LaxPower Back-Up Stick

Brooklyn wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 10:52 amBlame Biden!

Brooklyn wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 10:29 am

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 10:21 am
Is war the only option? How about shared resources or support in a plethora of other ways?

Shared? The way things are going I'm sure the politicians (especially the Republicans) will eagerly approve of further wastage of our tax dollars in "nation building" overseas while refusing to finance stateside infrastructure rebuilding. Let's solve our own problems before we attempt to build up anyone else.

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 11:55 am

Brooklyn wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 10:29 am

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 10:21 am
Is war the only option? How about shared resources or support in a plethora of other ways?

Shared? The way things are going I'm sure the politicians (especially the Republicans) will eagerly approve of further wastage of our tax dollars in "nation building" overseas while refusing to finance stateside infrastructure rebuilding. Let's solve our own problems before we attempt to build up anyone else.

I generally agree with this last sentence though I don’t want to fully retrench and close our borders the way Rand Paul would. There’s obviously value in participating in the larger world outside our borders.

Brooklyn wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 12:04 pm ^ Re those borders, if we must have open borders for the Afghan and Middle Eastern wars and political hassles then, as a matter of fairness, we need to open our borders to those fleeing from Central American political strife as well. It's only fair.

jhu72 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 12:08 pm

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 11:55 am

Brooklyn wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 10:29 am

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 10:21 am
Is war the only option? How about shared resources or support in a plethora of other ways?

Shared? The way things are going I'm sure the politicians (especially the Republicans) will eagerly approve of further wastage of our tax dollars in "nation building" overseas while refusing to finance stateside infrastructure rebuilding. Let's solve our own problems before we attempt to build up anyone else.

I generally agree with this last sentence though I don’t want to fully retrench and close our borders the way Rand Paul would. There’s obviously value in participating in the larger world outside our borders.

Of course you are correct. But we keep injecting ourselves in the conflicts of others. Afghanistan is just another civil war, we got into the middle of. It will go on without us. We can participate and contribute to the larger world, as we should, without this type of adventurism.

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 9:11 pm

Brooklyn wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 11:57 am

DMac wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 10:28 am Point fingers and lay blame, analyze and dissect, ultimately what you end up with is yet another group of GIs dead and buried, and countless others maimed struggling with day to day life. You knew this was going to happen when you went in but you went in anyway. We don't learn from our mistakes, I've seen this movie before and it had the same ending. Only question that remains is where we'll send our young GIs to die in vain next. So very sad.

The problem is that this was not a "mistake". It was all done on purpose just like Vietnam and Iraq. Wars created for one purpose only: to enrich the wealthy. This is precisely what was accomplished in all three wars. Trillions in dollars lost, the nation's debt increased, thousands dead, hundreds of thousands wounded, vast resources wasted, wealthy elites laughing all the way to the bank, and everybody blaming the Democrats for the problems created by Republicans.

Within the next 2 years there will be another war with the same scenario repeated as above. Again, it will not be a "mistake". It will be done on purpose because people stupidly refuse that all this is the truth.

Could you point me to the business plan that was created to generate wealth from the war? I can get on board with bad decision making or even an idea of revenge or bloodlust and have read books such as the Iron Triangle along with experiences with shops like Carlyle but this implies prior intent and for all their flaws and poor decisions I still don’t see the premeditated plot to further enrich wealthy through war.

I’m curious about where you have sources your breakdown of wealthy that benefit from war by political affiliation?

Making this all Dem v Rep ignores the socioeconomic reality IMO.

PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 1:07 pm

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 9:11 pm

Brooklyn wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 11:57 am

DMac wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 10:28 am Point fingers and lay blame, analyze and dissect, ultimately what you end up with is yet another group of GIs dead and buried, and countless others maimed struggling with day to day life. You knew this was going to happen when you went in but you went in anyway. We don't learn from our mistakes, I've seen this movie before and it had the same ending. Only question that remains is where we'll send our young GIs to die in vain next. So very sad.

The problem is that this was not a "mistake". It was all done on purpose just like Vietnam and Iraq. Wars created for one purpose only: to enrich the wealthy. This is precisely what was accomplished in all three wars. Trillions in dollars lost, the nation's debt increased, thousands dead, hundreds of thousands wounded, vast resources wasted, wealthy elites laughing all the way to the bank, and everybody blaming the Democrats for the problems created by Republicans.

Within the next 2 years there will be another war with the same scenario repeated as above. Again, it will not be a "mistake". It will be done on purpose because people stupidly refuse that all this is the truth.

Could you point me to the business plan that was created to generate wealth from the war? I can get on board with bad decision making or even an idea of revenge or bloodlust and have read books such as the Iron Triangle along with experiences with shops like Carlyle but this implies prior intent and for all their flaws and poor decisions I still don’t see the premeditated plot to further enrich wealthy through war.

I’m curious about where you have sources your breakdown of wealthy that benefit from war by political affiliation?

Making this all Dem v Rep ignores the socioeconomic reality IMO.

"Could you point me to the business plan that was created to generate wealth from the war?

Halliburton no-bid contract awards. I wouldn't say created, but rather utilized.

Unfortunately I am very familiar with government contracting and the poor return on investment it generally yields. If it is intended as a tax-redistribution vehicle that's fine, but don't all it efficient.

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 1:18 pm

PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 1:07 pm

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 9:11 pm

"Could you point me to the business plan that was created to generate wealth from the war?

Halliburton no-bid contract awards. I wouldn't say created, but rather utilized.

Unfortunately I am very familiar with government contracting and the poor return on investment it generally yields. If it is intended as a tax-redistribution vehicle that's fine, but don't all it efficient.

That’s a problem but I don’t see where Cheney was in Halliburton’s boardroom going “I’m going to start a war so our subsidiary KBR can make some dough”.

I see it as business interests stat abreast of current events and prepare to take advantage of the needs that spill out of it. Probably influence some insource/outsource decisions as well which ain’t good but this idea it’s planned out in advance is pretty anachronistic to the 70s when you had Harold Geneen running ITT who was funneling money to Latin America for the CIA. It’s a 20th century way of thinking not 21st.

I’m sure the ROI is often bad, have seen many commercial real estate GSA leases including for some too secret spaces like near the key bridge and they are the stupidest most illogical leases I’ve ever seen and I’ve seen many. It makes no sense and provides overly cheap and subsidized financing of the property owners (think like JBG, Douglas Jemal, Charles Smith/Vornado, etc) compared with every other commercial lease I’ve seen including bondable CTLs (credit tenant leases) where you could finance self liquidating over 30yrs for GE Healthcare in 2006 at a 1.01x DSCR meaning the rental income covered the debt service 1:1 which isn’t allowed in any other universe of real estate financing.

"That’s a problem but I don’t see where Cheney was in Halliburton’s boardroom"


"Pentagon officials have acknowledged that Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff and other Bush administration political appointees were involved in a controversial decision to pay Halliburton Inc. to plan for the postwar recovery of Iraq's oil sector, a Democratic lawmaker said Sunday.

The decision, overruling the recommendations of an Army lawyer, eventually resulted in the award of a $7 billion no-bid contract to Halliburton, which Cheney ran for five years before he was nominated for vice president."

https://trib.com/news/cheney-s-staff-ai ... c34e4.html

PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 1:28 pm

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 1:18 pm

PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 1:07 pm

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 9:11 pm

"Could you point me to the business plan that was created to generate wealth from the war?

Halliburton no-bid contract awards. I wouldn't say created, but rather utilized.

Unfortunately I am very familiar with government contracting and the poor return on investment it generally yields. If it is intended as a tax-redistribution vehicle that's fine, but don't all it efficient.

That’s a problem but I don’t see where Cheney was in Halliburton’s boardroom going “I’m going to start a war so our subsidiary KBR can make some dough”.

I see it as business interests stat abreast of current events and prepare to take advantage of the needs that spill out of it. Probably influence some insource/outsource decisions as well which ain’t good but this idea it’s planned out in advance is pretty anachronistic to the 70s when you had Harold Geneen running ITT who was funneling money to Latin America for the CIA. It’s a 20th century way of thinking not 21st.

I’m sure the ROI is often bad, have seen many commercial real estate GSA leases including for some too secret spaces like near the key bridge and they are the stupidest most illogical leases I’ve ever seen and I’ve seen many. It makes no sense and provides overly cheap and subsidized financing of the property owners (think like JBG, Douglas Jemal, Charles Smith/Vornado, etc) compared with every other commercial lease I’ve seen including bondable CTLs (credit tenant leases) where you could finance self liquidating over 30yrs for GE Healthcare in 2006 at a 1.01x DSCR meaning the rental income covered the debt service 1:1 which isn’t allowed in any other universe of real estate financing.

"That’s a problem but I don’t see where Cheney was in Halliburton’s boardroom"


"Pentagon officials have acknowledged that Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff and other Bush administration political appointees were involved in a controversial decision to pay Halliburton Inc. to plan for the postwar recovery of Iraq's oil sector, a Democratic lawmaker said Sunday.

The decision, overruling the recommendations of an Army lawyer, eventually resulted in the award of a $7 billion no-bid contract to Halliburton, which Cheney ran for five years before he was nominated for vice president."

https://trib.com/news/cheney-s-staff-ai ... c34e4.html

Perfect that’s the evidence I asked for and the person making the statement couldn’t provide but instead referred me to their boars meeting minutes.

Thank you. Shouldn’t have been that hard for the person making the claim. Although I also note this was 5yrs prior to his nomination as VP which means he was doing it as a shareholder. Same problem we have with all of senate and Congress being privy to inside information and still trading for their personal accounts. Could we find democrats, maybe even ones who voted against the war, who owned shares of Halliburton directly or indirectly?

Brooklyn wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 10:26 am

kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 10:21 am

Brooklyn wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 10:14 am

kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 10:05 am India is in peril.

Watch Pakistan and China.

Could get ugly for India.

If any of this is true, that's their problem, not ours. The only Westerners who want to start another war in that region are those who stand to make a profit from it.

Good thing life only happens neatly inside the borders of a map.

Talk about a parochial worldview.

Want another war? OK, when you march off to do your fighting there please be very sure to send us a picture postcard.

PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 1:28 pm

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 1:18 pm

PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 1:07 pm

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 9:11 pm

"Could you point me to the business plan that was created to generate wealth from the war?

Halliburton no-bid contract awards. I wouldn't say created, but rather utilized.

Unfortunately I am very familiar with government contracting and the poor return on investment it generally yields. If it is intended as a tax-redistribution vehicle that's fine, but don't all it efficient.

That’s a problem but I don’t see where Cheney was in Halliburton’s boardroom going “I’m going to start a war so our subsidiary KBR can make some dough”.

I see it as business interests stat abreast of current events and prepare to take advantage of the needs that spill out of it. Probably influence some insource/outsource decisions as well which ain’t good but this idea it’s planned out in advance is pretty anachronistic to the 70s when you had Harold Geneen running ITT who was funneling money to Latin America for the CIA. It’s a 20th century way of thinking not 21st.

I’m sure the ROI is often bad, have seen many commercial real estate GSA leases including for some too secret spaces like near the key bridge and they are the stupidest most illogical leases I’ve ever seen and I’ve seen many. It makes no sense and provides overly cheap and subsidized financing of the property owners (think like JBG, Douglas Jemal, Charles Smith/Vornado, etc) compared with every other commercial lease I’ve seen including bondable CTLs (credit tenant leases) where you could finance self liquidating over 30yrs for GE Healthcare in 2006 at a 1.01x DSCR meaning the rental income covered the debt service 1:1 which isn’t allowed in any other universe of real estate financing.

"That’s a problem but I don’t see where Cheney was in Halliburton’s boardroom"


"Pentagon officials have acknowledged that Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff and other Bush administration political appointees were involved in a controversial decision to pay Halliburton Inc. to plan for the postwar recovery of Iraq's oil sector, a Democratic lawmaker said Sunday.

The decision, overruling the recommendations of an Army lawyer, eventually resulted in the award of a $7 billion no-bid contract to Halliburton, which Cheney ran for five years before he was nominated for vice president."

https://trib.com/news/cheney-s-staff-ai ... c34e4.html

This is also in your link. (Also ironically my wife’s grandfather was president of the predecessor to Fluor known as Floor Daniels which was a result of the merger of Fluor based in the San Diego area and Daniels Construction based in Greenville, SC- he previously ran turnaround situations like managing a problem w some flooding at a naval base they managed in SC and building up a subsidiary called something like American Equipment something a leasing business for heavy equipment, these global engineering services businesses like Bechtel and Fluor have their fingers in all sorts of government pies).

Cheney repeatedly has denied that he had any influence over the decision to award the massive contract last March. "As vice president, I have absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of in any way, shape or form of contracts let by the Corps of Engineers or anybody else in the federal government," he said on NBC's "Meet The Press" last fall.

Cheney's staff stood by that statement Sunday.

"The policy of this office always has been and continues to be that if a staff member is approached with information about a pending government contract for Halliburton, the standard response is to state that we don't get involved in those decisions and do whatever is best for the country," one aide said.

Pentagon officials also have said that Cheney did not influence the awarding of the contract. They have said that officials with Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith, who was responsible for overall planning in postwar Iraq, talked with the vice president's office as a courtesy to warn of a decision with potentially controversial political ramifications.

A Defense Department official contacted Sunday said Feith's office, working with other agencies, "recommended" that Halliburton get the contract because of the company's "unique capability" to carry out oil-field operations in a war zone. He also said that bidding on a subsequent contract was later opened to other companies.

In an earlier interview, Larry Di Rita, the Pentagon's chief spokesman, said the process was done without bidding to ensure both speed and discretion in the months leading to the war. He said the final decision to award the oil reconstruction contract to Halliburton was made by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

"This was the considered judgment of technical, contracting experts," Di Rita said.

According to Waxman, the new disclosures were made during a June 8 briefing at the Pentagon to Democratic and Republican staff from the Government Reform Committee, on which Waxman is the ranking Democrat. Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., the committee chairman, could not be reached for comment Sunday.

kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 1:33 pm

Brooklyn wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 10:26 am

kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 10:21 am

Brooklyn wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 10:14 am

kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 10:05 am India is in peril.

Watch Pakistan and China.

Could get ugly for India.

If any of this is true, that's their problem, not ours. The only Westerners who want to start another war in that region are those who stand to make a profit from it.

Good thing life only happens neatly inside the borders of a map.

Talk about a parochial worldview.

Want another war? OK, when you march off to do your fighting there please be very sure to send us a picture postcard.

So your thoughts on WW2? Shoulda let things continue on the path they were on? Or it was simply a Pearl Harbor issue for you?

jhu72 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 1:37 pm WW2 was an entirely different beast. Vietnam and Afghanistan were/are local civil wars -- this was clear from the very beginning.

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 1:38 pm

PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 1:28 pm

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 1:18 pm

PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 1:07 pm

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 9:11 pm

"Could you point me to the business plan that was created to generate wealth from the war?

Halliburton no-bid contract awards. I wouldn't say created, but rather utilized.

Unfortunately I am very familiar with government contracting and the poor return on investment it generally yields. If it is intended as a tax-redistribution vehicle that's fine, but don't all it efficient.

That’s a problem but I don’t see where Cheney was in Halliburton’s boardroom going “I’m going to start a war so our subsidiary KBR can make some dough”.

I see it as business interests stat abreast of current events and prepare to take advantage of the needs that spill out of it. Probably influence some insource/outsource decisions as well which ain’t good but this idea it’s planned out in advance is pretty anachronistic to the 70s when you had Harold Geneen running ITT who was funneling money to Latin America for the CIA. It’s a 20th century way of thinking not 21st.

I’m sure the ROI is often bad, have seen many commercial real estate GSA leases including for some too secret spaces like near the key bridge and they are the stupidest most illogical leases I’ve ever seen and I’ve seen many. It makes no sense and provides overly cheap and subsidized financing of the property owners (think like JBG, Douglas Jemal, Charles Smith/Vornado, etc) compared with every other commercial lease I’ve seen including bondable CTLs (credit tenant leases) where you could finance self liquidating over 30yrs for GE Healthcare in 2006 at a 1.01x DSCR meaning the rental income covered the debt service 1:1 which isn’t allowed in any other universe of real estate financing.

"That’s a problem but I don’t see where Cheney was in Halliburton’s boardroom"


"Pentagon officials have acknowledged that Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff and other Bush administration political appointees were involved in a controversial decision to pay Halliburton Inc. to plan for the postwar recovery of Iraq's oil sector, a Democratic lawmaker said Sunday.

The decision, overruling the recommendations of an Army lawyer, eventually resulted in the award of a $7 billion no-bid contract to Halliburton, which Cheney ran for five years before he was nominated for vice president."

https://trib.com/news/cheney-s-staff-ai ... c34e4.html

This is also in your link. (Also ironically my wife’s grandfather was president of the predecessor to Fluor known as Floor Daniels which was a result of the merger of Fluor based in the San Diego area and Daniels Construction based in Greenville, SC- he previously ran turnaround situations like managing a problem w some flooding at a naval base they managed in SC and building up a subsidiary called something like American Equipment something a leasing business for heavy equipment, these global engineering services businesses like Bechtel and Fluor have their fingers in all sorts of government pies).

Cheney repeatedly has denied that he had any influence over the decision to award the massive contract last March. "As vice president, I have absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of in any way, shape or form of contracts let by the Corps of Engineers or anybody else in the federal government," he said on NBC's "Meet The Press" last fall.

Cheney's staff stood by that statement Sunday.

"The policy of this office always has been and continues to be that if a staff member is approached with information about a pending government contract for Halliburton, the standard response is to state that we don't get involved in those decisions and do whatever is best for the country," one aide said.

Pentagon officials also have said that Cheney did not influence the awarding of the contract. They have said that officials with Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith, who was responsible for overall planning in postwar Iraq, talked with the vice president's office as a courtesy to warn of a decision with potentially controversial political ramifications.

A Defense Department official contacted Sunday said Feith's office, working with other agencies, "recommended" that Halliburton get the contract because of the company's "unique capability" to carry out oil-field operations in a war zone. He also said that bidding on a subsequent contract was later opened to other companies.

In an earlier interview, Larry Di Rita, the Pentagon's chief spokesman, said the process was done without bidding to ensure both speed and discretion in the months leading to the war. He said the final decision to award the oil reconstruction contract to Halliburton was made by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

"This was the considered judgment of technical, contracting experts," Di Rita said.

According to Waxman, the new disclosures were made during a June 8 briefing at the Pentagon to Democratic and Republican staff from the Government Reform Committee, on which Waxman is the ranking Democrat. Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., the committee chairman, could not be reached for comment Sunday.

"Cheney repeatedly has denied that he had any influence over the decision to award the massive contract last March. "As vice president, I have absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of in any way, shape or form of contracts let by the Corps of Engineers or anybody else in the federal government," he said on NBC's "Meet The Press" last fall.

Cheney's staff stood by that statement Sunday."

Strains credulity...

Qui bono?

Brooklyn wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 1:48 pm

jhu72 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 1:37 pm WW2 was an entirely different beast. Vietnam and Afghanistan were/are local civil wars -- this was clear from the very beginning.

Any possible conflict between China and Taiwan (as with Korea) is also a civil war and none of our business.

PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 1:56 pm

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 1:38 pm

PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 1:28 pm

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 1:18 pm

PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 1:07 pm

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 9:11 pm

"Could you point me to the business plan that was created to generate wealth from the war?

Halliburton no-bid contract awards. I wouldn't say created, but rather utilized.

Unfortunately I am very familiar with government contracting and the poor return on investment it generally yields. If it is intended as a tax-redistribution vehicle that's fine, but don't all it efficient.

That’s a problem but I don’t see where Cheney was in Halliburton’s boardroom going “I’m going to start a war so our subsidiary KBR can make some dough”.

I see it as business interests stat abreast of current events and prepare to take advantage of the needs that spill out of it. Probably influence some insource/outsource decisions as well which ain’t good but this idea it’s planned out in advance is pretty anachronistic to the 70s when you had Harold Geneen running ITT who was funneling money to Latin America for the CIA. It’s a 20th century way of thinking not 21st.

I’m sure the ROI is often bad, have seen many commercial real estate GSA leases including for some too secret spaces like near the key bridge and they are the stupidest most illogical leases I’ve ever seen and I’ve seen many. It makes no sense and provides overly cheap and subsidized financing of the property owners (think like JBG, Douglas Jemal, Charles Smith/Vornado, etc) compared with every other commercial lease I’ve seen including bondable CTLs (credit tenant leases) where you could finance self liquidating over 30yrs for GE Healthcare in 2006 at a 1.01x DSCR meaning the rental income covered the debt service 1:1 which isn’t allowed in any other universe of real estate financing.

"That’s a problem but I don’t see where Cheney was in Halliburton’s boardroom"


"Pentagon officials have acknowledged that Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff and other Bush administration political appointees were involved in a controversial decision to pay Halliburton Inc. to plan for the postwar recovery of Iraq's oil sector, a Democratic lawmaker said Sunday.

The decision, overruling the recommendations of an Army lawyer, eventually resulted in the award of a $7 billion no-bid contract to Halliburton, which Cheney ran for five years before he was nominated for vice president."

https://trib.com/news/cheney-s-staff-ai ... c34e4.html

This is also in your link. (Also ironically my wife’s grandfather was president of the predecessor to Fluor known as Floor Daniels which was a result of the merger of Fluor based in the San Diego area and Daniels Construction based in Greenville, SC- he previously ran turnaround situations like managing a problem w some flooding at a naval base they managed in SC and building up a subsidiary called something like American Equipment something a leasing business for heavy equipment, these global engineering services businesses like Bechtel and Fluor have their fingers in all sorts of government pies).

Cheney repeatedly has denied that he had any influence over the decision to award the massive contract last March. "As vice president, I have absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of in any way, shape or form of contracts let by the Corps of Engineers or anybody else in the federal government," he said on NBC's "Meet The Press" last fall.

Cheney's staff stood by that statement Sunday.

"The policy of this office always has been and continues to be that if a staff member is approached with information about a pending government contract for Halliburton, the standard response is to state that we don't get involved in those decisions and do whatever is best for the country," one aide said.

Pentagon officials also have said that Cheney did not influence the awarding of the contract. They have said that officials with Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith, who was responsible for overall planning in postwar Iraq, talked with the vice president's office as a courtesy to warn of a decision with potentially controversial political ramifications.

A Defense Department official contacted Sunday said Feith's office, working with other agencies, "recommended" that Halliburton get the contract because of the company's "unique capability" to carry out oil-field operations in a war zone. He also said that bidding on a subsequent contract was later opened to other companies.

In an earlier interview, Larry Di Rita, the Pentagon's chief spokesman, said the process was done without bidding to ensure both speed and discretion in the months leading to the war. He said the final decision to award the oil reconstruction contract to Halliburton was made by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

"This was the considered judgment of technical, contracting experts," Di Rita said.

According to Waxman, the new disclosures were made during a June 8 briefing at the Pentagon to Democratic and Republican staff from the Government Reform Committee, on which Waxman is the ranking Democrat. Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., the committee chairman, could not be reached for comment Sunday.

"Cheney repeatedly has denied that he had any influence over the decision to award the massive contract last March. "As vice president, I have absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of in any way, shape or form of contracts let by the Corps of Engineers or anybody else in the federal government," he said on NBC's "Meet The Press" last fall.

Cheney's staff stood by that statement Sunday."

Strains credulity...

Qui bono?

Why you making me defend Dick Cheney? I’m no fan of the guy. Leave him out there’s like a bunch of civil servants and military people backing him up here so they’re all in on it including the military folks and many civil servants if it were a big conspiracy. Is that what we all believe that it includes an army of civil servants and military professionals including administrative ones to support? If so then focusing on Cheney doesn’t really matter as there’s a much larger problem there. Army corp of engineers is corrupt. Pentagon is corrupt. GSA is corrupt. I don’t think that’s the case but if it’s a conspiracy then they’re all involved. Its not good I just think it’s far less nefarious and planned out then is suggested here by some.