"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,                                                            is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt

Open and Honest Government 

 outragedmoderates.org
  Main Page
  Four Things America Agrees On
        Open and Honest Government
        Protecting America's Health
        Responsible Military Power
        Defending the U.S. Constitution
  Download For Democracy
        Government Document Library
        BitTorrent Links
        How to Use P2P Networks
  Quotes on Bush's Policies
        Republicans
        Democrats
        Military Leaders
        Scientists
        Religious Leaders
  About Us
  Media Coverage
  Contact Us
  Receive Our Email Newsletter
  Link to Us in Friendster
  Clothing & Stickers
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



"The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from [businessmen] ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted, till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention."

Adam Smith, the 18th century economist who provided the theoretical framework for market capitalism. [The Wealth of Nations, Chapter 11]

America's business community is at the heart of our economy, and it is crucial that policy-makers consider the impact their actions will have on industries.  But that doesn't mean that industry lobbyists should be allowed to make the laws themselves.  

Over 100 of President Bush's high-level appointees to regulatory agencies previously worked as corporate lobbyists in the very industries they oversee. [Denver Post]  And the shocking "If you were king" email from a energy department official to a corporate lobbyist is an example of how Bush's regulatory agencies have made policy changes based directly on lobbyists' wishes. ["If you were king" email]  
  
The graph below shows the results from a recent nationwide Harris Poll, which asked: "Do you think big business has too much or too little power and influence on Washington?"

Too much

83 percent red bar.gif 83%
Too little     9 percent red bar.gif 9%
About right 5 percent red bar copy3.gif 5%

 

The Harris Poll.  Feb. 9-16, 2004.  N=1,020 adults nationwide.   MoE ± 3.

Eighty-three percent of Americans are concerned about the unprecedented level of corporate influence on the federal governemnt; a mere 14% were satisfied with the current situation (the remainder either did not know or refused to answer).
 


OPEN AND HONEST GOVERNMENT ARCHIVE
Miscellaneous Articles | Cheney & Halliburton | Advisory Board Scandals The Bush Administration's Secrecy



Miscellaneous Articles

Archived 6/2/05:

House reverses DeLay-oriented ethics rules by 406-20 vote [
Reuters]
BitTorrent file of UN Oil-for-Food documents [outragedmoderates.org]
Sandy Berger pleads guilty to taking classified material [
CNN]
Sunshine Week brings new open government legislation [
outragedmoderates.org]
KBR charged DoD $27 million to ship $82,000 of cooking oil [
Houston Chronicle]


Cheney & Halliburton

Archived 7/13/04 (originally posted 7/1/04):

DCAA audit results in suspension of KBR's billing privileges

dcaa - kbr - front page1.gif
(Full document PDF: House Committee on Government Reform Minority Office; also available through
our
Download For Democracy P2P campaign)

This internal Pentagon report was issued by the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) on May 13, 2004.  The audit found that Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR) failed to prepare billings "in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and contract terms."  A key problem identified by the audit was that KBR "does not monitor the ongoing physical progress of subcontracts or the related costs and billings."  This failure is exemplified by the "37,200 cases of soda" testimony of a former KBR employee, which was posted yesterday.

The Executive summary of the 36-page report is shown below:

dcaa - executive summary.gif
dcaa - executive summary 2.gif
(Full document PDF: House Committee on Government Reform Minority Office; also available through
our
Download For Democracy P2P campaign)

The audit found that there were 10 "significant deficiencies in the design or operation" of KBR's internal control structure:

1. Lack of Written Billing Policies and Procedures
2. Failure to Adjust Billings Promptly for Changes in Indirect Rates
3. Incorrectly Prepared Adjustment Vouchers
4. Lack of Appropriate Review and Approvals of Vouchers
5. Failure to Notify ACO of Contract Overpayments
6. Lack of Reconciliation of Recorded to Billed Costs
7. Lack of Adequate Contract Briefings
8. Billing of Unallowable Costs
9. Inadequate Controls over Subcontract Billings
10. Management Oversight - Internal Audit

As a result of the DCAA audit, KBR's direct billing privileges were suspended, and KBR must send all subsequent billing to the DCAA for approval before it can receive payment.  The excerpt below, from the "Results of Audit" section, also notes that "the cost impact to the government is indeterminable; however, we consider the potential impact to be significant based on the size of KBR's operations."

results of dcaa audit.gif
(Full document PDF: House Committee on Government Reform Minority Office; also available through
our Download For Democracy P2P campaign)

outragedmoderates.org supports a formal Congressional investigation of Halliburton subsidiary KBR's contracts in Iraq and Kuwait.  Click here to write your Senator or House Representative an email telling them that you feel the same way.

Archived 7/13/04 (originally posted 6/30/04):

Former Halliburton employees report shockingly wasteful practices

The following are excerpts from the testimony of David Wilson, former convoy commander for Halliburton subsidiary KBR in Kuwait and Iraq (November 2003 - March 2004):

      david wilson - truckville1.gif
       (Full document PDF: House Committee on Government Reform Minority Office; also available
         through our Download For Democracy P2P campaign)

Oil changes were "out of the question" for convoys running from Kuwait to Iraq?  Wilson says that "it was like their whole preparation was to buy the trucks, hire the drivers, and let the rest take care of itself." 
Later in his testimony, Wilson recalls an occasion when an $85,000 truck had to be abandoned due to a flat tire: "for some reason that was never explained to us, KBR removed all the spare tires in Kuwait.  So when one of our trucks got a flat tire on the highway, we had to leave it there for the Iraqis to loot, which is just crazy." 

      david wilson 85,000 truck1.gif
      
(Full document PDF: House Committee on Government Reform Minority Office; also available
         through our
Download For Democracy P2P campaign)

Wilson says that he saw abandoned trucks "on a daily basis."  In addition to the abandonment of trucks, Wilson describes large convoys of empty trucks, which not only wasted gas and "caused extra wear and tear," but put employees' lives in unnecessary danger.  He says he still doesn't understand "why KBR would have placed our lives in danger that way for no reason."  
      david wilson - empty trucks.gif
      david wilson - under fire2.gif
      
(Full document PDF: House Committee on Government Reform Minority Office; also available
         through our Download For Democracy P2P campaign)

The following are excerpts from the testimony of Marie deYoung, former KBR employee in Kuwait (December 2003 - April 2004):

marie deyoung - laundry.gif
(Full document PDF: House Committee on Government Reform Minority Office; also available through
our Download For Democracy P2P campaign)

One hundred dollars to get a fifteen-pound bag of laundry washed?  According to deYoung, Halliburton was paying only $28 per bag under a separate subcontract with the exact same company.  In another example of waste that deYoung cites, KBR was delivered only 37,200 cans of soda, when they had ordered 37,200 cases of soda.  Incredibly, KBR just paid the bill, anyway, as if it was no big deal that the delivery was short by some 855,600 cans:  

 marie deyoung - cans.gif
(Full document PDF: House Committee on Government Reform Minority Office; also available through
our Download For Democracy P2P campaign)

The DCCA audit that deYoung mentioned in the first excerpt was released on May 15, 2004; tomorrow's post will feature key elements of that report.

Archived 7/13/04 (originally posted 6/29/04):

Were Bush's Iraq War plans finalized before November 2002?

Yesterday's post showed that Halliburton subsidiary KBR was given the task order to create a Contingency Support Plan on November 11, 2002, four months before the U.S. invaded Iraq.  If Department of Defense was already working out the details on how to put out the post-invasion fires by then, when did it finish its plans for the invasion itself?

Here's a very abbreviated review of the Bush Administration's planning for War in Iraq up between September 11, 2001, and November, 2002:

September 11-12, 2001:

In notes to his aides written at 2:40 pm on September 11, 2001, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said: "Judge whether [info is] good enough hit [to] S.H. [meaning Saddam Hussein] at same time, not just U.B.L. [Osama Bin Laden] . . . Go massive . . . Sweep it all up. Things related and not." [CBS News]

The day after the 9/11 attacks, Rumsfeld said that the tragedy presented an "opportunity" to attack Iraq. [Woodward, p.25]

September 20, 2001:

According to Vanity Fair, President Bush first asked British Prime Minister to support an invasion of Iraq at a private dinner at the White House, just nine days after the September 11 attacks.  Blair reportedly told Bush not to get distracted from dealing with Al Qaeda. [
The Observer]

January 29, 2002:

In his State of the Union Address, President Bush linked Iraq, Iran and North Korea, calling them an "axis of evil." [CNN]  When pressed for any evidence of coordination between the three countries that warranted a comparison to the World War II axis of powers, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer explained that the phrase was "more rhetorical than historical." [Slate]  It should be noted that "axis" has a specific meaning in the political context, even when it is not being used in direct reference to World War II: Merriam-Webster defines it as a "partnership" or "alliance." [Merriam-Webster]

Spring 2002:

Word began to come from Bush administration officials that the decision to invade Iraq had already been made.  On February 13, 2002, an unnamed Bush official told the Philadelphia Inquirer: "This is not an argument about whether to get rid of Saddam Hussein. That debate is over. This is . . . how you do it." [Philadelphia Inquirer]  In the same article, another Bush administration official described Vice President Cheney's planned March 2002 trip to meet with Middle Eastern heads of state: "He's not going to beg for support . . . He's going to inform them that the President's decision has been made and will be carried out, and if they want some input into how and when it's carried out, now's the time for them to speak up." [Philadelphia Inquirer]

An unnamed former White House official later told the New Yorker that, by March 2002, it was understood by many in the Bush administration that the President had decided to  invade Iraq.  In that article, Seymour Hersh wrote that:

The undeclared decision had a devastating impact on the continuing struggle against terrorism. The Bush administration took many intelligence operations that had been aimed at al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups around the world and redirected them to the Persian Gulf. Linguists and special operatives were abruptly reassigned, and several ongoing anti-terrorism intelligence programs were curtailed.  [The New Yorker]

September 2002:

White House chief of staff Andrew Card was asked why, if the Iraq threat was as immediate as the Bush administration claimed it was, we weren't going ahead and invading them.  Card responded that "from a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August." [CNN] 

Archived 7/13/04 (originally posted 6/29/04):

Justifications given for Halliburton's "Other Than Full and Open Competition" Iraq reconstruction contract

Today's post is a continuation of yesterday's post (Halliburton's "Other Than Full and Open Competition" contract), analyzing the "Justification and Approval for Other Than Full and Open Competition for the Execution of the Contingency Support Plan," which gave Halliburton subsidiary KBR its no-bid contract.

In November 2002, Department of Defense officials made the determination that KBR was "the only source capable of developing a CSP in the time required."  Nowhere in the document is this "time required" for delivering the CSP clarified.  However, an earlier section in the document does say that the award is projected for second quarter 2003.

            kbp only source capable of developing csp.gif                      
(Full document PDF: Judicial Watch.  Also available through the Download For Democracy campaign)

The section below provides the justifications for giving KBR the no-bid contract:
  
         with the imminent possibility4.gif         
(Full document PDF: Judicial Watch
.  Also available through the Download For Democracy campaign)

In the section shown above, the main argument made in defense of KBR's no-bid contract is that the company is more familiar with the operating procedures of the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) - due to the fact that it holds the Defense Department's massive Logistics Civil Augmentation Program contract (LOGCAP).  In 2001, KBR won the competitive bidding process for the LOGCAP contract, which is renewable for up to 10 years.  Later, in response to Congressional inquiries, "Army officials said they determined that extinguishing oil fires fell under the range of services provided under LOGCAP, meaning that KBR could deploy quickly and without additional security clearances." [Center for Public Integrity]

However, government procurement experts have testified that this contract for extinguishing oil fires does not fall under LOGCAP - and require a separate bidding process.  General Accounting Office comptroller David Walker recently released a report on Iraq contracts that found that the Defense Department and other agencies involved in Iraq frequently expanded contracts beyond their original intent without holding new bidding competitions:

 “Of the 11 task orders we reviewed, seven were, in whole or part, not within scope,” he told lawmakers.

Task orders outside the scope of their contracts had a combined value of $715 million through Sept. 30, 2003. Determining whether work is within contract parameters is subject to interpretation in the judgment of the contracting officer, according to the report, “Rebuilding Iraq.” Other than the basic requirement that task orders be within scope, there are no statutory procedures that guide a contracting officer in making this determination . . .

The report studies 25 fiscal 2003 contract actions representing about 97 percent of the $3.7 billion obligated that year for reconstruction. One example cited in the report was a $1.9 million Army task order in November 2002 to KBR under its contract for military support, known as the LOGCAP, to develop emergency plans for dousing possible oil well fires in Iraq early in the war. That work, Walker said, was clearly unrelated to the scope of the contract, which was centered around camp maintenance, meal preparation and other chores.

“All parties — including GAO and DoD — agree that repairing Iraq’s oil infrastructure would not have been within the scope of the LOGCAP,” Walker said. [Federal Times]

For more information about Iraq contracts, check out the House Committee on Government Reform Minority Office's special investigation into Iraq contracting [Committee on Government Reform Minority Office], and the Center for Public Integrity's "Windfalls of War" project [Center For Public Integrity].

Considering the Department of Defense's willingness to skirt basic contracting rules, KBR's recent track record, and the fact that Vice President Cheney was CEO of Halliburton until 2000, and is still paid $178,000 per year by the company - it is not surprising that Congressional leaders like Senator Leahy have called for further investigations.  When you add the "coordinated w VP's office" email to the equation, it becomes evident that anything short of a formal Congressional investigation of the KBR contracts is a disservice to the American taxpayer.

Check back tomorrow and Thursday for a look at KBR's track record, including testimony from former KBR employees regarding the company's wasteful practices, like abandoning an $85,000 truck in the desert when it got flat tires. [Forbes]

Archived 7/13/04 (originally posted 6/28/04):

Halliburton's "Other Than Full and Open Competition" contract
         j and a for other than full and open1.gif
       
(Source: Judicial Watch; available through our Download For Democracy P2P campaign)

In Department of Defense lingo, if contracts are awarded without the standard bidding process, it is called "Other Than Full and Open Competition."  This document is the "Justification and Approval" (or "J&A") for bypassing the standard competitive bidding process. 

The section below provides a description of the supplies and services which Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown, & Root (KBR) would provide under the Contingency Support Plan (CSP) for Iraq.  

            description of supplies and services.gif
            cost of halliburton contract con't.gif
(Full document PDF: Judicial Watch.  Also available through the Download For Democracy campaign)

It should be pointed out that the list of supplies/services Halliburton/KBR would provide, above, goes far beyond putting out the fires and environmental remediation.  The contract also includes "start-up and repair oil system," "start-up and repair product systems," "distribute energy products within Iraq" and "distribute energy products outside Iraq." 

The comprehensive nature of this "cleanup" contract is troubling when you consider that, during November and December 2002, top White House and Pentagon officials were arguing that Iraq's oil should not just pay for humanitarian and rebuilding efforts, but should be considered "spoils of war," which would be used to pay for the U.S.'s military invasion. [Newsday]

The next section of the document, below, gives details on some aspects of the timing of the Contingency Support Plan.  KBR was actually given the task order to develop the CSP on November 11, 2002, over four months before the war began.  This raises the question of how close to finalized the war plans were by November 2002. 

            halliburton contract timing1.gif
(Full document PDF: Judicial Watch.  Also available through the Download For Democracy campaign)

Continued in Justifications given for Halliburton's "Other Than Full and Open Competition" contract.

Archived 7/13/04 (originally posted on 6/24/04):

Pressed on Halliburton, Cheney tells Senator: "go ---- yourself"

No, this isn't a headline from The Onion - Dick Cheney really did say that to a Senator who asked him about Halliburton's no-bid contract. [CNN]  On the Senate floor.  And it wasn't just some new guy - Cheney said this to Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, who is the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, and ranks 8th in seniority in the Senate. 

Sources told CNN the encounter Tuesday was brought on by Leahy's recent criticism of the vice president over Halliburton Co. Cheney is the former chief executive officer of the oil field services company, and Democrats have suggested he has helped win lucrative contracts for his former firm while serving in the Bush administration. [CNN]

Cheney didn't even apologize - in fact, he said that his comment was "long overdue," and, in a bizarre moment straight out of MTV's The Real World, told reporters he "felt better" after using the f-word towards a senior member of the U.S. Senate. [CNN]  If this is how Vice President Cheney responds when one of the highest ranking members of the Senate raises a legitimate issue, what do you think he says about us?

Archived 7/13/04 (originally posted on 6/21/04):

Email shows that Halliburton no-bid Restore Iraqi Oil contract was "coordinated w VP's office"

img10.gif

      (Full document PDF: Judicial Watch.  Also available through the Download For Democracy campaign)

In September 2003, Vice President Cheney told Meet the Press that he had "absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of in any way, shape or form of contracts led by the Corps of Engineers or anybody else in the federal government". [MSNBC]  The email shown above, obtained by Judicial Watch in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, directly
contradicts Cheney's claim.   

In the email, a Corps of Engineers representative writes to tell a colleague that the Department of Defense has approved the no-bid Halliburton deal, and that "We anticipate no issue; since action has been coordinated w (with) VP's office." [CNN] 

The date on the email, March 5, 2003, is also worth noting.  The Restore Iraqi Oil contract was awarded three days later, on March 8, but President Bush did not announce the final decision to go to war until March 17. [Houston Chronicle]

Archived 6/20/04:

Halliburton abandoned $85,000 trucks due to flat tires

According to a recent Pentagon internal audit, and testimony by former employees of Kellogg Brown & Root, a Halliburton subsidiary, "abandoned $85,000 trucks because of flat tires and minor problems" and "spent $1.50 a can to buy 37,200 cans of soda in Kuwait, about 24 times higher than the going price." [Seattle Times]  Here is an excerpt from the Seattle Times article:

In January, KBR announced it would will pay the Pentagon $6.3 million for possible overcharges by a subcontractor accused of giving kickbacks to supply food and services to U.S. soldiers in Iraq. A month later, KBR said it would pay back $27.4 million and defer billing of $140 million in meals for U.S. forces in Iraq and Kuwait over a discrepancy between the number of meals ordered and those actually served.

The 36-page report by the Defense Contract Audit Agency said KBR had a billing system that was "inadequate," had numerous deficiencies and billing misstatements, and that KBR didn't follow laws and regulations relating to spending and record keeping. [Seattle Times]

PDFs of the Pentagon audit and the testimony of the five Halliburton employees are available through our Download For Democracy campaign.

Archived 6/19/04:

Cheney was paid $178,000 by Halliburton in 2003

"Vice President Dick Cheney received $178,437 in deferred pay last year from Halliburton, the Texas oil-field services company he once headed that has received billion-dollar government contracts in Iraq." [Forbes


Advisory Board Scandals

Archived 10/11/04 (originally 7/20/04):

Energy task force documents show that the oil lobby had direct influence on President Bush's Executive Order 13211
Topic: Open and Honest Government / Advisory Board Scandals

Last Wednesday's post provided an introduction to the 13,500 pages of energy task force documents that the Natural Resources Defense Council obtained in its Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Department of Energy.  Many of the documents handed over were heavily blacked out or redacted.

However, as the NRDC says in its analysis of the documents, "even with this censorship the records reveal that industry lobbyists not only played a pivotal role in developing the administration's national energy strategy, they wrote much of it themselves." [NRDC]

In the "If you were King" email, dated March 18, 2001, Energy Department official Joseph Kelliher asked natural gas industry lobbyist Dana Contratto what his energy polices would be "if [he] were King, or il Duce . . ." [view excerpt of email]  Contratto responded on the 22nd with a three-page list of recommendations that would ease federal regulations on pipeline construction and operation. [Judicial Watch]

Earlier that week, on March 20, American Petroleum Institute lobbyist Jim Ford emailed Kelliher a set of recommendations.  It is unknown whether Kelliher asked Ford what he would do "if [he] were King" - but the American Petroleum Institute's response was to draft a full executive order:

Batch 005, page 17 - "The last document is a suggested executive order to ensure that energy implications are considered and acted on in rulemakings and other executive actions."

    much of it is designed to be self-explanatory1.gif
       (Full document PDF: NRDC.  Also available through the Download For Democracy P2P campaign.)

Batch 006, page 10 - The American Petroleum Institute's proposed "Executive  Order ____, March ____, 2001"

 mockup of executive order2.gif
 mockup of executive order 21.gif
         (Full document PDF: NRDC.  Also available through the Download For Democracy campaign.)

Roughly two months later, on May 18, 2001, President Bush signed Executive Order 13211 into law:

President Bush's Executive Order 13211 of May 18, 2001

         executive order 13211 p. 11.gif
         executive order 13211 p. 22.gif
 (Full document PDF: Federal Register.  Also available through the
Download For Democracy campaign.)

In March 2002, the NRDC obtained the energy task force documents, including the American Petroleum Institute's email and proposal.  The NRDC website calls Bush's Executive Order "remarkably similar in structure, scope and language to the draft submitted two months earlier by the American Petroleum Institute." [NRDC]

Here is an overview of the most important of these similarities:

Section 2 of the American Petroleum Institute's proposal establishes that the order would pertain to: 

"any regulatory action that could significantly and adversely affect energy supplies, distribution, or use." 

The title of President Bush's Executive Order 13211 is:

"Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use." 

Section 2 of the American Petroleum Institute's proposal would require federal agencies taking these actions to issue:

"a detailed statement on (i) the energy impact of the proposed action, (ii) any adverse energy effects . . . and (iii) alternatives to the proposed action."

President Bush's Executive Order 13211 requires federal agencies taking these actions to issue:

"a detailed statement . . . relating to: (i) any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use, and (ii) reasonable alternatives to the action."

A March 28, 2002 Washington Post article, titled "Bush Energy Order Wording Mirrors Oil Lobby's Proposal," quoted American Petroleum Institute president Red Cavaney's reaction to the scandal:

He said the charge that "the administration lifted ours is probably a little overstating the case." Cavaney said that API wanted the order to apply retroactively, which the Bush order did not do. [Washington Post]

By underscoring one of the only real differences between the American Petroleum Institute's proposal and the President's Executive Order - that Section 3 of his lobby's proposal was canned - Cavaney does little to quell the controversy.

So what practical effect does Executive Order 13211 have?  It creates a bureaucratic roadblock for federal regulatory agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal Aviation Administration.  Any time their actions could potentially affect the oil industry, these agencies are put on the defensive - forced to justify the very work they were created to do.

Archived 8/29/04 (originally 7/14/04):

An introduction to the NRDC's energy task force documents
Topic: Open and Honest Government / Advisory Board Scandals

In 2001, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) brought a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), requesting documents related to Vice President Cheney's national energy task force.  In April 2002, a federal judge ordered the Energy Department to release the records, holding that "citizens' right to know 'what their government is up to,' . . . cannot be defeated by detailing an agency employee to a task force operating out of the White House or some other non-agency." [PDF of Judge Paul F. Friedman's opinion]

On March 25, 2002, the NRDC received about 10,000 pages of documents; later the group received an additional 3,500 documents.  The organization has posted all of the documents on its website in 551 batches, each roughly 25 pages.  As of this week, all of the batches are also available through this site's Download For Democracy P2P campaign.  

So what kind of documents make up these 13,500 pages, anyway? 

Unfortunately, many of the documents that the Energy Department released under the Freedom of Information Act lawsuit do not offer much in the way of information: vast portions of the documents have been blacked out and/or redacted.  Batches 164 and 2064 are great examples of this:

Batch 164, pages 14-15 - "Let me know if you have any further questions."
batch 164 page 144.gif
batch 164 page 153.gif
          (Full document PDF: NRDC.  Also available through the Download for Democracy campaign.)

Batch 2064, page 24 - "the significant omissions in the piece EPA sent over, the biggest of which are: __________________"  

batch 2064 page 245.gif 
    (Full document PDF: NRDC.  Also available through the Download for Democracy P2P campaign.)

What is particularly frustrating about the "significant omissions" email shown above is that the subject line involves an "EPA NSR background document."  "NSR" stands for New Source Review, the most important part of the Clean Air Act, which was rolled back by Bush's Clear Skies plan. [see NSR segment in Protecting America's Health]  Considering the staggering side effects that are projected as a result of Bush's rollback of the Clean Air Act, it would be very interesting to see what this EPA piece discussed, and what it omitted.

Fortunately, not all of the energy task force records are blacked out.  In letter shown below, Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay invites Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham to an industry conference.

Batch 2044, page 1 - "Your participation would greatly enhance the prospects of a positive outcome."
       letter from ken lay to abraham1.gif
(Full document PDF: NRDC.  Also available through the Download for Democracy P2P campaign.)

It is undisputed that Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay - who was indicted last week for making false statements about his company's finances [
Forbes] - was involved with the energy task force.  Vice President Cheney admitted that much in early 2002, when he released a list of six meetings with Lay and other Enron executives. [CNN]  Cheney insists that, in the meetings, he and the Enron execs "did not discuss information concerning the financial position of the Enron Corporation" - but merely discussed the direction of the federal government's national energy policy. [CNN]
 
It remains unclear how much influence Lay and other former Enron executives had, especially after the Supreme Court's decision in Cheney v. United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which lets Cheney off the hook, at least until after the November election. [article: USA Today; decision: Findlaw]  A recent New York Times's op-ed piece notes that "when President Bush was elected, there was much speculation about whether his top corporate sponsor, Kenneth Lay of Enron, would end up as secretary of the Treasury or the Department of Energy." [New York TimesNot surprisingly, the heavily redacted energy task force documents that the Energy Department released to the NRDC do not do much to clear up this issue. 

However, you apparently don't have to be one of the largest campaign contributors over the course of George W. Bush's political career, like Lay is [USA Today], to have your voice heard.  Mixed in with the official documents obtained by the NRDC are a number of letters from private citizens commenting on the national energy policy. 

Here are examples of some of the best and the worst ideas that private citizens had to offer:

Batch 2068, pages 243-253 - Former Gulf Oil Executive offers "A Realistic Energy Policy"

Charles L. Campbell, Senior Supply Officer at Gulf Oil Corporation during the energy crises of the 70's, weighed in with a well-researched set of energy policy considerations.  Campbell's 10-page recommendation is refreshing, because it is from the perspective of an energy industry insider, but it doesn't neglect the significance of environmental health protections and limiting global warming.  Here's an excerpt of his proposal:

         campbell1.gif
(Full document PDF: NRDC.  Also available through the Download for Democracy P2P campaign.)

Batch 2069, page 1 - "Lord Donald Shaffer's Weekly Planner"

In contrast, here is one bizarre week's worth of policy recommendations from a "Lord Donald Shaffer." 

         lord shaffer's weekly planner1.gif    
(Full document PDF: NRDC.  Also available through the Download for Democracy P2P campaign)

These are just a sampling of the thousands of pages of energy task force documents obtained by the NRDC.  Check back during the next week for analysis of the energy task force documents that show how energy industry lobbyists had a strong influence on the energy task force's creation. 

Archived 8/1/04 (originally posted 7/2/04):

Cheney's Energy Task Force mapped
Iraq’s oilfields during 2001

On January 29, 2001, just after he entered office, President Bush announced the creation of a new Cabinet-level National Energy Task Force, to be headed by Vice President Cheney. [CNN]  Given Vice President Cheney's close ties to the energy industry, there were concerns about potential conflicts of interest from the start.  Here's an excerpt from the President's Question and Answer session that afternoon:

Reporter: . . .given the Vice President's past ties to oil, what can you say to consumers that would allay any fears they might have that any deal that you come up with on energy, any national energy policy, may be more geared toward oil companies than to consumers?

President Bush: Well, Dick Cheney is a person who loves America and cares about the future of the country, just like I do.  And he understands what I understand, that if we don't find more energy supplies to meet growing demand in places like California, the consumer is going to pay a dear price. [The White House]

In closed meetings about a month later, Cheney's Energy Task Force discussed the map and chart shown below.

          energy task force document - iraq oil map1.gif
(Full document PDF: Judicial Watch; also available through our Download For Democracy P2P campaign)

This map of Iraq’s oilfields shown below was obtained by Judicial Watch from the Commerce Department, as a result of the group’s Freedom of Information Act lawsuit regarding the activities of the Cheney Energy Task Force.  The map is dated “3-01.” 

The document below, “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts,” dated March 5, 2001, lists firms that have oil contracts for the individual oilfields, as well as the current status of those contracts.  According to former Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Suskind, the author of "The Price of Loyalty," this document was also used by the Pentagon during Iraq War planning discussions during early March 2001. [CBS News]

    foreign suitors for iraqi oilfield contracts1.gif
  (Full document PDF: Judicial Watch; also available through our Download For Democracy P2P campaign)

I don't believe in conspiracy theories.  In and of themselves, these documents do not prove anything.  But they raise some very serious questions:

Why was the Energy Task Force discussing oil contracts in a foreign country, on a field-by-field, and contract-by-contract, basis?  Is this within the scope of the group's activities as listed in the Executive Order that established it?

Did the Energy Task Force participate in the planning of the war in Iraq, as some critics of the Bush administration have claimed?  If so, is this within the scope of the group's activities as listed in the Executive Order that established it?

Considering the crucial importance of the topics the Energy Task Force appears to have discussed in meetings, don't the American people deserve disclosure of the participants and nature of these meetings?  And isn't that type of disclosure supposed to be guaranteed by Federal law under the Federal Advisory Committee Act? 

During the next two weeks, outragedmoderates.org will explore these issues more fully. 

In the meantime, I'd like to wish you a happy Fourth of July. [interactive Declaration of Independence from ourdocuments.gov]

Archived 7/13/04 (originally posted 6/21/04):

The Energy Department's "If you were King" email to a gas industry lobbyist

           if you were king email4.gif
         (Source: Judicial Watch; available through our Download For Democracy P2P campaign)

"If you were King, or Il Duce, what would you include in a national energy policy?" - U.S. Department of Energy official Joseph Kelliher, in an email to natural gas industry lobbyist Dana Contratto, March 18, 2001. 

Yes, you read that correctly - a top Department of Energy official really asked a corporate lobbyist what he would do if he were king or "Il Duce," the nickname Italians gave to Benito Mussolini.  But even more shocking than Kelliher's choice of words is what transpired in the weeks following that email.  The following is an excerpt from the April 4, 2004 New York Times article "Changing All The Rules":

Apparently that was one of many e-mail messages to industry lobbyists, for Kelliher's electronic mailbox was soon pinging with activity. A March 20, 2001, message from Jim Ford, lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, a powerful oil-and-gas-industry trade group, included a ready-made decree. ''The last document,'' Ford wrote, referring to one of 10 attachments, ''is a suggested executive order to ensure that energy implications are considered and acted on in rulemakings and other executive actions.'' President Bush would issue a very similar executive order two months later, the day after the energy task force report was released.

Another Kelliher correspondent, Stephen Sayle, a Republican Congressional aide, who is now an energy lobbyist, added a somewhat abashed note to the end of his March 23, 2001, wish list, which included a plea to stop enforcement of new-source review. ''Obviously, this is a dream list,'' he wrote. ''Not all will be done. But perhaps some of these ideas could be floated and adopted.'' In fact, Sayle was being needlessly pessimistic; most of the items on his list, many of which dealt with new-source review, were eventually adopted. [NY Times]

Archived 6/19/04:

Defense Policy Board Members' Ties to Defense Contractors

The Center For Public Integrity issued a report last year called "Advisors of Influence: Nine Members of the Defense Policy Board Have Ties to Defense Contractors."  A chart released with the report lists those Defense Policy Board members' affiliations with defense contractors, and provides the contracts each of the companies has received during the Bush administration. [Center for Public Integrity]

Archived 6/18/04:

Former Defense Policy Board Member Richard Perle

On March 24, 2003, House Representative John Conyers sent a letter to the Department of Defense's Office of the Inspector General, calling for an investigation into conflicts of interest and other misconduct by head neoconservative Richard Perle. [Center for Public Integrity]  The letter provides a detailed list of the potential allegations, and argues that Perle should be considered a "special government employee" under the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 202, which defines the terms of the federal conflict of interest laws.  

Three days later, on March 27, 2003, Perle resigned from the Defense Policy Board. [CNN]

Rep. Conyers' letter, the Defense Policy Board's charter, the agendas of the Defense Policy Board's October 2002 - February 2003 meetings, and the U.S. government's Compilation of Federal Ethics Laws are are available through our Download For Democracy campaign.

 

The Bush Administration's Secrecy

Archived 6/18/04:

Selected Quotes on Bush's Secrecy:

"This is not a monarchy."

- House Government Reform Committee Member Dan Burton, Republican from Indiana, after President Bush invoked executive privilege to deny Congress access to prosecutorial documents, which have routinely been turned over to Congress by past administrations.  [ABC News]

"One sometimes gets the impression that this administration believes that how it runs the government is its business and no one else's. It is certainly not the business of Congress. And if it's not the business of the people's representatives, it's certainly no business of yours or mine.  But this is a dangerous condition for any representative democracy to find itself in. The tight control of information, as well as the dissemination of misleading information and outright falsehoods, conjures up a disturbing image of a very different kind of society. Democracies are not well-run nor long-preserved with secrecy and lies."

- Walter Cronkite, from his op-ed piece "Secrets and Lies Becoming Commonplace." [St. Augustine Record]

"We see an unprecedented secrecy in this White House that ... we find very troubling.  This is a case where left and right agree ... True conservatives don't act this way."

- Larry Klayman, executive director of conservative legal watchdog Judicial Watch. [USA Today]

"Congress, by and large, has been left to learn about major war-related decisions through newspaper articles . . . Is it any wonder that members of Congress are beginning to question whether the administration is deliberately leaving Congress in the dark — or whether the administration is making major policy decisions on the fly, without taking time for due consideration or consultation?"

- Senate Appropriations Chairman Robert Byrd, Democrat from West Virginia.  [New York Times]

 

 

 

outragedmoderates.org

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
 

  Site Meter