Full Version: Dick Cheney's Administrative Role
Everyone talks about Cheney calling the shots behind the scenes in the Bush Administration. Is he the most politically active veep in our nation's history?
Moved to the History Debate forum 
Yes, and look what he has done.
He has used his position to pull off one of the biggest corporate deals in the history of America, giving his company just what it needed, WARS.
God, to have been a fly on the wall in Haliburton's board room when this scheme was contrived. It is how corporate america works, and some are better than others at it.
Or maybe, Cheney is an idiot and as luck would have it, benefited from this all by chance. (Sorry, not naive enough to listen to the "He doesn't have stock anymore" argument. Save it for your kids while discussing the Easter Bunny.
You decide.
He has used his position to pull off one of the biggest corporate deals in the history of America, giving his company just what it needed, WARS.
God, to have been a fly on the wall in Haliburton's board room when this scheme was contrived. It is how corporate america works, and some are better than others at it.
Or maybe, Cheney is an idiot and as luck would have it, benefited from this all by chance. (Sorry, not naive enough to listen to the "He doesn't have stock anymore" argument. Save it for your kids while discussing the Easter Bunny.
You decide.
The odd thing about Cheney is the following:
The WORST case scenario for him, is that he contrived the war to help bail out his ailing company, which he did wonderfully awarding them untendered massive contracts which brought them from near bankrupcy to prosperity. Thats an extreme case, I dont think many actually believe that...
But the thing is, what is the BEST case scenario for him? He asisted the US president go to war for reasons unrelated to his bussiness connections, and then stood by while his administration awarded massive untendered contracts to his former company, from which he was still drawing pay, and which built his company back up to prosperity.
Even in the best case, this is still an unquestionable conflict of interest by the standards of any financial organisation.
So why are the supposedly fiscally conservative republicans not calling for his head? When did the fact that he was part of the same political party as them come to mean that he can do no wrong in their eyes?
The WORST case scenario for him, is that he contrived the war to help bail out his ailing company, which he did wonderfully awarding them untendered massive contracts which brought them from near bankrupcy to prosperity. Thats an extreme case, I dont think many actually believe that...
But the thing is, what is the BEST case scenario for him? He asisted the US president go to war for reasons unrelated to his bussiness connections, and then stood by while his administration awarded massive untendered contracts to his former company, from which he was still drawing pay, and which built his company back up to prosperity.
Even in the best case, this is still an unquestionable conflict of interest by the standards of any financial organisation.
So why are the supposedly fiscally conservative republicans not calling for his head? When did the fact that he was part of the same political party as them come to mean that he can do no wrong in their eyes?
Profitless Profiteering: Why can't Halliburton make good money in Iraq? Can we lay the silly idea of Halliburton "war profiteering" to rest?
Iraq has not been a sweet deal for Halliburton. There are dozens of articles on this story, if anyone needs more links, just let me know.
The media has beat the drum about this "sweet heart deal" with Halliburton, despite the evidence to the contrary.
Is Cheney the most politically active veep in our nation's history?
I don't think so. It might be Dan Quayle:
About Dan Quayle
Cheney doesn't do much travelling. Although he was the point man on the Iraq war, that's about all I can attribute to him.
QUOTE
But here's the funny thing. So far, the Iraq war hasn't proved much of a boon for Halliburton's shareholders. Because of incompetence, the chaos of working in the war zone, and a contract that limits profits, KBR's margins on its hazardous work are pretty marginal.
The Wall Street Journal notes that the Iraq contracts call for KBR to be reimbursed for its costs plus 1 percent. The company can also bill the military for a portion of its administration and overhead and can earn performance bonuses. KBR spends a lot of effort funneling taxpayer money to subcontractors, who may themselves be getting rich off of Iraq-related work. Meanwhile, the Iraq work has required KBR to incur big expenses of its own—higher insurance costs for operating in a hazardous region, recruiting costs for hiring new employees for dangerous duty, and administrative costs for handling a huge amount of new business quickly.
The Wall Street Journal notes that the Iraq contracts call for KBR to be reimbursed for its costs plus 1 percent. The company can also bill the military for a portion of its administration and overhead and can earn performance bonuses. KBR spends a lot of effort funneling taxpayer money to subcontractors, who may themselves be getting rich off of Iraq-related work. Meanwhile, the Iraq work has required KBR to incur big expenses of its own—higher insurance costs for operating in a hazardous region, recruiting costs for hiring new employees for dangerous duty, and administrative costs for handling a huge amount of new business quickly.
QUOTE
According to Halliburton's most recent quarterly results, released yesterday, its KBR unit lost $15 million in the first quarter, largely because of a $97 million loss on an ill-fated project in Brazil, even though revenues for the unit doubled to $3.7 billion. Iraq was a fairly dim bright light. "Halliburton's Iraq-related work contributed approximately $2.1 billion in revenues in the first quarter 2004 and $32 million in operating income," the company reported. That's a margin of 1.5 percent.
The previous quarter, KBR reported $2.2 billion in Iraq-related revenues and operating income of $44 million—a 2 percent margin. And in the third quarter of 2003, KBR had $900 million in Iraq revenues and operating income of $34 million—a 3.7 percent margin. As time goes on, in other words, KBR's profits in Iraq are shrinking in both real and proportional terms. Worse, for KBR, this may be as good as it gets. Even though it received a $1.2 billion contract from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to continue working on the Restore Iraqi Oil program in January, the unit's backlog of work has shrunk.
What's more, KBR may ultimately pay the price for its success in monopolizing Pentagon business in Iraq. Halliburton and the Pentagon have become dependent on each other, and that may be bad for both of them. It would be extremely difficult for the Pentagon to switch master contractors in the middle of a war. And for Halliburton, the Pentagon may prove to be a capricious, highly demanding, and unpredictable client.
The previous quarter, KBR reported $2.2 billion in Iraq-related revenues and operating income of $44 million—a 2 percent margin. And in the third quarter of 2003, KBR had $900 million in Iraq revenues and operating income of $34 million—a 3.7 percent margin. As time goes on, in other words, KBR's profits in Iraq are shrinking in both real and proportional terms. Worse, for KBR, this may be as good as it gets. Even though it received a $1.2 billion contract from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to continue working on the Restore Iraqi Oil program in January, the unit's backlog of work has shrunk.
What's more, KBR may ultimately pay the price for its success in monopolizing Pentagon business in Iraq. Halliburton and the Pentagon have become dependent on each other, and that may be bad for both of them. It would be extremely difficult for the Pentagon to switch master contractors in the middle of a war. And for Halliburton, the Pentagon may prove to be a capricious, highly demanding, and unpredictable client.
Iraq has not been a sweet deal for Halliburton. There are dozens of articles on this story, if anyone needs more links, just let me know.
The media has beat the drum about this "sweet heart deal" with Halliburton, despite the evidence to the contrary.
Is Cheney the most politically active veep in our nation's history?
I don't think so. It might be Dan Quayle:
About Dan Quayle
QUOTE
Mr. Quayle is widely considered to have been one of the most active vice presidents in history. He made official visits to 47 countries, was chairman of the President's Council on Competitiveness and the National Space Council, and served as President Bush's point man on Capitol Hill. As a leader in causes from legal system reform to deregulation to the renewal of basic American values, Vice President Quayle developed a large national following and became one of the most admired Americans of his time.
Cheney doesn't do much travelling. Although he was the point man on the Iraq war, that's about all I can attribute to him.
Dick Cheney:
Most Powerful VP
Sends Own Reps, Does Foreign Policy
Even Conservatives Have Noticed
As the first article points out, the evidence is hidden in plain sight. One would have to close one's eyes not to see that Dick Cheney is the most powerful VP this country has ever had.
Part of this is that we have a relatively weak President. We knew that before he took office (regarding foreign affairs), but we were assured that his staff would handle things just fine.
So, do we like having such a powerful VP? I don't.
Most Powerful VP
Sends Own Reps, Does Foreign Policy
Even Conservatives Have Noticed
As the first article points out, the evidence is hidden in plain sight. One would have to close one's eyes not to see that Dick Cheney is the most powerful VP this country has ever had.
Part of this is that we have a relatively weak President. We knew that before he took office (regarding foreign affairs), but we were assured that his staff would handle things just fine.
So, do we like having such a powerful VP? I don't.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Jul 13 2004, 06:11 PM)
Iraq has not been a sweet deal for Halliburton. There are dozens of articles on this story, if anyone needs more links, just let me know.
Firstly, your own arguments and evidence show that Haliburton made a profit of nearly $80 million dollars in 2 quarters because of Iraq contracts, and that is after posting losses previously due to other failed contracts. The company was losing money hand over fist, and it is not arguable that, no matter how they got the contracts, the Iraq contracts saved the company. $80 million dollars in operating profit in 6 months may not be much by Microsoft standards, but it is still a very significant amount of money, in particular for a company that was posting losses previously.
Secondly, again your own evidence shows that Haliburton ONLY made $80 million dollars in part because of its own incompetence. The “Pointless Profiteering” article you quoted goes on at some length about how inefficiently and badly Haliburton has handled its affairs in Iraq, and even mentioned that it is currently under criminal investigation by the Pentagon for overcharging on fuel. Cheney could arrange for them to get the untendered contracts, but he could not make sure they did the work properly. All your evidence does is lend MORE credence to the fact that the contracts should not have been handed out untendered, as it seems Haliburton could not even handle the work.
Thirdly, and most importantly, I don’t care if they post record losses on these contracts, how they handle the work is besides the point. The fact that they GOT these wide-ranging contracts covering “everything from fixing oil fields to delivering fuel to feeding soldiers” in an untendered process in the first place is a clear conflict of interest by ANY rules I am aware of.
The fact that they seem to be royally screwing it up and are in one instance under criminal investigation for their screw-ups just makes it even WORSE.
QUOTE
Iraq has not been a sweet deal for Halliburton. There are dozens of articles on this story, if anyone needs more links, just let me know.
Of course, when we entered Iraq, we thought that the Iraqis were going to carry us on their shoulders. During the time Iraq was considered the land of milk and honey, a contract to that area would have been desirable to any company. No one was anticipating that we would get so bogged down.
Thus, it seemed like a sweet deal when it was given to Halliburton. I'm sure that at the announcement of the no bid contract, Halliburtons stock shot up. The administration and Halliburton were expecting smooth sailing after the initial invasion. So much for that.
Might it be that Cheney is the most powerful, but not the most politically active Vice President? The point was made about Quayle traveling extensively and taking a responsible role in the first Bush administration.
Cheney is one to primarily work behind the scenes, having meetings, working the telephone.
I guess it all depends on how you define "active." Cheney probably doesn't have his own smoke-filled room because it's bad for his heart.
When Bush was in the elementary school reading My Pet Goat on 9/11/2001, Cheney was acting in his stead in the White House. Cheney is considered one of the experts assisting the President, but I believe that more often than not his decisions become Bush's decisions. Reading The Price of Loyalty by Ron Suskind & Paul O'Neill did, I admit, contribute to my thoughts on this, e.g., Bush reputedly being concerned about the deficit while speaking with O'Neill and Cheney and saying as much, with Cheney replying, "Deficits don't matter, Reagan proved it," and later, "It is our due."
I think Cheney represents well big business interests. Unfortunately, I and many, many others in this country are not as well-represented by him or many members of Bush's administration. As the old saying goes, Where you stand depends on where you sit. From where I'm sitting, I visualize a lot of Kerry/Edwards voters come November.
Cheney is one to primarily work behind the scenes, having meetings, working the telephone.
I guess it all depends on how you define "active." Cheney probably doesn't have his own smoke-filled room because it's bad for his heart.
When Bush was in the elementary school reading My Pet Goat on 9/11/2001, Cheney was acting in his stead in the White House. Cheney is considered one of the experts assisting the President, but I believe that more often than not his decisions become Bush's decisions. Reading The Price of Loyalty by Ron Suskind & Paul O'Neill did, I admit, contribute to my thoughts on this, e.g., Bush reputedly being concerned about the deficit while speaking with O'Neill and Cheney and saying as much, with Cheney replying, "Deficits don't matter, Reagan proved it," and later, "It is our due."
I think Cheney represents well big business interests. Unfortunately, I and many, many others in this country are not as well-represented by him or many members of Bush's administration. As the old saying goes, Where you stand depends on where you sit. From where I'm sitting, I visualize a lot of Kerry/Edwards voters come November.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.