Hah.
Hah,
and…
HAH!!
(just wanted to raise the level of discourse here a bit)
1. I did not seek to imply any “conspiring” merely corruption and dishonesty. Perhaps “complicit,” “collude,” and similar terms would fit.
2. Cheney is explicitly a corrupt type. He had to have his holdings in Halliburton pried from his sclerotic mitts after he was elected vice president – I mean, go back in the public record and note that his friends and colleagues had to beg and cajole him into selling off his huge-o Halli-bucks, after weeks of people complaining about potential conflicts of interest.
By the way, this is nothing but the ordinary sequence. When one is elected to public office, one properly puts one’s financial holdings into blind trusts, or divests oneself of those holdings that might raise conflict-of-interest questions. It’s just good form.
By “explicit,” I mean that Cheney hardly seems to care about appearances of collusion, of greed, etc. And that fits in smoothly with the brazen style of the Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Bush administration. Cheney, in fact, is the guy who set this tone, from before day one. Read some of his public statements over the past 20 years. He wants to come across as a tough guy, not polished so much as driven. Bush says of himself, “I don’t do nuance.” Cheney might well say, “I don’t play by the rules.” (fine: be a big-time bandit in corporate-land – the people of America didn’t vote for that – but in the White House, you are supposed to uphold the rule of law, not the rule of you and your posse winning no matter what.)
It’s on purpose. I’m not surprised by his blind spot on this issue of the impropriety of not relinquishing his Halliburton shares upon stepping into the second-highest public office: he didn’t see anything wrong with it! The word “recuse” is not in his vocab.
3. Disingenuous. Either that, or you are unfamiliar with the old adage, “To the victor goeth the spoils.”
Of course Cheney has ties to Halliburton! He ran the place for like five years, immediately prior to moving to his various bunkers under the White House, Cheyenne Mountain and wherever.
One does not run a corporation for five years and suddenly have no ties to the company or its people. Even when one is led out in handcuffs, for example, one would have forged personal and professional connections that endure. And not just within Halliburton itself – one would have strong ties to a variety of companies and persons that themselves had done business with Halliburton.
If you mean that Cheney now is financially entirely divorced from the company… well, sheesh! Cash is fungible, it is mobile. Influence is transferable. You deliver the goods to A, A takes care of B, who passes along certain favors to C, etc.
Puh-lee-uz!!
4. “Cheney has absolutely no say” so you say, in who gets awarded a contract in Iraq – because it is under the “jurisdiction of the Army.”
Please! Who is the Commander in Chief? And who is a heartbeat away?
5. Your bit about Diane Feinstein and her purported corruption sounds very interesting, and worthy of further study. But it has no effect on my distrust of Cheney & Co. So what if he spreads around the loot to his cronies, and even to supposed political competitors or enemies? To the little man carrying the whole sorry mess on his back – you and me and the whole taxpaying middle class, brother! – what difference does that make?
The Halliburton Iraq deal is about persons in positions of public influence abusing their office to loot the national treasury. In other words, stealing – and stealing.
This conversation started, I believe, around the idea that it has become foolish to trust the Bush administration. I have cited this Halliburton banditry as a single example. I won’t trust Cheney, because several of his actions seem to me not worthy of public trust.
I won’t defend anyone else’s misdeeds, either, regardless of their political affiliation, or even giving them a break because they were so nice and correct about something else sometime in their career. A theft is a theft. This one certainly seems to have been premeditated, bold, disrepectful of common decency and of the laws under our Constitution. A pox on these residents of the White House!
“Cheney has absolutely no say” so you say, in who gets awarded a contract in Iraq – because it is under the “jurisdiction of the Army.”
I should say, the Army Corps of Engineers.
Please! Who is the Commander in Chief? And who is a heartbeat away?
Is there a little humor in this last part? :wink:
“To the victor goeth the spoils.”
I’m glad you brought this up, because I’m going to use this same line in the next discussion about Isreal & Palestine. :P
you and me and the whole taxpaying middle class, brother!
Don’t forget the upper class. Surely you must know that they pay the most taxes. 8)
@Deviant:Scripter:
Cheney has no ties left with Halliburton except for the pension he recieves from them;
Oh….
then there probably are no ties between between fundamentalist terrorism and any arabic state. Well, except for the funding the first receive from the latter… (and this uses your opinion of who pays who, doesn’t it? … and i know, ZZZ already went onto that, but that statement of D:S is just too hillarious)
Thank you, Mr. F_alk, and let me just say: PROMOVEATUR UT AMOVEATUR.
Mr. DS:
A. The Army Corps of Engineers is part of the U.S. Army
B. And yes, there is a little humor here and there – after all, as Mark Twain more or less said, “Against laughter, no tyrant’s wall can stand.”
C. May I recommend a title for your new thread on the Mideast: “The Road Map to Hell and Back”
D. Hah. Hah, and… HAH! You think the upper class pays the most taxes. Man, what they do – (as will I, if ever I gain enough filthy lucre to enter that lofty realm) – is pay the most to tax lawyers and keen accountants, in order that they can arrange to pay the least!
By the way, here’s a good aphorism that has some application to the current discussion:
“Politics is the pursuit of private gain by public means.” – Ambrose Bierce
(This cat Bierce evidently was at least as smart as SpongeBob SquarePants.)
Oh my gosh, you’re seriously under the impression that the upper class doesn’t pay the most taxes in this country? :o
Gracious sakes, Mr. DS: perhaps you’d care to share documentation?
ZZZZ is right. Cheney is the Illuminati incarnate!
He wants to look good to the voters so he gives up $36M to “do the right thing.” Yeah, right! You can fool some of the people…
He had his EVIL training under the King George the I administration. Then he arranged for the Zionists to crash planes into the WTC. Next, he convinces King George the II to “Go out amongst the rabble and lead.” He set up his One World Government with the aid of his henchillumini. Now all it takes is one shot and THE WORLD IS MINE :evil: …
:-? …I mean his! :evil:
HAhahaahahaHAHAAhahahahahaaHAAHAHA!
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
Congrats, El Jefe,
You win the Shiznad of the Day award!!
You is def shizzo to the drizzno, dawg.
But, I don’t see Cheney as the One World Government type.
He is more the big-oil-drenched, greed-is-good type.
Zs,
Geez, it’s like tawkin’ ta da wahl!
Humor doan efin git true.
1)He gives up a $36M (das million in short chat)in bonus $.
I don’t see Hillary passing up her book deal that was almost identical to the one they made Newt-the-Frog Gingrich give back.
2)He obviously took a pass on any offers on the table in 2000.
3)He takes a cut in salary(see #1) to… what?..$250,000/year as compared to packing it in and getting, with the $36M better than $1.8M/year for the next 20 years(with money in a bank he can get a lil mo…Ha!)
4)He’s had a heart attack, so don’t expect him to run in 2008, even if he does finish out the 2004 term.) I figure he’s gonna run w/W in 2004 and then step down in early 2006. This gives someone else a little experience and exposure…say…JC Watts(former Representative form OK) or Bill Frist(Senator from TN.)
Why do you distrust him? Holyburden. Big freakin’ deal! Don’t you think there are Democrats digging in his business? They tried in 2000…they’re trying today. Don’t you think there are some quiet little closet democrats in Holyburden, who, even while they are raking it in, could cut a deal to keep their $, get a short and/or suspended sentence or immunity!?!?
I’m tawkin’ ta da wahl!!
Hi Mr. EJ,
1. Mr. Cheney (reluctantly, and at the urging of his party stalwarts) gave up the $36m (your figure; I haven’t checked) or whatever amount – in order to trade up! Surely the argument was put before him that, as VP, he could stand to make 1,000 times that much, ultimately. He was able to see that the $36m was a down payment on future influence, riches, power.
2. Right – he mastered his natural urge to realize all available riches in the moment. He instead opted for deferred gratification.
3. No argument here, either. Nobody takes the White House job for the salary.
4. Expect him to never step down. Cheney is not a steppin-down kinda guy. He will serve out 2004, and if re-elected will serve until 2008. Indeed, I predict he will contest Bill Frist for the presidential nomination in 2008 (check back here in five years if you’d care to discuss the finer points).
I don’t know about your Democrat moles within Halliburton – but I would direct anyone interested in the issue to examine some of the documents in the public record, compiled by the nebbishy-looking, bow-tie-festooned (D-Cal) Rep. Waxman:
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/inves_admin/admin_contracts.htm
This website includes a variety of links to the federal government’s trail of skirmishes with Halliburton, and the letter on the subject that Waxman authored to Secy. Rumsfeld recently.
OMG…all this debate over a subsidiary? :roll:
Subsidiary, shmudsidiary, my man.
D:S, that’s how it is done, dude. Read up on Enron, read up on off-shore corporations, read anything on three-card-monte. Bait and switch, dawg!
If you live in the US, perhaps you’ve received telemarketing and junk mail offers to sell you “We’re Building The Neighborhood by MCI” aka cell phone service. What is MCI? It was one of the original cell phone competitors, launched in the late 1970s. It was absorbed into a wonderful outfit called Worldcom, a superheated dotcom-telecom meteor of a company. Worldcom didn’t need the brand “MCI” anymore.
Whoops! Turns out Worldcom did an Enron. Now it’s bankrupt, sued, blued and tatooed, now it’s being shredded, now its former top execs are being run to ground by the SEC and other fed enforcers. What does it do? END its EXISTENCE and at the same time (marvellouse lawyers!!) CHANGE its NAME to… MCI! Ta-daa! A brand-new shiny smiley cell phone provider! What the 'eck does the hapless consumer know? Sign me up!!
What was MCI last year? A “subsidiary” of Worldcom, gathering dust and mold on the shelf. What is MCI this year? A funnel for cash! A dodge from prosecution and liability! Who is the subsidiary now? The DEFUNCT Worldcom.
Just an example…
only a subsidiary….
well, would you even have minded if it had been a letterbox company only?
Did you know that quite a lot of so called subsidiaries are not more than tax-saving-models for the corp?
Being a bastard doesn’t always exclude being smart. There are smart bastards, and of course, to “blur” their traces this is a good move.
Yeah, The original deal would have netted Holyburden $6B (that’s billion), but Saddam blew the deal. That’s why he’s a DEAD man. Holyb only gets around$300-$600M (peanuts.)
Zs, trust me. I await the fulfillment of #s1, 2 & 4 with open arms(show me the $$$!!)
At least Cheney knows how to run a business, unlike 90% of the Democrats in congress(about 214 reps., 49 sens.[yes, I’ll count 1 independent idiot senator from New England in that lot]).
I thought the democrats were all the rich guys in the congress…. how comes, if they can’t run a business?
Si, Señor Jefe,
Cheney knows how to run an oil business, certainly one that thrives on cheating the US Army and all of us taxpayers.
The main original point of this rave is that I don’t trust him to serve in the public interest.
Let him go off and make gazillions for his cronies in petrocorpland, including his Saudi pals and whatnot.
By the way, recent reports point out that the Halliburton deal in Iraq is actually two deals, one for the $500m or so to fix up the Iraq infrastructure, and then an open-ended deal to operate and distribute the goods from the Iraq oil patch: a deal that will indeed be worth $$billions, if it is allowed to stand.
Cheating the US Army?
Elaborate on that please…
Certainly, Mr. D:S,
There are a variety of interesting public documents available via this website:
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/inves_admin/admin_contracts.htm
The site also features several replies by the Army to this Congressman’s inquiries. Apparently, Secy. Rumsfeld has not yet replied to the letter sent to him (I haven’t checked the website for awhile).
and a google-check shows plenty of news coverage of the Halliburton track record as well…
The pattern is to overbill the Army for projects done on a cost-plus basis, then when caught overbilling, to pay the fine. Typically, the fine is rather modest in comparison to the magnitude of the original contract and the profits. That’s why Halliburton has continued to repeat the same type of overbilling, year in and year out (including the years when Cheney was its CEO).
It seems to me that our government must make a more appropriate response to such law-breaking than to essentially rubberstamp the process. For instance, Halliburton could be placed on probation, or even excluded from the bid process for a set period. Furthermore, the government could disallow the type of cost-plus contracting that encourages a company like Halliburton to bilk the Army. Thing is, there are vested interests within the Pentagon (and now, certainly, the White House). Somehow, they must be getting taken care of by their wink-wink-nod-nod pals in the private sector, because they too are repeatedly approving these contracts.
@Deviant:Scripter:
Oh my gosh, you’re seriously under the impression that the upper class doesn’t pay the most taxes in this country? :o
Mr. D:S,
You indeed have a point, although I believe you stretch it a bit too far. The “upper class” – let’s just call them the rich – do pay oceans of income taxes, largely on capital gains. Perhaps the top one percent pays in as much as a third of all income tax dollars collected by the IRS. Indeed, the fact that they pay in so much is the main reason why they stand to benefit far beyond the general wage earner does in the ongoing tax cut offensive: they will get by far the biggest breaks.
My position is that one dollar in taxes – or even 100 dollars in taxes – paid by the rich, is easier for them to bear than one dollar in taxes paid by the poor or the middle classes. I don’t claim that the general layout of the income tax structure is unfair, but the balance of pain has been spreading downwards of late. And those two million job losses in the past two or three years have mainly pushed the lower-rung populations to the edge. The rich tend to have more options.
Anyway, I don’t concede that the rich pay “the most” taxes. It seems to me that the great American middle pays the most, not only in taxes but in fees. And beyond the actual dollars, the middle certainly pays more proportionate to their net worth and household budget!
