27
May
2003
I was referred to an article in the June 2003 issue of Mother Jones, considered a liberal publication, regarding a certain Undersecretary of State for Economic Affairs, Alan Larson, who was appointed to the position under Clinton's administration but curiously retained it when Bush took office. The remaining 36 undersecretaries dutifully resigned as expected with a change in administrations.
The article reported that in February 2000, Vice President Dick Cheney, then CEO of Halliburton Corporation, visited Undersecretary Larson to urge him to release $500 million in federal loan guarantees to a Russian company, Tyumen Oil. According to the article, Larson had blocked the aid due to warnings from the CIA that Tyumen was suspected of "tampering with courts to stage hostile takeovers of rival companies." Tyumen intended to pass along $300 million of the federal subsidies to Halliburton to re-build a Siberian oil field. Two months later, according to Mother Jones, Larson released the funds, and the following January, when Cheney took office, Larson kept his job. Since then, Tyumen has become the first Russian company to supply the U.S. with oil, delivering 285,000 barrels to the federal Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
This article is but one in a growing list that exposes such conflicts of interest relative to Vice President Cheney. Every cent of the $500-million federal loan guarantee is taxpayers' money. All along Cheney has been in a unique position to influence the allocation of such taxpayer dollars, and obviously has. Unfortunately, most of the media is not reporting such information. Would Bush's campaign have suffered such a candidate for vice president if there had been full disclosure of this nature? The mere fact that little if any disclosure was forthcoming during the election, or even now as the administration attempts to control highly sensitive economic systems (i.e., the re-building of Afghanistan and Iraq), makes such scrutiny more important than ever.
The typical response from well-meaning Republicans relative to the above article is that Mother Jones is a liberal magazine and therefore should not be considered a reliable source of information. My question is: Why not? Just because a publication supports a particular political ideology and expresses a certain bias does not necessarily mean inaccurate, unreliable, or irrelevant information is being reported. The facts are easily enough verified. If the data were fabricated, Mother Jones would instantly lose all credibility and eventually fail. Liberal or not, MJ has a sound reputation for journalistic integrity.
So let's assume the information in the above-mentioned article is correct, and that $300 million in subsidies did in fact find their way into Halliburton's coffers. This reflects the gross corporate welfare that true Republicans should abhor. Remember, Republican ideology supports less government. Every nickel of subsidy is in direct conflict with the Republican goal of minimizing government and therefore should be adamantly opposed by true conservatives.
Furthermore, where is the accountability for the glaring conflict of interest on the part of our highest-ranking political officials relative to the spending of millions, perhaps billions, of taxpayers' money? Conservatives should be at the front of the line demanding such accountability, regardless of whose party is in power. A true Republican's duty is to protect capitalism via the political process by ensuring competition in the marketplace and preventing special interests from unduly influencing the allocation of taxpayers' dollars. Every time special interests prevail, competition is denigrated and capitalism is dealt a severe blow.
Finally, because a publication is considered "liberal" or "conservative" should not deter readers from absorbing the information. All publications must adhere to the facts, whether to agree or disagree. Fabrication of data is the kiss of death for any publication of merit. It is important to avail ourselves to as many diverse voices as possible. No one voice has all the answers. To some degree, all publications are influenced by some ideology that impacts what information is presented and how. The mainstream media has become increasingly irrelevant, making it critical for the public to seek alternative perspectives to learn the whole truth. Information is power, but connecting the dots is empowering.
The article reported that in February 2000, Vice President Dick Cheney, then CEO of Halliburton Corporation, visited Undersecretary Larson to urge him to release $500 million in federal loan guarantees to a Russian company, Tyumen Oil. According to the article, Larson had blocked the aid due to warnings from the CIA that Tyumen was suspected of "tampering with courts to stage hostile takeovers of rival companies." Tyumen intended to pass along $300 million of the federal subsidies to Halliburton to re-build a Siberian oil field. Two months later, according to Mother Jones, Larson released the funds, and the following January, when Cheney took office, Larson kept his job. Since then, Tyumen has become the first Russian company to supply the U.S. with oil, delivering 285,000 barrels to the federal Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
This article is but one in a growing list that exposes such conflicts of interest relative to Vice President Cheney. Every cent of the $500-million federal loan guarantee is taxpayers' money. All along Cheney has been in a unique position to influence the allocation of such taxpayer dollars, and obviously has. Unfortunately, most of the media is not reporting such information. Would Bush's campaign have suffered such a candidate for vice president if there had been full disclosure of this nature? The mere fact that little if any disclosure was forthcoming during the election, or even now as the administration attempts to control highly sensitive economic systems (i.e., the re-building of Afghanistan and Iraq), makes such scrutiny more important than ever.
The typical response from well-meaning Republicans relative to the above article is that Mother Jones is a liberal magazine and therefore should not be considered a reliable source of information. My question is: Why not? Just because a publication supports a particular political ideology and expresses a certain bias does not necessarily mean inaccurate, unreliable, or irrelevant information is being reported. The facts are easily enough verified. If the data were fabricated, Mother Jones would instantly lose all credibility and eventually fail. Liberal or not, MJ has a sound reputation for journalistic integrity.
So let's assume the information in the above-mentioned article is correct, and that $300 million in subsidies did in fact find their way into Halliburton's coffers. This reflects the gross corporate welfare that true Republicans should abhor. Remember, Republican ideology supports less government. Every nickel of subsidy is in direct conflict with the Republican goal of minimizing government and therefore should be adamantly opposed by true conservatives.
Furthermore, where is the accountability for the glaring conflict of interest on the part of our highest-ranking political officials relative to the spending of millions, perhaps billions, of taxpayers' money? Conservatives should be at the front of the line demanding such accountability, regardless of whose party is in power. A true Republican's duty is to protect capitalism via the political process by ensuring competition in the marketplace and preventing special interests from unduly influencing the allocation of taxpayers' dollars. Every time special interests prevail, competition is denigrated and capitalism is dealt a severe blow.
Finally, because a publication is considered "liberal" or "conservative" should not deter readers from absorbing the information. All publications must adhere to the facts, whether to agree or disagree. Fabrication of data is the kiss of death for any publication of merit. It is important to avail ourselves to as many diverse voices as possible. No one voice has all the answers. To some degree, all publications are influenced by some ideology that impacts what information is presented and how. The mainstream media has become increasingly irrelevant, making it critical for the public to seek alternative perspectives to learn the whole truth. Information is power, but connecting the dots is empowering.
