What Cheney did at Halliburton

[Cowperson]

Business Week takes a non-plussed, non-partisan (thankfully!!) clinical look at Dick Cheney's record while CEO at Halliburton.

If you're interested.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflas..._2453_db038.htm

Cowperson

[octothorp]

And here I had always assumed that Cheney was evil, but a good businessman. Surpising to read the article and find out that while he's not evil, he didn't have a good record as CEO.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

You know, I really don't care what Cheney did outside the Whitehouse. Yo me that is an entirely different matter and is not of issue. The problem I have with Cheney and Halliburton is the potential for impropriaty in provision of contracts while Cheney is office. That is where conflict of interest comes in. This is where the examination should take place. Kind of like Bush and his National Guard, or Kerry and his VVAW stuff, it isn't relevant on what is going on today. What is relevant is what has happened in the last four years. If Cheney has allowed for sweetheart deals for Halliburton while he is in office, then that's what matters. Focus on that, not what he did prior to becoming Vice President.

[arsenal]

What deals did Cheney "sweetheart" Haliburton?
The no-contest contract in Iraq? Nope. Haliburton was the only company with enough resources and people to take on the job. It wasn't a question of Cheney just giving it to Haliburton. Haliburton was the only company that would be able to handle it.

I personally am not sure of any other deals, but I am sure you will let me know

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by arsenal@Oct 26 2004, 12:44 PM
What deals did Cheney "sweetheart" Haliburton?
The no-contest contract in Iraq? Nope. Haliburton was the only company with enough resources and people to take on the job. It wasn't a question of Cheney just giving it to Haliburton. Haliburton was the only company that would be able to handle it.

I personally am not sure of any other deals, but I am sure you will let me know

Okay we hear this "they were the only company that could do it" explanation everytime. Is that true? There is not a single other company in the world that could do it? I find it hard to believe, but I'm certainly no expert in the matter. Is there any proof?

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

There most certainly are other companies that could have done the job. Schlumberger to name one (hell it's even mentioned in the article). Plus, who is to say that everything has to go to one contractor? Last time I checked you are allowed to use more than one company to rebuild a countries oil industry.

[arsenal]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Oct 26 2004, 12:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Oct 26 2004, 12:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-arsenal@Oct 26 2004, 12:44 PM
What deals did Cheney "sweetheart" Haliburton?
The no-contest contract in Iraq? Nope. Haliburton was the only company with enough resources and people to take on the job. It wasn't a question of Cheney just giving it to Haliburton. Haliburton was the only company that would be able to handle it.

I personally am not sure of any other deals, but I am sure you will let me know

Okay we hear this "they were the only company that could do it" explanation everytime. Is that true? There is not a single other company in the world that could do it? I find it hard to believe, but I'm certainly no expert in the matter. Is there any proof?[/b][/quote]
From factcheck.org:
GAO Report: For example, the Army Corps of Engineers properly awarded a sole-source contract for rebuilding Iraq's oil infrastructure to the only contractor that was determined to be in a position to provide the services within the required time frame.

[Vulcan]

I don't know if Haliburton is the only company able to rebuild Iraq's oil industry but Cheney knew it was a lock to get the contract and it brings up another motive to invade Iraq.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by arsenal+Oct 26 2004, 01:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (arsenal @ Oct 26 2004, 01:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Okay we hear this "they were the only company that could do it" explanation everytime. Is that true? There is not a single other company in the world that could do it? I find it hard to believe, but I'm certainly no expert in the matter. Is there any proof?

From factcheck.org:
GAO Report: For example, the Army Corps of Engineers properly awarded a sole-source contract for rebuilding Iraq's oil infrastructure to the only contractor that was determined to be in a position to provide the services within the required time frame. [/b][/quote]
Zing!

Well, sort of.

That factcheck is a good site so it's hard to disagree with them, but really, was it an emergency? It still seems shady to me. And if it's not shady, then it looks shady, and that's almost as good as being shady.