Posted by MJ
Winston Churchill once said he would make a deal with the devil to stop Germany. In a historical sense, the Allies did just that. When the world stands at the brink of destruction, as it did in the early 40s, you do what you have to do to win. All the revisionist history in the world will never change the fact that the Allies knew very well the extent, and the consequences, of their relationship with Stalin. Blame it for starting the Cold War, that’s fine, but also give it credit for stopping Hitler.
Today, however, I’m not sure I can say the same thing about Halliburton’s business dealings with the “Axis of Evil.” In January 2002, President Bush, when giving his first State of the Union speech, defined the “Axis of Evil” as Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Also, at that particular time, Bush mentioned nothing about the Wilsonian ideas of making the world safe for democracy or about spreading liberty. His speech was entirely directed at fighting terrorism. Again, I just think it’s funny how things change.
I have no problems with Halliburton- Dick Cheney’s former employer- making a dollar. And, in fact, I’m not entirely sure how to look at these business dealings. Also, I don’t think this story has received near enough attention in the States either. Bill Clinton had an affiliation with an SBA deal that went sour. Dick Cheney’s company in which he was CEO until accepting the nomination for VP, and still on the payroll, is not only the largest contractor in Iraq- the first part of that Axis- but also winning bids in Iran- the second part of the Axis, and probably much more dangerous and entirely linked to Al Qaeda. Something about all that has a funky smell.
I suppose the question that all this presents is, if Iran was serious enough to label as part of the “Axis of Evil,” then why is it okay for Halliburton to do business with Iran? If Bill Clinton had a company, past or present, and it was doing the same thing as Halliburton, I don’t think the treatment would be equal.
I thought American companies doing business with Iran was illegal anyways. I seriously doubt that Ross Perot’s oil company would be allowed to maneuver dealings in Iran, even though Perot’s company used to be one of the largest oil contractors in Iran, notice the past tense of the word used in this sentence.
The link to the Washington Post article does a much better job of laying this all out. It’s very quick reading and worth a look. The article, though, is hidden on the Post’s website and I’m not even sure appears in the print edition. This whole assortment of business dealing amazes me and supports the notion that this administration simply doesn’t have to be held accountable for anything it does. The fact is Iran has much stronger ties to Al Qaeda than Iraq ever did. During the invasion of Afghanistan, most Al Qeada fighters escaped into Iran, not Pakistan like most believe. Iran also wants WMD and probably has them. I’m not saying we should invade Iran, I’m just saying that this administration has made some lousy decisions and should be held accountable.
Anyway, I wanted to post this to draw a little more attention to the things surrounding this administration. I'm still not sure how to respond to it all. I just think that if these places are so evil and responsible for so much terrorism then why in the world is Halliburton allowed to deal with such? Don't you think this all looks a little hypocritical? Well, draw your own conclusions.
February 06, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I completely agree and this makes the vice president look very foolish. Time will tell if the president asks his vp to speak with his friends in the company about this and get them to withdraw.
ReplyDeleteWe shouldn't be dealing with the Iranians yet. The Europeans have chosen a course of action and we have to live with it, but we shouldn't allow our companies to trade with this country until we see compliance on the weapons front.
Just a side note on the Dick Cheney on the payroll. When Cheney decided to step down to take the VP job, he was still owed money from the company. He discussed it with the excecutives, and thought it would be easier to spread that money owed out over five years. This may be why he appears to be on the payroll, but in fact, planned it out so that he was guaranteed income over and above what he earns now.
ReplyDeleteHallibuton is one of the only companies in the world, the other housed in France, that is capable of underrtaking such a large scheme in both Iraq and elsewhere. I agree there is a moral issue that exists, and for the Bush Administration that claims the higher ground, I would like that issue put to rest.
Hymer I'm glad you could stop in.
ReplyDeleteYour insertion that I slyly, with the intenion of misleading my readers, made reference to Cheney and his present day pay connections with Halliburton shows a careful eye along with a lack of information.
Nor do I think it's irrelevant that Halliburton is the company that Cheney was CEO of prior to becoming VP. How do you think they get these sweet-heart deals with the government? Do you think it's just luck that Halliburton is presently the only bidder in all of Afghanistan and Iraq? You probably do, but I don't.
Back to the pay stuff. Cheney still receives about $150,000/year from deferred payments that he orchestrated before he left as CEO. Cheney still owns more than 433,000 stock options with the company, valued at roughly $18,237,323.96, that's a huge stake in a corporation.
When you own that much stake in a company, are the former CEO, and now the VP of the United States, you are essentially an asset and a primary component of that company. Whether Cheney gets paid by punching a time clock with Halliburton, or by landing them closed bids in Iraq and Afghanistan, he is still nonetheless being paid by Halliburton. I think his services rendered are about correct.
Thanks for reading.
Sources: www.americanprogress.org, www.cnn.com and CraigMc.