Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SlickWillard
You're assuming Baker's trip was on behalf of the Administration or the former President. I suppose that's possible, but it's far from established, at least in this article. He may have been paid by Texana.

But even if we could establish some sort of a link between the former President and Texana, I don't see how it's war profiteering. Oil companies partner up all the time, especially in exploration concessions like these in Nepal. Where's the conflict of interest?

11 posted on 04/15/2002 11:38:01 AM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]


To: Dog Gone
Where's the conflict of interest?

I have not said that there is a conflict of interest, and I have not said that anyone is engaging in war profiteering. However, you can't really say, with a straight face, that this situation doesn't present a rather enormous potential for conflict of interest, and a rather enormous potential for the appearance of impropriety. When the stakes are as big as they are in this matter, people like Jim Baker need to bend over backwards to avoid these sorts of potentials and appearances.

12 posted on 04/15/2002 11:44:37 AM PDT by SlickWillard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson