|
Connecting
the Dots to Cheney and Halliburton
January
30, 2004
By Tom Fairlie
 At
this point, many Republicans are tired of hearing about how
the war in Iraq is all about oil. Likewise, they file every
new conspiracy theory about Halliburton under the heading
of "leftist rant" or in the cabinet marked "anti-corporate-America
hogwash". To Bush supporters, our efforts in the Middle East
are all about some lofty humanitarian purpose and spreading
Democracy to those sorely in need of it. After examining the
facts, all I can say is that I hope we don't spread some of
our corrupt capitalism as well.
When one considers where the Bush doctrine has taken us
so far, one must consider Dick Cheney's impact on the doctrine
in the first place. Unlike any other vice president in modern
history, Cheney wields much greater power than is normally
associated with the role. Foreign dignitaries understand this:
they know that the best and perhaps only way to get their
point across in Washington is to schedule a meeting with the
vice president. At the start, Cheney was allowed to pick most
of Bush's cabinet. After the transition was over, he continued
to act as Bush's point man on budget and policy matters-making
many issues like Iraq his own.
Also unlike other vice presidents in recent memory, Cheney
wasn't tapped from a role in government. In fact, after President
Clinton's inauguration, Dick Cheney left his role as secretary
of defense and spent most of the next eight years as the chief
executive officer (CEO) at Halliburton.
Historically, many politicians have qualities that lend
themselves to executive management. They know how to talk
to people, they know how to sell an idea, and they know what
it takes to make things happen in large organizations of people
with conflicting goals. In Cheney's case, he had an even better
quality: he used his government job to bring billions of dollars
in new business to his future employer.
This all started in 1992, when Secretary of State Cheney
retained Halliburton to undertake a classified study on the
feasibility of outsourcing some of the Defense Department's
work. In perhaps the least shocking report of the decade,
Halliburton found that it did indeed make sense for the government
to farm out some of its work. This landmark study resulted
in 2,700 new government contracts that were worth billions
to Halliburton. Analysts who studied both wars in Iraq determined
that 1 out of every 100 Americans in the first war was a paid
civilian and that this ratio had increased to 1 in 10 by the
second war.
This surge in new business didn't stop when Halliburton
hired Cheney. On the contrary, Cheney was able to continue
his connections in the government to help double the value
of Halliburton's contracts over the five years he ran the
company. Unfortunately, Halliburton's success was in part
dependent on business with Iran, Iraq, and Libya (among others).
According to Cheney, dealing with shady regimes under U.S.
sanctions was necessary because "the good Lord didn't see
fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratic regimes
friendly to the United States."
With Cheney running the show, Halliburton was also found
by the Government Accounting Office (GAO) to be overcharging
the U.S. Army and was accused of questionable accounting practices
by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). To add some
icing on his cake, Cheney also helped Halliburton to increase
its number of offshore tax havens from 9 to 44. In just one
year (1998-99), Halliburton went from paying $302 million
in corporate taxes at the start to getting an $85 million
refund at the end.
If Cheney did any soul-searching after dealing with authoritarian
dictators and avoiding taxes, it certainly didn't affect his
social circle. He continued his quest for power by helping
to form the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) in 1997
along with a bunch of archconservative hawks such as Donald
Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Jeb Bush (the President's brother
and governor of Florida). This organization's purpose is to
ensure America's global dominance through strategic use of
its military.
Ironically, this type of goal was nothing new to Cheney.
In 1992, he and his Under Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz
worked on what would be the country's new defense policy in
a post-USSR world. Wolfowitz's staff created a plan that called
for a dominant American military to "establish and protect
a new order" that discouraged allies from challenging our
leadership and "deterring potential competitors from even
aspiring to a larger regional or global role." Only public
outcry kept the plan from moving forward.
In January 1998, the PNAC issued a statement to President
Clinton asking him to "undertake military action" and remove
Saddam Hussein from power. This tough talk occurred more than
10 months before the UN inspectors left Iraq. Let's try and
put this in perspective - the CEO of a company that does a
lot of work in the oil industry and with the defense department
is urging the president of the U.S. to attack a sovereign
nation in the absence of a direct threat when the same company
would dramatically benefit from such an action. On balance,
I don't think it's possible to have a greater conflict of
interest than this.
Five months later, when Clinton still hadn't taken direct
action, they sent a similar letter to Newt Gingrich and Trent
Lott. This time, they upped the rhetoric and cited even more
information about how dangerous Hussein was. Ironically, they
suggested that "we should establish and maintain a strong
U.S. military presence in the region, and be prepared to use
that force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf - and,
if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power." Suddenly,
the plot thickens. Why on earth would this group petition
the President of the U.S. to declare war on another country
and then list regime change third in the list "if necessary"?
Once in the White House, Dick Cheney declared that "I've
severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my
financial interest. I have no financial interest in Halliburton
of any kind and haven't had, now, for over three years." Funny
thing that, as public records show that Cheney still receives
deferred compensation from Halliburton and still owns 433,000
stock options. The Congressional Research Service believes
that stock options and deferred salary "are among those benefits
described [.] as 'retained ties' or 'linkages' to one's former
employer."
My first question is this: if Dick Cheney is so sure that
there's no conflict of interest here, then why does his White
House biography fail to make any mention whatsoever of what
he was doing between 1993 and 2000? If I were the CEO of a
billion-dollar business, I would sure as heck put that on
my resume.
My other question would be: after reading this, are Republicans
still positive that this is just "anti-corporate-America hogwash"?
Tom Fairlie is a senior engineer working in the defense industry
and a part-time writer.
Sources
"All
in the Family," CBS News, September 21, 2003
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/25/60minutes/main551091.shtml
"Cheney's
Halliburton Ties Remain," CBS News, September 26, 2003
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/politics/main575356.shtml
"Richard
B. Cheney: Inside the Vice President's Office," The White
House
http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/
"Statement
of Principles," The Project for the New American Century,
June 3, 1997
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
"Letter
to President Clinton on Iraq," The Project for the New American
Century, January 26, 1998
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
"Letter
to Gingrich and Lott on Iraq," The Project for the New American
Century, May 29, 1998
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqletter1998.htm
Lee
Drutman and Charlie Cray, "Cheney, Halliburton and the Spoils
of War," CorpWatch, April 4, 2003
http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=6288
|
