Halliburton, Cheney and other assorted assholes

Time article

So it turns out that maybe Cheney did have some influence on these contracts after all. What a surprise. Lying, thieving, cocksucking ****s. It\'s time for a change people.

"Sunday, May. 30, 2004
Vice President Dick Cheney was a guest on NBC\'s Meet the Press last September when host Tim Russert brought up Halliburton. Citing the company\'s role in rebuilding Iraq as well as Cheney\'s prior service as Halliburton\'s CEO, Russert asked, "Were you involved in any way in the awarding of those contracts?" Cheney\'s reply: "Of course not, Tim ... And as Vice President, I have absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of in any way, shape or form of contracts led by the [Army] Corps of Engineers or anybody else in the Federal Government."

Cheney\'s relationship with Halliburton has been nothing but trouble since he left the company in 2000. Both he and the company say they have no ongoing connections. But TIME has obtained an internal Pentagon e-mail sent by an Army Corps of Engineers official—whose name was blacked out by the Pentagon—that raises questions about Cheney\'s arm\'s-length policy toward his old employer. Dated March 5, 2003, the e-mail says "action" on a multibillion-dollar Halliburton contract was "coordinated" with Cheney\'s office. The e-mail says Douglas Feith, a high-ranking Pentagon hawk, got the "authority to execute RIO," or Restore Iraqi Oil, from his boss, who is Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. RIO is one of several large contracts the U.S. awarded to Halliburton last year.

The e-mail says Feith approved arrangements for the contract "contingent on informing WH [White House] tomorrow. We anticipate no issues since action has been coordinated w VP\'s [Vice President\'s] office." Three days later, the Army Corps of Engineers gave Halliburton the contract, without seeking other bids. TIME located the e-mail among documents provided by Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group.

Cheney spokesman Kevin Kellems says the Vice President "has played no role whatsoever in government-contract decisions involving Halliburton" since 2000. A Pentagon spokesman says the e-mail means merely that "in anticipation of controversy over the award of a sole-source contract to Halliburton, we wanted to give the Vice President\'s staff a heads-up."

Cheney is linked to his old firm in at least one other way. His recently filed 2003 financial-disclosure form reveals that Halliburton last year invoked an insurance policy to indemnify Cheney for what could be steep legal bills "arising from his service" at the company. Past and present Halliburton execs face an array of potentially costly litigation, including multibillion-dollar asbestos claims.


From the Jun. 07, 2004 issue of TIME magazine"

So what else is new?  Halliburton is a big company - and it is a Texas company which has a lot of political pull.  How do you think government contracts are awarded?  Even you can\'t believe that the bid process is even remotely fair when they actually use it.

Time for a change?  To what?  John Kerry has ties to firms as well... funny how he can mortgage a house in his wife\'s name for 6 million when the law says she can only contribute $2000 like everyone else.  From which he is now using campaign matching funds to pay himself and his wife back...  just imagine if this guy gets in office.

Every politician is corrupt.

If this was the "other side" you would call for heads rolling.

Please Mr. moderator, keep things on topic, this is not about John Kerry as his name is not mentioned in anything I said or the article.

I\'m asking nicely once again to keep things on topic and leave the democratic moron out of this and continue with the republican moron.

Whomever the change is this year or in 2008, It has to be better than the current.

Originally posted by luckee
If this was the "other side" you would call for heads rolling.

Please Mr. moderator, keep things on topic, this is not about John Kerry as his name is not mentioned in anything I said or the article.

I\'m asking nicely once again to keep things on topic and leave the democratic moron out of this and continue with the republican moron.

Whomever the change is this year or in 2008, It has to be better than the current.

luckee, I clearly kept it on topic and no I wouldn\'t be "whining" for heads to roll.  It seems I understand politics infinitely more than you.  If you had any idea about the practices of our goverment - regardless of political affiliation you would know that this kind of thing is common place.

Big business and politics go hand in hand - this is yet another example of an ongoing process within our country.  How is what I said off topic moron?  By pointing out John Kerry is using questionable business tactics as well?

[videoholic]

Just because the guy worked for them in the past, that doesn\'t mean the company has to shut down operations because of an employee.

Like Giga said.  If the company can handle the job, then great.  It\'s a big freaking company that can handle the job.  

You don\'t think most big deals are brokered from connections?  Even if he did use some pull to get them the contract, big deal.  IT happends all the time.

not every politican is corrupt, but most are.

Anyways, i dont care who gives what contracts to who.  This kinda stuff is always gonna happen, because corporations control Campaign funds....

And if kerry and cheney both are corrupt, that cancles each other out. That makes kerry the winner for being less of a opressive douche bag.

Originally posted by GigaShadow
luckee, I clearly kept it on topic and no I wouldn\'t be "whining" for heads to roll.  It seems I understand politics infinitely more than you.  If you had any idea about the practices of our goverment - regardless of political affiliation you would know that this kind of thing is common place.

Big business and politics go hand in hand - this is yet another example of an ongoing process within our country.  How is what I said off topic moron?  By pointing out John Kerry is using questionable business tactics as well?

Common place or not, it isn\'t right to have a VP giving special considerations to his previous company. It looks bad PERIOD.

What kind of statement does it send?

Maybe others can do the job better or more effciently than his.

This is only pocket padding.

Dick(head) Cheney lying about it is the important part, the rest is mearly secondary.

Yup, off topic was when you brought in Kerry as if I support him or something. Or just b/c he practices shady shit that it\'s ok for others to do so. I am well aware they most politicians and big business do it. Problem is, it doesnt benefit 98% of our population. Clear enough yet "moron"

Cant handle a simple discussion without insults? (yea I know I just dished out the same) You always point that out when someone else does it, yet you continue to do it. Keep it civil from now on.


Vid- Who asked them to shut down operations? Why not fair treament for all companies involved. There was a reason this was a no-bid contract.

Other  companies can handle the job.

Originally posted by luckee
Common place or not, it isn\'t right to have a VP giving special considerations to his previous company. It looks bad PERIOD.

What kind of statement does it send?

Maybe others can do the job better or more effciently than his.

This is only pocket padding.

Dick(head) Cheney lying about it is the important part, the rest is mearly secondary.

Yup, off topic was when you brought in Kerry as if I support him or something. Or just b/c he practices shady shit that it\'s ok for others to do so. I am well aware they most politicians and big business do it. Problem is, it is only to benefit the top 98% of our population. Clear enough yet "moron"

Cant handle a simple discussion without insults? (yea I know I just dished out the same) You always point that out when someone else does it, yet you continue to do it. Keep it civil from now on.


Vid- Who asked them to shut down operations? Why not fair treament for all companies involved. There was a reason this was a no-bid contract.

Other  companies can handle the job.

When you act civil I reciprocate, when you don\'t you get treated like you treat other people.  If you dish it out be prepared to take it in turn.  

Cheney isn\'t alone in scandals of this nature and yes I accept it as a common practice in  our government.  And since it benefits the top 98% wouldn\'t only 2% be unhappy?

Originally posted by luckee
Dick(head) Cheney lying about it is the important part, the rest is mearly secondary.

This kind of thing may be done by all sorts of politicians, and corporations may base their projections on pork barrel and back room deals, but that doesn\'t make it right.  It also doesn\'t mean we shouldn\'t hold them accountable when it comes to light.

I seem to recall that Conservatives did whine quite loudly when another politician lied about getting a blow job.  Yet somehow Cheney\'s lie should be overlooked?  That doesn\'t make too much sense to me.

Originally posted by Coredweller
This kind of thing may be done by all sorts of politicians, and corporations may base their projections on pork barrel and back room deals, but that doesn\'t make it right.  It also doesn\'t mean we shouldn\'t hold them accountable when it comes to light.

I seem to recall that Conservatives did whine quite loudly when another politician lied about getting a blow job.  Yet somehow Cheney\'s lie should be overlooked?  That doesn\'t make too much sense to me.

Exactly.

Originally posted by GigaShadow
When you act civil I reciprocate, when you don\'t you get treated like you treat other people.  If you dish it out be prepared to take it in turn.  

Cheney isn\'t alone in scandals of this nature and yes I accept it as a common practice in  our government.  And since it benefits the top 98% wouldn\'t only 2% be unhappy?

Who started it again? Oh yea thats right you..

I screwed that perctange part up...it\'s the other way around.

[videoholic]

Originally posted by Coredweller
I seem to recall that Conservatives did whine quite loudly when another politician lied about getting a blow job.  Yet somehow Cheney\'s lie should be overlooked?  That doesn\'t make too much sense to me.

I don\'t remember Cheney lying under oath.

Originally posted by luckee
Exactly.



Who started it again? Oh yea thats right you..

 

I did?  I guess responding to you is going off topic.  :rolleyes:

Originally posted by luckee
If this was the "other side" you would call for heads rolling.

Please Mr. moderator, keep things on topic, this is not about John Kerry as his name is not mentioned in anything I said or the article.

I\'m asking nicely once again to keep things on topic and leave the democratic moron out of this and continue with the republican moron.

Whomever the change is this year or in 2008, It has to be better than the current.

Originally posted by videoholic
I don\'t remember Cheney lying under oath.

Oh, I guess that makes it alright then.  Nevermind.  :rolleyes:

Originally posted by GigaShadow
I did?  I guess responding to you is going off topic.  :rolleyes:

Stop playing games...I didnt call you anything.

You however returned with "moron" and I simply returned the favor.

As you like to so often say....Stop play semantics.
Anything else you have to say about this other than what the thread is about..PM me.

Vid- should it matter if a leader of our country is under oath or not when they lie to us?

A lie is a lie is a lie......

Originally posted by luckee
...leave the democratic moron out of this and continue with the republican moron.

He wasn\'t referring to you, Giga.  He was referring to Kerry and Cheney.