Article: Dick Cheney - War Profiteer

[jojo22]

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1117-22.htm

Published on Thursday, November 17, 2005 by CommonDreams.org
Dick Cheney: War Profiteer
by Tom Turnipseed


Questions persist about Vice-President Cheney’s role in the ongoing investigation and scandal swirling about the White House. His chief of staff and confidante Lewis “Scooter” Libby has been indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice. Let’s take a look at some personal incentives for Cheney’s selling war to our country.

Cheney has pursued a political and corporate career to make himself very rich and powerful. He is the personification of a war profiteer who slid through the revolving door connecting the public and private sectors of the defense establishment on two occasions in a career that has served his relentless quest for power and profits.

As Defense Secretary, Mr. Cheney commissioned a study for the U.S. Department of Defense by Brown and Root Services (now Kellogg, Brown and Root), a wholly owned subsidiary of Halliburton. The study recommended that private firms like Halliburton should take over logistical support programs for U.S. military operations around the world. Just two years after he was Secretary of Defense, Cheney stepped through the revolving door linking the Department of Defense with defense contractors and became CEO of Halliburton. Halliburton was the principal beneficiary of Cheney’s privatization efforts for our military’s logistical support and Cheney was paid $44 million for five year's work with them before he slipped back through the revolving door of war profiteering to become Vice-President of the United States. When asked about the money he received from Halliburton, Cheney said. "I tell you that the government had absolutely nothing to do with it."

The Bush administration has dished out lucrative reconstruction contracts in Iraq to favored U.S. based corporations including Halliburton and denied contracts to many Iraqi and foreign based companies. To the conquerors go the spoils was the message on December 11, 2003 when Bush said, “The taxpayers understand why it makes sense for countries that risk lives to participate in the contracts in Iraq, It's very simple. Our people risk their lives, friendly coalition folks risk their lives, and therefore the contracting is going to reflect that.”

Bush’s statement is a stunning admission of how much corrupt corporations control our foreign policy. Under Cheney’s leadership Halliburton out did Enron in using offshore subsidiaries as tax shelters to hide profits to bilk U.S. taxpayers. Halliburton also utilized off-shore subsidiaries to contract for services and sell banned equipment to rogue states like Iran, Iraq and Libya. This would be illegal if done directly by Halliburton.

At last count Halliburton had 58 offshore subsidiaries in Caribbean tax havens. With Cheney at the helm Halliburton’s tax payments to the U.S. went from $302 million in 1998 to zero in 1999, when they also received a refund of $85 million from the Internal Revenue Service.

During Cheney’s tenure as CEO from 1995 to 2000, Halliburton Products and Services set up shop in Iran. The Halliburton subsidiary does approximately $40 million a year worth of oil field service work for the Iranian government. 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl visited the subsidiary in the Cayman Islands and found that it had no office and no employees. The mailing address was a local bank with which the subsidiary is registered. Stahl was met there by the bank’s manager who informed her that all mail to the subsidiary is forwarded to Halliburton headquarters in Houston. Halliburton had created the subsidiary to allow itself to do illegal business with a rogue state and to skip out on its taxes in the process.

With Iran’s president vowing to destroy Israel and being accused by the Bush administration of harboring and aiding al-Qaeda operatives, Cheney’s company is doing business with Iran through a subsidiary and dodging its tax obligations to the U.S.

Halliburton has been more closely associated with the invasion of Iraq than any other corporation. Before the Iraq War began, it was 19th on the U.S. Army's list of top contractors and zoomed to number 1 in 2003. In 2003 Halliburton made $4.2 billion from the U.S. government. Cheney stated he had , "severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest."

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) recently asserted that Cheney's stock options which were worth $241,498 a year ago, are now valued at more than $8 million-- for an increase of 3,281% . Cheney has pledged to give the proceeds to charity. Cheney continues to received a deferred salary from the company. He was paid $205,298 in 2001; $162,392 in 2002; $178,437 in 2003; and $194,852 in 2004.

The Congressional Research Service has concluded that holding stock options while in elective office does constitute a “financial interest” whether or not the holder of the options donates the proceeds to charities, and deferred compensation is also a financial interest.

Calling on Cheney to sever his financial ties to Halliburton, Lautenberg points out that the company has already raked in more than $10 billion for work in Iraq, and was handed some of the first Katrina contracts. The company has been criticized by auditors for its handling of no-bid contacts in Iraq, and there have been numerous allegations of over charging for services. Auditors found the firm marked up meal prices for troops and inflated gas prices in a deal with a Kuwaiti supplier. The company also built the American prison at Guantanamo Bay. Lautenberg said, "It is unseemly for the Vice President to continue to benefit from this company at the same time his Administration funnels billions of dollars to it.”

Cheney’s war profiteering requires redress and justice.

Tom Turnipseed is an attorney, writer and political activist in Columbia, South Carolina. www.turnipseed.net

[jojo22]

KA-SLAM!

Is the writers surname really Turnipseed?

[Guest]

What a bunch of bullshit.

Turnipseed conveniently omits to mention that Democrat Bill Clinton was President for eight years and the Democrats controlled Congress for the first four of those years during the period Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, when Halliburton was allegedly "the principal beneficiary of Cheney’s privatization efforts for our military’s logistical support." As a Republican, Cheney had no influence with the Clinton Administration or with the Democrat controlled Senate and House of Representatives.

Halliburton Energy Services is a publicly owned and traded multinational corporation with operations in over 120 countries and more than 106,000 employees worldwide. Halliburton operates two major business segments: The Energy Services Group provides technical products and services for oil and gas exploration and production, and the KBR subsidiary is a major construction company of refineries, oil fields, pipelines, and chemical plants. Company 2005 revenues were US$20.99 billion.

Given the enormous responsibilities of the CEO of Halliburton, there is nothing unusual about the fact that "Cheney was paid was paid $44 million for five year's [sic] work." CEO's of smaller corporations that did not perform as well as Halliburton under Cheney earned much more during the same time period.

Cheney did not pay himself; rather, his compensation was determined by Halliburton’s corporate board of directors who are answerable to the shareholders, who are the owners of the corporation. Institutional & mutual fund owners hold 87% of outstanding Halliburton stock. The top institutional holder is AXA, a French corporation which owns 8.53% of outstanding Halliburton stock.

There is nothing wrong with the fact that "the Bush administration has dished out lucrative reconstruction contracts in Iraq to favored U.S. based corporations including Halliburton and denied contracts to many Iraqi and foreign based companies." Any responsible leader in Bush's position would do the same under the same circumstances.

Turnipseed points out the following:

At last count Halliburton had 58 offshore subsidiaries in Caribbean tax havens. With Cheney at the helm Halliburton’s tax payments to the U.S. went from $302 million in 1998 to zero in 1999, when they also received a refund of $85 million from the Internal Revenue Service.

Turnipseed then draws the unfounded conclusion that "Cheney’s company . . . .is dodging its tax obligations to the U.S." What a crock.

Virtually all multinational corporations have offshore subsidiaries in tax havens. There is nothing per se illegal in having such subsidiaries for tax purposes. Nor is it unusual for an American corporation to pay no corporate tax or to receive a refund from the IRS because, under American tax law, the corporation's stockholders pay taxes on income earned by their shares.

With respect to Cheney's stock options in Halliburton, Turnipseed admits that "Cheney has pledged to give the proceeds to charity." There is no reason to disbelieve Cheney. He certainly doesn't need the $8 million (the purported value of Cheney's Halliburton stock options).

Unable to find any violation of law in anything Cheney has done or not done, Turnipseed resorts to misleading the ignorant with the following statement:

The Congressional Research Service has concluded that holding stock options while in elective office does constitute a “financial interest” whether or not the holder of the options donates the proceeds to charities, and deferred compensation is also a financial interest.

Turnipseed omits to mention that the Congressional Research Service has no power or jurisdiction to make a legal determination as to what constitutes a "financial interest." In the United States, courts interpret the law, not the Congressional Research Service.

In sum, Turnipseed's article is nothing more than a partisan smear based on misleading and disingenuous half-truths and omissions.

[jojo22]

Crikey! That was a pretty thorough and informed analysis you gave there - how the hell did you whip that up so quickly? I'm impressed. I might not view things the same way you do, but I appreciate your considerable intellect.

However, whatever the finer details of the situation and arguments are, the fact still remains Iraq was invaded on pretexts that were not verifiable after the fact and the affiliates of those in the administration made HUGE profits out of it. Whose to say Cheney isn't going to be saying hello to a massive wad of cash after he leaves office? And Bush couldn't be further up to his neck in all concerns 'oil' if he tried.

There's a hell of a lot of greed going on out there and power for power's sake.

[Guest]

Crikey! That was a pretty thorough and informed analysis you gave there - how the hell did you whip that up so quickly? I'm impressed. I might not view things the same way you do, but I appreciate your considerable intellect.

However, whatever the finer details of the situation and arguments are, the fact still remains Iraq was invaded on pretexts that were not verifiable after the fact and the affiliates of those in the administration made HUGE profits out of it. Whose to say Cheney isn't going to be saying hello to a massive wad of cash after he leaves office? And Bush couldn't be further up to his neck in all concerns 'oil' if he tried.

There's a hell of a lot of greed going on out there and power for power's sake.

The stumbling block for conspiracy theorists (CT for short) is motive.

CTs analyze a situation such as the one we're discussing based on their own subjective station in life. There are very few people in this world who have so much money that it is not a concern. Because most people have daily financial concerns, they fall into the trap of analyzing the conduct of others subjectively with their own concerns as a barometer.

In analyzing the motives of people like Bush and Cheney, one must take into account their respective stations in life.

Step back a second and consider the specific circumstances.

Dick Cheney was paid more than $40 million during his five-year tenure as CEO of Halliburton. Cheney will never have any financial concerns whatsoever. He is also 65 years old, has suffered several heart attacks and has undergone quadruple bypass surgery. These facts militate against CTs’ attribution of greed as the primary motivation for Cheney’s actions.

The same applies to George W. Bush, also a multimillionaire who will never have any financial concerns whatsoever. Bush is 60 years old. If one considers the facts, common sense rules out greed as the driving force of Bush’s conduct.

The overriding motivation of people like Bush and Cheney (or anyone who would even consider becoming President of the United States) is their place in history, their legacy.

In order to become President, one must possess a good deal of narcissism.

What drives all American Presidents (indeed, all leaders of nations) is how they will be remembered in the history books.

That's the main reason the notion that Bush was behind 9/11 due to greed is ludicrous. The certainty of eternal infamy if the plot were discovered would deter anyone in Bush’s shoes.

[jojo22]

Well, that's presuming I didn't already think 'what's the point of having more money when you already have so much anyway?' That lead me to the conclusion that money was not the motivation per se - which led me to favour power. However, in light of your argument I would extend that to include 'power and glory'.

I still think 'greed' is a suitable word. Via dictionary.com it is defined as:

An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth.

Therefore, I can understand why you thought my central argument was about money as greed tends to typically be linked to such. However, money is but a means to an end. Money means more choices, more power, more ass kissing from other people, more buying things the way you want them.

It is hard to put yourself into the headspace of someone who has that much money already and is involved in numerous actions that will see that figure grow to astounding proportions. But I don't think all I am talking about is a conspiracy theory - they're dirty - I see it and a heck of a lot of other people see it too. Sometimes things are a bit clearer from a distance.

[Guest]

The stumbling block for conspiracy theorists (CT for short) is motive.

CTs analyze a situation such as the one we're discussing based on their own subjective station in life. There are very few people in this world who have so much money that it is not a concern. Because most people have daily financial concerns, they fall into the trap of analyzing the conduct of others subjectively with their own concerns as a barometer.

In analyzing the motives of people like Bush and Cheney, one must take into account their respective stations in life.

Step back a second and consider the specific circumstances.

Dick Cheney was paid more than $40 million during his five-year tenure as CEO of Halliburton. Cheney will never have any financial concerns whatsoever. He is also 65 years old, has suffered several heart attacks and has undergone quadruple bypass surgery. These facts militate against CTs’ attribution of greed as the primary motivation for Cheney’s actions.

The same applies to George W. Bush, also a multimillionaire who will never have any financial concerns whatsoever. Bush is 60 years old. If one considers the facts, common sense rules out greed as the driving force of Bush’s conduct.

The overriding motivation of people like Bush and Cheney (or anyone who would even consider becoming President of the United States) is their place in history, their legacy.

In order to become President, one must possess a good deal of narcissism.

What drives all American Presidents (indeed, all leaders of nations) is how they will be remembered in the history books.

That's the main reason the notion that Bush was behind 9/11 due to greed is ludicrous. The certainty of eternal infamy if the plot were discovered would deter anyone in Bush’s shoes.

I agree with what you say, but I don't think it's enough to stop CTs talking about Bush. In no particular order.

First it's well known that absolute power corrupts absolutely, but it's also true that you almost always have to make moral compromises to achieve absolute power. Just because Bush appears moral and I agree he does, doesn't mean he doesn't have a few skeletons lurking that he'd expend his power to keep in the closet.

Second Julius Ceasar has a historical legacy that few, if any, people in history can match. He was also ruthless and destroyed the very Republic that created his position. It's not enough to say Bush wants his place in history without defining what he'd do to achieve that legacy.

Third no matter how much money you have, millions, billions, there are still those that want more. For some, the pursuit of money is as powerful as the pursuit of power. For some money is how they judge their worth. You can't say that Bush has enough money, without knowing what he thinks is "enough" money.

[Guest]

But I don't think all I am talking about is a conspiracy theory - they're dirty - I see it and a heck of a lot of other people see it too. Sometimes things are a bit clearer from a distance.

Saying someone is "dirty" with no proof -is- CT.

I don't see Bush as dirty or even moderately corrupt. He might be, but what I see in his actions and his words, is a smart man without the skills he needs to manage a country as large and diverse and powerful as the USA. I -don't- think it's lack of moral fiber or lack of wanting to be the best he can. It's just a man desperately treading water in the deep end of the pool. If he'd known how to get and keep the best lifeguards, he'd be all right.

[Guest]

It's also possible that the world is too complex to be managed using political structures developed in the Renaissance and put in place by late stage agrarian communities. It's possible no Democratic leader will have a competent Cabinet in dealing with the sheer amount of data we generate.

The life span of a modern Democracy is unknown, but Republics die at about 500 years old. That said, the known histories of the death of Republics are fairly clear that we're not even close to the end of life for our Democracies. It's obvious our leaders are struggling under the burden of managing such vast empires.

Maybe it will get much worse before someone figures out a better way to lead. On the other hand, knowledge travels so much quicker and the number of people in this knowledge web is so much greater. Where once maybe thousands had the education and ability to think about leadership, today there are tens of millions, with better tools and better communication.

[jojo22]

The stumbling block for conspiracy theorists (CT for short) is motive.

CTs analyze a situation such as the one we're discussing based on their own subjective station in life. There are very few people in this world who have so much money that it is not a concern. Because most people have daily financial concerns, they fall into the trap of analyzing the conduct of others subjectively with their own concerns as a barometer.

In analyzing the motives of people like Bush and Cheney, one must take into account their respective stations in life.

Step back a second and consider the specific circumstances.

Dick Cheney was paid more than $40 million during his five-year tenure as CEO of Halliburton. Cheney will never have any financial concerns whatsoever. He is also 65 years old, has suffered several heart attacks and has undergone quadruple bypass surgery. These facts militate against CTs’ attribution of greed as the primary motivation for Cheney’s actions.

The same applies to George W. Bush, also a multimillionaire who will never have any financial concerns whatsoever. Bush is 60 years old. If one considers the facts, common sense rules out greed as the driving force of Bush’s conduct.

The overriding motivation of people like Bush and Cheney (or anyone who would even consider becoming President of the United States) is their place in history, their legacy.

In order to become President, one must possess a good deal of narcissism.

What drives all American Presidents (indeed, all leaders of nations) is how they will be remembered in the history books.

That's the main reason the notion that Bush was behind 9/11 due to greed is ludicrous. The certainty of eternal infamy if the plot were discovered would deter anyone in Bush’s shoes.

I agree with what you say, but I don't think it's enough to stop CTs talking about Bush. In no particular order.

First it's well known that absolute power corrupts absolutely, but it's also true that you almost always have to make moral compromises to achieve absolute power. Just because Bush appears moral and I agree he does, doesn't mean he doesn't have a few skeletons lurking that he'd expend his power to keep in the closet.

Second Julius Ceasar has a historical legacy that few, if any, people in history can match. He was also ruthless and destroyed the very Republic that created his position. It's not enough to say Bush wants his place in history without defining what he'd do to achieve that legacy.

Third no matter how much money you have, millions, billions, there are still those that want more. For some, the pursuit of money is as powerful as the pursuit of power. For some money is how they judge their worth. You can't say that Bush has enough money, without knowing what he thinks is "enough" money.

Interesting case in point on the last paragraph. There has been a severe drought in Southern Australia and farmers that once had farms worth multiple millions are finding themselves in debt to the tune of multiple millions and committing suicide at a rate of 1 every four days - this has been going on for a few months now. Some people gain and lose and gain again their fortunes - Donald Trump as an example - but to take your life because of money? That's putting too much value on material things - your health and your loved ones, in the end, are the only things that should matter.

[jojo22]

But I don't think all I am talking about is a conspiracy theory - they're dirty - I see it and a heck of a lot of other people see it too. Sometimes things are a bit clearer from a distance.

Saying someone is "dirty" with no proof -is- CT.

I don't see Bush as dirty or even moderately corrupt. He might be, but what I see in his actions and his words, is a smart man without the skills he needs to manage a country as large and diverse and powerful as the USA. I -don't- think it's lack of moral fiber or lack of wanting to be the best he can. It's just a man desperately treading water in the deep end of the pool. If he'd known how to get and keep the best lifeguards, he'd be all right.

You may be right about that - Bush is the head figure and unfortunately he shoots from the hip - sometimes saying things he should never say - but who is in his ear and riling him up? It could be that he is too trusting in his advisors who send him off to do their dirty work, but they spin it in such a way to him that he gets passionate about it and he doesn't quite grasp the extent to which he's dancing to the tune of someone elses ulterior motive.

[Guest]

If anything Bush goes off on his own path and drags everyone else along with him. That seems to be the concensus of all the material I've read on him.

I think it would be interesting and a challenge to work for him, until you think he's wrong at which time it becomes a nightmare.

[jojo22]

If anything Bush goes off on his own path and drags everyone else along with him. That seems to be the concensus of all the material I've read on him.

I think it would be interesting and a challenge to work for him, until you think he's wrong at which time it becomes a nightmare.

Still, he must get information that sets him off from somewhere - like Rove, Rumsfield, Cheney, daddy, etc. I doubt he's out there doing all the research himself. No doubt he sets off like a high turbo fart - all action, not enough engaging of grey matter - and the amount of propaganda and fear mongering that he does (aided by his trust allies - Fox) makes me want to vomit.

I wonder if Fox will start to change their tune more now - less 'Bush farts roses' and more 'ok - Bush had gotta go'.

[Guest]

In his campaign for the 2000 election, Bush opposed American military intervention abroad for "nation building." He said America should be a "humble" superpower that recognizes its limitations. There is no reason to question his sincerity.

During his first months in office in 2001, Bush focused on domestic issues. When in April 2001 a U.S. reconnaissance plane made an emergency landing in China after colliding with a Chinese fighter sent to intercept it, Bush employed calm diplomacy to effect safe release of the American plane's crew.

Western European leaders and media expressed concern that the Bush Administration was isolationist and that American disengagement from conflicts throughout the world would leave a vacuum that Europe was unable to fill as the world's policeman.

Based on Bush's words and actions in his campaign and first months as President, the European concerns were well-founded. Bush was no war-monger.

Bush was forced to change his foreign policy by 9/11, a watershed event which affected the American psyche to an extent few outside America comprehend.

[Guest]

If anything Bush goes off on his own path and drags everyone else along with him. That seems to be the concensus of all the material I've read on him.

I think it would be interesting and a challenge to work for him, until you think he's wrong at which time it becomes a nightmare.

Still, he must get information that sets him off from somewhere - like Rove, Rumsfield, Cheney, daddy, etc. I doubt he's out there doing all the research himself. No doubt he sets off like a high turbo fart - all action, not enough engaging of grey matter - and the amount of propaganda and fear mongering that he does (aided by his trust allies - Fox) makes me want to vomit.

I wonder if Fox will start to change their tune more now - less 'Bush farts roses' and more 'ok - Bush had gotta go'.

You have no clue.