In article ,
jeff wrote:

Stephen Trapani wrote:
jeff wrote:
Stephen Trapani wrote:
jeff wrote:
Stephen Trapani wrote:
jeff wrote:
Stephen Trapani wrote:
jeff wrote:


Think about what you're saying. Cheney, who was selected by Bush
as his running mate, so badly wanted to be *vice-president* that
he surreptitiously promised to sacrifice the well being of the
country so these companies could make billions and billions of
dollars in profits.

No. He did it out of habit. It's the system he knows, the people
he trusts. It just turns out that his friends, relatives,
associates etc. are the ones who make money.

So anyone with a habit of taking such huge risk

What risk? I'd bet that Cheney could reveal the identity of a
secret agent just for political purposes and get away with it!

So you think massive corruption worth billions isn't much of a risk.
I see.

When you make the rules, the risks are minimal. When your
chief-of-staff will take the fall, the risks are minimal. And for
billions of dollars, the risks are acceptable. If you're connected
enough, the SEC doesn't bother to investigate when you dump stock a
few weeks before announcing major losses. Only a few ever get
punished - that's only when the crimes are in the Enron scale.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7444083.stm

A BBC investigation estimates that around $23bn (£11.75bn) may have been
lost, stolen or just not properly accounted for in Iraq.

For the first time, the extent to which some private contractors have
profited from the conflict and rebuilding has been researched by the
BBC's Panorama using US and Iraqi government sources.

A US gagging order is preventing discussion of the allegations.

The order applies to 70 court cases against some of the top US companies.

While George Bush remains in the White House, it is unlikely the gagging
orders will be lifted.

To date, no major US contractor faces trial for fraud or mismanagement
in Iraq.
--
Molesworth