Cheney's former employer promised slice of Iraqi oil pie

  1. The United States Army was criticised by a American Congressman on Wednesday for granting a multi-million dollar oil industry-related contract to Halliburton Co., run by Vice President Dick Cheney until 2000.

    The Army Corps of Engineers said Tuesday that an oil firefighting contract had been given to Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) without being put out to tender.

    "Why did the administration fail to provide an opportunity for other companies to bid on this contract?" asked Henry Waxman, the senior Democrat in the House of Representatives'

    The deal runs contrary to the interests of taxpayers and was made under some degree of secrecy, Waxman charged.

    "This type of contract is generally discouraged in the executive branch because it provides the contractor with an incentive to increase its profits by increasing the costs to the taxpayer," he said.

    "When Kellogg, Brown and Root was asked by the army to develop a contingency plan for extinguishing oil well fires in Iraq in November 2002, were any other companies asked to develop similar plans? If not, why not?"

    Waxman asked why the contract was not announced until two weeks after it was awarded on March 8, and requested an answer by April 4.

    The government's General Accounting Office, has previously raised concerns about the army's ability to monitor costs at KBR, he said.

    While Cheney was CEO of Halliburton in the late 1990's, he oversaw $23.8 million worth of oil industry-related contracts, equipment and services to Iraq, according to the Financial Times of London and several other European newspapers.

    In 2002 Halliburton stockholders filed a class action suit against Cheney alleging large scale financial fraud.

    Cheney retired from Halliburton in August 2000. He received $4.3 million in deferred compensation that year, plus $806,332 in salary. He subsequently sold more than $40 million in stock options. Even though he is no longer in Halliburton's executive suite, Cheney reported on his 2001 tax return that he received nearly $1.6 million in deferred compensation from the company last year.

    Cheney is still receiving deferred compensation from Halliburton, but neither the company nor the White House will specify how large his payment will be this year or how long the payments will continue.

    US companies also seemed set to expect dividends in the agricultural sector, after a decade of losing access to a sizeable market of Iraqi consumers.

    Before President Saddam Hussein banned American food imports in 1991, the US shipped about one million tonnes of wheat to Iraq each year.

    With American wheat exports down 13 percent from last year, the Bush administration promised to withdraw 600,000 tonnes of wheat from a government-held reserve to facilitate wheat and rice donations to Iraq.

    Iraq had been importing about three million tonnes of wheat a year, with Australia taking two million tonnes of that. France, India and others supplied the rest.

    Source: Al-Jazeera
    •  
  2. 52 Comments

  3. by   Q.
    epg-pei,
    No offense, but if I wanted to read Al-Jazeera's point I would find the articles myself.
    Do you have like, any commentary yourself on the articles? I don't mean to be snarky, but can I expect that you're going to just fill up this forum with various reports from Al-Jazeera?
  4. by   Gomer
    Originally posted by epg_pei
    The United States Army was criticised by a American Congressman on Wednesday for granting a multi-million dollar oil industry-related contract to Halliburton Co., run by Vice President Dick Cheney until 2000.

    I believe you are correct epg/pei no matter where your information comes from...however, I heard on CNN (probably considered another "suspected" source by some) yesterday that the deal had been withdrawn due to too close a connection with the VP and the bad p.r. it would bring given the belief by some that this war was really about oil.
  5. by   LasVegasRN
    Well, this and many other deals and obtained wealth from this war has been suspected all along.

    Dammit, I said I wasn't going to post over here anymore! :chuckle
  6. by   Q.
    May I ask, if American companies shouldn't be granted contracts for the Iraq re-build process, and be able to as a result recover financially from a war which cost the United States in lives and finances, then who should?

    Who should be given contracts?
  7. by   epg_pei
    Originally posted by Susy K
    epg-pei,
    No offense, but if I wanted to read Al-Jazeera's point I would find the articles myself.
    Do you have like, any commentary yourself on the articles? I don't mean to be snarky, but can I expect that you're going to just fill up this forum with various reports from Al-Jazeera?
    I understand Susy, thanks for the reply. I don't feel any commentary is necessary, for this reason. From reading through this board I see a lot of reposting of news stories with a pro-American point of view. I just want to balance it out with something from another point of view. I have my own opinions of course, but what's more important to me is that people see a different source, and think about it for themselves.
  8. by   jnette
    Originally posted by epg_pei
    I I just want to balance it out with something from another point of view. I have my own opinions of course, but what's more important to me is that people see a different source, and think about it for themselves.
    Gee, epg_pei...naughty, naughty !!!

    That would require EFFORT( and fairness...and an open mind.)

    Surely, you weren't being "censored" here, were you ?
  9. by   pickledpepperRN
    Originally posted by Gomer
    I believe you are correct epg/pei no matter where your information comes from...however, I heard on CNN (probably considered another "suspected" source by some) yesterday that the deal had been withdrawn due to too close a connection with the VP and the bad p.r. it would bring given the belief by some that this war was really about oil.
    Thank you both!
    From other "suspected sources:
    http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...962881242.html
    US forces use schools for cover
    By Russell Skelton in northern Iraq
    April 4 2003
    United States special forces have taken up strategic positions in three secondary schools located in a densely populated residential area of a city in northern Iraq...
    Copyright 2003. The Sydney Morning Herald.
    http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=393782
    Held under house arrest by Saddam for a decade, could this cleric be a secret weapon for the Allies?
    By Paul Vallely
    04 April 2003
    Iraq's most senior religious leader issued a fatwa yesterday urging the country's majority Shia community not to hinder the US and British armies. It could prove as significant a development for the invading forces as any of the military victories of the past few days.
    The ruling, from Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Ali al-Sistani - the foremost Shia authority in Iraq - called on Muslims to keep calm, stay at home, not put themselves in danger and not to fight. It could add the decisive weight to the scales of war.
    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0404-02.htm
    Published on Friday, April 4, 2003 by the lndependent/UK

    'Liberated' City Where Looters Run Wild and Death Stalks the Streets
    by Andrew Buncombe in Nasiriyah

    The third floor of the Saddam Hospital in Nasiriyah is not a place to linger. The corridor floors are filthy with water and grime, the plastic cover sheets on the beds are smeared with blood. The thick air tastes of decay and excrement, and it is all one can do not to retch.
    People do not like Saddam, but they do not want a colonizing army," said one young man, who asked not be named. "In the area where I live there was an older man, a retired soldier ... When he heard the Americans were coming he went and got his gun. When people asked why, he said it was because he did not want to be invaded."
    http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0403-05.htm
    Published on Thursday, April 3, 2003 by the Guardian/UK

    This is Not Terrorism
    Branding Iraqi Attacks Subtly Suggests a 9/11 Link

    by Fred Kaplan

    When Iraqi soldiers dress in civilian clothes and set off bombs at US military checkpoints, or when they pretend to surrender and then fire at US troops, are they committing acts of "terrorism"? Bush administration officials have invoked the word. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer recounted such incidents, then said, "We're really dealing with elements of terrorism inside Iraq that are being employed now against our troops." Major-general Stanley McChrystal, vice director of operations for the joint chiefs of staff, said the attacks "look and feel like terrorism".
    It is no mere matter of semantics to point out that these attacks have nothing to do with terrorism. Many definitions of that word are floating around, but they all agree that terrorism involves an attack on civilians or private property, not on soldiers or military installations. The US state department officially defines it as "premeditated, politically motivated violence propagated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience" (my italics). A similar defense department definition adds that terrorist attacks are designed "to achieve political, religious or ideological objectives". Paul Pillar, former deputy chief of CIA counter-terrorism, cites the key ingredient of terrorism: "It is aimed at civilians - not at military targets or combat-ready troops."

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2918053.stm
    Iraq: When to declare victory


    Paul Reynolds
  10. by   epg_pei
    ... White House spokesman Ari Fleischer recounted such incidents, then said, "We're really dealing with elements of terrorism inside Iraq that are being employed now against our troops."...
    Did he actually say that? I cannot ******* believe these guys!
  11. by   sjoe
    "Cheney's former employer promised slice of Iraqi oil pie "

    So what's your point? French oil companies have contracts with SH for over 25% of future development of Iraq's oil production.
  12. by   epg_pei
    France isn't busy bombing the **** out of Baghdad, do you think that makes a difference?
  13. by   Mkue
    I think someone posted a similar article recently.

    Good point Susy, I was thinking the same thing.
  14. by   Mimi Wheeze
    Of course France is not "bombing the sh*t out of Baghdad!" Because of their oil deals with that murderous dictator, they are IN BED WITH THEM. France is comfortable associating themselves with terror and evil just so they can have an oil deal.

    Besides, it was a firefighting contract that Cheney's former company was involved in, not any type of oil deal. Somebody's gotta put out all the fires SH's regime deliberately set on oil fields.

    Who, pray tell, do you think should be contracted to clean up that mess over there? France?

close