posted on November 3, 2003 06:12:08 AM new
The ‘economist.com’ tells us “It is just the sort of thing that Americans might see as welcome evidence, post-Enron”
I would have thought it more relevant and to the point to say ‘the sort of thing Americans might welcome against Halliburton.
Check out this picture: Cheney enjoys a slice of the Iraq pie
“Haliburton’s 10-year “field service” contract which was awarded in 2001 is valued at about $1 billion, while KBR’s pact, awarded outside of a competitive bidding process, to rehabilitate is worth $948 million, army spokesman Dan Carlson said.”
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/24/80648.shtml
“Halliburton held stakes in two companies that signed contracts to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq while Cheney was chairman and chief executive officer,”
In light of their actions, I don’t see how the neo-con chickenhawks can possibly have the right to accuse the Russians of a lack of transparency in dealings between oil companies and the state.
The economist is obviously doing its neo-con bit to avoid any comparisons to Halliburton and Kellog
In an effort to discourage investment in Russia…. And unlike the US Gov associations with Halliburton they offer no Russian ties at all.
