Kenneth Lay: Another suspicious death?

[Terry Mauro]

BBC Website:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5173228.stm

A body found in north-east London has been identified as that of a banker who was questioned by the FBI about the Enron fraud case.

Police said they were treating the death in Chingford of Neil Coulbeck, who worked for the Royal Bank of Scotland until 2004, as "unexplained".

He had been interviewed by the FBI as a potential witness.

Three ex-workers of RBS subsidiary NatWest are being extradited to the US on Thursday to face fraud charges.

The extradition has sparked a political row, with opposition parties and human rights groups claiming the treaty under which they are being sent to the US is one-sided as the Americans are yet to ratify it.

Prime Minister Tony Blair has rejected calls to renegotiate the extradition terms.

Mr Coulbeck's body was found in a park near Newgate Street, Chingford, on Tuesday.

Mr Coulbeck's wife had reported him missing last Thursday. Police have yet to formally identify the body, which was removed from the parkland on Wednesday afternoon.

Mr Coulbeck had worked at the Royal Bank of Scotland until 2004, most recently as head of group treasury, the bank confirmed.

"Neil was highly regarded by his colleagues here in RBS and was a respected, capable and hard working member of our senior management team."

The fraud case centres on a NatWest transaction under which it sold off part of its Enron unit.

RBS said: "There is no evidence that Mr Coulbeck was involved in the approval of the transaction under investigation.

"RBS has co-operated fully with all the appropriate authorities and made them fully aware of all the relevant facts in our possession."

The FBI said it would not comment while the case was ongoing.

Very interesting John, Please keep us informed. Whether he committed suicide or was murdered, looks like he knew something that was dangerous....as did Lay. All too often the police look the other way and label them natural causes or suicide when they are not, however. I wouldn't want to bet on those three guys living long and healthy lives either. In JFK case so many died conveniently when they were starting to talk or about to be interviewed or interrogated. Watergate had its murders. Iran-Contra its. Many bank scandals had theirs - Calvi comes to mind as do so many other....Now Enron. It doesn't surprise me. Those who would go into other nations and kill innocent people on trumped-up charges, rape and plunder the world, kill duly-elected leaders of their own and other nations would order the assassination of someone who might look behind the curtain of the Wizards of Oz as easily as they order another drink. Sadly. Morality is not even in their world view nor field of vision. Only money and power and retaining both at all costs. Ever was thus.

Peter lives in a world where Korean and Iranian despots don't exist and innocent people in Bombay aren't blown up on trains by Islamofascists. Those sorts of things just aren't on his radar. Nor are the head-chopping, mutilating, car-bombing, Mosque-attacking, kidnapping fiends in Iraq. Can't be bothered with them. The Iraqi people? Screw 'em. Better they die than W be handed a strategic or moral victory. The Left used to champion the downtrodden; now they're led by the Lemkins and George Galloways of the world. Solutions? They have none. Plenty of venom, though. Instead, they settle for obstructionism. Guantanamo? NO! NSA eavesdropping? NO! Datamining phone records? NO! Rendition? NO! Tracking financial transactions? NO! Military tribunals? NO! They're like that old Groucho Marx song, "Whatever it is, I'm against it." Hell of a way to win a war. This is one lamb who will not be led to slaughter.

Well, guess what, folks? It's time for another CLYDE AWARD!!!

[John Simkin]

Peter lives in a world where Korean and Iranian despots don't exist and innocent people in Bombay aren't blown up on trains by Islamofascists. Those sorts of things just aren't on his radar. Nor are the head-chopping, mutilating, car-bombing, Mosque-attacking, kidnapping fiends in Iraq. Can't be bothered with them. The Iraqi people? Screw 'em. Better they die than W be handed a strategic or moral victory. The Left used to champion the downtrodden; now they're led by the Lemkins and George Galloways of the world. Solutions? They have none. Plenty of venom, though. Instead, they settle for obstructionism. Guantanamo? NO! NSA eavesdropping? NO! Datamining phone records? NO! Rendition? NO! Tracking financial transactions? NO! Military tribunals? NO! They're like that old Groucho Marx song, "Whatever it is, I'm against it." Hell of a way to win a war. This is one lamb who will not be led to slaughter.

The problem is that the Iraq War has nothing to do with helping the Iraqi people. All the surveys show that the majority of Iraqis think things have got worse since the invasion. The war was about money not morality.

The US Army yesterday announced that it was suspending Halliburton’s exclusive multi-billion dollar serving contract awarded by George Bush and Dick Cheney. The $16.4 billion contract gave Halliburton’s subsidiary, Brown & Root (yes the same company who financed LBJ’s political campaigns who then got lucrative contracts worth billions in Vietnam) exclusive rights to provide food, shelter, laundry services and transport to US forces in Iraq. It has similar contracts in Afghanistan and other countries currently with American troops. In fact, the more wars there are - the more money the company makes. Halliburton helped fund the two Bush/Cheney presidential campaigns. I wonder why?

The reason for this is that Halliburton is currently being investigated by the justice department for tens of millions of dollars in possible overcharges for its work in Iraq (they did the same thing in Vietnam). So far auditors have uncovered $1.4bn in questionable charges by Halliburton.

Halliburton also got the $7 billon contract to repair Iraq’s oilfield destroyed by the invasion.

The merit of capitalism over communism is that it encourages competition between rival firms to provide goods and services. According to economists this competition reduces prices and increases quality. However, companies like Halliburton don’t want competition. They know that the largest profits are made from monopoly contracts. In other words, the kind of contracts that are the staple diet of a communist state. You get those contracts by bribing politicians who have the power to give out these contracts.

Are you not a little concerned about the motives of Bush/Cheney? You might want to defend Bush on this thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2126

[John Simkin]

Very interesting John, Please keep us informed. Whether he committed suicide or was murdered, looks like he knew something that was dangerous....as did Lay. All too often the police look the other way and label them natural causes or suicide when they are not, however. I wouldn't want to bet on those three guys living long and healthy lives either. In JFK case so many died conveniently when they were starting to talk or about to be interviewed or interrogated. Watergate had its murders. Iran-Contra its. Many bank scandals had theirs - Calvi comes to mind as do so many other....Now Enron. It doesn't surprise me. Those who would go into other nations and kill innocent people on trumped-up charges, rape and plunder the world, kill duly-elected leaders of their own and other nations would order the assassination of someone who might look behind the curtain of the Wizards of Oz as easily as they order another drink. Sadly. Morality is not even in their world view nor field of vision. Only money and power and retaining both at all costs. Ever was thus.

Neil Coulbeck was found dead on wasteland yesterday. Initial reports state that he committed suicide. It has been pointed out that he has been interviewed by the FBI concerning the UK Enron case. Lawyers for the three men (David Bermingham, Gary Mulgrew and Giles Darby) being extradited today claim that he probably committed suicide because of being put under undue pressure by the FBI investigators. The strange thing about this story is that Coulbeck was not under police investigation. He was interviewed because he was a witness to this alleged fraud. The idea that Coulbeck committed suicide because he feared prosecution is false. It makes more sense that he was murdered in order to stop him testifying against the people involved in the Enron scandal.

Coulbeck’s body was found on the route where he went jogging. If someone has evidence about a major scandal, I would recommend that they do not go jogging in quiet areas. After all, look what happened to Mary Pinchot Meyer.

[Brendan Slattery]

The problem is that the Iraq War has nothing to do with helping the Iraqi people.

Uh huh. You're a smart guy, John. Tell the rest of us dummies what it's really all about.

All the surveys show that the majority of Iraqis think things have got worse since the invasion.

Hmmm. In a poll conducted in January for WorldPublicOpinion.org by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland, Iraqis were asked, among other

things,

"Thinking about any hardships you might have suffered since the US-

Britain invasion, do you personally think that ousting Saddam Hussein was

worth it or not?" 77% say it was worth it, while 22% say it was not.

Overall, 64% of Iraqis say that Iraq is heading in the right direction,

while just 36% say it is heading in the wrong direction. This represents

a sharp upward movement from when the International Republican Institute

asked this question in November 2005 and just 49% said that Iraq was

headed in the right direction and 36% said the wrong direction.

The war was about money not morality.

But of course!

The US Army yesterday announced that it was suspending Halliburton’s exclusive multi-billion dollar serving contract awarded by George Bush and Dick Cheney.

Um, these two men do not unilaterally award contracts. But please continue with your insane rant.

The $16.4 billion contract gave Halliburton’s subsidiary, Brown & Root (yes the same company who financed LBJ’s political campaigns who then got lucrative contracts worth billions in Vietnam) exclusive rights to provide food, shelter, laundry services and transport to US forces in Iraq. It has similar contracts in Afghanistan and other countries currently with American troops.

You wanna know why? Because they're GOOD AT WHAT THEY DO. That's why they get hired. And they're willing to go places other companies aren't. They were a multi-billion dollar company well before this war. They didn't need the Iraq contract to get into the black.

In fact, the more wars there are - the more money the company makes.

Uniform makers too. Their bloodlust must be stopped!

Halliburton helped fund the two Bush/Cheney presidential campaigns. I wonder why?

You're wondering why they supported a candidate who was on their board of directors?? You can't be this dense.

The reason for this is that Halliburton is currently being investigated by the justice department for tens of millions of dollars in possible overcharges for its work in Iraq (they did the same thing in Vietnam). So far auditors have uncovered $1.4bn in questionable charges by Halliburton.

Contractors overcharging their clients? That's right up there with "dog bites man." Curiously, you want the Guantanamo savages to have every legal benefit of the doubt/consideration, yet you're all too eager to pronounce Halliburton guilty.

Halliburton also got the $7 billon contract to repair Iraq’s oilfield destroyed by the invasion.

invasion liberation

The merit of capitalism over communism is that it encourages competition between rival firms to provide goods and services. According to economists this competition reduces prices and increases quality.

There was competition. They won the bid. If they overcharged, they will be rightly punished.

However, companies like Halliburton don’t want competition.

What company doesn't dream of market advantages? Microsoft sure does.

They know that the largest profits are made from monopoly contracts. In other words, the kind of contracts that are the staple diet of a communist state. You get those contracts by bribing politicians who have the power to give out these contracts.

Who was bribed, John? Sounds like you're sitting on some bombshell info. Please share.

Are you not a little concerned about the motives of Bush/Cheney?

No, I'm much more concerned about left-wing, America-hating British academics who have access to young, impressionable minds. I'm concerned about the wholesale slaughter of innocent Indian commuters that killed 200 and wounded 700. I'm concerned about home-grown Muslim extremists in the UK and North America. I'm concerned about the cowardly and craven European reaction to Muslim cartoons. I'm concerned about the pathology of hate in Iran, North Korea, and Palestine. I'm concerned about The New York Times's incomprehensible and indefensible publication of two classified anti-terrorist programs and the Times's haughty, imperious defense. Why is the Left making it easier for terrorists to kill Americans? Ostensibly, they are "protecting our freedoms." The one glaring - and unconscionable - exception? The freedom to live.

Edited July 13, 2006 by Brendan Slattery

[Pat Speer]

The merit of capitalism over communism is that it encourages competition between rival firms to provide goods and services. According to economists this competition reduces prices and increases quality.

There was competition. They won the bid. If they overcharged, they will be rightly punished.

However, companies like Halliburton don’t want competition.

What company doesn't dream of market advantages? Microsoft sure does.

They know that the largest profits are made from monopoly contracts. In other words, the kind of contracts that are the staple diet of a communist state. You get those contracts by bribing politicians who have the power to give out these contracts.

Who was bribed, John? Sounds like you're sitting on some bombshell info. Please share.

Are you not a little concerned about the motives of Bush/Cheney?

No, I'm much more concerned about left-wing, America-hating British academics who have access to young, impressionable minds. I'm concerned about the wholesale slaughter of innocent Indian commuters that killed 200 and wounded 700. I'm concerned about home-grown Muslim extremists in the UK and North America. I'm concerned about the cowardly and craven European reaction to Muslim cartoons. I'm concerned about the pathology of hate in Iran, North Korea, and Palestine. I'm concerned about The New York Times's incomprehensible and indefensible publication of two classified anti-terrorist programs and the Times's haughty, imperious defense. Why is the Left making it easier for terrorists to kill Americans? Ostensibly, they are "protecting our freedoms." The one glaring - and unconscionable - exception? The freedom to live.

Brendan, please cite any evidence you have that Haliburton ever had to submit a bid to the Bush Administration. My recollection is that they were handed no-bid cost plus (guaranteed profit) contracts for their work in Iraq. (This hardly encourages competition or competence.) It was later revealed that some of these contracts were routed through Cheney's office. Hmmm... When asked why the Bush Administration handed out these contracts without letting anyone else bid on them, the Adminstration responded that they hadn't had time because the war was so sudden. This was a damned lie, as exposed by the subsequent revelations of Paul O'Neil and Wesley Clark. I had personal reasons to disbelieve this lie. I have a friend in Special Forces who told me in December 2001 that he was training for the invasion of Iraq...not Afghanistan...Iraq. I naively thought he was joking.

While I would agree with you that there are a lot of evil forces loose in the world today, I fail to see how supporting corrupt companies and lying politicians makes the world a better or safer place. Call me Pollyanna but I suspect if our government was less dishonest and hypocritical, the Islamic Fundamentalists would have a harder time selling their suicidal insanity to the impressionable young.

Do you have any evidence supporting your contention that extremism can only be countered by extremism? Did Roosevelt need to suspend civil liberties in order to defeat Hitler?

[Craig Lamson]

Pat,

From memory ( and it sure could be wrong) the no-bid contract was awarded during the Clinton Administration and was still in effect when Bush took office.

And again from memory the contract was awarded after a bid competition...

I recall reading reasoning behind this setyup ws to allow for quick response in times of need. Not sure if thats a great reason....

I'll do a bit of research and see how well my memory is doing in my old age.

[Brendan Slattery]

Brendan, please cite any evidence you have that Haliburton ever had to submit a bid to the Bush Administration.

It was a typo. I meant to write "won the no-bid."

My recollection is that they were handed no-bid cost plus (guaranteed profit) contracts for their work in Iraq. (This hardly encourages competition or competence.) It was later revealed that some of these contracts were routed through Cheney's office.

Don't you think they were aware of the appearance of a conflict of interest? What did you want Cheney to do? He had already divested himself of all Halliburton stock.

Hmmm... When asked why the Bush Administration handed out these contracts without letting anyone else bid on them, the Adminstration responded that they hadn't had time because the war was so sudden.

Depends on your definition of "sudden." Personally, I think the Admin is being too cute with this rationale. Several months elapsed between the Sec Council proceedings and Day 1 of the war. I'd say that was enough time to secure sev diff bids.

This was a damned lie, as exposed by the subsequent revelations of Paul O'Neil and Wesley Clark.

Clark is a Dem activist/candidate and O'Neil had his ego/feelings hurt when he was rightly bounced for doing a crappy job.

I had personal reasons to disbelieve this lie. I have a friend in Special Forces who told me in December 2001 that he was training for the invasion of Iraq...not Afghanistan...Iraq. I naively thought he was joking.

So what? Iraqi regime change was the official policy of the Clinton and Bush admins. Not preparing would have been grossly negligent.

While I would agree with you that there are a lot of evil forces loose in the world today, I fail to see how supporting corrupt companies and lying politicians makes the world a better or safer place.

And I fail to see how you can compare to Islamofascism to Halliburton's (alleged) hand in the cookie jar. Apples and oranges.

Call me Pollyanna but I suspect if our government was less dishonest and hypocritical, the Islamic Fundamentalists would have a harder time selling their suicidal insanity to the impressionable young.

Yes, I'm sure the death-cult extremists who slammed airplanes into our buildings, or blew up resorts in Bali, or blew up innocent train passengers in London and Bombay had Halliburton uppermost in their minds. How great it must be to be a terrorist these days. The very Westerners you're trying to kill make excuse after excuse for your murderous behavior. It's the ultimate "get out of jail free" card. This is a war for civilization. WAKE UP.

Do you have any evidence supporting your contention that extremism can only be countered by extremism?

I see, so FDR and Churchill were just as bad as Hitler. Fighting real evil makes you evil. Gothca.

Did Roosevelt need to suspend civil liberties in order to defeat Hitler?

I take it you don't have any West Coast Japanese ancestors. Or history books. I'm also pretty sure FDR ordered the execution of German saboteurs, sans trial.

[Douglas Caddy]

Kenneth Lay died of a heart-attack yesterday. At the time Lay was waiting to hear what sentence he was to serve as a result of Enron scandal. If he got a bad deal, might he have revealed his close links to George Bush? The death was very convenient to the Bush administration. George’s dad had a good system of pardoning fellow rogues to keep them quiet. I am not sure George junior would have got away with that. As Lay could not be persuaded to commit suicide he had to have a heart attack instead. Given the news that appeared in the National Journal this week, Dick Cheney must be concerned about the state of his heart.

Lay had an interesting career. He started off in the oil industry in Texas. In 1965 he was appointed as an economist at Exxon. In 1972 Nixon appointed him under-secretary for energy (he lost office during the Watergate investigations.

His time in the Nixon administration enabled him to build up contacts within government. This enabled him to obtain senior posts with various energy companies in Texas. In 1985, Lay became chief executive of Enron and the rest is history.

The second I read of his death, my first thought was "how convenient." My second thought was "did he fake his death? I wonder if they'll show his body on TV like Zarqawi's?" My third thought was "maybe he was murdered." The next couple days should be interesting.

Detroit News

July 13, 2006

by Marney Rich Keenan

Conspiracy theories surround Ken Lay's untimely death

I 'll be the first to admit, I'm a sucker for conspiracy theories, my mistrust dating as far back as the discrepancy between John F. Kennedy's head flying backward when Lee Harvey Oswald's fatal shot was fired from behind the president.

So, it was entirely in character for me, upon hearing of Kenneth Lay's death, to immediately surmise that his sudden exit was an arranged Kevorkian-like suicide, a simple injection that triggered a "massive heart attack."

After all, his convenient timing (Lay's sentencing for his role in the corporate fraud was scheduled for Sept. 11.), coupled with his disregard for all those retirees' lost life savings and broken dreams, makes it difficult, as Tom Zeller Jr. wrote in the New York Times, "to expect that ordinary Americans would trust much of anything involving Mr. Lay unless they could poke it with a stick."

Think about it: A coroner could be bought.

It was reported that Lay had requested cremation. The site -- a small, rented house in the idyllic mountain resort town of Aspen where friends remained loyal -- was aptly chosen over the family home in Houston where he'd become quite a spectacle of derision.

And, too, Lay was no dummy. He had a Ph.D. in economics and orchestrated the rise of the seventh largest company in the nation.

After such a steep fall from grace and likely facing the rest of his life behind bars, why wouldn't he consider his life already over?

And so it has been with some delight (albeit morbid) that I took a spin in the blog-o-sphere. Not surprisingly, the perverse shenanigans are up and running full steam ahead, like www.kenlaylives.com, a domain where "reports of Ken Lay sightings worldwide continue to roll in." You can also order Ken Lay Lives T-shirts for $14.95 each. (Or not.)

I also found other conspiracy theorists, some who seriously questioned whether Lay even died at all. Posted on the blog Metafilter are the comments:

"Death schmeath, he's sippin' martinis on a private jet to his off-shore tax shelter/vacation home on a remote island shaped like an E."

"I want to see a (expletive) body. I want an autopsy. I wasn't involved at all in Enron and still I want to see these things -- I can't imagine what they would want."

"I'm sure the investors he defrauded and the workers whose lives he ruined would love to die in a vacation home."

Just when I thought I'd seen it all, I came across the Houston Chronicle's report of the memorial service last Sunday in which Lay's hometown pastor, the Rev. Bill Lawson, eulogized the former Enron CEO.

Lawson compared Lay to Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr. and Jesus Christ, saying that often those who are vilified in life become heroes in death. (I'm not making this up.)

I don't know about you, but the conspiracy theories seem a little closer to the truth.

Marney Rich Keenan's column runs in The Detroit News Features section on Thursdays and in Homestyle on Saturdays.

[Mark Stapleton]

The problem is that the Iraq War has nothing to do with helping the Iraqi people.

Uh huh. You're a smart guy, John. Tell the rest of us dummies what it's really all about.

All the surveys show that the majority of Iraqis think things have got worse since the invasion.

Hmmm. In a poll conducted in January for WorldPublicOpinion.org by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland, Iraqis were asked, among other

things,

"Thinking about any hardships you might have suffered since the US-

Britain invasion, do you personally think that ousting Saddam Hussein was

worth it or not?" 77% say it was worth it, while 22% say it was not.

Overall, 64% of Iraqis say that Iraq is heading in the right direction,

while just 36% say it is heading in the wrong direction. This represents

a sharp upward movement from when the International Republican Institute

asked this question in November 2005 and just 49% said that Iraq was

headed in the right direction and 36% said the wrong direction.

The war was about money not morality.

But of course!

The US Army yesterday announced that it was suspending Halliburton’s exclusive multi-billion dollar serving contract awarded by George Bush and Dick Cheney.

Um, these two men do not unilaterally award contracts. But please continue with your insane rant.

The $16.4 billion contract gave Halliburton’s subsidiary, Brown & Root (yes the same company who financed LBJ’s political campaigns who then got lucrative contracts worth billions in Vietnam) exclusive rights to provide food, shelter, laundry services and transport to US forces in Iraq. It has similar contracts in Afghanistan and other countries currently with American troops.

You wanna know why? Because they're GOOD AT WHAT THEY DO. That's why they get hired. And they're willing to go places other companies aren't. They were a multi-billion dollar company well before this war. They didn't need the Iraq contract to get into the black.

In fact, the more wars there are - the more money the company makes.

Uniform makers too. Their bloodlust must be stopped!

Halliburton helped fund the two Bush/Cheney presidential campaigns. I wonder why?

You're wondering why they supported a candidate who was on their board of directors?? You can't be this dense.

The reason for this is that Halliburton is currently being investigated by the justice department for tens of millions of dollars in possible overcharges for its work in Iraq (they did the same thing in Vietnam). So far auditors have uncovered $1.4bn in questionable charges by Halliburton.

Contractors overcharging their clients? That's right up there with "dog bites man." Curiously, you want the Guantanamo savages to have every legal benefit of the doubt/consideration, yet you're all too eager to pronounce Halliburton guilty.

Halliburton also got the $7 billon contract to repair Iraq’s oilfield destroyed by the invasion.

invasion liberation

The merit of capitalism over communism is that it encourages competition between rival firms to provide goods and services. According to economists this competition reduces prices and increases quality.

There was competition. They won the bid. If they overcharged, they will be rightly punished.

However, companies like Halliburton don’t want competition.

What company doesn't dream of market advantages? Microsoft sure does.

They know that the largest profits are made from monopoly contracts. In other words, the kind of contracts that are the staple diet of a communist state. You get those contracts by bribing politicians who have the power to give out these contracts.

Who was bribed, John? Sounds like you're sitting on some bombshell info. Please share.

Are you not a little concerned about the motives of Bush/Cheney?

No, I'm much more concerned about left-wing, America-hating British academics who have access to young, impressionable minds. I'm concerned about the wholesale slaughter of innocent Indian commuters that killed 200 and wounded 700. I'm concerned about home-grown Muslim extremists in the UK and North America. I'm concerned about the cowardly and craven European reaction to Muslim cartoons. I'm concerned about the pathology of hate in Iran, North Korea, and Palestine. I'm concerned about The New York Times's incomprehensible and indefensible publication of two classified anti-terrorist programs and the Times's haughty, imperious defense. Why is the Left making it easier for terrorists to kill Americans? Ostensibly, they are "protecting our freedoms." The one glaring - and unconscionable - exception? The freedom to live.

Brendan,

The tactic employed by the US forces from the start of the Iraq war was to DESTROY THE INFRASTRUCTURE. So from day one it was power stations, Government buildings which controlled sewage, health etc which were targeted. Curiously, the oil ministry was left untouched.

The plan called for Halliburton to then step in and rebuild Iraq's devastated infrastructure at ten times the price. Alas, the emergence of suicide bombers put a stop to Halliburton's profit forecasts. What a shame. Yes, it was about money....and oil. Liberating the people from tyranny? Give me a break. Iraqi's can't even stand in line for a job without risking being killed.

You seem to uncritically accept everything NBC, CBS, Foxnews etc. tells you without searching alternative media for corroboration. You just don't know what the hell's occuring.

[Brendan Slattery]

The tactic employed by the US forces from the start of the Iraq war was to DESTROY THE INFRASTRUCTURE.

Oh, so that explains why Baghdad was leveled with no regard for the civilian populace. Oh wait, it wasn't. Did you object to the targeted bombing of ministerial and communications facilities?

So from day one it was power stations, Government buildings which controlled sewage, health etc which were targeted. Curiously, the oil ministry was left untouched.

How naive are you? If the enemy has power, he has a fighting chance. He has the ability to communicate and transmit propaganda. Every warring nation would target another nation's power source.

The plan called for Halliburton to then step in and rebuild Iraq's devastated infrastructure at ten times the price. Alas, the emergence of suicide bombers put a stop to Halliburton's profit forecasts. What a shame.

Jeez. You seem positively overjoyed that the decapitaters denied Halliburton this "victory."

Yes, it was about money....and oil.

Which explains why gas is so cheap now that we've "stolen" all of their oil. Speaking of outrages, do you have anything to say about the UN "Oil for Food" scandal?

Liberating the people from tyranny? Give me a break. Iraqi's can't even stand in line for a job without risking being killed.

Right. And whose fault is that? Who's chopping off heads and kidnapping journalists and peace activists? Who's blowing up mosques left and right? Who's detonating carbombs in crowded marketplaces? Who's planting IEDs? Who's standing between 50 million Iraqis and representative democracy? Us, or the evil insurgents?

You seem to uncritically accept everything NBC, CBS, Foxnews etc. tells you without searching alternative media for corroboration. You just don't know what the hell's occuring.

Daily Kos? Democratic Underground? Huffington Post?

[Pat Speer]

My recollection is that they were handed no-bid cost plus (guaranteed profit) contracts for their work in Iraq. (This hardly encourages competition or competence.) It was later revealed that some of these contracts were routed through Cheney's office.

Don't you think they were aware of the appearance of a conflict of interest? What did you want Cheney to do? He had already divested himself of all Halliburton stock.

A friend of mine's father, a very patriotic Born-again Christian type, stopped supporting Bush and Cheney on this very issue. If I remember correctly it was the Wall Street Journal that looked into Cheney's ties to Haliburton, and found that he hadn't sold his stocks at all, but had put them in a blind trust. My friend's dad did some quick math and figured out that Cheney had in fact made something like 30 million off the war in Iraq. (Subsequent edit: Don't quote me on this. John posts the real story below.) This sickened him a bit, particularly when the GAO sued Haliburton for over-billing.

Pigs at the trough, indeed.

Call me Pollyanna but I suspect if our government was less dishonest and hypocritical, the Islamic Fundamentalists would have a harder time selling their suicidal insanity to the impressionable young.

Yes, I'm sure the death-cult extremists who slammed airplanes into our buildings, or blew up resorts in Bali, or blew up innocent train passengers in London and Bombay had Halliburton uppermost in their minds. How great it must be to be a terrorist these days. The very Westerners you're trying to kill make excuse after excuse for your murderous behavior. It's the ultimate "get out of jail free" card. This is a war for civilization. WAKE UP.

Do you have any evidence supporting your contention that extremism can only be countered by extremism?

I see, so FDR and Churchill were just as bad as Hitler. Fighting real evil makes you evil. Gothca.

Did Roosevelt need to suspend civil liberties in order to defeat Hitler?

I take it you don't have any West Coast Japanese ancestors. Or history books. I'm also pretty sure FDR ordered the execution of German saboteurs, sans trial.

I don't understand your last comments. Nowhere did I say that Churchill and FDR were as evil as Hitler, although fire-bombing Dresden and Tokyo made them less than saints. As far as having any West Coast Japanese ancestors, I came about as close as a white boy can come. My ex-fiance's parents met at China Lake. The key word in my statement was NEED. Did FDR NEED to suspend civil liberties? Did he NEED to approve the camps? The answer is undoubtedly no.

Edited July 14, 2006 by Pat Speer

[John Simkin]

From memory ( and it sure could be wrong) the no-bid contract was awarded during the Clinton Administration and was still in effect when Bush took office.

And again from memory the contract was awarded after a bid competition...

I recall reading reasoning behind this setyup ws to allow for quick response in times of need. Not sure if thats a great reason....

I'll do a bit of research and see how well my memory is doing in my old age.

I am afraid your memory fails you. This is the story of what is now called the Logistics Civil Augmentation Programme (Logcap).

In 1992 Dick Cheney, head of the US Department of Defence, gave a $3.9m contract (a further $5m was added later) to Kellog Brown & Root (KBR), a subsidiary of Halliburton. The contract involved writing a report about how private contractors could help the Pentagon deal with 13 different “hot spots” around the world.

The KBR report remains a classified document. However, the report convinced Cheney to award a umbrella contract to one company to deal with these problems. This contract, which became known as the Logistics Civil Augmentation Programme (Logcap), was of course awarded to KBR. It is an unique contract and is effectively a blank cheque from the government. KBR makes it money from a built in profit percentage. When your profit is a percentage of the cost, the more you spend, the more you make.

KBR’s first task was to go to Somalia as part of Operation Restore Hope. KBR arrived before the US Army. Over the next few months KBR made a profit of $109.7m. In August 1994 KBR made $6.3m in Rwanda. Later that year they received $150m profit from its work in Haiti. KBR made its money from building base camps, supplying troops with food and water, fuel and munitions, cleaning latrines and washing clothes.

The contract came up for renewal in 1997. By this time Cheney had been appointed as CEO of Halliburton. The Clinton administration gave the contract to Dyncorp. The contract came to an end in 2001. Cheney was now back in power and KBR won back the Logcap contract. This time it was granted for ten years. The beauty of this contract is that it does not matter where the US armed forces are in action, the KBR makes money from its activities. However, the longer the troops stay, the more money it makes.

KBR is now busy in Iraq (it also built the detention cells in Guantanamo Bay). What is more Halliburton was given the contract for restoring the Iraqi oil infrastructure (no competitive bid took place).

Cheney sold his stock options in Halliburton for $30m when he became vice president. He claimed he had got rid of all his financial interests in Halliburton. However, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) discovered that he has been receiving yearly sums from Halliburton: $205,298 (2001), $162,392 (2002), etc. They also found he still holds 433,333 unexercised stock options in Halliburton.

[Mark Stapleton]

From memory ( and it sure could be wrong) the no-bid contract was awarded during the Clinton Administration and was still in effect when Bush took office.

And again from memory the contract was awarded after a bid competition...

I recall reading reasoning behind this setyup ws to allow for quick response in times of need. Not sure if thats a great reason....

I'll do a bit of research and see how well my memory is doing in my old age.

I am afraid your memory fails you. This is the story of what is now called the Logistics Civil Augmentation Programme (Logcap).

In 1992 Dick Cheney, head of the US Department of Defence, gave a $3.9m contract (a further $5m was added later) to Kellog Brown & Root (KBR), a subsidiary of Halliburton. The contract involved writing a report about how private contractors could help the Pentagon deal with 13 different “hot spots” around the world.

The KBR report remains a classified document. However, the report convinced Cheney to award a umbrella contract to one company to deal with these problems. This contract, which became known as the Logistics Civil Augmentation Programme (Logcap), was of course awarded to KBR. It is an unique contract and is effectively a blank cheque from the government. KBR makes it money from a built in profit percentage. When your profit is a percentage of the cost, the more you spend, the more you make.

KBR’s first task was to go to Somalia as part of Operation Restore Hope. KBR arrived before the US Army. Over the next few months KBR made a profit of $109.7m. In August 1994 KBR made $6.3m in Rwanda. Later that year they received $150m profit from its work in Haiti. KBR made its money from building base camps, supplying troops with food and water, fuel and munitions, cleaning latrines and washing clothes.

The contract came up for renewal in 1997. By this time Cheney had been appointed as CEO of Halliburton. The Clinton administration gave the contract to Dyncorp. The contract came to an end in 2001. Cheney was now back in power and KBR won back the Logcap contract. This time it was granted for ten years. The beauty of this contract is that it does not matter where the US armed forces are in action, the KBR makes money from its activities. However, the longer the troops stay, the more money it makes.

KBR is now busy in Iraq (it also built the detention cells in Guantanamo Bay). What is more Halliburton was given the contract for restoring the Iraqi oil infrastructure (no competitive bid took place).

Cheney sold his stock options in Halliburton for $30m when he became vice president. He claimed he had got rid of all his financial interests in Halliburton. However, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) discovered that he has been receiving yearly sums from Halliburton: $205,298 (2001), $162,392 (2002), etc. They also found he still holds 433,333 unexercised stock options in Halliburton.

John,

Good post. There's nothing arm's length about awarding defence contracts. Anyone silly enough to argue that the system hasn't been corrupted just has to look at the plain facts.

War makes money. Why doesn't the mainstream media ever point out that fact?

[John Simkin]

Good post. There's nothing arm's length about awarding defence contracts. Anyone silly enough to argue that the system hasn't been corrupted just has to look at the plain facts.

War makes money. Why doesn't the mainstream media ever point out that fact?

The thing that surprises me is that some right-wing extremists like Brendan Slattery are not concerned by this corruption. I always thought conservatives were always in favour of keeping government spending down. Yet, when they get in power, like Reagan and the Bush dynasty, they always seem to have large budget deficits. This is partly because they reduce government revenue by cutting taxes on the rich (as a reward for financing their campaigns). They are always very good at cutting government spending on health and education but always increase spending on the military. This again pleases their financial backers who are rewarded with lucrative contracts.

I suspect Brendan Slattery is really a left-wing activist who is trying to discredit George Bush. Surely the Republicans could have found a more intelligent person to defend their record of corruption.

[Mark Stapleton]

Good post. There's nothing arm's length about awarding defence contracts. Anyone silly enough to argue that the system hasn't been corrupted just has to look at the plain facts.

War makes money. Why doesn't the mainstream media ever point out that fact?

The thing that surprises me is that some right-wing extremists like Brendan Slattery are not concerned by this corruption. I always thought conservatives were always in favour of keeping government spending down. Yet, when they get in power, like Reagan and the Bush dynasty, they always seem to have large budget deficits. This is partly because they reduce government revenue by cutting taxes on the rich (as a reward for financing their campaigns). They are always very good at cutting government spending on health and education but always increase spending on the military. This again pleases their financial backers who are rewarded with lucrative contracts.

I suspect Brendan Slattery is really a left-wing activist who is trying to discredit George Bush. Surely the Republicans could have found a more intelligent person to defend their record of corruption.

Ha--yes, the old disinformation double agent routine. I don't know whether your suspicion is right, John, but its quite strange that a person of Brendan's obvious intelligence can't put two and two together.

Another quick observation (slightly off-topic rant): Governments are elected by the people but then act on behalf of those who financially support them--not on behalf of the people. Allowing private donations to political parties allows these donors to interpose themselves into the political process and effectively disenfranchise those who elect the Government. Political donors, mainly Corporations, exert disproportionately high influence on Government policy. Democracy is still the best form of Government, IMO, but this is a critical weakness in the system. Unless this problem is addressed, parliamentary democracy, as currently practised, cannot claim to be the best way to organise society. There's got to be a better way. Banning donations to political parties seems the best solution, IMO.