Reply With Quote
Well Rubin went to work for a financial ins ution he was previously regulating. Let's also not forget he even tried to influence Treasury Dept policy after he left.
Didnt seem to be a problem for folks back then.
I don't recall such a blatant use of quid pro quo before, directly assisting the negotiation of a deal with the former employer. Honestly, can you, MB? It just stinks to high heaven.He's certainly not the first politician, Republican or Democrat, to be in office when a former employer was doing business with the federal government.
Well Rubin went to work for a financial ins ution he was previously regulating. Let's also not forget he even tried to influence Treasury Dept policy after he left.
Didnt seem to be a problem for folks back then.
I have a question, though.....as whottt had brought up a pretty good point IMO.
Isn't Halliburton like the very best in the world at what they do, and have been doing it for like 60 years or so?
It's not like Halliburton was some no-name, start-up joke to begin with---before Cheney even had anything to do with them.
That's arguable. What's NOT arguable is that no-compete contracts, when there ARE other players, awarded to the VP's former company STINK to high heaven. Surely, if they're all that, they will run away with the bidding process, right? Give the compe ive process a chance...Isn't Halliburton like the very best in the world at what they do, and have been doing it for like 60 years or so?
Lobbyists, even former Washingtonians, are a dime a dozen. The fact is, his position at Citi-whatever they're called now, in NO WAY allows him to SET POLICY for the government regarding his employer. Cheney did that with his former employer.Well Rubin went to work for a financial ins ution he was previously regulating. Let's also not forget he even tried to influence Treasury Dept policy after he left.
BIG DIFFERENCE
You do realize he was chairman of Goldman before he became Treasury Secretary, don't you?
No, what's not arguable is that there isn't another company in the entire world that has decades of experience in Oil Well development, rebuilding infrastructure, logistical support for the millitary, base building for the millitary...They build buildings for Nasa. They refit Submarines for the British Government.That's arguable. What's NOT arguable is that no-compete contracts, when there ARE other players, awarded to the VP's former company STINK to high heaven. Surely, if they're all that, they will run away with the bidding process, right? Give the compe ive process a chance...
Just tell me the name of another company that does that...that has been doing it for the US Govt, under every administration, for the past 60 years.
As you see...they got contracts under Clinton, they got contracts under every president, democrat or republican, since FDR.
They got contracts from the US Government before Cheney was hired by them. They have 60 years experience in supporting our millitary, would you rather we go with someone who has no experience?
Chaney should give up his pension because why? Because his VP salary is going to make up for it? I don't think so.
Yeah these guys raped tax laws and possibly did worse...and so does just about everyone else.
If you guys think this is bad you should see the Democratic Lawyer I work for...this guy does nothing but poor people out of money...he cheats on his wife with a hooker..he cheats on his taxes and s his employees 6 ways from sunday.
He ran for judge of the DWI court and he drives home drunk nearly every night...and this guy is a bleeding heart liberal. Politicians just do this crap.
I just don't get the logic...would you rather we have a French company giving logistical support to our millitary and making money off a war we are paying for?
Gurantee you that if Bush or Cheney had never been elected Haliburton would still be doing this job...they have under every other president.
Will you please READ? I never said that he should give up his pension. What I said was that he should COMPLETELY recuse himself from any award of a contract to Halliburton, and that those contracts should go up for bid.Chaney should give up his pension because why? Because his VP salary is going to make up for it? I don't think so.
But it wasn't a problem for Robert Rubin when he was regulating his former employer.
Oh wait, he was serving in a Democrat administration. It is clear now.
That logic is twisted. Justifying current unethical actions by unethical actions of the past is simply wrong. I don't care if the person is republican or democrat.
Just to make my point across... Would you justify a republican killing someone today because a democrat murdered a person in the past and (s)he was not punished?
Not justifying anything, just putting it in its proper perspective.
Also, outside of the partisan accusation of an appearance of impropriety what real evidence is there?
That's good because if he was willing to give up a 20 ING MILLION DOLLAR PENSION to be the VP I probably wouldn't vote for his dumb ass. We are already brains challenged enough with Bush.
As you can see Chaney got nothing from Haliburton for the Iraq Job...Chaney was no longer employed by Haliburton at that time...his remaining salary is guranteed no matter what happens to the company...
and the bottom ing line is that we have alwayd hired Haliburton to do this ...Iran, our mortal ing enemy ing hires them.
The bottom line is is that even Cheney didn't dispute the accusation that Halliburton was dealing with the Axis of Evil before and after 911. As was the case with Zell Miller, I'm sure in time Cheney will receive his due rewards from Halliburton.and the bottom ing line is that we have alwayd hired Haliburton to do this
It is also less than intellectually honest to say that Halliburton was the only company that had the resources to acccomplish everything that the U.S. needed accomplished in Iraq. There are other U.S. companies, like Halliburtons closes compe or, Schlumberger Ltd that could have done just as good as or better job than Halliburton in Iraq.
http://investorcenter.slb.com/ireye/...script=1801#11
Is Schlumberger a Foreign Corporation?
Although Schlumberger is incorporated in the Netherlands Antilles, Schlumberger is not treated as a "foreign private issuer" under US securities laws and files the same public filings as other US public companies.
Well done MB, you just illustrated exactly why the liberals have no ing business running the country right now...
A quick perusal of Schlumberger LTD's history and current board of directors shows they are anything but a US company.
Schlumberger LTD opened in 1920 in Paris, France.
Their home office(despite claims it was moved to Houston, Texas) is still in Paris, France
Their current VP and CFO is named Jean-Marc Perraud, born in France. Educated in France.
Actually just about all their Executive board members were educated in France. And several of them were born in the mid-east. None of the top execs are Americans.
And I gurantee you Dan got the name of this company from some Pro Kerry let's suck Europe's site.
Yeah Dan let's give the job to a company that was founded in the country that was the #1 opponent of this war.
You do want France to make money off this war... , aren't they making enough off Saddam's strangulation of his own people under the Oil for Food Program?
On top of that Schlumberger LTD is a pure OilField services company.
They are not as broadbased as Haliburton, they are not capable of logistical support for our millitary, they do not have extensive experience in rebuilding civillian infrastructure...they are are purely for Oil, Haliburton is not. Haliburton is a millitary support company as well and they have an extensive history with the US millitary, under presidents of both parties.
I'm much more interested in Halle Berry than Halliburton.
sorry ex...I gotta call you out on this one...
your response showed a surprising naievete...
I deal with government contracts all the time and all bids are based on specifications...now...this contract was for supplying unspecified support functions to wage a war and damage reconstruction from the war that the military was not capable of providing...
How exactly is the government supposed to write specifications for this support function? Do you publish your military plans for waging the war that hasn't been fought yet so contractors can bid on it?...take one small example...troop support..do you publish specifications for setting up mess halls on specific days at specific coordinates to feed a specific number of troops a specified meal and then take bids on it?...do you take bids on repairing certain bridges and telephone exchanges that you haven't destroyed yet?...those are just a couple of examples...you might as well publish your detailed war plans in the New York Times...and when a saboteur blows up an oil pipeline do you just stop everything while it burns and write specs for repairs and put it out to bid?...it's just not feasible...
thats why these unspecified cost-plus contracts are negotiated with qualified bidders...and Haliburton had the most qualified network in the region of any US company...you feed the troops, fix the bridges, repair the pipelines and move on with waging the war/peace and let the auditors work it out on what was a reasonable price and what was not...
Did Haliburton make some mistakes?...yes...were they intentional?...maybe...maybe not...but the contract called for fines and penalties for mistakes found on audit and Haliburton paid them...all large defense contractors have been party to these type of negotiated contracts at one time or other and I dare say that all of them have paid reimbursements and fines on audit for various infractions...the pentagon literally has an army of full time auditors that handle these contracts...
it is a monumental bookeeping task to do ent and allocate specific costs to specific functions in the confusion a wartime environment and overall it looks like Haliburton has done a good job of it...they have certainly been under microscopic scrutiny because of the VP's former involvement with the company...
I quite honestly just don't get this issue...
Under Marcus's set of standards Halliburton is a Caymen Islands based business and not American. The fact remains that there were plenty of other companies, foreign or not, that could have fulfilled the duties that Halliburton overcharged the American taxpayers to do.Yeah Dan let's give the job to a company that was founded in the country that was the #1 opponent of this war.
Halliburton is incorporated in Delaware. Last time I checked that was a part of the United States.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
