The Carlisle Group

How does the position of Bush Snr. on the payroll of the Carlisle Group, a firm that owns a majority interest in United Defense Industries not present a conflict of interest for the incumbent President when hs is making decisions to grant contracts to the same company ?

Since there is a conflict of interests - the above being only one of a litany of questionable situations** - why hasn’t anyone called him on this ??

To sum up - doesn’t everyone know that he’s a corrupt bastard ?

** The Carlisle Group still manage the funds of the Bin Laden family.

UDI makes stuff that other companies do not. There is no other source for Bradley AFVs, M109A6 Paladins, anything made by Bofors, etc. They have been making stuff since well before GHWB. I suppose that to appease internet conspiracy-mongers, the US Armed Forces should go without, or find another (presumably less suitable) vendor? Ridiculous.

P.S. The Carlyle Group no longer does business with the Bin Ladens. But don’t sweat mere ‘facts’.

P.P.S. The Carlyle Group, not Carlisle.

If you want to stick to facts - stick to them. What makes you assume that there is no alternative vendor for weapons like these ? Who says they need these exact ones ? Even if there is no alternative vendor, there is still a very obvious conflict of interests.

I should point out that John Major is also on the board of Carlisle. Though he’s not related to any incumbent Prime Ministers.

jjimm - Did you see the documentary on the Carlyle Group last night on Network 2 ? Pretty shitty stuff.

I think America needs to wake up and smell the corruption.

There is no alrernative vendor for those for the same reason that you can’t get a Big Mac at Wendy’s. They are the developers/patent holders/builders of those particular products.

Anything we get for the military needs to be developed. Anyone who goes to all the trouble to develop something is not going to turn it over to someone else just because we don’t want to do business with them anymore. Developing a weapons system costs several million (if not billion) dollars, so that’s not something to undertake lightly.

Besides, your argument is tinfoil-hat territory, like the “Skull and Bones rules the world” argument. George H. W. Bush, being a former President, is ideally suited to be consulted on defense matters, same as any General would be ideal for that same purpose.

Oh, and I’m going to need a cite on that Bin Laden thing. A real cite, not some paranoid conspiracy theory cite.

You don’t have the vaguest idea as to how defense procurement works, do you?I do not assume that there is no alternative vendor for the Bradley. There simply isn’t one. Ditto for the Paladin, AAV7, Stryker, etc. And defense platforms, especially modern ones, are not easily interchangable components. The US Army did not simply order up a mess o’ infantry fighting vehicles, they laid down a specific set of requirments which ended up with the Bradley. Not the Marder, or BMP-3, or Warrior, or Dardo, but the Bradley.

cite: story/0,1300,583869,00.html

No paranoia - just facts.

Brutus your “answer”, doesn’t answer any of the issues raised in the OP. I’m not arguing that the US Army should or shouldn’t use this weapon or that weapon. What I was asking was why didn’t anyone in America see the obvious conflict of interests that GHWBs position with Carlyle raises.

I think I’m starting to get the answer.

“There are no so blind as those who do not wish to see.”

Well, according to your cite, that is not correct.

So, would you care to revise your statement about paranoia? If you really believe the BS you’re spewing here you’d better think about buying stock in Reynolds Aluminum.

Just to moisten the pot… Even if it were true that they were doing business with the Bin Laden family… So what? Do we condemn the supermarket that sells food to Charles Manson’s or Tim McVeigh’s relatives? What’s the “attaintment of blood” thing?


This is absolutely silly. The Pentagon has an enourmous bureaucracy that tests and evaluates weapons systems in a competitive manner before signing contracts to purchase said weapons. The day to day involvement of ANY sitting president in such decisions is absolutely zero.

There is no conflict of interest, because GWB, himself, is not deciding to buy this weapons system or that one. That is handled by the Secretary of Defense and an Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisitions.

But the core of the silliness is that the OP seems to be making an argument that the relatives of presidents must recuse themselves from engaging in anything but charitable work during the tenure of an Administration. I can’t think of a single field of business that does not have some interaction with the Federal government through some types of contracting.

Sort of. In fact, it new Bradleys are not being built – UDI’s current revenue on that program is for service and upgrades.

From UDI’s 9-30 financials:

And from the 10-K referenced above:

So there’s your conflict of interest. The Army wants all kinds of neat UDI stuff and that awful Bush administration (or Pentagon top brass, or somebody) won’t give it to them when they want it, which could have a material adverse effect on UDI’s profits.