How One Hand Greenwashes The Other

by pessimist

In researching another article, I searched the Web for relevant commentary from the major newspapers of the world. I found a lot of good material in places I didn't expect, and little in places I did. Few useable quotes came from the American media.

What seems to me to be the difference is that the American media has become unable, or unwilling, to do more than report a few basic facts with no interpretation or cross-reporting with other sources. (For a good example of cross-reporting, see this DE-World article.)

The following article presents a topic that could be grounds for impeachment of George W. Bush, but there's no presentation of supporting data, no outrage over injustice at any level, no questioning of authority. My comments are italicized.

Report Links Iraq Deals to Bush Donations

Companies awarded $8 billion in contracts to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan have been major campaign donors to President Bush, and their executives have had important political and military connections, according to a study released Thursday. The study of more than 70 U.S. companies and individual contractors turned up more than $500,000 in donations to the president's 2000 campaign, more than they gave collectively to any other politician over the past dozen years.

Such donations are not given lightly, and much would be expected in return. If I had to guess, I'd say that these current activities in Iraq were planned long before Arbusto announced he was a candidate. We know the PNAC-ers had been busy for a while, and that they all have corporate ties, so maybe this whole scenario was dormant until the "right" person to carry this out was found. Enter GWB, and all strings were pulled (and votes nullified or stolen) to see to it he was in the Office. Then the party could begin.

The report was released by the Center for Public Integrity, a Washington-based research organization that produces investigative articles on special interests and ethics in government. Its staff includes journalists and researchers. The Center concluded that most of the 10 largest contracts went to companies that employed former high-ranking government officials, or executives with close ties to members of Congress and even the agencies awarding their contracts.

Shows the value of owning a piece of The Best Government Corporate Money Can Buy!

Major contracts for Iraq and Afghanistan were awarded by the Bush administration without competitive bids, because agencies said competition would have taken too much time to meet urgent needs in both countries.

Urgent because the major investors were getting anxious to see a huge return on their investment before Iraq exploded? Surely their intelligence would be better than what Bush gets from his handlers!

"No single agency supervised the contracting process for the government," Center executive director Charles Lewis said. "This situation alone shows how susceptible the contracting system is to waste, fraud and cronyism."

Let's not omit the government itself from this! They are wasting American lives in a fraudulent war to fatten the coffers of their cronies.

J. Edward Fox, an assistant administrator at the U.S. Agency for International Development, took issue with Lewis' statement and aspects of the report. "It would ... be incorrect to suggest that there is no overall oversight of this process," he wrote the Center. "The USAID inspector general's review of all Iraq contracts which was requested by USAID Administrator Andrew S. Natsios on April 14th has shown that all Iraq contracts to date have been done in compliance" with federal regulations.

The questions that should be raised here are: what are these regulations, and who wrote them? Whose interpretation is used should there be a dispute? Considering how well all the other "regulations" are observed by the Bush (mis)Administration, I would not trust a single word this man says without some form of independent verification.

The top contract recipient was the Halliburton subsidiary KBR, with more than $2.3 billion awarded to support the U.S. military and restore Iraq's oil industry. Halliburton was headed by Vice President Dick Cheney before he resigned to run with Bush in 2000.

"I'm shocked - SHOCKED! - to discover there are deals made by government officials in back rooms!"

Halliburton's top executive, Dave Lesar, said Wednesday he was offended by criticism of the company's Iraq work but believed it was "less about Halliburton and more about external political issues."

Let's see - external political issues - payments to corporations from government funds that used to go to providing for the needs of the American people - huge government debt and reduced taxes for the wealthy - gross profits with no justification - Americans dying for corporate profits - I guess these are "external political issues" - NOT!

"As a company uniquely qualified to take on this difficult assignment, we will continue to bring all of our global resources to bear at this critical time in the Middle East. We have served the military for over 50 years and have no intention of backing down at this point," he said.

And as proof, look at the wonderful job we've done allowing our troops in Iraq to sleep on the ground, short of water, and with nothing but MREs to eat while we rake in huge payments for work not done! We even "earn" raises!

Bechtel was second with a $1 billion capital construction contract involving Iraq's utilities, telecommunications, railroads, ports, schools, health care facilities, bridges, roads and airports.

But it's still too dangerous to do anything to EARN this billion dollars!

The company's Internet site says, "We do engage in the political process, as do most companies in the United States. We have legitimate policy interests and positions on matters before Congress, and we express them in many ways, including support for elected officials who support those positions.

The only difference between us and the typical voter is we have lots of money to wave under the noses of politicians.

"We do not expect or receive political favors or government contracts as a result of those contributions."

And I'm sure he said this with a straight face!

The Center's analysis of contractor political donations showed:

* The top 10 contractors contributed $11 million to national political parties, candidates and political action committees since 1990.

* Fourteen of the companies won contracts in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Those companies, combined, have given more than $23 million in political contributions since 1990.

* Most contractors, their political action committees and their employees have contributed just under $49 million to national political campaigns and parties since that year.

* In the same time period, contractor donations to Republican Party committees outpaced contributions to the Democrats, $12.7 million to $7.1 million.

So much to the Democrats? What's this buy - no opposition to or exposure of certain corporate projects? If so, they are getting their money's worth!

Many of the companies with large contracts have important political connections.

I think the Center's findings amply demonstrate this.

Former Secretary of State George Shultz is a member of Bechtel's board of directors, although he has no management role, according to the company's Web site.

Then why is he a member of the board? Oh yeah! For his political connections! Silly me!

Riley Bechtel, the chairman and chief executive officer, was named early this year to the President's Export Council, which advises the president on programs to improve U.S. trade.

And any benefit to Bechtel is strictly coincidental, right Riley Boy?

Jack Sheehan, senior vice president in Bechtel's petroleum and chemicals business, served on the Defense Policy Board, which advises the defense secretary on a variety of issues.

"General, these are the areas Bechtel has a great desire to 'operate'. Please make them available to us ASAP".

Other contractors also had connections. Among those cited by the Center:

David Kay, head of the Bush administration's search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, is a former vice president of Science Applications International Corp. He left the company in October 2002.

I can see why if his work there was as productive as his search for weapons of mass destruction!

Christopher "Ryan" Henry left the same company as a vice president in February 2003 to become principal deputy undersecretary of defense for policy.

I looked these guys up to see what they REALLY do! Here's a piece of their PR BS from their website:

Our information systems and technology solutions are helping speed and improve service delivery and giving decision makers better information to make decisions. Our next generation networks are helping clients create new markets in converged voice, video, and data services. Our e-business solutions are creating unprecedented collaboration and efficiency throughout complex value chains. Our wireless solutions are opening up new communications with remote areas faster and better than ever before. SAIC is also a portal to advanced technologies. We provide access to the latest technologies developed by a host of organizations worldwide, including our own world-class research organizations. We bring more than three decades of experience making new technologies succeed in real-world, real-time business.

Clear as mud as to what they do, right? Perfect for working with the government!

Scott Spangler, principal owner of Chemonics International, was a senior U.S. Agency for International Development official during the first Bush administration. The company receives 90 percent of its business from USAID.

Oh NO! No insider deals done here! The Government is ABOVE such things! These guys are apparently Bremer's staff in dealing with Iraqis citizens to form the temporary government.

Sullivan Haave Associates Inc. was founded by Carol Haave, currently the deputy assistant secretary of defense for security and information operations.

I already told you - no insider deals in government! This deal shows that such colllusion isn't new as it was made during the Clinton Administration.

The Center's findings are based, in part, on 73 Freedom of Information Act requests and an analysis of a federal contractor database.

* On the Net:
Bechtel
Halliburton
Copyright © 2003, The Associated Press

While all of these facts are interesting, there is no information regarding WHAT these companies have done with their access to the government, what lines of business they are in that these activities might affect, what the companies themselves have to say about their own activities that might be relevant. In other words, there's nothing here, besides the allegations, to get upset about. Allegations alone are not sufficient to convict anyone, USA PATRIOT Act not withstanding.

The Center for Public Integrity is obviously hoping that someone else will do the scut work to find the details of actual collusion. I have shown you more on what these ties entail than the Center has. But by publishing their findings with nothing actionable being presented, they are ensuring that those potentially to be investigated can use the information presented to cover their tracks more effectively.

Way to go, guys.