Brits and possibly one more (I can't remember), were charged with the same thing I believe.

wardo

Apr 19 2005, 08:55 AM

I agree with dk, I don't see how you can read something nefarious on Cheney's part out of this story. It's the same type of thing as Michael Moore arguing how the administration failed America by allowing some of OBL's family members to leave the country after 9/11.

They had disavowed any relation with the guy and are respectable businessmen. Just because they have some relation to him, it doesn't mean they know anything or that we should have kept them in chains.

Liberals have gotten really good at this bait and switch tactic. Mention something awful and infer a meaning behind it to make a political point. Never mind that there might not be anything really behind it. And I should confess that I've seen conservatives do it too, but it just seems that the left has mastered the move of late.

expat

Apr 19 2005, 09:15 AM

QUOTE

"I had a firm policy that we wouldn't do anything in Iraq, even arrangements that were supposedly legal," he said. "We've not done any business in Iraq since U.N. sanctions were imposed on Iraq in 1990, and I had a standing policy that I wouldn't do that."

In other words, "I don't care if it's legal, I said we wouldn't do it and had a firm policy against it"

His lawyer says "He didn't know!" but high level members (plural) of Halliburton said otherwise. what happens to people in companies who break firm policies?

Also, who you gonna believe? His lawyer? or common sense? You didn't believe Clinton's lawyer, why do you believe Cheney?

The problem here is
(1) When asked, he felt the need to lie to lie about it, and had no problem doing it. Sure he's a politician...

and (2) He's taking the moral high ground in a glass house. Hypocritical. AND he's trying to affect policy because of other people doing the same thing he did. Suspicious.

wardo

Apr 20 2005, 08:52 AM

I won't argue that he shouldn't be lying and that it cast doubt on his character. Cheney will have to answer for those sorts of character flaws. I'm just suggesting that it isn't on par with the Oil For Food scandal.

As for Clinton, I honestly never developed an un-moveable view on the Whitewater (and other) scandals because it just seemed that the facts were all over the place. I certainly think they were dishonest, but that's about as far as I'd go in throwing any stones.

dkward2

Apr 22 2005, 08:23 AM

QUOTE

I don't care if it's legal, I said we wouldn't do it and had a firm policy against it

My personal bias on the "supposedly legal" quote was that he was saying he wasn't going to do deals that were borderline legal. He didn't want to cast doubt as to his practices. But, I see that he could have been saying it your way too. As I read, that's just how I took it.

expat

Apr 24 2005, 03:24 AM

Uhhh - he did say "We wouldn't do anything in Iraq" Not anything that might not be fully legal - he said "anything" ...

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.