Now, you don't think Halliburtion, Cheney's former employee, or Chevron, Rice's former employer, or any of the other oil drillers or integrated oil service companies who are friends with the Bushes want to get their mitts on that oil? Let's not be naive here.
Well, I'm sure these companies would love to bid on the various contracts associated with the oil. But it isn't as though by virtue of the United States liberating the people of Iraq they're going to give their oil to us. These companies, if anything, will have to be involved in competitive bidding situations, which is the business they're in. I'm hard pressed to see where the problem is.
If Haliburton, for example, wins a contract to supply oilfield equipment, how does that benefit either Bush or Cheney, or any of their "cronies" as you call them? Did they not properly divest themselves on entry into office? What more can you want?
Is the only acceptable presidential candidate now one who has never held a private sector job, one who has made his entire life off of government payrolls? That is, after all what Bill Clinton did, and you apparently had no problem with it. One question though -- how is it Clinton took office with zero, no money, no property, and left office a multi-multi-millionaire?
I'm not bitching about Clinton, I'm just saying that the reality is these powerful people cannot possibly be expected to have no past and no future. All we can ask is that, while they serve, they do their level best to divest themselves of property that might cause a conflict. Bush, Cheney, and everyone in this administration have done so, I believe.
Is there some reason American companies shouldn't be allowed to bid on oil contracts, or for that matter, should not McDonalds be allowed to contract to put in a burger place in Baghdad, if Iraq wants it? |
