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.
Give me a break. The US is the home of ENE et al. The world thinks most of the US corporate world is corrupt. We know that's an exaggeration but they don't. Besides, most normal procedures will be suspended after the war because they will have to get Iraq back on its feet......assuming we win it and quickly. Competitive bidding may not be the rule but rather the exception.
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?
Excuse me.......you who can find every piece of dirty lint on a Dem. is trying to make like you can't see the implications of this whole situation. The people at HAL and Chevron are still colleagues/friends of the administration. When the administration leaves office, they will need jobs and the like. These companies will provide them esp. if they make out well in Iraq. That's the scenario people see playing out.
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.
Why this looks so suspicious is that most of the world doesn't get why we are going after Saddam and essentially putting OBL on the back burner. In fact, many Americans don't get it. And before you post back to me the litany of reasons that the administration or you thinks is valid......most people who are skeptical and are not buying it. Everyone's looking to Bush's State of the Union next week to make his case. I don't think he can. I think that's why they put Powell out there today saying "the UN inspectors can stop; the evidence is damning". Bush and Powell have the most credibility and they are testing the winds to see the public's reaction.
ted
Enter symbols or keywords for search:
QuotesStock TalkChartsNewsPeople Symbol Lookup
Subject Titles Only Full Text Go to Top
Terms of Use
Got a comment, question or suggestion? Contact Silicon Investor. |
