Lieu, I’ve taken money from Halliburton and several related companies in the course of my business, after Cheney returned to public service. I can certainly sympathize that it’s your job and your livelihood that’s under attack. But to be honest, I had certain misgivings about taking work from what I perceive to be a corporate group whose normal business includes acts of corruption.
As Cheesesteak says, Halliburton as a corporate entity is not a thinking, natural person. Its employees, managers and contractors have a job to do, and they do it honorably. But there is some level of personal accountability, probably at the highest levels where the lines of action are determined to carry out the corporate purpose stated in the articles of incoporation and bylaws. I’m sure there were many persons employed by Union Carbide who felt personally aggrieved by the negative press brought about by that company’s problems. Of course I’m not comparing UC’s willful disregard to Halliburton’s lawful enterprise, but I use it as an example of a corporation rightly or wrongly perceived to be evil by some.
Vice President Cheney may not be an active participant in the corporation at this time, but there are many ways, legal and not so legal, for a public servant to keep personal and economic ties to his former employer. Not the least of which is helping out old friends with an expectation of future payback. He won’t be VP forever.
I make no assumption or accusation that any particular person or group of persons is celebrating the loss of American or Iraqi life or integrity. But I am certain that, in the deep foundation of their human souls, they have footnoted this time in history as a chance to profit, much as a son who sincerely mourns the loss of his mother might accidentally think about his inheritance while arranging for burial.
I’m more troubled by Vice President Cheney’s actions while he headed Halliburton beginning in 1995. There he clearly (at least to me) cashed in political chits gained during his grooming under Rumsfeld, his House tenure and his DoD leadership. I can accept business-political-military shared interests and to an extent complicity in certain areas, but it seems fishy that Halliburton’s federal contracting increased by 91% during Cheney’s executive tenure.
The company has also had relations with other, independent organizations, such as the Kosovo Liberation Army, the Russian Alfa Group and Tyumen Oil. It contracted for Myanmar oilworks in which forced labor was used, and I believe was fined for trading with Libya. It also participated directly in Iraqi procurement contracts, to the tune of $73 million. I believe Halliburton is under SEC watch for accounting irregularities under Cheney’s helm. These facts, if they are facts, are taken from various reports that are probably not unbiased, given the sources (Center for Public Integrity, Earth Rights, etc.), and some investigative reporting by established media. I’m not passionate about it, and haven’t taken the time to confirm or refute the accusations to my own satisfaction, although I would tend to believe that, as a business, Halliburton would not preclude such undertakings from the course of its business.
Again, I don’t hold each and every Halliburton manager, employee and contractor personally liable for these actions/transgressions, if these accusations are true or if they even warrant concern. I guess in my world view, I’m an accessory to such actions to the extent that my work, billed and paid, contributed to the furtherance of Halliburton’s corporate goals. But it’s a different issue to criticize a conflict of interest, a potential conflict of interest, or even the potential for the appearance of a conflict of interest, when lives are literally at stake.
