Dick Cheney flash back... Halliburton acquiring Dresser Industries... Why?

[salin]

In the Enron implosion side stories a lot was made of Cheney's decision, as CEO of Halliburton, for Halliburton to buy Dresser - even though Dresser stood to have a great deal of asbestoes liability exposure. The story came back up when the spotlight in the Enron story began to focus on Arthur Anderson... and a promotional videotape for Anderson is released in which Cheney extols the great services he has recieved from AA and how, with AAs help - the most exciting thing of his career was the successful acquisition of Dresser.

After the vidclip makes the rounds - stories get into the news speculating about HOW the CEO and board of Halliburton could have so devalued the threat of asbestoes suits (which were starting to pick up speed - and suddenly there was pressure in congress to pass a law protecting industries from asbestoes liability law suits.)

Meanwhile - in a far different section of newspapers - and thus somehow never put together in the mainstream media, from time to time the interesting story of how Halliburton became a BIG business partner to Saddam Hussein in the late nineties - in the rebuilding of the Iraqi oil fields. Now the story first emerged in the 2000 elections to be emphatically denied by Cheney - there were sanctions against US businesses doing business in Iraq + says Cheney he would NEVER have approved doing business with such an evil leader. A wee bit later he is forced to admit that yes indeedy ole Halliburton had done business in Iraq - and was the largest supply of infrastructure building to the Iraqi oil fields. But, the few stories that actually appeared at the time, pointed out... that Halliburton didn't break any laws... see they got around the law by using (the newly acquired) (french division) of... wait for it... Dresser Industries.

I thought about this old story when reading the NYT ode to Libby - who claim not only was he obsessed about Wilson - but that for years and years he was concerned about terrorism, WMDs - and in particular had a great hatred for ... Saddam Hussein. So to try to make an image that while Libby may have crossed a line - it was at least consistent with his long standing beliefs and passions per Iraq, and Saddam - the question then begs to be asked... if that is true, then how could he have gone to work for Cheney a second time (he worked for Cheney in Bush1) given Cheney's role in rebuilding oilfields which in turn allowed Saddam to raise "humanitarian money" (much of which never seemed to get to the people...) which in turn - in the neocon world of theories allowed Saddam to allegedly keep pursuing WMDs? The NYT spin just sorta somehow doesn't make sense when you recall the Halliburton/Dresser role in the rebuilding of Iraqi oil fields (and lining Saddams wealth/solidifying his power.)

Just thought I would share a news flash back - triggered by some fantastical spin per Libby in the NYT today.