The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums:
Politics

The Truth About Halliburton?

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
panetti On February 17, 2005




Little Rock, Arkansas
#1New Post! Oct 11, 2004 @ 16:28:00
I've been disappointed that more people haven't researched the Haliburton claims against Cheney. Most libs take other libs' word for it, while so far I don't see a strong defense from the conservative camp (at least not from the ones I'm around).

So, I came across this, which is from the politcally neutral research site that Cheney sadly misstated the address for the other day, fatcheck.org:

@DocID= 261.html" target=_blank >https://factcheck.org/article.aspx @DocID= 261.html

^^This website has some legal documents collected and facts gathered showing that Cheney cut his financial ties with Halliburton before taking office, so thus far any claims that he has been pulling strings for their benefit appear bitterly unfounded. The only "profits" Cheney has been making off of them are deferred payments that are still coming in from when we was an exec (money EARNED honestly), and he has furthermore insured it so that Halliburton's performance in the future, be it for better or worse, will have no affect on the money he receives. Halliburton can flop, and Cheney will still be unaffected.

That's not what the latest Kerry ad wants you to believe though, as it mistates that Cheney is receiving $2 mil from Halliburton while in office. The fact, however, show that the money he is receiving as an insured deferred payment is much less, and the rest was paid before he held office. Bad move, Kerry, gotta check those facts!

Additionally, here are some more tidbits that show Cheney's not quite as close to Halliburton as you might think:

Quote:
Shortly after that, Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg released a legal analysis he'd requested from the Congressional Research Service. Without naming Cheney, the memo concluded a federal official in his position -- with deferred compensation covered by insurance, and stock options whose after-tax profits had been assigned to charity -- would still retain an "interest" that must be reported on an official's annual disclosure forms. And in fact, Cheney does report his options and deferred salary each year.

But the memo reached no firm conclusion as to whether such options or salary constitute an "interest" that would pose a legal conflict. It said "it is not clear" whether assigning option profits to charity would theoretically remove a potential conflict, adding, "no specific published rulings were found on the subject." And it said that insuring deferred compensation "might" remove it as a problem under conflict of interest laws.

Actually, the plain language of the Office of Government Ethics regulations on this matter seems clear enough. The regulations state: "The term financial interest means the potential for gain or loss to the employee . . . as a result of governmental action on the particular matter." So by removing the "potential for gain or loss" Cheney has solid grounds to argue that he has removed any "financial interest" that would pose a conflict under federal regulations.


Quote:
It is important to note here that Cheney could legally have held onto his Halliburton stock options, and no law required him to buy insurance against the possibility that Halliburton wouldn't pay the deferred compensation it owes him. Both the President and Vice President are specifically exempted from federal conflict-of-interest laws, for one thing, as are members of Congress and federal judges.

And even federal officials who are covered by the law may legally own a financial interest in a company, provided they formally recuse themselves -- stand aside -- from making decisions that would have a "direct and predictable effect on that interest." And Cheney says he's done just that.

Cheney says he takes no part in matters relating to Halliburton, and so far we've seen no credible allegation to the contrary. Time magazine reported in its June 7 edition that an e-mail from an unnamed Army Corps of Engineers official stated that a contract to be given to Halliburton in March 2003 "has been coordinated w VP's [Vice President's] office." But it wasn't clear who wrote that e-mail, whether the author had direct knowledge or was just repeating hearsay, or even what was meant by the word "coordinated," which could mean no more than that somebody in Cheney's office was being kept informed of contract talks.

Indeed, a few days later it was revealed that Cheney's chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby was informed in advance that Halliburton was going to receive an earlier contract in the fall of 2002 -- to secretly plan post-war repair of Iraq's oil facilities. But being informed of a decision after it is made is a far cry from taking part in making it. And according to the White House, Libby didn't even pass on the information to Cheney anyway.

So to sum up, this Kerry ad's implication that Cheney has a financial interest in Halliburton is unfounded and the $2 million figure is flat wrong.


Those are just the main highlights though. Check out the link for the full thing.
jeoin On November 12, 2004




#2New Post! Oct 11, 2004 @ 17:07:04
Quote:
or even what was meant by the word "coordinated,"

much like clinton did with the term SEX, it is important to note that Clinton was guilty when he started this similar defense.

Quote:
Indeed, a few days later it was revealed that Cheney's chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby was informed in advance that Halliburton was going to receive an earlier contract in the fall of 2002 -- to secretly plan post-war repair of Iraq's oil facilities. But being informed of a decision after it is made is a far cry from taking part in making it.


I just wonder who else was invited to this planning session BEFORE the war. Didn't it start in April? Thats offtopic, but seems odd that the war was already in such advanced stages before we knew we were going.
Also makes me wonder why the plan failed so well. Remember the Haliburton finacial scandal for feeding troops.
panetti On February 17, 2005




Little Rock, Arkansas
#3New Post! Oct 11, 2004 @ 17:30:49
Read a little more carefully:

Quote:
has been coordinated w VP's [Vice President's] office.


Coordinated with his office, not with him, then the article explains that in detail. Nothing like Clinton's ridiculous definition game (it depends on what "is" is!).

As for the other, there's certainly no harm in asking, but we can't have the benefit of having sat in that room.
jeoin On November 12, 2004




#4New Post! Oct 11, 2004 @ 17:42:07
Quote:
or even what was meant by the word "coordinated,"

i did read it.

Your defense is the difference between the word him and the word office?

Seriously. I mean what other accountablity do you require? He is responsible for his office.

yes, yes i read it. it says no proof.


So when the question was first proposed to the VP office, why did it take several days for the cheif of staff to respond? Oh this isn't important.
I mean several days is plenty of time to get the story straight.

And furthermore: How can you say its okay to do this?
I can see Cheney now "Dear Haliburton if you have any problems with this contract please contact Libbey instead of me. Then Libby and I can handle the details off record."
panetti On February 17, 2005




Little Rock, Arkansas
#5New Post! Oct 11, 2004 @ 17:47:15
I believe what you're asking is why did the decision not get approved by Cheney first then. Well, I suppose that's a valid question indeed.

However, even if Cheney had made the decision himself, there's still no proof of a financial connection. Could it not simply be that having been an exec, he'd know rather well how equipped they were for the job? Would you, in his position, not choose a company you had experience with and trusted?

Just a thought.
jeoin On November 12, 2004




#6New Post! Oct 11, 2004 @ 18:01:31
you see this is where we differ. I see those questions and would like answers. I don't just assume nothing occured.
panetti On February 17, 2005




Little Rock, Arkansas
#7New Post! Oct 11, 2004 @ 18:20:54
I don't assume either, but I don't see evidence for something occuring yet. Don't assume the worse either. I wouldn't mind an answer, but it's nothing to make a judgement with.
brandonmacdonald On October 15, 2004




#8New Post! Oct 11, 2004 @ 21:03:47
No, it would probably be better if whoever these people were before they stole office and moved in to rearrange the way the very fabric of the country operated just went away and I didn't have to think about it.

That way I wouldn't have to care that Bush turned Texas into the dirtiest state in the Union during his tenure as governor, killed more young offenders and questionable felons on death row than any other governer combined over his term in office, and ran more than a dozen businesses into the ground before seeking the more slanted turf of public office.

I wouldn't even bat an eye at the fact that despite being vice president of the United States, d*** Cheney collects a "Consultant" fee (of somewhere in the 1/4 mill area) from Haliburton, a company that recieved no bid contracts on all the money about to be made in Iraq, a country that d*** Cheney himself (while operating CEO of said company), along with Don Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, George HW Bush, Condi, Wolfoqitz, Condi, etc etc was writing letters to then President Clinton telling him to invade Iraq, despite Colin Powel's warnings that Iraq had disarmed and the justification of 911 being used as a justification of pre-emptive war.

I wouldn't have to wonder where Condi's breifings were aimed - why, maybe she would think that a document titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Targets Inside the US with Highjacked Planes" was a historical document - while there was an Exxon tanker running around with her bloody name on the side of it. I wouldn't need to still think that Clinton turning a surpluss with his fingercigard*** in an intern was somehow the cause of all that was wrong with the States during the 90s, despite the fact that, compared to now, very little was wrong.

It would be great, wouldn't it? I mean, look at Afganistan. I wouldn't need to think about the fact that the guy who was just "elected" under horrifyingly cagey circumstances and who has already signed the go-ahead on a subterranean pipeline through his country that stands to make this whooooole group a s***-tonne of money is an old business associate of all of the people mentioned so far in this post....

Unfortunately, these allegations, all readily available facts in a world uncensored by Cheney's magic markers, all do add up and it doesn't mean Americans should just go about their business and re-elect Bush. It's that you should stop listening to what Bill O'Reilley is telling you and go out and find a credible news source.

Noam Chomsky is not a left-wing nut job, as much as they like to tell it. If you want to read about what your government has been doing in your name, and where the names really do lead, check out anything he's written, and if you've really got the stomach for it, chase down his notes sections and find out it's all true.

There is another point, though, that has just struck me, and that is this. Bush might be just what most Americans want. He might just be the easiest way for Americans to go on believing in what their president says, and lets them go about their daily doings, you know, driving their SUV's and polluting the earth with more than 40% of its toxins as a result. Americans don't want to think about thier children's children, or whether Chicago will be under water as the polar ice caps continue to melt do to global warming. That's all downers, man. Americans want to have their Hummer, but not one so big that it doesn't fit on a regular city street. They just want the gas mileage. They don't want to hear about its Army's casualties, because aren't those just poor people anyway? Iraqis are all terrorists, I heard, so all 20,000 of them that have died during this liberation probably deserved it. They hate our freedom, right? Because it can't be because of anything we may have done in the last fifty or so years.

Basically, and this is sad to say, Americans are by and large a selfish bunch, who care little if anything about this world outside of their own borders - read too much into any of the statements made concerning world opinion on this board or even in the pres debates and this is painstakingly obvious. The future is going to come and wash over us just fine, because our president says so. He's not a scientist, or even particularly bright - I mean, Yale was tough, even if your dad was head of the CIA. What do you want, B's? We're fine with someone who got C's, thanks - but by god, he knows more about global warming than anyone. I mean, look at all the people surrounding him who make their money from burning oil! They'd tell us the truth, right?

The idea that more than a minority of Americans give two flying s***s about anything other than their own f***ing picket fence and Cadillac Escalade is an embarassment of a facade I'm sorry I bought into.

Elect your Bush. Have your cake, eat it, and see what happens.
jeoin On November 12, 2004




#9New Post! Oct 11, 2004 @ 21:17:55
i agree again.
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Politics Forum - Some Rudeness Allowed

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   Pics & Videos
Thu May 21, 2009 @ 18:12
2 301
New posts   Politics
Thu Apr 30, 2009 @ 00:20
0 236
New posts   Politics
Wed Dec 24, 2008 @ 07:01
8 471
New posts   Politics
Tue Feb 21, 2006 @ 22:46
43 1428
New posts   Politics
Tue Feb 14, 2006 @ 19:11
23 780