Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tekboy who wrote (132611)	5/11/2004 12:06:44 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

with all due respect, do you really think the Bush team has clean enough hands on this subject for their raising it to pass the laugh test? Well, I haven't seen any oil allocations having been delivered to the Republican party, as they were to Putin's political party (as well as directly to the foreign ministry.. etc), as well as to political cronies of Jacques Chirac, including a former French ambassador to the UN.. Have you? The only question mark is Samir Vincent, an apparent friend of Jack Kemp, who's kind of a "loose cannon" in the Republican party. I mean, the vice president's former firm gets huge reconstruction contracts without competitive bidding, and eventually has to pay sizable fines for overcharging; Halliburton and certainly KBR has been involved in supporting Kuwait based operations for years. They've won competitive bids to participate in those contracts. I have a friend who worked for KBR several years ago in Kuwait BEFORE the war began. KBR was already on the ground in Kuwait, the location from which the troops were massing to invade Iraq. It made sense to issue a sole-source contract to them given their established infrastructure in the region. Sure it looked politically messy.. But there was an implicit logic behind it and to assert some kind of conspiracy related to Cheney, without some kind of facts to substantiate it, is simply irresponsible.. In fact, I recall having heard an interview on CSPAN radio last summer (after the overbilling scandal came to light) with a defense official (a general, I believe). The individual actually stated that they deliberately chose to notify the White House about the potential political consequences of DOD's decision to issue that sole-source contract to HAL in support of the war effort, and the White House stated they didn't want to get involved, or have any influence in what DOD did, or didn't do. the Defense Department's No. 3 (Feith) is closely tied to firms "consulting" on how to get Iraq-related contracts; If I recall correctly, and correct me if I'm wrong, Feith's former law firm is the "tie" that you're perceiving.. Is that evidence of Feith's interference, or undue influence, in the awarding of those contracts? Seems to me, given his unpopularity amongst the Pentagon folks, that had he used his influence, he would have immediately been "tattled" on by some CO, or acquisition officer. The FAR is very specific about avoiding conflicts of interest. And these contract officers generally act to defend their territory and freedom of action, since they are the ones who will go to jail if caught being an accessory to such influence peddling. As for Chalabi, I just posted some comments about him... Personally, I'm neutral on the guy. The way I figure it, he has to build his own political support base in Iraq, and we should do nothing to let him be seen as one of our puppets... And I haven't seen any particularly credible evidence to suggest that we have.. In fact, it would seem that Bremer might be attempting to thwart Chalabi's attempts to investigate the oil for food scandal.. He is being accused of having delayed the awarding of contracts related to the investigation that Chalabi is trying to "make his mark" over.. To defy Chalabi's efforts to uncover this scandal puts the US in a very politically sensitive position and could provide the onus for Chalabi being seen as an opponent of the US. You are a student, and practioner, of Foriegn Policy Tekboy.. And you and I both know that in any FP decision, there are many obvious, and not so obvious, influences that go into creating and supporting that policy. My perception is that Bush took an incredible risk in taking on the UNSC over Iraq. It's something that his predecessor failed to properly do, and it resulted in emboldening Saddam's intransigence toward the international order. And it's also my belief that had whether or not we confronted Saddam, we were going to face a showdown with Islamic militants in the region somewhere down the road. And I still hold that belief. They want the oil to fuel their Jihad and control the Western economy. We want the oil to flow, and are more than willing to pay the Arabs of it, using the purchases as a form of foreign aid to prop up their dysfunctional and non-diversified economies (regimes?)... So who's correct in trying to assess the rationales behind the war... To both sides of this struggle against Muslim militants, oil is a critical factor. They will fight for it, and if we don't they will control it. Much to the peril of our economic and national secuirity. Hawk