PDA

View Full Version : Bush/Cheney - The Weakest Link?



Julie
06 Oct 04,, 14:53
Cheney asserted Saddam's Iraq "had an established relationship with Al Qaeda."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6189795/


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6188101/

turnagainarm
06 Oct 04,, 15:57
Can you believe when Chenney was CEO of Haliburtan he was doing business with both Iran and Iraq and violating US sanctions against these countries?

That is beyound pale by any standard.

Julie
06 Oct 04,, 19:04
Can you believe when Chenney was CEO of Haliburtan he was doing business with both Iran and Iraq and violating US sanctions against these countries?

That is beyound pale by any standard.


Absolutely. And, I totally agree. Not only that, Halliburton is still receiving payment for services rendered. Bush and Cheney assert that Halliburton was the only corporation available and qualified to perform the work in the time allotted.

That is a lie. Immediately after the fall of Saddam, Kofi Annan, publically asserted that the UN would come in and aid in the reconstruction, immediately. The Bush administration said, "nah, if you didn't help with the invasion, you will not benefit from the reconstruction contracts."

Not only that, but how can the US hold the UN accountable for the mis-management of the oil-for-food program monies, when a US politician was doing dirty deeds with countries under sanctions???? The US credibility is shot.

In summary, because of the decision-making of the Bush Administration, we are incurring the majority of the costs of the war, plus the costs of reconstruction.

Ray
06 Oct 04,, 19:10
Can you believe when Chenney was CEO of Haliburtan he was doing business with both Iran and Iraq and violating US sanctions against these countries?

That is beyound pale by any standard.

I don't believe it.

turnagainarm
06 Oct 04,, 19:39
I don't believe it.

Ray, it's been known for years. Haliburton was even fined millions for doing business with sanctioned countries.

As expected John Edward brought these up during his deabte against Chenney.

Gio
06 Oct 04,, 22:16
There you go again, DNC help you? DNC Talking point #1: Scream Haliburtan until the public forgets John Kerry's 30 year senate record.

turnagainarm
06 Oct 04,, 22:54
There you go again, DNC help you? DNC Talking point #1: Scream Haliburtan until the public forgets John Kerry's 30 year senate record.

Gio,

Is it wrong to bring up Haliburton? You don't see problem with Haliburton doing business with Iraq/Iran during the 90's when these countries were under US sanctions?

You don't see any problem with Haliburton awarded unbid contract worth billions of dollers?

By the way Kerry does not have a 30 year seneate record, he has only 20 year long senate record, and depending on the perspective i.e. if you are a democrat/liberal his record is just fine!

Gio
07 Oct 04,, 01:26
20 years granted. I fail to see how this is an issue anyway, what are you guys doing? Rallying the Mike Moore electorate? Is this how you're moving twords the centre? Last night's debate with brilliant, it achived its main objective of rallying the GOP base by throwing Kerry's record for the nation to see. Campaign rhetoric and promises can't hide 20 years of incompetantace on the military. And it may suit you fine, but reality check: 1/3rd of your base is hawks! Have fun!

Julie
07 Oct 04,, 01:38
20 years granted. I fail to see how this is an issue anyway, what are you guys doing? Rallying the Mike Moore electorate? Is this how you're moving twords the centre? Last night's debate with brilliant, it achived its main objective of rallying the GOP base by throwing Kerry's record for the nation to see. Campaign rhetoric and promises can't hide 20 years of incompetantace on the military. And it may suit you fine, but reality check: 1/3rd of your base is hawks! Have fun!

Gio, it is an issue because Bush had no Senate record when voted as President....AND IT SHOWS !!! :biggrin:

Confed999
07 Oct 04,, 01:52
"had an established relationship with Al Qaeda."
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi

turnagainarm
07 Oct 04,, 11:49
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi


CIA said he did not have any link with Saddam regime.

Notice how Bush has chaned his rhetoric on the campaign trail and he nows says Zarqawi was in Iraq instead of his previous mantra that Zatqawi had links with Saddam.

Confed999
08 Oct 04,, 00:34
CIA said he did not have any link with Saddam regime.
Link? I'm going by a DOD release, and haven't seen anything refuting that he had recieved medical assistance in Baghdad. Somebody like this can't wander around a police state without the people in charge knowing it.

Ray
08 Oct 04,, 08:16
Politicians all over the world are incompetent and that is not a new thing for anyone to know.

However, politicians work under certain paradigm:

1. Be populist.
2. Don't rock the boat.
3. Keep your eye on the next election. That is why a President is bolder in his second term since he knows he won't be able to stand for another election.

Therefore, personally they maybe brilliant, but are constrained by the paradigm or matrix of operation.

Gio
08 Oct 04,, 09:12
I don't like populism, i see too many sheep.

Julie
08 Oct 04,, 14:28
Get this. Now if the US can ban the Boeing deal because of corrupt "sweeheart deals", and conflicts of interest.....shouldn't Haliburton fall under that same philosophy?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6204923/

Fonnicker
08 Oct 04,, 14:51
Americans, for some reason, don't want to see the corruption in our own government. It didn't just start with Bush. The lobbies have owned senate and congressional seats for decades now. Our politicians are for sale, but they are not cheap.

What angers me is that Bush throws it in our faces as if to say, "Oh yeah, well what are YOU going to do about it!" There wasn't even an attempt to hide the no-bid contracts given to Halliburton.

I keep reading mention of Kerry's incompetence in the Senate. George Bush hasn't been successful in anything accept stealing the election. His businesses were all a flop, but were bailed out by rich friends (the Saudi's among them) a good portion of which are reaping the benefits with high level post as ambassadors and the like. It's all a matter of public record and nobody seems to care. George Bush had and has absolutely no valid qualifications. If treated like a job interview, you'd laugh him out of your office. "Come back when you have some experience," you'd say. "I don't care who your Daddy is."

turnagainarm
08 Oct 04,, 18:22
Link? I'm going by a DOD release, and haven't seen anything refuting that he had recieved medical assistance in Baghdad. Somebody like this can't wander around a police state without the people in charge knowing it.

I guess this piece of news skipped your attention.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/06/politics/06intel.html
The C.I.A. report, sent to policy makers in August, says it is now not clear whether Mr. Hussein's government harbored members of a group led by the Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the officials said. The assertion that Iraq provided refuge to Mr. Zarqawi was the primary basis for the administration's prewar assertions connecting Iraq to Al Qaeda.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1321538,00.html

A separate CIA report, leaked to the US press this week, severely weakened the Bush claim of a link between Baghdad and al-Qaida. It found no clear evidence of Iraq harbouring Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist believed to be behind many of the attacks and now holding the British hostage, Kenneth Bigley.



Pay attention to what CIA is saying, CIA is saying we don't know.

Julie
08 Oct 04,, 19:12
This has been such a productive and enlightening thread for me. All I want to know now is what the heck is Bush doing in office and WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT? :mad:

Fonnicker
08 Oct 04,, 20:49
Well, with any luck, he won't be re-elected. Unfortunately, there is an incredible amount of voters out there who have their blinders on. Perhaps this war is legitimate. Perhaps Bush was right in going in there. Perhaps Kerry won't change all that much. It doesn't change the fact that outside of the war on terror, George Bush is an aweful president. He hasn't done a positive thing for this country to date, and don't tell me about education reform because the results are still out on that one.

Fonnicker
08 Oct 04,, 20:52
Get this. Now if the US can ban the Boeing deal because of corrupt "sweeheart deals", and conflicts of interest.....shouldn't Haliburton fall under that same philosophy?

No, because Boeing isn't in bed with the bush administration, like haliburton is. Hmmmm, Tony Blair is too. Boeing's lost contracts are pretty sweet for Airbus.

Fonnicker
08 Oct 04,, 21:50
This has been such a productive and enlightening thread for me. All I want to know now is what the heck is Bush doing in office and WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT? :mad:

Julie,

I can only think of one reason why bush is currently in office:

"The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything" - Josef Stalin

Julie
08 Oct 04,, 21:58
Julie,

I can only think of one reason why bush is currently in office:

"The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything" - Josef Stalin


That is the sad truth. Well, what will be, will be.

Confed999
09 Oct 04,, 22:13
No, because Boeing isn't in bed with the bush administration, like haliburton is.
Clinton was in bed with Haliburton too then right? What about the contracts they didn't get?

I guess this piece of news skipped your attention.
LOL! I can't read everything. ;)

Pay attention to what CIA is saying, CIA is saying we don't know.
Yeah, it's called intel. Kinda like the WMD, but nothing there says it didn't happen, just that it's questionable, as is all intelligence. But thanks for the links... BTW, I can't read the first one, was it from the supposed "leaked" CIA document as well?

turnagainarm
09 Oct 04,, 23:31
Yeah, it's called intel. Kinda like the WMD, but nothing there says it didn't happen, just that it's questionable, as is all intelligence. But thanks for the links... BTW, I can't read the first one, was it from the supposed "leaked" CIA document as well?

For reading NewYork Times article you will need to register at their site ( its free ), you can register at www.nytimes.com.

What it says is that we don't if it happend or not. Going by WMD expample you have to say that it did not.

I believe the information was from a memo released by CIA.

Hk40
17 Oct 04,, 23:09
Cheney asserted Saddam's Iraq "had an established relationship with Al Qaeda."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6189795/


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6188101/

Julie - I admit I am a Republican. I also admit that I too wa taken assunder by the Bush Admin lies, distorted half-facts, and dillusions. I also am pissed-off about it! I will vote Kerry/Edwards, I may to send a message even switch my registration to Democrat sending another message. Bush had 3 chances to come clean with us his people and instead we see him bully up on Kerry and look like an idiot in the process! What a fool! He talks about Kerry's track record in the Senate. Kerry ought to come back with - Mr. President your track record as 4 years as President and Commander in Chief - Is a Disgrace! And You should be Shamed! And Ashamed of yourself talking to us about track records?!?! What A BoneHead!

Julie
17 Oct 04,, 23:12
You Go Hk40 !!!! ;)

Hk40
17 Oct 04,, 23:24
You Go Hk40 !!!! ;)
I think most of the Nation would agree - That Bush should've said - Ya know what - I did make a mistake. I really wanted to topple Sadam Hussein. I figured at best that he was re-working the WMD Programs we had destroyed in the previous war and I figured we'd send a message to all the other MiddleEast countries that might be thinking about starting programs of their own. We will go to war in Iraq for these reasons. (Long Pause) Of course that didn't happen - And look at the fool?!?! Getting all excited and red?!?!? Looking like a dork! Just a dork!

Julie
17 Oct 04,, 23:31
I grimace at people who won't admit to their obvious mistakes. I had a husband like that once, stubborn as a mule, and an ego the size of Texas. :)

smilingassassin
18 Oct 04,, 00:11
Can you believe when Chenney was CEO of Haliburtan he was doing business with both Iran and Iraq and violating US sanctions against these countries?

That is beyound pale by any standard.

Not really France Germany and Russia have been doing it for a while now.....

Julie
18 Oct 04,, 02:55
Not really France Germany and Russia have been doing it for a while now.....

Oh well then, that just makes it A-ok for the US. What was that you said about our morals being in Hollywood or something?

Confed999
18 Oct 04,, 02:59
Oh well then, that just makes it A-ok for the US. What was that you said about our morals being in Hollywood or something?
Someone else made the comparison, he corrected them.

Fonnicker
18 Oct 04,, 03:01
Not really France Germany and Russia have been doing it for a while now.....


So, by your logic...if it's okay for them it's okay for our leaders? I thought we were better than that! No....I take that back. We haven't been better than that in a long time. Now we're just getting worse. Bush/Cheney are a disgrace to this country. The don't even care enough, or have enough respect for America, to even try to hide their blatent financial gain from this war.

smilingassassin
18 Oct 04,, 03:02
Oh well then, that just makes it A-ok for the US. What was that you said about our morals being in Hollywood or something?

Yet you only focus on the U.S for their deeds, whos the bigger hypocrit?
wheres your compasion for Chechen suffering under the Russians, or the Sudanese because there is no Oil for the French to gobble up?

To you only the U.S. is evil and are your sole target in your quest for Moral eqivilence.

Confed999
18 Oct 04,, 03:03
So, by your logic...if it's okay for them it's okay for our leaders?
That's not what he said, in fact he has repeatedly said the opposite.

smilingassassin
18 Oct 04,, 03:04
So, by your logic...if it's okay for them it's okay for our leaders? I thought we were better than that! No....I take that back. We haven't been better than that in a long time. Now we're just getting worse. Bush/Cheney are a disgrace to this country. The don't even care enough, or have enough respect for America, to even try to hide their blatent financial gain from this war.

Not at all, these are instances you choose to egnore, in your quest to demonise the U.S.

If your so morally superior why not whine about these "atrocites" equally?

Fonnicker
18 Oct 04,, 03:15
Not at all, these are instances you choose to egnore, in your quest to demonise the U.S.

If your so morally superior why not whine about these "atrocites" equally?


You chose to ignore that we do not demonise the US. I chose to "demonise" our current administration. Frankly, they don't need my help at all. The American people are good people, it just happens that we made a mistake in electing a man with too many coorporate ties and absolutely no qualifications to run this country. He won by name alone.

Confed999
18 Oct 04,, 03:19
You chose to ignore that we do not demonise the US. I chose to "demonise" our current administration. Frankly, they don't need my help at all. The American people are good people, it just happens that we made a mistake in electing a man with too many coorporate ties and absolutely no qualifications to run this country. He won by name alone.
Now you have the choice of him, or the man who fully supported regime change in Iraq, and with his vote was more directly responsable than the Prez, until he saw a chance for political gain, then his story changed.

Julie
18 Oct 04,, 03:21
Yet you only focus on the U.S for their deeds, whos the bigger hypocrit?
wheres your compasion for Chechen suffering under the Russians, or the Sudanese because there is no Oil for the French to gobble up?

To you only the U.S. is evil and are your sole target in your quest for Moral eqivilence.

My criticism is with my country that is causing the suffering of innocent people...right now mainly Iraqis. If I were a Russian citizen, I would probably be pleading the case of the suffering Chechens, but, I'm not. Furthermore, I do believe there are moral boundaries that we should adhere to, in any given situation, with respect to others involved. Respect and moral aspects was part of my childhood rearing, and I stand by them to this day. But, maybe you wouldn't understand such things.

smilingassassin
18 Oct 04,, 03:22
Exactly, Kerry voted for use of force, beleived Saddam DID pose a threat and now its "the wrong war, wrong time and wrong place". That sure helps our troops moral, and the enemy's cause.

Confed999
18 Oct 04,, 03:23
I chose to "demonise" our current administration.
Funny, you choose to demonize someone that removed 2 tyrannical governments, and gave 40+ million a chance to be free, but the people before him that just left the tyrants in power are not demonic.

Confed999
18 Oct 04,, 03:24
My criticism is with my country that is causing the suffering of innocent people...
They were allready suffering...

Fonnicker
18 Oct 04,, 03:24
Now you have the choice of him, or the man who fully supported regime change in Iraq, and with his vote was more directly responsable than the Prez, until he saw a chance for political gain, then his story changed.


The president would be a better man if he acknowledged the mistake. Kerry, among a significant percentage of this country, changed his tune when we realized that we were wrong about Iraq. The entire argument put forth by this adminstration was that Iraq has WMDs. Absolutely. Without a doubt. A 100% certainty. Well, ooops.

smilingassassin
18 Oct 04,, 03:31
My criticism is with my country that is causing the suffering of innocent people...right now mainly Iraqis.

Yet you choose to egnore the fact that they are also threatened by Saddams regeime and pose a threat to YOUR country. You don't care about their suffering before the war, but you do after because your president takes action to secure your safety.




If I were a Russian citizen, I would probably be pleading the case of the suffering Chechens, but, I'm not.

No you wouldn't, not when your family recieves a personally delivered tape of your son's beheading from chechen rebels just accross the border. Joe russia is a hop skip and a jump away from retribution, not miles away from the horror's or war.



Furthermore, I do believe there are moral boundaries that we should adhere to, in any given situation, with respect to others involved. Respect and moral aspects was part of my childhood rearing, and I stand by them to this day. But, maybe you wouldn't understand such things.

Nice try but I do, 9/11 was a slap in the face and a dirrect challenge to my respect. Terrorists have no respect for your space, or your life. My grandfather fought at Deippe and D-day not to disrespect others but to fight oppression.
the same oppression islamic terrorists would like to enslave us with. We are nothing more than infedels to them, don't you get it?

smilingassassin
18 Oct 04,, 03:32
The president would be a better man if he acknowledged the mistake. Kerry, among a significant percentage of this country, changed his tune when we realized that we were wrong about Iraq. The entire argument put forth by this adminstration was that Iraq has WMDs. Absolutely. Without a doubt. A 100% certainty. Well, ooops.

Hey changed his tune to get elected, you obviously didn't follow the democratic leadership race.

Fonnicker
18 Oct 04,, 03:35
Funny, you choose to demonize someone that removed 2 tyrannical governments, and gave 40+ million a chance to be free, but the people before him that just left the tyrants in power are not demonic.

Everyone in the world not involved with our coalition are demonic?

smilingassassin
18 Oct 04,, 03:37
Funny, you choose to demonize someone that removed 2 tyrannical governments, and gave 40+ million a chance to be free, but the people before him that just left the tyrants in power are not demonic.

It gets better to.....now with an overstretched military and no help from france and germany (slighted by the U.S. scuttling their backdoor deals) the U.S also has to tackel Iran and south korea!!!

Confed999
18 Oct 04,, 03:38
Hey changed his tune to get elected, you obviously didn't follow the democratic leadership race.
100% correct.

Confed999
18 Oct 04,, 03:40
Everyone in the world not involved with our coalition are demonic?
Alot more so than ones that didn't support the tyrant.

Fonnicker
18 Oct 04,, 03:43
It gets better to.....now with an overstretched military and no help from france and germany (slighted by the U.S. scuttling their backdoor deals) the U.S also has to tackel Iran and south korea!!!


So, now were going to tackle south korea too? Isn't north korea good enough?

Julie
18 Oct 04,, 03:47
Exactly, Kerry voted for use of force, beleived Saddam DID pose a threat and now its "the wrong war, wrong time and wrong place". That sure helps our troops moral, and the enemy's cause.

Kerry, and others, voted to allow the use of force in Iraq. However, when they voted, they had no idea Bush was going to go with or without UN approval (Congress described this measure as giving him the gun, but not blowing his foot off with it). When he did, the money for the war was voted down to stop Bush from invading unilaterally. The "less than adequate" war plan is what effected the troop moral, since they have been writing home about it for awhile now.

Julie
18 Oct 04,, 03:49
So, now were going to tackle south korea too? Isn't north korea good enough?
:eek:

Confed999
18 Oct 04,, 03:57
Kerry, and others, voted to allow the use of force in Iraq. However, when they voted, they had no idea Bush was going to go with or without UN approval
ROTFL! "even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act" - John Kerry

smilingassassin
18 Oct 04,, 03:58
"So, now were going to tackle south korea too? Isn't north korea good enough?"

Oh thats funny, you know what I ment, care to get back on the real topic?

You still have to adress why Kerry took Howard Deans election platform and used it as his own when he saw what effect it was having.

Fonnicker
18 Oct 04,, 04:02
"So, now were going to tackle south korea too? Isn't north korea good enough?"

Oh thats funny, you know what I ment, care to get back on the real topic?

You still have to adress why Kerry took Howard Deans election platform and used it as his own when he saw what effect it was having.


Truth is, I didn't give a rats pooper which democrat won the nomination or which platform they used to run. I'm not a democrat any more than I am a republican. I hold no party affiliation, because I believe we should vote for the person rather than the machine that fuels the person. I stand firmly on my "anyone but Bush" campain.

smilingassassin
18 Oct 04,, 04:04
Right so you'd elect a KNOWN flip flopper into office rather than a man who is from Texas, is dumb and who dosn't contain terrorists.

Fonnicker
18 Oct 04,, 04:08
Right so you'd elect a KNOWN flip flopper into office rather than a man who is from Texas, is dumb and who dosn't contain terrorists.

yup.

Confed999
18 Oct 04,, 04:14
yup.
Then you're voting for one of the people that took us to war. There goes your anti-war stance.

smilingassassin
18 Oct 04,, 04:15
Then I fear your intelect is seriously flawed.

Julie
18 Oct 04,, 04:15
Right so you'd elect a KNOWN flip flopper into office rather than a man who is from Texas, is dumb and who dosn't contain terrorists.

Personally, I've never cared much for cowboys...they just don't seem to have much common sense. As for Texas.....don't care much for Texans.....creepy things always seem to happen in Texas, i.e., Texas Chainsaw Massacre, for instance.

smilingassassin
18 Oct 04,, 04:17
Oh and Massachusetts is a safer place, with Teddy Kennedy and his past exploits?!!

Julie
18 Oct 04,, 04:24
Oh and Massachusetts is a safer place, with Teddy Kennedy and his past exploits?!!

I wasn't aware Ted Kennedy was running as a Presidential and/or Vice Presidential candidate. You're getting off topic, we were discussing the two Presidential candidates.

Fonnicker
18 Oct 04,, 04:24
Then I fear your intelect is seriously flawed.


I never kept it hidden how I feel. A person can be against our administration without being against our country. A person can be against this war without being in favor or terrorists. I am anti-Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. Regardless how they or you legitimate the need for this war, I feel that their motivation was far from pure. I feel the same way about them as I did when I felt that Clinton should have been impeached for lying to congress.

regardless the need to stamp out terrorism, our leaders must be s shining example of America, held to the highest scrutiny by the citizens. Our leaders are corrupt and I want them out.

smilingassassin
18 Oct 04,, 04:26
I wasn't aware Ted Kennedy was running as a Presidential and/or Vice Presidential candidate. You're getting off topic, we were discussing the two Presidential candidates.

Kerry is also from Massachusetts...enough said!

Fonnicker
18 Oct 04,, 04:29
Oh and Massachusetts is a safer place, with Teddy Kennedy and his past exploits?!!

Well, at least they don't have the fast track to the electric chair like Texas does. Quick, flip the switch before he has a chance to appeal!

smilingassassin
18 Oct 04,, 04:29
I never kept it hidden how I feel. A person can be against our administration without being against our country. A person can be against this war without being in favor or terrorists. I am anti-Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. Regardless how they or you legitimate the need for this war, I feel that their motivation was far from pure. I feel the same way about them as I did when I felt that Clinton should have been impeached for lying to congress.

regardless the need to stamp out terrorism, our leaders must be s shining example of America, held to the highest scrutiny by the citizens. Our leaders are corrupt and I want them out.


You admited to leaning towards a vote for a man who dosn't know where he stands, and yet vote against a man who clearly states what he intends to do because of your distaste for a war and your un-informed opinion on it. Sounds like a careless waste of a vote to me, but living in a democratic nation, thats your right, something Iraqi's and Afgani's will soon realise as well.

Fonnicker
18 Oct 04,, 04:32
You admited to leaning towards a vote for a man who dosn't know where he stands, and yet vote against a man who clearly states what he intends to do because of your distaste for a war and your un-informed opinion on it. Sounds like a careless waste of a vote to me, but living in a democratic nation, thats your right, something Iraqi's and Afgani's will soon realism as well.


I wonder why whenever I mention the corruption and corporate gains of the Bush administration, I get no argument? It must be true. Is this a quality that you respect in a leader, or are you willing to overlook it due to blind patriotism?

smilingassassin
18 Oct 04,, 04:37
I wonder why whenever I mention the corruption and corporate gains of the Bush administration, I get no argument? It must be true. Is this a quality that you respect in a leader, or are you willing to overlook it due to blind patriotism?


......and what gains would that be? Oh thats right haliberton...oh wait Cheney was no longer CEO of haliberton! If you really had a distate for corperate coddling you'd vote for Nader.

Julie
18 Oct 04,, 04:55
......and what gains would that be? Oh thats right haliberton...oh wait Cheney was no longer CEO of haliberton! If you really had a distate for corperate coddling you'd vote for Nader.

He stepped down as CEO of Halliburton when he took office.....but he is still retains a shareholder interest in the company....or should I say subsidy companies so he can not be traced easily to Hallliburton.

Gio
18 Oct 04,, 12:51
He stepped down as CEO of Halliburton when he took office.....but he is still retains a shareholder interest in the company....or should I say subsidy companies so he can not be traced easily to Hallliburton.
Hmm I believe you're incorrect, as i recall he sold all his stock in the firm before becoming vice president.
From 2000:


Washington Republican vice presidential candidate Dick Cheney sold 660,000 shares of Halliburton Co. worth about $35 million in August, his spokesman said Tuesday.
Cheney recently announced that, if elected, he would forfeit any options that have not been vested by the time he assumes office.

http://www.ljworld.com/section/nationalpolitics/story/26464

I can't believe we're at this point? Democrats trying to lecture someone on corp support? You're as marinated with corp backing as the Republicans are! It screams of hypocrisy. A party running to two laywers with vast corp funding trying to lecture on special interests. LOL Save it for the green party convention, you won't get any help from your party's operatives the way they take money from the corps, lawyers, unions and many other interest.

Fonnicker
18 Oct 04,, 16:11
......and what gains would that be? Oh thats right haliberton...oh wait Cheney was no longer CEO of haliberton! If you really had a distate for corperate coddling you'd vote for Nader.


Yes, but he left office to chair the Haliburton after granting no bid contracts to them. Coincidence? Also, he is still a shareholder who stands to gain from their new contrats.

Fonnicker
18 Oct 04,, 16:19
Hmm I believe you're incorrect, as i recall he sold all his stock in the firm before becoming vice president.
From 2000:

http://www.ljworld.com/section/nationalpolitics/story/26464

I can't believe we're at this point? Democrats trying to lecture someone on corp support? You're as marinated with corp backing as the Republicans are! It screams of hypocrisy. A party running to two laywers with vast corp funding trying to lecture on special interests. LOL Save it for the green party convention, you won't get any help from your party's operatives the way they take money from the corps, lawyers, unions and many other interest.


I believe all politicians are guilty of that. This isn't news. Its a fundamental flaw of our government. Big corporations buy our leaders and influence legislation. We haven't been a representative democracy in decades. However, using the lawyer argument doesn't fly either. It's a bit more conspicuous when Oil men run our country with pre 9/11 agendas in Iraq, when it's been clearly shown that Saddam was pinned down already having already disarmed his WMDs, no capability to start a nuclear program and a conventional military force too impotent to threaten anyone.

smilingassassin
18 Oct 04,, 20:37
Right so if all politicians do it then it comes back to the fact you want to vote in Kerry, a known flip flopper. Your blind opposition to war is clouding your judgement and common sence.

Julie
19 Oct 04,, 01:27
Right so if all politicians do it then it comes back to the fact you want to vote in Kerry, a known flip flopper. Your blind opposition to war is clouding your judgement and common sence.

You know what I dream to see if Kerry takes office. Kerry being the prosecutor he has been, and while in office chasing down drug cartels.....I would love to see Kerry clean house in the White House.

Confed999
21 Oct 04,, 01:07
I would love to see Kerry clean house in the White House.
Never happen, he is as corrupt as all the rest.

Julie
25 Oct 04,, 19:16
Want to post this important article to bring this thread back alive.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=3&u=/nm/20041025/pl_nm/iraq_halliburton_dc

mtnbiker
26 Oct 04,, 01:22
doubled up, my bad.

mtnbiker
26 Oct 04,, 01:22
Gee, how come you haven't mentioned that Clinton awarded Halliburton a no-bid contract in '97 to work in the Balkans?

Don't you hate it when facts get in the way of the "truth".


In the 1990s, the military looked for ways to get outside help handling the logistics associated with foreign interventions. It came up with the U.S. Army Logistics Civil Augmentation Program, or LOGCAP. The program is a multiyear contract for a corporation to be on call to provide whatever services might be needed quickly.

Halliburton won a competitive bidding process for LOGCAP in 2001. So it was natural to turn to it (actually, to its wholly owned subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root) for prewar planning about handling oil fires in Iraq. "To invite other contractors to compete to perform a highly classified requirement that Kellogg Brown & Root was already under a competitively awarded contract to perform would have been a wasteful duplication of effort," the Army Corps of Engineers commander has written.

Then, in February 2003, the Corps of Engineers gave Halliburton a temporary no-bid contract to implement its classified oil-fire plan. The thinking was it would be absurd to undertake the drawn-out contracting process on the verge of war. If the administration had done that and there had been catastrophic fires, it would now be considered evidence of insufficient postwar planning. And Halliburton was an obvious choice, since it put out 350 oil-well fires in Kuwait after the first Gulf War.

The Clinton administration made the same calculation in its own dealings with Halliburton. The company had won the LOGCAP in 1992, then lost it in 1997. The Clinton administration nonetheless awarded a no-bid contract to Halliburton to continue its work in the Balkans supporting the U.S. peacekeeping mission there because it made little sense to change midstream. According to Byron York, Al Gore's reinventing-government panel even singled out Halliburton for praise for its military logistics work.

So, did Clinton and Gore involve the United States in the Balkans to benefit Halliburton? That charge makes as much sense as the one that Democrats are hurling at Bush now. Would that they directed more of their outrage at the people in Iraq who want to sabotage the country's oil infrastructure, rather than at the U.S. corporation charged with helping repair it.



As even the New York Times admitted the day after the vice presidential debate, "[T]here is no evidence Mr. Cheney has pulled strings on Halliburton's behalf" and "The independent General Accountability Office concluded that Halliburton was the only company that could have provided the services the Army needed at the outset of the war."

Julie
26 Oct 04,, 02:02
Gee, how come you haven't mentioned that Clinton awarded Halliburton a no-bid contract in '97 to work in the Balkans?

Don't you hate it when facts get in the way of the "truth".

"To invite other contractors to compete to perform a highly classified requirement that Kellogg Brown & Root was already under a competitively awarded contract to perform would have been a wasteful duplication of effort,"

I do contract work here in a government facility in my area all of the time. When we are in a bidded contract project that is expanded....they don't re-bid the expansion of the same type of work, it is too much red-tape and time-consuming. Your citation seemed to fit that case scenario. However, the Iraq War was a whole different ballgame in a whole different stadium.

smilingassassin
26 Oct 04,, 02:47
"Don't you hate it when facts get in the way of the "truth"."

Indeed, only Bush is Guilty of ties to Haliberton! The Iraq war makes those ties evil!

Julie
26 Oct 04,, 03:31
"Don't you hate it when facts get in the way of the "truth"."

Indeed, only Bush is Guilty of ties to Haliberton! The Iraq war makes those ties evil!

Like I said, I deal with Government contracts all of the time....the only time a contract is similarly handled is if it is an add-on and/or an expansion of the same contractual area department. A contract covering work to be performed in different parts of the country can not be charged to the same job number and be conforming to governmental regulations. It would be a violation of governmental contractual rules, and whoever was to do that would lose their job.

Did you read the article about the Boeing contracts that were stalled because an employee had awarded Boeing the governmental contract because she wanted her daughter hired at Boeing? That is a severe violation, conflict of interest, and she was suspended until further investigation.

Confed999
27 Oct 04,, 01:52
Indeed, only Bush is Guilty of ties to Haliberton! The Iraq war makes those ties evil!
Yep. I'm pretty sure it was Clinton that made no-bid contracts. Sadly it's a neccesary evil, or the troops will be stuck on the front line waiting for approval of bid contracts. The fact that there are investigations tells me it is nothing epidemic.

Julie
27 Oct 04,, 03:12
Yep. I'm pretty sure it was Clinton that made no-bid contracts. Sadly it's a neccesary evil, or the troops will be stuck on the front line waiting for approval of bid contracts. The fact that there are investigations tells me it is nothing epidemic.

Actually, if you would have read the link, the no-bid contract was awarded 30 days before the Iraq invasion ever happened, so it was pre-emptive. With that in mind, there was plenty of time for bid-contracts.

Confed999
27 Oct 04,, 03:46
Actually, if you would have read the link, the no-bid contract was awarded 30 days before the Iraq invasion ever happened, so it was pre-emptive. With that in mind, there was plenty of time for bid-contracts.
All no-bid contracts should be pre-emptive in that type situation. How do you prepare an all inclusive bid, required for government contracts, when you don't know what it will include? I certainly don't fault Clinton for suppling the troops, and I don't fault Bush for doing it either. If you can provide a direct link with evidence of some actual wrong-doing in either of those cases I will support your position. Until then, because it's how things are done with both Dems and Reps, it's just conspiracy and rhetoric.

Julie
01 Nov 04,, 20:30
All no-bid contracts should be pre-emptive in that type situation. How do you prepare an all inclusive bid, required for government contracts, when you don't know what it will include? I certainly don't fault Clinton for suppling the troops, and I don't fault Bush for doing it either. If you can provide a direct link with evidence of some actual wrong-doing in either of those cases I will support your position. Until then, because it's how things are done with both Dems and Reps, it's just conspiracy and rhetoric.

Found one...http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/11/01/halliburton.ap/index.html

Confed999
02 Nov 04,, 00:07
Found one...http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/11/01/halliburton.ap/index.html
"The page you requested cannot be found. The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable."

Julie
02 Nov 04,, 02:45
"The page you requested cannot be found. The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable."

Well, isn't that just fair and balanced ! That article was just there today, now, poof !...it is gone. Politics stink. It was about a retired General who is backing up the Corp of Engineers employee regarding the Halliburton contracts. I will attempt to find another link, but may be unsuccessful since GOP is on the prowl you know.

Confed999
02 Nov 04,, 03:50
That article was just there today, now, poof
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6323593/ That it? Though it provides only allegations. It's good that it's being investigated.

Julie
02 Nov 04,, 15:13
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6323593/ That it? Though it provides only allegations. It's good that it's being investigated.

No, that isn't it, and I can't find it. For some reason, it has been re-tracted.

Fonnicker
02 Nov 04,, 15:26
No, that isn't it, and I can't find it. For some reason, it has been re-tracted.


I read it yesterday on CNN. I don't get why it's gone.

Julie
02 Nov 04,, 15:35
I read it yesterday on CNN. I don't get why it's gone.

I do. :mad:

Confed999
03 Nov 04,, 00:53
I read it yesterday on CNN. I don't get why it's gone.
Me either, but the articles discussing the last weapons inspector's report on the bribes from the oil-for-food program are all gone too.

Confed999
03 Nov 04,, 00:54
I do. :mad:
I suppose it's a big conspiricy...

smilingassassin
03 Nov 04,, 06:05
Thats why I post the text along with the link whenever possible, as I've been in a similar situation.