Big oil: greed, graft, waste, war, smog and sickness

[Loren Booda]

World governments need to take an objective stance about the evils of oil and make definite actions toward eradicating our dependence on it. Here in the U.S. only an anemic attempt towards conservation and clean fuels has been realized. Our president religiously supports the petroleum industry, addicted to its crude philosophy and good old boys. What will it take to alert the gas hogs to consider humankind and the health of their descendents?

 

[SOS2008]

World governments need to take an objective stance about the evils of oil and make definite actions toward eradicating our dependence on it. Here in the U.S. only an anemic attempt towards conservation and clean fuels has been realized. Our president religiously supports the petroleum industry, addicted to its crude philosophy and good old boys. What will it take to alert the gas hogs to consider humankind and the health of their descendents?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7646880/

I was just reading this article with thoughts of posting it in the thread on Environment. I had the same thoughts as you. The proposal is how to perpetuate the use of oil rather than replace it, with the exception on nuclear (nu-cu-lar) power, which will meet resistance so it appears not to be much of a plan. Technology is key--where is it in this plan--maybe new ways to drill in protected lands?

Aside from his usual support of big-business, it also seemed to be about more federal control. I keep wondering when people will connect the dots and realize Dubya is just a Ross Perot who made it past the radar screen with the family name.

 

[hypatia]

the evils of oil

I quite sure the evil will end when the high grade oil runs out, which won't be long.

 

[Pengwuino]

Ironic how you stated that people need to look "objectively" on the situation when you are obviously the one who needs to look objectively to the situation. A substance found on Earth cannot be "evil" or "good" and very few organizations are "evil". And your attacks on our President are very ironic seeing as how they happened on the same day he introduced an energy plan that re-introduced the the construction of nuclear power plants and increases tax credits for the purchase of high-efficiency cars (such as hybrids). I won't even bother with the 'war for oil' idiocy as I am sure its been debunked out of its mind in this forum.

Please think about your conspiracy theories before you post em.

 

[selfAdjoint]

..and very few organizations are "evil"...

Is that an objective statement? Can you prove it, or at least put up a convincing argument that it is so? Suppose I said that yes, only a few organizations are evil, but that among those few are a majority of the largest organizations. How would you respond? Could you refute me?

 

[Pengwuino]

Well can the author prove or make a full-scope convincing argument that said company/industry is evil?

 

[loseyourname]

I just thought he meant that evil is inevitable given a very limited supply of a precious commodity. Same thing if you have a ton of people living in an arid desert - some are going to dehydrate and inevitably there will be fights. It isn't anybody's fault per se. He does seem to be assigning blame, but I don't think he was blaming the oil. Obviously a collection of intentionless organic polymers is not at fault. I wouldn't blame the oil companies, either. They're just doing what all companies have to do to stay in business - maximize their profits. A capitalistic system relies on consumers and, in regulate markets, whoever is responsible for the regulation. Oil consumption is already plenty regulated, so the only people left to blame are the consumers. In this case, however, the bulk of oil consumed is consumed because it is the only available resource that will perform the needed job. Ultimately, all we can do is cut down consumption every bit that we can and develop alternatives. I don't know that this necessarily needs to be pushed by the government. There are market incentives in that whoever does develop a viable, long-term alternative to oil will make a killing. I guess it's just easier to blame Bush than it is to blame a nameless, faceless mob of millions, each of whom isn't a whole lot different from any of us.

 

[Loren Booda]

Aside from evils (see the thread title), let's deal with ignorance. "W" has balked for long enough in his career to promote technologies that compete with depleting oil. No doubt Clinton, Bush Sr., and Reagan could all have been more effective stewards of petroproducts. Maybe some of you would like to compare the recent energy policies of our current president with those of Jimmy Carter, a nuclear engineer.

What about a program to educate the average consumer about conservation and invest in practical, safe, and renewable energy sources accessible to the individual - before we have to operate in a panic mode? The U.S., and other countries as well, must adopt energy primarily from native sources.

Oil companies have some useful infrastructure for distribution of energy to consumers. They may find soon the financial incentive to modify their delivery to alternative "fuel." Auto makers are beginning to face reality by phasing out SUVs and phasing in hybrid cars. The market, if not policy, will drive them to it. With foresight the transition will be gradual.

 

[loseyourname]

Believe it or not, the market is actually moving toward hybrid SUV's. Ford introduced one last year and it's been fairly popular. My girlfriend is on the waiting list to buy one when more become available (she has a regular SUV right now).

Did anyone watch The Daily Show tonight? God, it was hilarious. They had clips of Bush's speech about alternative energies. He was speaking of how we need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and turn to renewable energy sources, so that's why he's asking Congress to devote $10 billion over the next two years to . . . coal. Coal is a non-renewable, fossil fuel, you dope! Then it had him saying that he believes American technology will get us through this crisis, the answer will lie in the greatness of American technology. At that exact moment, the lights went out and the feed was lost. I swear, timing like that is only possible if there really is a God and he is some kind of merry prankster. That had to be the funniest thing I've ever seen. I could not stop laughing.

 

[Pengwuino]

Pff, its all made in China :D blame the chinese lol. If you watch the daily show for your political content lol... well... think the rest is assumed.

And exactly what program to "educate the average consumer" has ever worked lol. Fact of the matter is, no one cares and the only way you'll force em is if you hit their wallets or run a dictatorship. Look at drugs, how many billions upon billions have been put into 'public awareness' for that and pff, i don't see much change.

 

[loseyourname]

Who said I watched the Daily Show for political content? My girlfriend watches it because it's funny and every now and then I'll walk into the room. I'm far from being a Bush-basher (I voted for the guy both times), but it's funny nonetheless.

 

[SOS2008]

I wouldn't blame the oil companies, either. They're just doing what all companies have to do to stay in business - maximize their profits.

Per the link provided above in my original post in this thread:

Environmentalists, however, were not impressed with the president's speech.

"At a time when oil companies are making record profits, the federal government does not need to subsidize the construction of new refineries," David Hamilton, director of the Sierra Club's global warming program, said in a statement. "The current lack of refinery capacity is the result of a conscious decision by the oil industry in the 1990s to limit the supply to increase profits."

To trust oil companies to behave responsibly, and to think the consumers can MAKE the oil companies behave responsibly without government pressure, is irresponsible. It is in oil companies' best interest to milk fossil fuel for as long as they can. Inventions for/implementation of alternative energy are not in their best interest in maximizing profits.

 

[Informal Logic]

What about a program to educate the average consumer about conservation and invest in practical, safe, and renewable energy sources accessible to the individual - before we have to operate in a panic mode?

This is a parallel discussion to posts in the thread on Environment. There are individuals in the US who are environmentally minded. They recycle, buy more energy efficient products, participate in peak energy time programs, etc. However, it is difficult to do as much as is needed on an individual basis. For example, who packages products, and still uses materials such as styrofoam, etc.? We could make a long list of such things.

And exactly what program to "educate the average consumer" has ever worked lol. Fact of the matter is, no one cares and the only way you'll force em is if you hit their wallets or run a dictatorship. Look at drugs, how many billions upon billions have been put into 'public awareness' for that and pff, i don't see much change.

More awareness is needed, though unfortunately many people don't invest even their time to learn about it. It doesn't help that our president dismisses scientist's warnings about global warming.

It is true Americans have a high-tech lifestyle they don't want to give up, or are only willing to give up to a certain extent economically or as sacrifice in some other way. Unfortunately it isn't really a practicality in many ways. How can people make a living? How can they get to their jobs? How can they heat and cool their homes? They are in a technology trap.

 

[2CentsWorth]

Quote:

Environmentalists, however, were not impressed with the president's speech.

"At a time when oil companies are making record profits, the federal government does not need to subsidize the construction of new refineries," David Hamilton, director of the Sierra Club's global warming program, said in a statement. "The current lack of refinery capacity is the result of a conscious decision by the oil industry in the 1990s to limit the supply to increase profits."

So let me see if I have this right. Bush's plan is to have more refineries to improve use of fossil fuels. Further, he proposes to help oil companies in this endeavor by using federal funds/government-owned military bases for these refineries. The more I think about this, the more pissed off I get. And if other people don't find this just as appalling as I do, we might as well make the Rapture people happy and blow this place up now and get it over with.

 

[SOS2008]

You don't suppose it has anything to do with his family being in the oil business and the many people Bush owes:

Business Experience:

Thanks to his, and his family's ties to wealthy investors around the country, including prominent Republicans, Bush was repeatedly able to raise money to invest in oil drilling, especially when prices were booming and tax breaks were inviting in the late 1970s. However, as world oil prices plummeted in the winter of 1985-86, George W. Bush faced the most serious crisis of his 11-year career as a West Texas oilman. Bush's company owed more than $3 million in bank loans and other debts with no hope of paying them off in time. Bush's name, however, was to help rescue him, just as it had attracted investors and helped revive his flagging fortunes throughout his years in the dusty plains city of Midland. A big Dallas-based firm, Harken Oil and Gas, was looking to buy up troubled oil companies like Spectrum, and saw a bonus in their target's CEO, despite his spotty track record. In addition to the seat on the board, Bush received more than $300,000 of Harken stock, options to buy more, and a consulting contract that paid him as much as $120,000 a year in the late '80s.

Someone sold his soul all right.

 

[SOS2008]

Another reason nation-building doesn't work

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7737306/

U.S. probes $100 million missing in Iraq

'Potential fraud'
Handling of DFI funds was sensitive because the United States, as the occupying power, had promised to spend Iraqi money transparently and wisely and for the good of the Iraqi people.

However, in this case, according to the audit, the Rapid Reconstruction Response Program officials did not “properly document transfers of cash,” or reconcile the amount disbursed and the amount received by its agents.

All told, $119.9 million reached the office, but there was not proper accounting for $96 million. $7.2 million was completely unaccounted for.
This is not the first time that questions have arisen about missing funds in Iraq.

Auditors found that $9 billion handed over to Iraqi ministries by Bremer’s CPA could not be accounted for.

An additional $1.5 billion in Iraqi funds was given to Halliburton in sole source contracts. And the contract to build an accounting system for DFI funds was awarded to a small company run out of a home in California, which wasn’t even a certified public accounting firm.

Paul Bremer could not be reached for a response, but in the past he and his associates have argued in general that the accounting procedures they used were adequate and that the war required them to move quickly.

However, commanders in Iraq concurred with the findings of the audit.

A little OT, but I didn't want to start a new thread to post this. What is the problem with this administration? We are seeing so much corruption, and interestingly by the same folks who claim to represent morals and values.

 

[Huckleberry]

Today oil supplies about 40% of the world’s energy and 96% of its transportation energy. Since the shift from coal to oil, the world has consumed over 875 billion barrels. Another 1,000 billion barrels of proved and probable reserves remain to be recovered.

Where are the reserves?
Proved oil reserves are those quantities of oil that geological information indicates can be with reasonable certainty recovered in the future from known reservoirs. Of the trillion barrels currently estimated, 6% are in North America, 9% in Central and Latin America, 2% in Europe, 4% in Asia Pacific, 7% in Africa, 6% in the Former Soviet Union. Today, 66% of global oil reserves are in the hands of Middle Eastern regimes: Saudi Arabia (25%), Iraq (11%), Iran (8%), UAE (9%), Kuwait (9%), and Libya (2%).

Projecting 2001 production levels, by 2020 83% of global oil reserves will be controlled by Middle Eastern regimes.

http://www.iags.org/futureofoil.html
With 5% of the worlds population the U.S. consumes about 25% of the worlds total energy. As oil reserves are depleted the Middle East will become an even more important source of resources. Hopefully alternative sources of energy will become more readily available. Nuclear energy seems a viable alternative. In comparison to oil and coal it is responsible for far less deaths.

 

[loseyourname]

A little OT, but I didn't want to start a new thread to post this. What is the problem with this administration? We are seeing so much corruption, and interestingly by the same folks who claim to represent morals and values.

What part of that article indicated administrative corruption? The investigation thus far has found that there is money unaccounted for. It has not found that any of this money was spent on anything other than what it was meant for: rebuilding Iraqi infrastructure. As the article points out, the worst-case scenario is that "someone took it home." That doesn't necessarily mean that's what happened (hence "worst-case scenario").

 

[SOS2008]

What part of that article indicated administrative corruption? The investigation thus far has found that there is money unaccounted for. It has not found that any of this money was spent on anything other than what it was meant for: rebuilding Iraqi infrastructure. As the article points out, the worst-case scenario is that "someone took it home." That doesn't necessarily mean that's what happened (hence "worst-case scenario").

Who oversees the war--under what administration? If the current administration isn't responsible for the planning, managing, etc. of the war it has promoted, and the nation-building it touts, than who is? And isn't Dick Cheney associated with Haliburton?

 

[russ_watters]

Problems are of course Bush's responsibility, but you're using the word "corruption" where it doesn't belong. Corruption is criminal - this is a mess (we all knew Iraq was a mess, right?) that is proving itself to be a mess. Frankly, I'd be shocked if they were able to track all the money that they gave to Iraqi contractors. Its hard enough to handle American contractors, much less figure out which ones in Iraq are good and which ones aren't. The worst that can be alleged here is that Bush isn't adequately dealing with the mess - I'm not sure that's the case in this particular instance, but it has been in the past wrt Iraq.

If you want some real corruption, Philadelphia's mayor's brother started a construction company shortly after his brother became mayor. He has no construction experience, but hey - why should that matter? Needless to say, when you pay him to do a construction project, the money tends to disappear.

And yes, Dick Cheney has ties to Haliburton. So...?

 

[Informal Logic]

Problems are of course Bush's responsibility, but you're using the word "corruption" where it doesn't belong. ...The worst that can be alleged here is that Bush isn't adequately dealing with the mess - I'm not sure that's the case in this particular instance, but it has been in the past wrt Iraq.

Re-read the post. The question asked about the administration's handling of the war is separate from the statement about corruption, which I saw as general and including others associated with this administration such as DeLay. Nonetheless, if invading Iraq for oil under the pretense of terrorism is not a form of fraud, and then to ask what the big deal is regarding Cheney and Haliburton, let's just say that this should have been a bigger issue than Whitewater.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Also if we DID invade Iraq for oil, it was the biggest blunder at all. Are we even getting as much oil out of Iraq now as came out when Saddam (and his UN pals) was cheating on the UN sanctions?

 

[russ_watters]

Re-read the post. The question asked about the administration's handling of the war is separate from the statement about corruption, which I saw as general and including others associated with this administration such as DeLay.

General corruption? That's pretty weak - corruption has to be specific actions that are corrupt. And DeLay? DeLay is not a member of the Bush administration. Implying that anything any Republican does is Bush's fault is just absurd. Its like saying I disliked Kerry because Ted Kennedy is an idiot. It wouldn't make sense.

...and then to ask what the big deal is regarding Cheney and Haliburton, let's just say that this should have been a bigger issue than Whitewater.

Be specific. And not just you - everyone who is making backhand allegations about corruption: What, specifically is corrupt about Cheney and Haliburton - or anything else about the administration? If it exists, you should be able to articulate it.

 

[russ_watters]

Also if we DID invade Iraq for oil, it was the biggest blunder at all. Are we even getting as much oil out of Iraq now as came out when Saddam (and his UN pals) was cheating on the UN sanctions?

Well, that depends on the timeframe. As I said above, everyone knew ahead of time that in the short-term aftermath of the war, Iraq would be a mess. And we haven't reached the long-term yet.

 

[Informal Logic]

General corruption? That's pretty weak - corruption has to be specific actions that are corrupt. And DeLay? DeLay is not a member of the Bush administration.

Once again, re-read the post:

...the statement about corruption, which I saw as general and including others associated with this administration such as DeLay.

Implying that anything any Republican does is Bush's fault is just absurd.

Aside from the post about money that cannot be accounted for in Iraq, since there has already been extensive review in this forum regarding Bush administration claims of WMD and connection between 9-11 and Saddam, I do not see the necessity to go through all that again.

What, specifically is corrupt about Cheney and Haliburton - or anything else about the administration? If it exists, you should be able to articulate it.

http://www.citizenworks.org/corp/halliburton.php

…of all the administration members with potential conflicts of interest, none seems more troubling than Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney is former CEO of Halliburton, an oil-services company that also provides construction and military support services - a triple-header of wartime spoils.

A few weeks ago, the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers awarded a no-bid contract to extinguish oil well fires in Iraq to Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR), a subsidiary of Halliburton. The contract was granted under a January Bush administration waiver that, according to the Washington Post, allowed "government agencies to handpick companies for Iraqi reconstruction projects."

http://washingtontimes.com/business/20040427-120333-3590r.htm

Ten penalized firms get contracts in Iraq
By Matt Kelley
ASSOCIATED PRESS

Ten companies with billions of dollars in U.S. contracts for Iraq reconstruction have paid more than $300 million in penalties since 2000 to resolve claims of bid-rigging, fraud, delivery of faulty military parts and environmental damage.

The two largest government contractors in Iraq, Bechtel Corp. and Halliburton Co., have paid several penalties in the past three years.

Halliburton paid $2 million in 2002 to settle charges it inflated costs on a maintenance contract at now-closed Fort Ord in California. Vice President Dick Cheney's former company did not admit wrongdoing.

Halliburton took in $3.6 billion last year from contracts to serve U.S. troops and rebuild the oil industry in Iraq.

Halliburton executives say the company is getting about $1 billion a month for Iraq work this year...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/politics/main575356.shtml

WASHINGTON, Sept. 26, 2003

(CBS/AP) A report by the Congressional Research Service undermines Vice President Dick Cheney's denial of a continuing relationship with Halliburton Co., the energy company he once led, Sen. Frank Lautenberg said Thursday.

The report says a public official's unexercised stock options and deferred salary fall within the definition of "retained ties" to his former company.

Cheney said Sunday on NBC that since becoming vice president, "I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had, now, for over three years."

Democrats pointed out that Cheney receives deferred compensation from Halliburton under an arrangement he made in 1998, and also retains stock options. He has pledged to give after-tax proceeds of the stock options to charity.

Lautenberg, D-N.J., asked the Congressional Research Service to weigh in.
Without naming Cheney or Halliburton, the service reported that unexercised stock options and deferred salary "are among those benefits described by the Office of Government Ethics as 'retained ties' or 'linkages' to one's former employer."

Lautenberg said the report makes clear that Cheney does still have financial ties to Halliburton. "I ask the vice president to stop dodging the issue with legalese," Lautenberg said.

According to Cheney's 2001 financial disclosure report, the vice president's Halliburton benefits include three batches of stock options comprising 433,333 shares. He also has a 401(k) retirement account valued at between $1,001 and $15,000 dollars.

His deferred compensation account was valued at between $500,000 and $1 million, and generated income of $50,000 to $100,000.

In 2002, Cheney's total assets were valued at between $19.1 million and $86.4 million.

If you would like to take the position that the Bush administration is open and not secretive, that there is no legitimacy of allegations regarding his family and connections to oil, or that during this time of a Republican majority proper scrutiny or investigation is likely to take place, please substantiate this view. Now that I have "jumped through the hoop" and taken time to research and source, please do the same with your claims.

 

[russ_watters]

Once again, re-read the post:

I read the post. I simply won't let you get away with guilt-by-association. It's wrong.

Aside from the post about money that cannot be accounted for in Iraq, since there has already been extensive review in this forum regarding Bush administration claims of WMD and connection between 9-11 and Saddam, I do not see the necessity to go through all that again.

Well how 'bout I stipulate for the purpose of this argument that that is all true: now tell me how that implies "corruption".

http://www.citizenworks.org/corp/halliburton.php

The word "corruption" does not appear in that link. The best I could find was the word "troubling". Its a huge leap to go from "troubling" to "corrupt".

If you would like to take the position that the Bush administration is open and not secretive, that there is no legitimacy of allegations regarding his family and connections to oil, or that during this time of a Republican majority proper scrutiny or investigation is likely to take place, please substantiate this view. Now that I have "jumped through the hoop" and taken time to research and source, please do the same with your claims.

Sorry, no burden-of-proof shifting. You alleged corruption - its up to you to prove it.

 

[russ_watters]

apropos: THIS is "corruption".

Jury selection was scheduled to begin Tuesday in the case against Rosen, a former finance director for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. The case could provide ammunition to Republicans seeking to derail her re-election next year and potential 2008 bid for the White House.

Rosen is accused of filing false campaign finance statements in connection with a gala fundraiser for Clinton's successful 2000 senatorial campaign. Rosen has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

If convicted, he faces a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines. Clinton, a New York Democrat, has not been accused of doing anything illegal.

Yes, actual criminal wrongdoing (no, not yet proven in court, but far enough along to get an indictment). Nothing alleged in this thread comes anywhere close to this. Perhaps this is all just an attempt to get people to forget just how badly corrupt the previous administration was? I if you can prove they're all corrupt, does that lessen the seriousness of Clinton's corruption?

 

[2CentsWorth]

apropos: THIS is "corruption". Yes, actual criminal wrongdoing (no, not yet proven in court, but far enough along to get an indictment). Nothing alleged in this thread comes anywhere close to this. Perhaps this is all just an attempt to get people to forget just how badly corrupt the previous administration was? I if you can prove they're all corrupt, does that lessen the seriousness of Clinton's corruption?

Yeah, let's just completely change the topic (talk about burden-of-proof shifting).

 

[loseyourname]

Who oversees the war--under what administration? If the current administration isn't responsible for the planning, managing, etc. of the war it has promoted, and the nation-building it touts, than who is? And isn't Dick Cheney associated with Haliburton?

Is that your way of saying "You're right, Adam, no part of that article showed any administrative corruption?" If you are, in fact, making a weaker claim, then make a weaker claim. I'll not contest that accounting blunders being made are at least partially the responsibility of the executive branch.

 

[Informal Logic]

I read the post. I simply won't let you get away with guilt-by-association. It's wrong. Well how 'bout I stipulate for the purpose of this argument that that is all true: now tell me how that implies "corruption". The word "corruption" does not appear in that link. The best I could find was the word "troubling". Its a huge leap to go from "troubling" to "corrupt". Sorry, no burden-of-proof shifting. You alleged corruption - its up to you to prove it.

I've provided sourced information, and as usual you just don't want to accept it. The penalties paid by companies such as Halliburton were for fraud, and I've shown Cheney still has ties to Halliburton, as well as Bush providing waivers for hand-picking of companies to be awarded bids such as subsidiaries of Halliburton. That you don't want to accept this information is not my problem, and once again rather than providing anything of substance yourself, you opt for lame deflections. Your obsession with definitions and minute difference, such as fraud, bid rigging, etc. versus corruption never ceases to amaze me. Perhaps this is what is wrong with this world.

 

[russ_watters]

Yeah, let's just completely change the topic (talk about burden-of-proof shifting).

In a discussion of corruption where people don't seem to understand what "corruption" is, its completely relevant to give an example.

edit: btw, if it was off tpic, that would be topic-shifting, not burden of proof shifting. :tongue2:

edit2: There is a second reason for posting the link to an example: if people insist on weakening the definition of "corruption" to where they can apply it to the Bush administration, I'm going to force objectivity by posting similar situations. I'll certainly stipulate that under the weakened definition you guys are using that Bush's administration could be called corrupt - but so could every other administration. The word becomes useless. So your choice becomes either to be objective and acknowledge that Bush's administration's "corruption" is nowhere near the level of the corruption that Clinton's administration enjoyed or acknowledge the uselessness of your definition.

 

[russ_watters]

I've provided sourced information, and as usual you just don't want to accept it. The penalties paid by companies such as Halliburton were for fraud, and I've shown Cheney still has ties to Halliburton,

Excuse me? You've proven what? I don't doubt any of the facts you've given, just your conclusions. The part you haven't proven is that Cheney's ties to Haliburton make him complicit in any wrongdoing of theirs.

Facts are facts and I do accept them - you need to prove your conclusions (your claims).

...as well as Bush providing waivers for hand-picking of companies to be awarded bids such as subsidiaries of Halliburton.

Again, I know that's true: you need to show why it is bad.

Your obsession with definitions and minute difference, such as fraud, bid rigging, etc. versus corruption never ceases to amaze me. Perhaps this is what is wrong with this world.

I'm pedantic: I'm a big stickler for people not abusing language, as people often do in these threads. No, I won't let it slide when you arbitrarily throw around words that don't fit. Why? Its dishonest.

Fraud is a good example: fraud would be a form of corruption. The USA Today article I linked is a good example. A lot of people here seem to think the Bush admin has committed fraud - so why aren't the Democrats in Congress or the DoJ pursuing the issue? Answer: no one who'se job it is to prosecute such things agrees with you.

Along the same lines: "bid rigging". Bid rigging would be corruption. The Bush administration did not rig bids, they gave contracts to Haliburton without competitive bidding. Big, big difference.

edit: it occurs to me that people not associated with the bid process may not know what "bid rigging" is. Let me provide a hypothetical example: A developer wishes to build a building and solicits bid prices from 3 architects. Upon getting the 3 bids, the developer tells a 4th architect what price they need to beat, then gives the job to the 4th architect.

 

[Informal Logic]

…"bid rigging". Bid rigging would be corruption. The Bush administration did not rig bids, they gave contracts to Haliburton without competitive bidding.

+

…Cheney's ties to Haliburton make him

=

…" complicit in any wrongdoing of theirs.

Thanks, I couldn’t have made the point better myself.

A lot of people here seem to think the Bush admin has committed fraud - so why aren't the Democrats in Congress or the DoJ pursuing the issue?

For the same reason nothing has been investigated during this administration, including the “misinformation” about the war? Because:

...during this time of a Republican majority, proper scrutiny or investigation is [not] likely to take place...

And this where it is fair to mention DeLay and the changing of House Ethic Committee rules, and it has taken A LOT for Democrates to contest this and finally get the rules changed back.