The Carlisle Group

[Achilles]

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.

[Brutus]

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.

[Achilles]

@Brutus

… (presumably less suitable) vendor? Ridiculous… But don’t sweat mere ‘facts’.

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.

[jjimm]

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

[Achilles]

@jjimm

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.

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@Achilles

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.

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.

[Brutus]

@Achilles

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.

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.

[Achilles]

@Airman Doors

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

cite: www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/ 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.”

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@Achilles

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

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

This source says: “I can confirm the fact that any Binladin Group investment in Carlyle has been terminated or is being terminated. It amounted to a $2m investment in the Carlyle II Fund, which was anyway a very small portion of a $1.3bn fund. In the scheme of the investments and in the scheme of the business of either party it was very small. We have to get this into perspective. But I think there was a sense that there were questions being raised and some controversy, and for such a small amount of money it was something that we anted to put behind us. It was just a business decision.”

Success brought more investors, including the international financier George Soros and, in 1995, the wealthy Saudi Binladin family, who insist they long ago severed all links with their notorious relative

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.

[Trinopus]

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?

Trinopus

[Ravenman]

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.

[manhattan]

@Brutus

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.

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:

The principal developments involving the U.S. Army which might significantly affect our ground combat vehicle business were discussed under the heading, “U.S. Army Transformation” in both our Form 10-K Report for the year ended December 31, 2002 and our Form 10-Q Report for the three months ended June 30, 2003. Supplementing such discussion, we note that the DoD appropriation for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004 (“FY04”) was recently signed into law. The elements of the FY04 appropriation which are likely to have the greatest significance for the ground combat vehicle portion of our Defense Systems segment are as follows:

(1) The $1.7 billion sought by the Administration for FCS and related activities was provided. In doing so, the appropriation act designated the Non-Line of Sight-Cannon (NLOS-C) as a separate program element, segregated $353 million of the FCS appropriation for NLOS-C, and restated the previous statutory requirement that NLOS-C be fielded by 2008.

(2) $221 million was appropriated for additional Bradley upgrades.

(3) Approximately $1 billion was provided for Stryker vehicles, meaning that this major share of the Army’s combat vehicle procurement is to be spent on a program in which we participate only minimally.
Regarding the Bradley and NLOS-C appropriations for FY04, we continue to note that as such appropriations also cover program administration by the Army, we ordinarily receive only a portion (typically, 65–75% in our long experience with the Bradley), rather than all, of such funding. Also, because FCS and NLOS-C remain in such an early stage and the subject of ongoing review within the Government, we are not at all certain as to what portion of this appropriation will ultimately translate into revenue for the Company.

  Finally, there are substantial indications that the Army expects the production and fielding schedule for the FCS program overall to be delayed by two or more years. The effects of delays in NLOS-C and/or FCS more generally could include (i) reducing our revenues and profits during the delay period, particularly if vehicle production is postponed, and (ii) extending the period during which our facilities involved in the production of ground combat vehicles could experience a gap between the potential cessation of Bradley work and the commencement of production of NLOS-C and/or other FCS vehicles. 

And from the 10-K referenced above:

On February 3, 2003 the Administration announced its FY04 budget and various information related to DoD financial and program planning. In order to fund the FCS program (discussed below), the Army intends to sharply curtail spending on the BFV and other systems. Unless such intention is revised by the Administration or a different approach results from the legislative process, we believe that our BFV production work would largely terminate following the completion of our current multi-year contract.

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.