posted on June 23, 2004 02:48:21 PM new
Dick Cheney's former company, Halliburton, was awarded a no-bid contract worth over $7 billion to help rebuild Iraq. The process for awarding this rare and lucrative contract was coordinated by Dick Cheney's own office in the White House. [Time, 5/30/04] Dick Cheney still receives deferred compensation from Halliburton, showing a lingering financial interest in the company. [Washington Post, 9/26/03; Richard B. Cheney Personal Financial Disclosure, May 15, 2002]
AMERICA NEEDS TO OUTSOURCE GEO.BUSH AND DICK CHENEY BEFORE ITS TO LATE.
posted on June 23, 2004 02:59:59 PM new
Yeah, I don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot and liberal wastrels are getting largess from an elected official.
How does this make the Democratic nominee a better choice? I will still vote for the lesser evil. Rather than trying to convince me to vote for Kerry (won't happen) you should try to convince me to vote for Nader.
_________________
You know...the best way to defeat a liberal is to let them speak.
posted on June 23, 2004 05:06:30 PM new
So just for clarification Libra. You do not think that the american tax payers should subsidize the education and welfare of american children via after school proggrams b but you have no problem with Cheney arranging for the american tax payers to subsidize things like gasoline in Iraq to the tune of $1.45 a gallon with all of the profiteering involved benefitting his former company in a situation that allowed them to grab such contracts with no competion.
If you think liberals sound silly. Think about how absolutely laughable conservatives sound when they stand up in support of awarding overpriced no bid contracts to companies with a history of fraud, manipulation and overrcharging.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on Jun 23, 2004 05:07 PM ]
posted on June 23, 2004 06:57:25 PM new
Speaking from your past experience with "Big Alonzo" are you Reamond.....?
"The natural family is a man and woman bound in a lifelong covenant of marriage for the purposes of:
*the continuation of the human species,
*the rearing of children,
*the regulation of sexuality,
*the provision of mutual support and protection,
*the creation of an altruistic domestic economy, and
*the maintenance of bonds between the generations."
posted on June 23, 2004 07:51:26 PM new
The problem with placing the blame ONLY on this administration, is that it appears it was okay for clinton to give Halliburton a no-bid contract during his administration....but the fact that the Bush administration has done the same thing is just terrible.
Hallibuton received several contracts under President L.B. Johnson's administration and other administrations.
---------
Another fact worth mentioning is that in 1992 Halliburton won it's service contract during the clinton administration...and that was 3 years BEFORE VP Cheney became CEO of the company.
Also the money Cheney receives from HB is distribution from the $35M package he was given when he severed his ties to the company. He doesn't benefit from any money they made AFTER he left in 2000.
posted on June 23, 2004 08:06:12 PM new
I will never understand why we need after school programs to fund families that live beyond their means. There is nothing that will change my mind. Children are the responsibility of those parents not me. I do not mind funding the after school programs that are in the "No Child Left Behind" program as they need the help. I don't need to fund programs because people can't live within their means. Just because those 2 income families don't qualify for the programs is not my business. My business is for the children that need the program. My opinion has not changed since the last thread talked about and it will never change.
posted on June 23, 2004 09:05:52 PM new
Forgot to mention that if one does a google search on Gore and Halliburton....you can read him almost singing their praises.
----
And in addition to the clinton admin. giving HB a contract in 1992 - HB was awarded another one in 1997.
---------------
So...bigpeepa...how is this different to you under the clinton administration vs. this administration. Is one using them [with a no-bid contract] okay and not okay when the other one does the same thing? I'd be interested in your answer.
posted on June 23, 2004 09:50:50 PM new
Linda_K - You're kidding us right ? You don't see a difference between the former head of Halliburton awarding the contracts and disinterested parties awarding contracts ? Do you know what the difference between "arms length" dealing and "self dealing" is ?
Linda_K - Please let me know if you are ever in charge of awarding contracts, I'll want to do some "business" with you. LMAO !!!
posted on June 23, 2004 10:57:06 PM new
No, reamond I'm not kidding. This is just one more issue being used by the dems to win the WH. It was used in 2000 - it was used in 2002 and it's being used again in 2004.
---------------
The Halliburton smear
Rich Lowry (archive)
September 18, 2003 | Print | Send
The Democrats have discovered the enemy in the ongoing Iraq war.
And it is Halliburton.
Nothing quite so angers Democrats about the current situation in Iraq than that Halliburton is making money there. Dennis Kucinich, the out-to-lunch leftist who sounds ever more mainstream given the leftward drift of the rest of the Democratic field, wants the United Nations in Iraq so there will be "no more Halliburton sweetheart deals."
Bob Graham huffs, "I will not support a dime to protect the profits of Halliburton in Iraq."
John Edwards vows "to stop this president from giving billions of dollars in American taxpayer money to companies like Halliburton in unbid contracts."
The Texas oil-services giant formerly headed by Dick Cheney, who still gets deferred compensation from the firm, has achieved iconic status.
Halliburton is the equivalent of Dow, the maker of a key ingredient to napalm, during the Vietnam War -- the focus of supposed corporate evil during wartime. It is the equivalent of Mena Airport, the Arkansas site that obsessed anti-Clinton conspiracy theorists during the 1990s -- the focus of dark speculation about the mercenary scheming of a U.S. president.
Behind the Democratic outrage is the implicit, and sometimes explicit, charge that Bush waged war in Iraq to fatten the bottom line of one corporation. As The New York Times has put it, Halliburton's Iraq contract "undermines the Bush administration's portrayal of the war as a campaign for disarmament and democracy, not lucre."
But to have risked his presidency -- not mention American lives -- on the war in order to benefit Halliburton, Bush would have to be a psychopath. That the Halliburton charge has become a chief Democratic critique of the war is another sign of the party's descent into unhinged ravings.
As journalist Byron York has reported, it's not really true that the company got its work without competitive bidding. 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.
posted on June 24, 2004 05:01:44 AM new
Linda_K, you asked in your words "So...bigpeepa...how is this different to you under the clinton administration vs. this administration. Is one using them [with a no-bid contract] okay and not okay when the other one does the same thing? I'd be interested in your answer."
LINDA_K, the difference is. You bring up the past talking about past Presidents. I talk about the present. The American people can't change the past but they can change the present.
Once again your words Linda_K "the money Cheney receives from HB is distribution from the $35M package he was given when he severed his ties to the company."
I believe the American People are tired of 35 million dollar payoffs for any CEO. American's don't want anymore you grease my hand and I will grease your hand deals.
I believe its time for the American people to outsource the present day administration. Everyday (if you are not rich) the present Government is hurting the people of this great country.
OUTSOURCE THE BUSH/CHENEY GOVERNMENT BEFORE ITS TO LATE
posted on June 24, 2004 10:21:50 AM newthe difference is. You bring up the past talking about past Presidents.
Yes, and so do others. Maybe you've missed all the posts discussing President's Nixon, Reagan, Carter, Bush 1, JFK, LBJ, clinton, etc.
Maybe you've missed these same discussions in the media and in the news.
I do understand it makes it a lot harder when facts are presented to some here, while they're busy blaming only the opposition for the actions BOTH have taken though. And the fact is clinton did the same thing, used Halliburton with a no-bid contract.
posted on June 24, 2004 10:49:23 AM new
linda says,"And the fact is clinton did the same thing, used Halliburton with a no-bid contract. "
So, linda is still running around corners so fast she's running into her own butt.
Everytime she says the old ,"ya, but Clinton......"
OK, this is how it goes....when someone says Bush did this, linda says, "Well,so did (insert any Dem)".
Following this logic she AGREES with what Democrats are doing!
'Bout time she saw the light!
posted on June 24, 2004 12:54:58 PM new
Since Cheney is still receiving money from Halliburton, would this not be considered a conflict of interest? If Halliburton were to go belly-up, would Cheney not lose some of this money? If so, giving the contract to Halliburton is a conflict of interest, IMO. Here's an example that might make my point clearer:
A company I worked for went out of business. We started a new business. It so happens that both businesses use(d) the same attorney and the same accountants. The accountants were recommended by the attorney because they send him business and he sends them business. The company that went out of business still owes the accountants money. Since the same people that worked for the closed business (although not in any ownership positions) opened this new one, the accounting firm took it upon themselves to send the new company the old company's accounting bill. When the attorney was called about the situation, he strongly urged the new business to pay the bill for the old closed company. If the bill is not paid, he stands to lose referal business. Clearly a conflict of interest as he stands to lose something by not complying with the accountants' wishes and he cannot represent the new company in the issue without causing himself harm.
I think the same scenerio can be said for Cheney and Halliburton, can it not? Cheney stands to lose if Halliburton loses. JMO.
posted on June 24, 2004 04:45:06 PM new
It is no wonder why Bush keeps asking Congress for money to finance the war effort. More money for the war means more money in the pockets of Halliburton and Cheney. Oh let's not forget it also adds to defecity and higher taxes for the middle class.
Re-defeat Bush
------------------------------
June is Gay Pride Month
------------------------------
All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.
Change is constant. The history of mankind is about change. One set of beliefs is pushed aside by a new set. The old order is swept away by the new. If people become attached to the old order, they see their best interest in defending it. They become the losers. They become the old order and in turn are vulnerable. People who belong to the new order are winners.
James A Belaco & Ralph C. Stayer
[ edited by logansdad on Jun 25, 2004 06:51 AM ]
And the fact is clinton did the same thing, used Halliburton with a no-bid contract.