Kenneth Lay: Another suspicious death?

[John Simkin]

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.

This is currently a major flaw in our democratic system. Luckily, this has become the source of a major scandal in the UK and hopefully it will bring change to the system.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6382

[Craig Lamson]

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.

Thanks, thats mostly what I found as I read last night. I personally dont have a big problem with all of this. Halliburton and its other companies certainly have the skills and the assets to perform these tasks. Someone is going to profit in WAR OR PEACE from government actions. And sure the principals of Halliburton made money but it also flowed downhill to a whole lot of other folks.

As for Cheney, are the yeary sums his pension? Again I've no problem with Cheney making money from his association with Halliburton. I'm a capitalist. I am a business owner. I support the process. I count my lucky stars that I live in a place and time that makes my choice to risk it all and chase my dreams possible. So as long as what Cheney and Halliburton has done is within the law, more power to them. If and when they break the law then punish them...its nothing more than I would expect for myself.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

What an interesting spectacle we witness unfolding here daily. We have one Forum member who presumes to know more about current events than all other members combined, and continually screams that we must open up our eyes, as though we refuse to see the truth that lays before us. And yet, it is the screamer who is most resolutely determined to see nothing that might trouble his own preconceptions.

The topic of this thread is the death of Kenneth Lay, the timing of whose demise is cause for suspicion. In the absense of instant prima facie proof positive that Lay's death was the result of natural causes, the first thing any homicide cop would do is consider possible suspects based upon who stood to gain the most from that death. It is a perfectly reasonable and sane working assumption, utilized by police departments around the world. Yet, the very fact that the same questions are raised here is sufficient to reduce our resident screamer to a lather. Oddly, those here who raised the very same fundamental questions that would be among the first posed by police, are assailed as delusional Bush-haters. Apparently, our resident screamer couldn't find a movite for suspicion if it bit him. How bizarre.

From there, this thread has degenerated even further, with remarkable assertions made, all against the evidence rather than in concert with it. To judge by the screamer's posts, it is as though Halliburton is merely a patriotic bunch of chaps who grudgingly accept difficult missions and preposterous profits as part of their thankless business tasks. No mention of no-bid contracts; no mention of Dick Cheney's deferred profits from stock holdings [which the screamer insists do not exist]; no mention of the pattern of Halliburton's over-charging the Pentagon, which has already been established; no mention of the refunding of millions of dollars where that over-charging has come to light; and certainly no mention of the nearly 9 billions dollars [yes, that BILLION with a "b"] of US taxpayers' money that seems to have evaportated in Iraq. Again, the screamer seems incapable of detecting ulterior motives. How bizarre.

As for the insistence that "Islamofascists" are fighting in a "clash of civilizations," it is again remarkable to note that our resident screamer ignores any and all signs of US roles in creating this situation. It is as though US political interference and support for Middle Eastern despots never took place. It is as though the US played no role in creating the House of Saud, overthrowing the Iranian government and installing the brutal Shah, establishing the inhuman regime of Saddam Hussein, grooming the terrorist Osama bin Laden and all those who currently labour as his minions, et al. Among the most effective means of dealing with monsters is not to create them in the first place, a fact that seems to have escaped our resident screamer's notice. But, were he to consider what has led his nation to this sorry state, he would have to consider the motives of the US government in consorting with such human scum in years gone by. That would mean addressing the US government's motives, and, as we've seen repeatedly, assessing "motive" is not his strong suit.

How is it that he cannot grasp this simple fact: the "Islamofascists" he rails against are all - to a man - not just former friends and proxies of the US, but in fact are creations of US foreign policy? One notes that nuance of any sort is lost upon our resident screamer, so let me hasten to add that this was not merely Republican or Democratic foreign policy, but a life-long bipartisan pursuit. Hence, perhaps he will refrain from asserting that my current observation of the costs of former policy blunders cannot simply be dismissed as "Bush-bashing." Without that disingenuous feint, what is left to him? One wonders if he will take the brave option of clearly analyzing the mistakes of the past that have led to today's carnage, or continue to deny that there was any motive for the US to create what has come to pass, and thereby cowardly discount any US responsibility for it.

Our resident screamer has stated clearly that he doesn't intend to be a lamb led to the slaughter. Presumably, the current slaughter suits him just fine, so long as he is not wearing the uniform that will lead to his own death. In that, he has much in common with all the administration members - Bush, Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz, et al - who were absent without explanation when it was their turn to serve - during the draft years when service was compulsory - but who are now prepared to fight to the last drop of someone else's blood. Beware the braying of patriots unwilling to make a sacrifice, but insistent that others make that ultimate sacrifice on their behalf. They are not mere hypocrites, but murderers who dress themselves and tbeir craven wickedness in the guise of noble causes.

That our resident screamer seems singularly unaware of any of the above might be the result of a rather shoddy educational system, yet others who graduated from the same system don't seem to suffer from this same myopia. Perhaps, then, it is the result of the fast food faux news provided by the "liberal" media he so derides. If so, it might profit our resident screamer to read more than he does, and to seek out media sources less divisively partisan than are his current choice.

Or, perhaps it is the result of being so blindly obedient to the propaganda of one administration, that all else is cavalierly dismissed as being "unpatriotic." If so, our screamer will soon no doubt be kicking in the front doors of other Forum members, executing a warrant that is no longer deemed necessary, to lay charges of "thought crimes" against those who disagree with those whom he so loyally, but foolishly, serves. I'm sure he'll look quite fetching in a smartly tailored brown shirt.

It would all be rather funny, if it weren't so truly, sadly pathetic. For what is the point of having the freedom to choose, the freedom to think, if one doesn't exercise it?

[Steven Tomlinson]

What an interesting spectacle we witness unfolding here daily. We have one Forum member who presumes to know more about current events than all other members combined, and continually screams that we must open up our eyes, as though we refuse to see the truth that lays before us. And yet, it is the screamer who is most resolutely determined to see nothing that might trouble his own preconceptions.

The topic of this thread is the death of Kenneth Lay, the timing of whose demise is cause for suspicion. In the absense of instant prima facie proof positive that Lay's death was the result of natural causes, the first thing any homicide cop would do is consider possible suspects based upon who stood to gain the most from that death. It is a perfectly reasonable and sane working assumption, utilized by police departments around the world. Yet, the very fact that the same questions are raised here is sufficient to reduce our resident screamer to a lather. Oddly, those here who raised the very same fundamental questions that would be among the first posed by police, are assailed as delusional Bush-haters. Apparently, our resident screamer couldn't find a movite for suspicion if it bit him. How bizarre.

From there, this thread has degenerated even further, with remarkable assertions made, all against the evidence rather than in concert with it. To judge by the screamer's posts, it is as though Halliburton is merely a patriotic bunch of chaps who grudgingly accept difficult missions and preposterous profits as part of their thankless business tasks. No mention of no-bid contracts; no mention of Dick Cheney's deferred profits from stock holdings [which the screamer insists do not exist]; no mention of the pattern of Halliburton's over-charging the Pentagon, which has already been established; no mention of the refunding of millions of dollars where that over-charging has come to light; and certainly no mention of the nearly 9 billions dollars [yes, that BILLION with a "b"] of US taxpayers' money that seems to have evaportated in Iraq. Again, the screamer seems incapable of detecting ulterior motives. How bizarre.

As for the insistence that "Islamofascists" are fighting in a "clash of civilizations," it is again remarkable to note that our resident screamer ignores any and all signs of US roles in creating this situation. It is as though US political interference and support for Middle Eastern despots never took place. It is as though the US played no role in creating the House of Saud, overthrowing the Iranian government and installing the brutal Shah, establishing the inhuman regime of Saddam Hussein, grooming the terrorist Osama bin Laden and all those who currently labour as his minions, et al. Among the most effective means of dealing with monsters is not to create them in the first place, a fact that seems to have escaped our resident screamer's notice. But, were he to consider what has led his nation to this sorry state, he would have to consider the motives of the US government in consorting with such human scum in years gone by. That would mean addressing the US government's motives, and, as we've seen repeatedly, assessing "motive" is not his strong suit.

How is it that he cannot grasp this simple fact: the "Islamofascists" he rails against are all - to a man - not just former friends and proxies of the US, but in fact are creations of US foreign policy? One notes that nuance of any sort is lost upon our resident screamer, so let me hasten to add that this was not merely Republican or Democratic foreign policy, but a life-long bipartisan pursuit. Hence, perhaps he will refrain from asserting that my current observation of the costs of former policy blunders cannot simply be dismissed as "Bush-bashing." Without that disingenuous feint, what is left to him? One wonders if he will take the brave option of clearly analyzing the mistakes of the past that have led to today's carnage, or continue to deny that there was any motive for the US to create what has come to pass, and thereby cowardly discount any US responsibility for it.

Our resident screamer has stated clearly that he doesn't intend to be a lamb led to the slaughter. Presumably, the current slaughter suits him just fine, so long as he is not wearing the uniform that will lead to his own death. In that, he has much in common with all the administration members - Bush, Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz, et al - who were absent without explanation when it was their turn to serve - during the draft years when service was compulsory - but who are now prepared to fight to the last drop of someone else's blood. Beware the braying of patriots unwilling to make a sacrifice, but insistent that others make that ultimate sacrifice on their behalf. They are not mere hypocrites, but murderers who dress themselves and tbeir craven wickedness in the guise of noble causes.

That our resident screamer seems singularly unaware of any of the above might be the result of a rather shoddy educational system, yet others who graduated from the same system don't seem to suffer from this same myopia. Perhaps, then, it is the result of the fast food faux news provided by the "liberal" media he so derides. If so, it might profit our resident screamer to read more than he does, and to seek out media sources less divisively partisan than are his current choice.

Or, perhaps it is the result of being so blindly obedient to the propaganda of one administration, that all else is cavalierly dismissed as being "unpatriotic." If so, our screamer will soon no doubt be kicking in the front doors of other Forum members, executing a warrant that is no longer deemed necessary, to lay charges of "thought crimes" against those who disagree with those whom he so loyally, but foolishly, serves. I'm sure he'll look quite fetching in a smartly tailored brown shirt.

It would all be rather funny, if it weren't so truly, sadly pathetic. For what is the point of having the freedom to choose, the freedom to think, if one doesn't exercise it?

Thank you! That was structurally beautiful. Poetic I would suggest. Why poetic? I don't know! But I feel it would be beneficial to me to break it down and analyse what and why it held me from beginning to end. It wasn't the content, although sharp as a knife, but it's formation. Damn it! I envy that ability. Excellent!

ST

[Len Colby]

The quote function isn't working

Pat

Brendan

me

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."

Uuuuuh how exactly do you "win" a no bid? That the contract wa a no bid wa the whole point

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 think he actually meant Richard Clarke, but how do you explain the Downing St Memo?

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.

The invasion of Iraq was a huge boost for the Islamic extremists. Supposedly the CIA concluded bin Laden wanted Bush to win in 2004 thus his "kiss of death" endorsement of Kerry [ http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/070306.html ]. Whether or not the report is accurate or not obviously bin-Laden was smart enough to know that endorsing Kerry would lose him votes.

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.

No he was obviously argueing the opposite.

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 take it you don't have a dictionary, find one and look up the definition of "need". The internment of the Japanese was not necessary or do you want to argue the US would have lost the war otherwise. As for the supposed "execution of German saboteurs, sans trial" please provide a citation. Even IF this were true I doubt it would have been necessary either.

Len

As for Cheney, are the yeary sums his pension? Again I've no problem with Cheney making money from his association with Halliburton. I'm a capitalist. I am a business owner. I support the process. I count my lucky stars that I live in a place and time that makes my choice to risk it all and chase my dreams possible. So as long as what Cheney and Halliburton has done is within the law, more power to them. If and when they break the law then punish them...its nothing more than I would expect for myself.

I don't think the quetion was so much that he made money but how, i.e. that he used his power and influence for personal gain at the expense of others blood and money. This not proper capitalism but rather an abuse of it. How would you feel if you were locked out of getting state and federal contracts because they were being awarded at inflated prices to a company associated with a politician?

[Len Colby]

Peter Please elaborate on the following

Illegal, Immoral, Imperialist tampering, invasions, overthrows, assassinations by US since WW2 [very incomplete list]

1. China 1945 to 1960s: Was Mao Tse-tung just paranoid? 20

4. The Philippines 1940s and 1950s: America's oldest colony 38

5. Korea 1945-1953: Was it all that it appeared to be? 44

6. Albania 1949-1953: The proper English spy 54

7. Eastern Europe 1948-1956: Operation Splinter Factor 56

8. Germany 1950s: Everything from juvenile delinquency to terrorism 60

12. Syria 1956-1957: Purchasing a new government 84

13. The Middle East 1957-1958:

The Eisenhower Doctrine claims another backyard for America 88

14. Indonesia 1957-1958: War and pornography 98

15. Western Europe 1950s and 1960s: Fronts within fronts within fronts 103

16. British Guiana 1953-1964: The CIA's international labor mafia 107

17. Soviet Union late 1940s to 1960s: From spy planes to book publishing 113

18. Italy 1950s to 1970s: Supporting the Cardinal's orphans and techno-fascism

40. Australia 1973-1975: Another free election bites the dust 244

48. Libya 1981-1989: Ronald Reagan meets his match 280

51. Bulgaria 1990/Albania 1991:

Teaching Communists what democracy is all about 314

52. Iraq 1990-1991: Desert holocaust 320

53. Afghanistan 1979-1992: America's Jihad 338

56. Afghanistan

[Craig Lamson]

The quote function isn't working

Pat

Brendan

me

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."

Uuuuuh how exactly do you "win" a no bid? That the contract wa a no bid wa the whole point

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 think he actually meant Richard Clarke, but how do you explain the Downing St Memo?

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.

The invasion of Iraq was a huge boost for the Islamic extremists. Supposedly the CIA concluded bin Laden wanted Bush to win in 2004 thus his "kiss of death" endorsement of Kerry [ http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/070306.html ]. Whether or not the report is accurate or not obviously bin-Laden was smart enough to know that endorsing Kerry would lose him votes.

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.

No he was obviously argueing the opposite.

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 take it you don't have a dictionary, find one and look up the definition of "need". The internment of the Japanese was not necessary or do you want to argue the US would have lost the war otherwise. As for the supposed "execution of German saboteurs, sans trial" please provide a citation. Even IF this were true I doubt it would have been necessary either.

Len

As for Cheney, are the yeary sums his pension? Again I've no problem with Cheney making money from his association with Halliburton. I'm a capitalist. I am a business owner. I support the process. I count my lucky stars that I live in a place and time that makes my choice to risk it all and chase my dreams possible. So as long as what Cheney and Halliburton has done is within the law, more power to them. If and when they break the law then punish them...its nothing more than I would expect for myself.

I don't think the quetion was so much that he made money but how, i.e. that he used his power and influence for personal gain at the expense of others blood and money. This not proper capitalism but rather an abuse of it. How would you feel if you were locked out of getting state and federal contracts because they were being awarded at inflated prices to a company associated with a politician?

Its how business works Len, might not like all of it but its how the game is played. I'm guessing its been that way since the beginning of humans trading with other humans. The reality is there is no such thing as "proper capitalism" . Corruption exists and will always exist. Is it right? No. Can it really be changed? I don't think so.

Now I can choose to play by the rules, written or unwritten, or choose not to play. I choose to play. And Ill fault no one for using their position or power to make deals. However I also expect them to follow the law and if they break it then I want them punished, which is what I demand and expect from myself.

Now as this applies to the awarding of contracts to Halliburton, I don't think any laws have been broken, but I am willing to concede that point if the law has been broken. The performance during the length of the contract is another matter.

I lock out my competors and charge more money than they do all the time due to personal relationships, power in the marketplace and my professional position. I've earned it. Is that wrong or immoral? Sure this on a slightly smaller level but the concept is the same.

[Pat Speer]

I lock out my competors and charge more money than they do all the time due to personal relationships, power in the marketplace and my professional position. I've earned it. Is that wrong or immoral? Sure this on a slightly smaller level but the concept is the same.

To quote myself from a long time ago, when I was a buyer for a wholesaler hard at work trying to get "volume discounts" from our suppliers, "the problem with economic competition is that no one believes in it, least of all capitalists." A successful capitalist, in most cases, is not someone who provides a good or service at a reasonable rate, and outworks his competition, but someone who outmaneuvers or crushes his competition, so that he can have the field to himself and charge an unreasonable rate.

"Greed is good."

[Craig Lamson]

I lock out my competors and charge more money than they do all the time due to personal relationships, power in the marketplace and my professional position. I've earned it. Is that wrong or immoral? Sure this on a slightly smaller level but the concept is the same.

To quote myself from a long time ago, when I was a buyer for a wholesaler hard at work trying to get "volume discounts" from our suppliers, "the problem with economic competition is that no one believes in it, least of all capitalists." A successful capitalist, in most cases, is not someone who provides a good or service at a reasonable rate, and outworks his competition, but someone who outmaneuvers or crushes his competition, so that he can have the field to himself and charge an unreasonable rate.

"Greed is good."

Yep, greed IS good. Why should I try to provide my goods and services at a reasonable rate. The main goal of ANY good corporation is to maximize profit. Its my responsibility to my corporation to get the top dollar for our services goods and services. Why setlle for less? Who exactly does that serve?

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Yep, greed IS good. Why should I try to provide my goods and services at a reasonable rate. The main goal of ANY good corporation is to maximize profit. Its my responsibility to my corporation to get the top dollar for our services goods and services. Why setlle for less? Who exactly does that serve?

Since the issue is what Halliburton has provided in return for US taxpayers' dollars, perhaps this isn't a good analogy, Craig. As a taxpayer, you no doubt would hope to see good value for the money expended on your behalf by your government. If you are sanguine about being taken to the cleaners by a corporation that has already had to return monies it had systemically and unethically over-charged your government, so be it. Others may not be quite so content to learn that, literally, billions of their dollars have evaporated with no paper trail, and no way to account for its disbursement.

No doubt, when the US government can no longer continue in deficit mode and taxes are eventually raised to remedy the outstanding arrears, you'll find cause to complain, as will all the others who were gung-ho behind Bush until they realized the cost to themselves.

[Craig Lamson]

Yep, greed IS good. Why should I try to provide my goods and services at a reasonable rate. The main goal of ANY good corporation is to maximize profit. Its my responsibility to my corporation to get the top dollar for our services goods and services. Why setlle for less? Who exactly does that serve?

Since the issue is what Halliburton has provided in return for US taxpayers' dollars, perhaps this isn't a good analogy, Craig. As a taxpayer, you no doubt would hope to see good value for the money expended on your behalf by your government. If you are sanguine about being taken to the cleaners by a corporation that has already had to return monies it had systemically and unethically over-charged your government, so be it. Others may not be quite so content to learn that, literally, billions of their dollars have evaporated with no paper trail, and no way to account for its disbursement.

No doubt, when the US government can no longer continue in deficit mode and taxes are eventually raised to remedy the outstanding arrears, you'll find cause to complain, as will all the others who were gung-ho behind Bush until they realized the cost to themselves.

I think we are getting good value for our money. Others may not agree. So be it. In addition as a stockholder of Halliburton I expect the company to use every legal method possible be a profitable as possible. I WANT them to work on the razors edge. If they are required to return monies, it makes me happy because in my book they are doing their job.

I won't complain about a tax increase to reduce debt, if thats how it actually gets used.

[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.

Thanks, thats mostly what I found as I read last night. I personally dont have a big problem with all of this. Halliburton and its other companies certainly have the skills and the assets to perform these tasks. Someone is going to profit in WAR OR PEACE from government actions. And sure the principals of Halliburton made money but it also flowed downhill to a whole lot of other folks.

As for Cheney, are the yeary sums his pension? Again I've no problem with Cheney making money from his association with Halliburton. I'm a capitalist. I am a business owner. I support the process. I count my lucky stars that I live in a place and time that makes my choice to risk it all and chase my dreams possible. So as long as what Cheney and Halliburton has done is within the law, more power to them. If and when they break the law then punish them...its nothing more than I would expect for myself.

I am also a businessman who has made money out of the capitalist system. I also have the kind of political views that would get me locked up in so called “socialist” dictatorships. I am all in favour of political freedom, however I believe everybody should have this freedom, not just the rich and powerful.

As a result of my income, I pay a lot of money in taxes. I do not object to that. I believe it is important that wealth should be redistributed via the tax system. However, I am very concerned that this money is not wasted, especially on some monopoly contract that has been achieved via bribing the government.

I think we are getting good value for our money. Others may not agree. So be it. In addition as a stockholder of Halliburton I expect the company to use every legal method possible be a profitable as possible. I WANT them to work on the razors edge. If they are required to return monies, it makes me happy because in my book they are doing their job.

I won't complain about a tax increase to reduce debt, if thats how it actually gets used.

Well that explains your position. The issue for you is not about government corruption or getting into an unnecessary war, it is about whether you are getting a good return for your investment. That is why people like you are so keen on governments increasing money on military spending. It probably also explains why conservative extremists are so opposed to spending on social welfare. I suppose it is more difficult to make money out of this type of government spending.

We are in danger of going off-topic. I have therefore re-posted this material here:

Military Industrial Complex: Bush and Halliburton

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1160

[Craig Lamson]

post moved.

Edited July 15, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

It has been noted that there's a more recent death in the Enron scandal, so I thought the following might be of interest. Forum members have previously discussed the veracity of "suicides" who shot themselves in the head more than once [Gary Webb, for example], but I cannot recall any discussion of those who choose to kill themselves by slitting their own throats. This, from the Times Online, at:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2269673,00.html

Dead executive 'not a suspect'

By Steve Bird

A FORMER banking executive who was due to give evidence at the trial of the NatWest Three killed himself by cutting his throat, police sources said.

Last night officers were searching a recycling centre in Chigwell, Essex, close to Neil Coulbeck’s home, to see if he had disposed of any documents linked to the Enron fraud investigation. Mr Coulbeck’s body was found on Tuesday in parkland. The 53-year-old former Royal Bank of Scotland executive was identified yesterday after a post-mortem examination. Police were still awaiting the result of toxicology tests.

Officers believe that Mr Coulbeck, a father of two, committed suicide. He went missing five days before his body was found. It is understood that he had made an earlier attempt on his life. Supporters of David Bermingham, Gary Mulgrew and Giles Darby have claimed that Mr Coulbeck was put under immense pressure when questioned by FBI investigators. But the FBI said that Mr Coulbeck had been considered a witness, not a suspect.

He was interviewed last month in his solicitor’s office as part of the Enron investigation.

[John Simkin]

It has been noted that there's a more recent death in the Enron scandal, so I thought the following might be of interest. Forum members have previously discussed the veracity of "suicides" who shot themselves in the head more than once [Gary Webb, for example], but I cannot recall any discussion of those who choose to kill themselves by slitting their own throats. This, from the Times Online, at:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2269673,00.html

Dead executive 'not a suspect'

By Steve Bird

A FORMER banking executive who was due to give evidence at the trial of the NatWest Three killed himself by cutting his throat, police sources said.

Last night officers were searching a recycling centre in Chigwell, Essex, close to Neil Coulbeck’s home, to see if he had disposed of any documents linked to the Enron fraud investigation. Mr Coulbeck’s body was found on Tuesday in parkland. The 53-year-old former Royal Bank of Scotland executive was identified yesterday after a post-mortem examination. Police were still awaiting the result of toxicology tests.

Officers believe that Mr Coulbeck, a father of two, committed suicide. He went missing five days before his body was found. It is understood that he had made an earlier attempt on his life. Supporters of David Bermingham, Gary Mulgrew and Giles Darby have claimed that Mr Coulbeck was put under immense pressure when questioned by FBI investigators. But the FBI said that Mr Coulbeck had been considered a witness, not a suspect.

He was interviewed last month in his solicitor’s office as part of the Enron investigation.

Very interesting. I started a thread on this case here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7395

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.