Juan Cole on Cheney's visit to Iraq

Interesting that the Iraqi parliament is powerless to get US to withdraw! Again the lack of sovereignty in Iraq is transparent. Does Bush think that Cheney still has credibility and clout in Iraq? Ill bet no one let him go hunting in the green zone!

Cheney Greeted by Mortars, Demonstrations:
Iraqi Parliament pleads for US withdrawal

Al-Hayat writes in Arabic that US Vice President Dick Cheney was greeted, on his surprise visit to Baghdad, by a rain of mortar shells on the Green Zone and by protests in several cities organized by Puritan Shiite followers of cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. One could have added the bombing in Irbil, the seat of close US ally Massoud Barzani, the Kurdistan leader.

Aljazeera is alleging that high on Cheney's agenda is getting the new petroleum bill passed through parliament. That legislation is certainly one of the four benchmarks the Bush administration has pushed on the al-Maliki government, and given Cheney's background as CEO of Halliburton, it is plausible that the oil bill looms large in his visit. It is probably behind his scolding of Iraqi parliamentarians for even considering a two-month hiatus this summer.

Cheney arrived a day after a majority of Iraqi parlimentarians signed a petition in favor of the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. Actually, last fall 131 signed a similar petition. By the rules of the Iraqi parliament, such petitions have no force. The sense of those deputies was communicated to a committe, which promised to report out the resolution to the entire parliament, which it apparently never did. So, Tuesday's move shows a 10% rise in commitment to the principle of withdrawal over 6 months ago, but may be no more consequential. A petition is not a vote, and is a sign of how powerless the parlimentarians feel.

Demonstrations at Brigham Young University

This is copied from Huffington Post. It seems that restrictions on demonstrations are becoming more and more prevalent in the US--elsewhere too. When I was in the Philippines I was surprised that a lot of demonstrators just took it for granted that the state did not have any right to regulate their demonstrations except to stop violence. Demonstrations regularly challenged attempts to even require permits!


Free Speech Closes Early At BYU ()
READ MORE: Dick Cheney, Bryan Young, U.S. Democratic Party
The campus of Brigham Young University was electric with controversy today as it was the site of two protests surrounding Dick Cheney's upcoming visit to speak at their commencement ceremony.

On one end of campus were the "anti-Cheney" demonstrators sponsored by the BYU Democrats. Between 100 and 200 strong at any given time, students and faculty members raised signs displaying their distaste for the policies espoused by Dick Cheney such as war profiteering, torture, preemptive war, lying, using the "f-word", lying, etc.


BYU had "given them permission" to voice their opinions. Well, not really "voice" their opinions, BYU said they could sit down on some side walks and hold up signs, just not shout chants or yell anything. And they only had until 1:00pm to do it. Having received permission to protest, the ecstatic students remained peaceful and sat inside BYU's designated "free speech" zone in the middle of campus. Over the entire three hour demonstration it was estimated that 700-800 faculty and students were able to participate.

In the mix was an assortment of students and familiar faces. Steven Jones, the physics professor at BYU who retired amid controversy about his research into the 9/11 attacks, was on hand and spoke to us about his distaste with the Bush administration. Joe Vogel, who was once the Student Body Vice President at Utah Valley State College (UVSC) in 2004 when he invited Michael Moore to speak and was then forced to resign over the ensuing controversy, was there to register his dissenting voice in the growing cacophony of protest. Joe is now a masters student at BYU and part of the faculty.

On the other end of campus were the "pro-BYU" demonstrators sponsored by the College Republicans. Between 15 and 30 strong, students and faculty members passed out free cookies, lemonade and cake and played football, all in support of BYU's decision to bring Dick Cheney to campus. They remained peaceful and had a good time eating cake.

The protests seem to go off without a hitch until things started winding down. NPR left. The local TV news cameras left. The newspaper reporters packed their things and left. And the only people around to document anything were students and our film crew. Our cameras kept rolling to witness what happened next.

As soon as 1:00 hit and the time for free speech expired, after an impromptu performance of the Star Spangled Banner by the BYU Democrats, men from BYU dressed in suits and sunglasses with Secret Service-style earpieces roughly rounded up all of the signage and banners. "You'll be able to use it all again. We're just going to keep it for you. So you don't carry it around campus, we'll take it to a safe place until the next designated protest."

It was like Daddy deciding that the kids had had enough play time and was taking their toys away.

Students we spoke to, on camera, were understandably livid. "I'm a student, but I'm not with the Democrats and that sign is my personal property," a disconcerted student told us, "What they're saying is they don't want any disruptions on campus and 'free speech time' is over until they say so."

And then the real debates began. Students and faculty on both sides of the issue met face to face and things began to get heated and that is when we felt taps on our shoulders.

It turns out, as it was explained to me, that documentarians, according to BYU, are not legitimate journalists. Because we wish to show the news we have to report on a theatre screen or a DVD, our aims don't actually count as news.

We rolled a lot of footage at today's events. Hours and hours of footage. Hopefully, we're making a follow-up documentary to This Divided State. But, if BYU has anything to do with it, you won't be able to see it. Free speech at BYU is open for business. But only from 11:00am til 1:00pm, two days only.

As usual, we'll be following everything on our blog and we're going to try to get some footage of this up as a taste of what's to come soon.

Halliburton move to Dubai to be investigated?

An obvious reason to move to Dubai is its liberal tax laws. Halliburton can save a bundle on taxes. Maybe Cheney can seek refuge in Dubai should he fear impeachment!


Senator calls on Treasury to investigate if Halliburton move to Dubai linked to Iran deals Mike Sheehan
Published: Monday March 12, 2007





A key U.S. senator is calling on the Treasury Department to ensure that a controversial Houston-based multinational corporation, Halliburton, is not benefiting financially from the move of its headquarters to the Middle East, according to a release advanced to RAW STORY.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) says in the release, "Halliburton has gone to extraordinary lengths in the past to do business with the terrorist government in Iran," citing recent Treasure investigations of the multinational's business dealings with Tehran. "The company's odd announcement this week certainly sets off alarm bells about its intention to do business with state sponsors of terrorism. When it comes to Halliburton we can't trust, and we need to verify."

The company announced its plan to relocate its headquarters to the United Arab Emirates on Sunday.

Halliburton chief David J. Lesar praised the move, as it would "help the company focus on the Middle East," calling it "the seat of our operations."

The 52-year-old Lesar, who took over the reins of Halliburton after former CEO Dick Cheney became U.S. vice president, said the move to Dubai, UAE was "the next step in a strategic plan announced in 2006 to focus on expanding Halliburton customer relations with national oil companies."

Elsewhere, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), likely 2008 presidential candidate, also issued a statement in response to the Halliburton announcement.

"I think that raises a lot of serious issues we have to look at," said the former First Lady. "Does this mean they are going to quit paying taxes in America? They are going to take all the advantage of our country but not pay their fair share of taxes?"

She continued, "They get a lot of government contracts - is this going to affect the investigations that are going on? Because we have a lot of evidence of misuse of government contracts and how they have cheated the American soldier and cheated the American taxpayer. They have taken the money and not provided the services, so does this mean that we won't be able to pursue these investigations?"

The junior senator from New York warned, "I think we are going to be looking into that in Washington."

The Lautenberg release in full follows below.

#
In response to the announcement that Halliburton's CEO is moving the company's headquarters to Dubai, United Arab Emirates, U.S. Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) called on the Treasury Department to make sure Halliburton's move is not part of a larger effort to increase Halliburton's business with Iran by evading current U.S. sanctions laws prohibiting any U.S. company from doing business with terrorist states.

Under current U.S. terror sanctions law, U.S. companies are prohibited from doing business with certain terrorist nations. However, the law contains a loophole that allows foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies to do business with terrorist states. Senator Lautenberg authored legislation in the last Congress that would have extended the reach of sanctions laws to the foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies. The measure failed by one vote, but Lautenberg plans to reintroduce the legislation this year.

In recent years the U.S. Department of Treasury's Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) and the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Texas has investigated Halliburton's business with Iran through its foreign subsidiary, Halliburton Products & Services, Ltd (HPSL). These investigations have all focused on whether Halliburton has violated U.S. terror sanctions law by using HPSL as a front company to do business with Iran.

"Halliburton has gone to extraordinary lengths in the past to do business with the terrorist government in Iran," said Senator Lautenberg. "Given Halliburton's past dealings with Iran, the company's odd announcement this week certainly sets off alarm bells about its intention to do business with state sponsors of terrorism. When it comes to Halliburton we can't trust, and we need to verify."



.










--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cheney preaches to Pakistan

I imagine Musharraf did not invite Cheney to go hunting with him!


Cheney warns Pak on terror
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NDTV Correspondent

Monday, February 26, 2007 (Islamabad):


Paying a surprise visit to Pakistan, US Vice President Dick Cheney on Monday voiced apprehensions over regrouping of al-Qaeda in its border areas with Afghanistan at a meeting with President Pervez Musharraf.

Cheney held two-hour-long talks with Musharraf in the backdrop of reports in the US that President George W Bush has decided to send a tough message to the Pakistani president that aid would cut to Islamabad if al-Qaeda militants were not hunted down.

"Cheney expressed US apprehensions of regrouping of al-Qaeda in the tribal areas and called for concerted efforts in countering the threat," according to a Pakistan government statement issued after the meeting.

He expressed serious US concerns on the intelligence being picked up of an impending Taliban and al-Qaeda "spring offensive" against allied forces in Afghanistan," the statement said.

Pivotal role

Cheney, however, appreciated Pakistan's pivotal role in the fight against terrorism and pledged to further augment mutually beneficial multifaceted ties.

Musharraf, on complaints relating to Pakistan's lack of co-operation in cracking down on Taliban, told Cheney that the international community was collectively responsible for defeating the scourge of terrorism and curbing militant activities inside Afghanistan.

Musharraf said Pakistan has done the maximum in the fight against terrorism, but stressed that joint efforts were needed for achieving the desired objectives.

He also briefed Cheney about the Indo-Pak talks to resolve their differences over Kashmir and other issues. (With PTI Inputs)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Halliburton, Cheney, Iran nuclear technology

Cheney is singing a different tune these days. This is from Project Censored that lists stories ignored by the mainstream media.


Global Research.ca, August 5, 2005
Title: “Halliburton Secretly Doing Business With Key Member of Iran’s Nuclear Team”
Author: Jason Leopold

Faculty Evaluator: Catherine Nelson
Student Researchers: Kristine Medeiros and Pla Herr

According to journalist Jason Leopold, sources at former Cheney company Halliburton allege that, as recently as January of 2005, Halliburton sold key components for a nuclear reactor to an Iranian oil development company. Leopold says his Halliburton sources have intimate knowledge of the business dealings of both Halliburton and Oriental Oil Kish, one of Iran’s largest private oil companies.

Additionally, throughout 2004 and 2005, Halliburton worked closely with Cyrus Nasseri, the vice chairman of the board of directors of Iran-based Oriental Oil Kish, to develop oil projects in Iran. Nasseri is also a key member of Iran’s nuclear development team. Nasseri was interrogated by Iranian authorities in late July 2005 for allegedly providing Halliburton with Iran’s nuclear secrets. Iranian government officials charged Nasseri with accepting as much as $1 million in bribes from Halliburton for this information.

Oriental Oil Kish dealings with Halliburton first became public knowledge in January 2005 when the company announced that it had subcontracted parts of the South Pars gas-drilling project to Halliburton Products and Services, a subsidiary of Dallas-based Halliburton that is registered to the Cayman Islands. Following the announcement, Halliburton claimed that the South Pars gas field project in Tehran would be its last project in Iran. According to a BBC report, Halliburton, which took thirty to forty million dollars from its Iranian operations in 2003, “was winding down its work due to a poor business environment.”

However, Halliburton has a long history of doing business in Iran, starting as early as 1995, while Vice President Cheney was chief executive of the company. Leopold quotes a February 2001 report published in the Wall Street Journal, “Halliburton Products and Services Ltd., works behind an unmarked door on the ninth floor of a new north Tehran tower block. A brochure declares that the company was registered in 1975 in the Cayman Islands, is based in the Persian Gulf sheikdom of Dubai and is “non-American.” But like the sign over the receptionist’s head, the brochure bears the company’s name and red emblem, and offers services from Halliburton units around the world.” Moreover mail sent to the company’s offices in Tehran and the Cayman Islands is forwarded directly to its Dallas headquarters.

In an attempt to curtail Halliburton and other U.S. companies from engaging in business dealings with rogue nations such as Libya, Iran, and Syria, an amendment was approved in the Senate on July 26, 2005. The amendment, sponsored by Senator Susan Collins R-Maine, would penalize companies that continue to skirt U.S. law by setting up offshore subsidiaries as a way to legally conduct and avoid U.S. sanctions under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

A letter, drafted by trade groups representing corporate executives, vehemently objected to the amendment, saying it would lead to further hatred and perhaps incite terrorist attacks on the U.S. and “greatly strain relations with the United States primary trading partners.” The letter warned that, “Foreign governments view U.S. efforts to dictate their foreign and commercial policy as violations of sovereignty often leading them to adopt retaliatory measures more at odds with U.S. goals.”

Collins supports the legislation, stating, “It prevents U.S. corporations from creating a shell company somewhere else in order to do business with rogue, terror-sponsoring nations such as Syria and Iran. The bottom line is that if a U.S. company is evading sanctions to do business with one of these countries, they are helping to prop up countries that support terrorism—most often aimed against America.

UPDATE BY JASON LEOPOLD
During a trip to the Middle East in March 1996, Vice President Dick Cheney told a group of mostly U.S. businessmen that Congress should ease sanctions in Iran and Libya to foster better relationships, a statement that, in hindsight, is completely hypocritical considering the Bush administration’s foreign policy.

“Let me make a generalized statement about a trend I see in the U.S. Congress that I find disturbing, that applies not only with respect to the Iranian situation but a number of others as well,” Cheney said. “I think we Americans sometimes make mistakes . . . There seems to be an assumption that somehow we know what’s best for everybody else and that we are going to use our economic clout to get everybody else to live the way we would like.”

Cheney was the chief executive of Halliburton Corporation at the time he uttered those words. It was Cheney who directed Halliburton toward aggressive business dealings with Iran—in violation of U.S. law—in the mid-1990s, which continued through 2005 and is the reason Iran has the capability to enrich weapons-grade uranium.
It was Halliburton’s secret sale of centrifuges to Iran that helped get the uranium enrichment program off the ground, according to a three-year investigation that includes interviews conducted with more than a dozen current and former Halliburton employees.

If the U.S. ends up engaged in a war with Iran in the future, Cheney and Halliburton will bear the brunt of the blame.
But this shouldn’t come as a shock to anyone who has been following Halliburton’s business activities over the past decade. The company has a long, documented history of violating U.S. sanctions and conducting business with so-called rogue nations.

No, what’s disturbing about these facts is how little attention it has received from the mainstream media. But the public record speaks for itself, as do the thousands of pages of documents obtained by various federal agencies that show how Halliburton’s business dealings in Iran helped fund terrorist activities there—including the country’s nuclear enrichment program.

When I asked Wendy Hall, a spokeswoman for Halliburton, a couple of years ago if Halliburton would stop doing business with Iran because of concerns that the company helped fund terrorism she said, “No.” “We believe that decisions as to the nature of such governments and their actions are better made by governmental authorities and international entities such as the United Nations as opposed to individual persons or companies,” Hall said. “Putting politics aside, we and our affiliates operate in countries to the extent it is legally permissible, where our customers are active as they expect us to provide oilfield services support to their international operations. “We do not always agree with policies or actions of governments in every place that we do business and make no excuses for their behaviors. Due to the long-term nature of our business and the inevitability of political and social change, it is neither prudent nor appropriate for our company to establish our own country-by-country foreign policy.”

Halliburton first started doing business in Iran as early as 1995, while Vice President Cheney was chief executive of the company and in possible violation of U.S. sanctions.

An executive order signed by former President Bill Clinton in March 1995 prohibits “new investments (in Iran) by U.S. persons, including commitment of funds or other assets.” It also bars U.S. companies from performing services “that would benefit the Iranian oil industry” and provide Iran with the financial means to engage in terrorist activity.
When Bush and Cheney came into office in 2001, their administration decided it would not punish foreign oil and gas companies that invest in those countries. The sanctions imposed on countries like Iran and Libya before Bush became president were blasted by Cheney, who gave frequent speeches on the need for U.S. companies to compete with their foreign competitors, despite claims that those countries may have ties to terrorism.

“I think we’d be better off if we, in fact, backed off those sanctions (on Iran), didn’t try to impose secondary boycotts on companies . . . trying to do business over there . . . and instead started to rebuild those relationships,” Cheney said during a 1998 business trip to Sydney, Australia, according to Australia’s Illawarra Mercury newspaper