SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: sylvester80 who wrote (44183)4/29/2004 8:57:30 AM
From: T L Comiskey  Respond to of 89467
 
Memories Lane.............

Halliburton Iraq ties more than Cheney said
NewsMax Wires
Monday, June 25, 2001

UNITED NATIONS, June 23 (UPI) -- Halliburton Co., the oil company that was headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, signed contracts with Iraq worth $73 million through two subsidiaries while he was at its helm, the Washington Post reported.

During last year's presidential campaign, Cheney said Halliburton did business with Libya and Iran through foreign subsidiaries, but maintained he had imposed a "firm policy" against trading with Iraq.

"Iraq's different," the Post quoted him as saying.

Oil industry executives and confidential U.N. records showed, however, that Halliburton held stakes in two companies that signed contracts to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq while Cheney was chairman and chief executive officer, the Post reported.

Two former senior executives of the Halliburton subsidiaries said they knew of no policy against dealing with Iraq. One of them said he was certain Cheney knew about the deals, though he had never spoken about them to the vice president directly.

If he "was ever in a conversation or meeting where there was a question of pursuing a project with someone in Iraq, he said, 'No,' " Mary Matalin, Cheney's counselor, said.

"In a joint venture, he would not have reviewed all their existing contracts," Matalin told the Post. "The nature of those joint ventures was that they had a separate governing structure, so he had no control over them."

The deal was legal, the Post said, and they showed how U.S. firms use foreign subsidiaries and joint ventures to avoid doing business with Baghdad. The practice is not a violation of U.S. law and falls within the U.N.-run oil-for-food program.

The Post said U.N. records showed that the dealings were more extensive than originally reported and than Cheney had acknowledged, however.

According to the report, the Halliburton subsidiaries, Dresser-Rand and Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co., sold material to Baghdad through French affiliates. The sales lasted from the first half of 1997 to the summer of 2000. Cheney resigned from Halliburton in August.

"Halliburton and Ingersoll-Rand, as far as I know, had no official policy about that, other than we would be in compliance with applicable U.S. and international laws," said Cleive Dumas, who oversaw Ingersoll Dresser Pump's business in the Middle East, including Iraq.

Cheney's spokeswoman, Juleanna Glover Weiss, referred the Post's calls to Halliburton, which in turn, directed them back to Cheney's office.

In a July 30, 2000, interview on ABC-TV's "This Week," Cheney denied that Halliburton or its subsidiaries traded with Baghdad. Three weeks later, on the same program, he modified his response after being informed that a Halliburton spokesman had said that Dresser Rand and Ingersoll Dresser Pump traded with Iraq.

Cheney said he did not know the subsidiaries were doing business with the Iraqi regime when Halliburton purchased Dresser Industries in September 1998.

The firms traded with Iraq for more than a year under Cheney, however. They signed nearly $30 million in contracts before he sold Halliburton's 49 percent stake in Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co. in December 1999 and its 51 percent interest in Dresser Rand to Ingersoll-Rand in February 2000, the Post quoted U.N. records as saying.

Cheney has long criticized of unilateral U.S. sanctions, which he says penalize American companies. He has pushed for a review of policy toward Iraq, Iran and Libya.

--

Copyright 2001 by United Press International.



To: sylvester80 who wrote (44183)4/29/2004 10:34:04 AM
From: longnshort  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Oh My! Women's Groups Are Excluding Men
by Carey Roberts
29 April 2004

It seems that at least eight member groups of Martha Burk's Women on Wall Street campaign do not have any male members.

Word comes from Martha Burk that the Augusta National Golf Club still “openly and proudly discriminates against women.” We should all be working ourselves into a lather over that.

So now Burk’s umbrella group, the National Council of Women’s Organizations, is unveiling its Women on Wall Street campaign. This corporate shake-down is hoping to teach a lesson to those naughty companies that are harboring all those Augusta Neanderthals.

For sure, the members of the NCWO are paragons of female virtue, free of any trace of gender bias or exclusion.

But then, I began to wonder. So I decided a little fact-finding was in order.

I contacted all 178 member organizations of the NCWO, from the AAUW Legal Advocacy Fund to the YWCA, and asked them two questions:

1. What percentage of your organization’s membership is female?

2. What percentage of your board of directors is female?

Knowing that the Women on Wall Street campaign is pushing for corporate accountability, I was confident the NCWO groups would respond freely and openly to my questions.

So I was gratified when the e-mail responses came pouring back, literally within seconds. Thirty-one replies, all tagged as “Undeliverable.” Well, I shouldn’t have been surprised. Kimberly Schuld, who wrote the Guide to Feminist Organizations, has warned that many of the NCWO members went belly-up long ago.

Then, real people began to send me responses. And to my surprise, some of them got a little defensive.

One woman retorted, “Why are you asking these particular questions? Do you think there is some kind of problem regarding the membership or governance of organizations that work for the empowerment of girls or women? Does it relate, perhaps, to the Augusta National Golf Club story?”

Another woman became downright hostile: “Dear Fake Reporter, I have been contacted by NCWO. And I will not answer your questions.”

Despite the NCWO warning to shun the Fake Reporters, 29 organizations did respond to my inquiry. Ms. Burk, I have a bit of unpleasant news. It turns out that eight (!) of the NCWO groups that answered my questions do not have any male members.

The American Medical Women’s Association, Financial Women International, Gender Action, National Association of Commissions for Women, National Coalition for Women with Heart Disease, National Hispana Leadership Institute, Veteran Feminists of America, and Women in Military Service for American Memorial Foundation – all are self-admitted bastions of female exclusivity.

But wait, other problems are lurking. Two of the NCWO organizations, GenderWatchers and the League of Women Voters, revealed that they do have male members. But then they conceded that there are no males on their Board of Directors. As everyone knows, that’s a prime example of the Glass Ceiling, and we can’t have that.

The story worsens. Only three of the 29 NCWO groups reported that they have more than 10% male membership. Since gender diversity is now the Law of the Land, Ms. Burk, really, I’m shocked.

And don’t give me that old line that women’s organizations should be composed only of women. We all know that gender is purely a social construct, so obviously many biological males, with proper socialization, could easily become gender females.

But this is the part I haven’t figured out. The website of NCWO states that its purpose is to work for “equality.” Of course, males are sadly lagging behind females in areas such as education and health.

And indeed, there are 15 health-related organizations that belong to the NCWO. Men’s lifespans are five and a half years shorter than women’s, but nowhere did I find that disparity even mentioned on the websites of these women’s organizations. So the question is, are these outfits working for gender equality, or gender inequality?

Very confusing. All along I’ve been counting on the feminists to lead us to a more inclusive, a more equal, a more caring society – a veritable gender utopia. Heavens, something has gone terribly wrong.

Carey Roberts is a regular contributor to NewsWithViews.com, and has been published in The Washington Times and LewRockwell.com, among others.