# George W. Bush: pawn or foe of crooked big bid'ness? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 22, 2003, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-w-bush-pawn-or-foe-of-crooked-big-bidness/196928 "2003-08-22T14:47:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![SAustinTx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/57b2e6/32.png) [@SAustinTx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SAustinTx)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2003, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-w-bush-pawn-or-foe-of-crooked-big-bidness/196928/1 "2003-08-22T14:47:04Z")
This is bound to seem a bit overbaked of a question, but having recently moved from the liberal enclave of Austin, TX to a more backwoods burg outside of Houston, it amazes me how many people in “the sticks” are supporters of the current administration. I’ve foolhardedly gotten myself into debates with many of these people, but the only real arguments I’ve heard in Bush’s favor are that he was tough on Iraq whereas someone like Al Gore would still be trying to figure out how we needed to deal with the situation (a totally subjective opinion with a capital O) and, more importantly, his dealing with the big business scandals (Enron, WorldCom, etc). Often the latter argument is used to diffuse the primary gripe AGAINST Bush, which is that he uses his position to benefit his oil and energy buddies. My question is: what, if any, credit does Bush deserve in the exposure and prosecution of the aforementioned accounting scandals, and how does this affect claims that he’s “in bed” with energy and oil interests? Jeremy Ulrey ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2003, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-w-bush-pawn-or-foe-of-crooked-big-bidness/196928/2 "2003-08-22T15:34:30Z")
pawn or foe? I’ll take ‘C’. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2003, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-w-bush-pawn-or-foe-of-crooked-big-bidness/196928/3 "2003-08-22T15:59:24Z")
How about “shameless tool” ? [Draft of Air Rule Is Said to Exempt Many Old Plants](http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/22/national/22AIR.html?hp) > [@](#): > > \*\*After more than two years of internal deliberation and intense pressure from industry, the Bush administration has settled on a regulation that would allow thousands of older power plants, oil refineries and industrial units to make extensive upgrades without having to install new anti-pollution devices, according to those involved in the deliberations. > > [snip] > > The exemption would let industrial plants continue to emit hundreds of thousands of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere and could save the companies millions, if not billions, of dollars in pollution equipment costs, even if they increase the amounts of pollutants they emit. > > \*\* ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2003, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-w-bush-pawn-or-foe-of-crooked-big-bidness/196928/4 "2003-08-22T16:40:54Z")
Sounds like Texas’ environmental laws are going national, **Fear Itself**. In Texas plants built before 1971, or under construction at that time, are exempt from all state pollution control laws. These plants contribute over 35% of the pollution in the state. > [@](#): > > _[from a 2001 Austin Chronicle article](http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2001-01-12/pols_capitol.html)_ > The grandfathered facilities (a more accurate term would be “unregulated”) are not a handful of garage heaters or trash incinerators. By the TNRCC’s [Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission] current estimates, the “most significant” of these grandfathered sources “emit 895,662 tons of emissions per year and represent approximately 35% of the total air emissions in Texas.” There is also good reason to believe the TNRCC current gross estimates are dramatically understated: They are based entirely on industry self-reporting, and in the past the agency has estimated that of the annual 4.5 million tons of air pollution from all sources, 1.6 million tons are “non-permitted” (i.e., unregulated either because they are grandfathered or covered not by permits but by small-source standard exemptions). A couple of years ago, when Neil Carman of the Sierra Club painstakingly analyzed the non-permitted category (a task the agency insisted was impossible), he found that the non-permitted emissions from more than 1,000 of the state’s industrial plants (43% of the state’s roughly 2,500 active plants) were 98% grandfathered – that is, subject to no pollution controls or permitting procedures whatsoever, not even standard exemptions. Bush’s big environmental plan as governor was to implement the Voluntary Emissions Reduction Permit program in 1997. Key to that is voluntary. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2003, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-w-bush-pawn-or-foe-of-crooked-big-bidness/196928/5 "2003-08-22T18:29:30Z")
I don’t see Ken Lay (_a.k.a._ “Kenny Boy,” _a.k.a._ the guy who let Bush borrow his private jet during the 2000 Presidential campaign) getting the Martha Stewart treatment, do you? ---
**Author:** ![Roger\_Mexico](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f6c823/32.png) [@Roger\_Mexico](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roger_Mexico)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2003, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-w-bush-pawn-or-foe-of-crooked-big-bidness/196928/6 "2003-08-22T18:51:28Z")
According to [Opensecrets.org](http://Opensecrets.org), Martha Stewart donated 100% of her political contributions to the Democratic party. Gee, I wonder if that had anything to do with her prosecution, given that insider trading goes on every day. Bush is not in bed with big business, though. He went after corporate criminals like Worldcom, right? Think again: “Bankrupt US telecom firm MCI, formerly known as WorldCom, has landed a contract to begin rebuilding Iraq’s shattered telecommunications network.” [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3044775.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3044775.stm) ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2003, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-w-bush-pawn-or-foe-of-crooked-big-bidness/196928/7 "2003-08-22T18:54:32Z")
**Roger** , Do you even know how government contracts are awarded? Having worked with the executive branch before, I can assure you they are not handed out to political cronies. There is a rigorous review process, handled by career civil servants (who are usually Democrats), and the contracts are given based on merit. If MCI got a contract for Iraq, it’s because they were the best and/or cheapest firm bidding. ---
**Author:** ![Roger\_Mexico](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f6c823/32.png) [@Roger\_Mexico](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roger_Mexico)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2003, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-w-bush-pawn-or-foe-of-crooked-big-bidness/196928/8 "2003-08-22T19:00:08Z")
Yeah right. ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2003, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-w-bush-pawn-or-foe-of-crooked-big-bidness/196928/9 "2003-08-22T19:04:00Z")
**Roger** , Very informed response. The facts are the facts, though. Federal government contracts are very hard to get. There is a very vigorous review process. They aren’t just handed out willy-nilly. I know it makes people feel smart to be cynical about these things, but most of the time the cynics simply don’t know what they are talking about. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2003, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-w-bush-pawn-or-foe-of-crooked-big-bidness/196928/10 "2003-08-22T19:04:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Renob \* > \*\*Having worked with the executive branch before, I can assure you they are not handed out to political cronies. \*\* If this is true, it must have been a long time agao. Things have changed since the Eisenhower administration, **Renob** : [Halliburton no-bid Iraq contract up to $76.7M](http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/iraq/2003-05-07-iraq-halliburton_x.htm) > [@](#): > > \*\*The no-bid contract that Halliburton Co. received to put out Iraqi oil well fires has risen to $76.7 million, pushed higher after the government gave Vice President Dick Cheney’s former company the added job of restarting Iraq’s oil industry. \*\* So why was the bidding process circumvented? The White House denies there is a connection between the contract and Cheney’s relationship to Halliburton. What a surprise. ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2003, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-w-bush-pawn-or-foe-of-crooked-big-bidness/196928/11 "2003-08-22T19:16:19Z")
**Fear** There are really only a few multi-national corporations that can do the things needed to reconstruct Iraq. Halliburton is one of them. The work needed to begin quickly and Halliburton was there to start. There was no time for the bidding process; they had to start work immediately. The article also said that Halliburton’s contract would be replaced with one selected through the regular process. It seems you’re looking for a conspiracy where none exists. ---
**Author:** ![SAustinTx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/57b2e6/32.png) [@SAustinTx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SAustinTx)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2003, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-w-bush-pawn-or-foe-of-crooked-big-bidness/196928/12 "2003-08-22T19:51:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Renob \* > \*\ ***Roger** , > > Do you even know how government contracts are awarded? Having worked with the executive branch before, I can assure you they are not handed out to political cronies. There is a rigorous review process, handled by career civil servants (who are usually Democrats), and the contracts are given based on merit. If MCI got a contract for Iraq, it’s because they were the best and/or cheapest firm bidding. \*\* Not to sound like one of the many outspoken conspiracy theorists floating about (is there such thing as a closet paranoiac?) but are you honestly implying that there’s no way the Prez could exert a little muscle to try to help his boy out? There doesn’t seem to be anything in the above argument that makes any more sense than “the president is bound to do nothing but the public’s bidding because of a rigorous series of checks and balances; the House, Senate, Congress, etc. ensure he has no power above and beyond that”. Sounds good in a tenth grade government course but a little naive in the real world. ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2003, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-w-bush-pawn-or-foe-of-crooked-big-bidness/196928/13 "2003-08-22T19:57:36Z")
**SAustin** , From my experience working with the executive branch, there really isn’t much the president can do. It’s not the House and Senate checking his power, it’s the bureaucracy. Have you ever dealt with a bureaucrat? They have virtually no autonomy. Their every decision is bound by strict rules and regulations. The people who make these decisions have so much red tape entangling them that there really can be no undue influence. And if there is, it’s easy to track with the fact that pretty much every contact they have with someone is logged. If anyone from Congress or the White House contacts a bureaucrat, it has to be noted. There is a huge system in place to keep bureaucrats from undue influence. Of course, it also hampers any individual initiative, but that’s a whole different thread. . . ---
**Author:** ![Sterra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8c91f0/32.png) [@Sterra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sterra)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2003, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-w-bush-pawn-or-foe-of-crooked-big-bidness/196928/14 "2003-08-22T20:20:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Renob \* > \*\ ***Fear** > > There are really only a few multi-national corporations that can do the things needed to reconstruct Iraq. Halliburton is one of them. The work needed to begin quickly and Halliburton was there to start. There was no time for the bidding process; they had to start work immediately. The article also said that Halliburton’s contract would be replaced with one selected through the regular process. > > It seems you’re looking for a conspiracy where none exists. \*\* Why was there no time for the bidding process? Bush knew he was going to invade for quite a while. ---
**Author:** ![Roger\_Mexico](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f6c823/32.png) [@Roger\_Mexico](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roger_Mexico)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2003, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-w-bush-pawn-or-foe-of-crooked-big-bidness/196928/15 "2003-08-22T21:46:57Z")
Renob, you must have been asleep from 1980-88, one of the most corrupt periods is US government history. 138 people from Reagan’s administration were convicted, indicted, or investigated for fraud, corruption, influence peddling, etc. You never heard of Wedtech? [http://www.geocities.com/dude7891/criminal.html](http://www.geocities.com/dude7891/criminal.html) “Three great scandals stained the Reagan record, and they all involved the age-old form of corruption formed by the connection between money and politics. What distinguished them in the Reagan years was the number of buyers and sellers involved, and the amount of money there was to be made. The sheer volume of both had multiplied beyond any previous measure. Nothing better illustrated the problem than a case that connected some of Reagan’s closest associates, a score of top government officials in several departments and agencies, and the kind of political corruption that extended byack to the Washington of Grant and Harding: influence peddling, government contracts, cash, bribes, kickbacks, fraud and conspiracy. Before it was ended, it had dragged Atty Gen. Meese, advisor Lyn Nofziger, and many others into the net; led to indictments, trials, and convictions; and besmirched the reputation of the Reagan administration. It became known, popularly, as the Wedtech case.” That was the Reagan years. What makes you think it is any different now? Your naivete is disturbing. Partial Reagan crook list: [http://www.investigate911.com/contracrooks.htm](http://www.investigate911.com/contracrooks.htm) While in the Reagan administration, Secretary of Interior Watt was indicted on 41 felony charges for using his HUD connections to help his clients seek federal funds for housing projects in Maryland, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Watt conceded that he had received $500,000 from clients who were granted very favorable housing contracts after he intervened. He also was given $100,000 for a project in Puerto Rico. Testifying before a House committee Watt said, “That’s what they offered, and it sounded like a lot of money to me, and we settled on it.” After over ten years of investigation, Watt was sentenced to five years of probation and 500 hours of community service for withholding documents from a grand jury which investigated HUD in March 1996. Corruption spread to the EPA. Anne Burford, who headed the superfund of the EPA, resigned after she bent environmental regulations for dozens of industrial polluters. One of Burford’s subordinates, Rita Lavelle, headed the EPA’s toxic waste clean-up program. She was indicted and served three months in a federal penitentiary for lying to Congress. In addition, EPA administrator, John W. Hernandez, resigned after his staff disclosed that he illegally allowed Dow Chemicals to review a report which named it a dioxin polluter. Theodore Olson, Assistant Attorney General of the United States, was under investigation for obstructing justice in the investigation of the EPA. EPA General Counsel Robert Perry resigned after improper participation in a settlement which involved a former employer. John Tudhunter, assistant EPA administrator, resigned after being accused of meeting privately with chemical company lobbyists. Additionally, the Reagan administration sold and leased billions of dollars worth of coal and oil reserves, timber lands, and mineral reserves. In addition, Reagan tampered with environmental laws in his crusade to bolster corporate profits. These included the effect which factory pollutants, originating in upper state New York, had on destroying Canadian forests, rivers, and streams. By the time Reagan left the White House and the smoke had cleared, a laundry list of government upper management officials had surfaced. Some of them included: - Anne Burford, Rita Lavelle, James Watt, and Michael Deaver. - Richard Allen, National Security adviser, who resigned amid controversy over a $1,000 honorarium after arranging an interview with Nancy Reagan. - James Beggs, chief administrator at NASA, who was indicted for defrauding the government while an executive at General Dynamics. - Guy Flake, Deputy Secretary of Commerce, who resigned after allegations of a conflict of interest in contract negotiations. - Louis Glutfrida, director of Federal Emergency Management Agency, who resigned amid allegations of misuse of government property. - Edwin Gray, chairman of Federal Home Loan Bank, who was charged with illegally repaying himself and his wife $26,000 in travel costs. - Max Hugel, CIA chief of covert operations, who resigned after allegations of fraudulent financial dealings. - Carlos Campbell, Assistant Secretary of Commerce, who resigned after charges of awarding grants to his friends’ firms. - Raymond Donovan, Secretary of Labor, who was indicted for defrauding the New York City Transit Authority of $7.4 million. - John Fedders, chief of enforcement for the Securities and Exchange Commission, who resigned after charges of wife-beating. - Arthur Hayes, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, who resigned after being under investigation for illegal travel reimbursements. - J. Lynn Helms, chief of the Federal Aviation Administration, who resigned after a grand jury investigated illegal business activities. - Marjory Mecklenburg, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Resources, resigned after allegations of irregularities on her travel vouchers. - Edwin Meese, Attorney General, was under investigation by a special prosecutor for his role in helping Wedtech Corporation. - Robert Nimmo, head of Veterans Administration, who resigned when a report criticized him for improper use of government funds. - Lyn Nofziger, White House aide, who was under investigation for his role in helping Wedtech Corporation. - J. William Petro, a United States attorney, who was fired and fined for tipping off an acquaintance about a forthcoming grand jury indictment. - Thomas C. Reed, White House counselor and National Security Council adviser, who resigned and paid a $427,000 fine for stock market insider trade information. - Emanuel Savas, Assistant Secretary of HUD, who resigned after he had assigned staff members to work on a book he was writing. - Peter Voss, Postal Service governor, who pleaded guilty to charges of expense account fraud and to accepting kickbacks. And these are just the ones who were caught. Some of these people, like Ted Olson, are still in the government. ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2003, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-w-bush-pawn-or-foe-of-crooked-big-bidness/196928/16 "2003-08-25T13:16:36Z")
**Stera** , You actually have to wait until you know what you are reconstructing to be able to bid it correctly. Sure, the Administration knew there would be a need for reconstruction, but it’s not like they could accurately predict what exactly would need reconstructed until the war was over. ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2003, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-w-bush-pawn-or-foe-of-crooked-big-bidness/196928/17 "2003-08-25T13:31:46Z")
Roger, I’ve heard of Wedtech and the various scandalw which occur in _all_ presidential administrations. I also know that a lot of the information you posted talked about “investigations” and “allegations.” Sorry, but unless people were actually convicted of something (and I do not there are a fair number in your list who actually were), partisan investigations don’t mean anything to me. I’ve never said there aren’t bad actors in any administration. I’ve never said there weren’t dishonest politicians. But to condemn an entire Administration based on a handful of people (many of whom were brought down by partisan witch hunts) is silly. Sure, there were a few bad apples in the Regan Administration, but there were also thousands of appointees who were honest. You can’t judge based on a very small minority. ---
**Author:** ![Will\_Repair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/a698b9/32.png) [@Will\_Repair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Will_Repair)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2003, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-w-bush-pawn-or-foe-of-crooked-big-bidness/196928/18 "2003-08-25T14:59:00Z")
Neither. Policy is a function of the “constant campaign.” Iraq isn’t about oil nor is Bush a pawn or foe of crooked business. It’s the campaign contributions, stupid. ---
**Author:** ![MMI](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/53a042/32.png) [@MMI](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MMI)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2003, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-w-bush-pawn-or-foe-of-crooked-big-bidness/196928/19 "2003-08-25T15:24:17Z")
False dichotomy. Bush is predisposed by his history and his and the GOP’s traditional fundraising sources to be friendlier and more understanding to certain corporations and or industries problems and difficulties. Whether his withholding of information on the energy industry discussions from way back in '01 is a coverup of cronyism, instinctive secrecy or merely a hearty “F you” to liberals and the media is difficult to tell (until the information comes out). Similarly, the Haliburton/Iraq issue could, at its most benign be a belated response to unanticipated problems (though certainly creating the appearance of impropriety) - we had no idea war in Iraq could lead to infrastructure problems but now that we know we have to get a company big enough and competent enough that we know we can do the job, without taking the time for a competitive international bidding process; sure they’ve tried to rip us off in the past but that’s why pencils have erasers, plus Dick vouches for them. At it’s worst it could be the worst kind of crony capitalism. ---
**Author:** ![Sofa\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/58956e/32.png) [@Sofa\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sofa_King)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2003, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-w-bush-pawn-or-foe-of-crooked-big-bidness/196928/20 "2003-08-25T17:24:49Z")
I have some questions surrounding the White House’s implementation of regulations for and enforcement of the [Sarbanes-Oxley Act](http://www.sarbanes-oxley.com/) (known to some as SOX). This act, created at the behest of President Bush, is intended among other things to allow for criminal prosecution of the sort of behavior of which Enron and Worldcom executives are accused. This is probably the single most important action which gives some the impression that Bush is tough on corporate crime. However, once the bill was passed, the Bush Administration was accused of catering to corporate America by [underfunding the SEC](http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/showcase/chi-0210240290oct24,0,428772.story?coll=chi-newsspecials-hed), [watering down the regulations](http://news.com.com/2009-1086_3-983739.html), and [selectively enforcing](http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/news/local/6017112.htm) SOX and other SEC regulations. The thing is, when I look at the allegations myself I get mired in the complexity, proving for certain that I’m not really qualified to comment on them and also demonstrating that I’m probably one of those poor ignorant fools whom the laws are designed to protect. I will point out that the accusations are usually asserted without a lot of hard information, which makes me suspicious. I’m hoping someone will shed some light on this. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-w-bush-pawn-or-foe-of-crooked-big-bidness/196928.md?page=2)