-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Cheney office denies role in Halliburton deal
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
DealMonkey
Lifer
I'm totally serious you two. Now, don't get me wrong, my criticism of Cheney begins and ends with his own statements, which you both seem are part of a larger argument/criticism of the administration. Which they're not.
Facts are:
1.) Cheney lie/spin #1. Cheney claims he has no "financial ties to Halliburton" yet he receives deferred payment every year and also has scads of stock options (which go up in value as Halliburton stock rises). Now you can hem and haw about how he would get his deferred payment anyway and how he's vowed to donate his options, yada yada yada. Yet, the fact remains, those ARE financial ties.
Even the Congressional Research Service issued a report which concluded that federal ethics laws treat Vice President Cheney's annual deferred-compensation checks and unexercised stock options as continuing financial interests in the Halliburton Co.
2.) Cheney Lie/spin #2. So now Cheney has gone on record a year or so ago, claiming that he has "no influence" regarding Army Corp contracts. Here's his statement:
"As vice president, I have absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of in any way, shape or form of contracts led by the Corps of Engineers or anybody else in the federal government," Cheney told NBC's "Meet the Press" in September, Time said.
Hmmm, no knowledge? Is that why the VP's office was involved in the coordination of the Halliburton contract?
Bleat all you want, Cheney has misrepresented himself twice now. I'd go as far to say he lied about his financial ties and his influence on the contracts. Else, prove me wrong. 😛
Facts are:
1.) Cheney lie/spin #1. Cheney claims he has no "financial ties to Halliburton" yet he receives deferred payment every year and also has scads of stock options (which go up in value as Halliburton stock rises). Now you can hem and haw about how he would get his deferred payment anyway and how he's vowed to donate his options, yada yada yada. Yet, the fact remains, those ARE financial ties.
Even the Congressional Research Service issued a report which concluded that federal ethics laws treat Vice President Cheney's annual deferred-compensation checks and unexercised stock options as continuing financial interests in the Halliburton Co.
2.) Cheney Lie/spin #2. So now Cheney has gone on record a year or so ago, claiming that he has "no influence" regarding Army Corp contracts. Here's his statement:
"As vice president, I have absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of in any way, shape or form of contracts led by the Corps of Engineers or anybody else in the federal government," Cheney told NBC's "Meet the Press" in September, Time said.
Hmmm, no knowledge? Is that why the VP's office was involved in the coordination of the Halliburton contract?
Bleat all you want, Cheney has misrepresented himself twice now. I'd go as far to say he lied about his financial ties and his influence on the contracts. Else, prove me wrong. 😛
dmcowen674
No Lifer
Awwwww, CAD & Etech having such a hard time and just can't seem to be able to defend their Fearless Liar's Lapdog without having to resort to going after the poster rather than the issues, so predictable, so sad, so pathetic.
You can make that argument for nearly every person who has ever been President or Vice President.. Nearly everyone has the experience to make much more money doing something else, but choose not to.. Maybe its because they want to make a difference? Maybe its greed... Maybe its power.. who knows.. But this President and Vice President are no different than any of those whom have come before him.
This Haliburton thing has just gotten old.. there is no proof, just like the Bush 'awol' accusation.. but people keep repeating it over and over hoping it will stick, and eventually people just believe it even if it isn't true.
Truth is, nobody but hard core democrats care, and they are already voting for Kerry.. Republicans care, but not enough to vote for Kerry.. so thats 2/3rds the voting public out.. Its the 1/3 in the middle that matter, and honestly I just don't see anyone in that true 'middle' who cares.
And, don't tell me anyone here is truly in the middle, I just don't buy it.. The true middle doesn't sit on ATPN and debate this stuff.. THe true middle is just working and living their lives, and honestly don't care much about government at all.. they care about their families safety, taxes, their job.. etc... Nobody in that catagory is going to vote based on accusations of Cheney making some money off Haliburton.. THey just don't care. Just like they didn't care about Clinton's blowjobs, interns, and questionable business dealings..
A finacial interest in which he will not make a penny more if Haliburton does well or goes bankrupt. Yes, I knew about the Congressional Research Service. Explain to me, in your own words, how it is a fincial interest.
You still have no proof and ignore the explanation given. Get back to me when you have proof that there was influence in the awarding of the contract.
The only line of the e-mail I have seen says this.
" We anticipate no issues since action has been co-ordinated with vice president's office," "
issues with what, the public release? What action has been co-ordinated?
Answer those with facts and then and get back to me.
I'm sure you're already familiar with this article, seeing as how you're aware of the CRS report, but just in case...
Deferred Compensation Package Counts, Report Indicates
A Congressional Research Service report released yesterday concluded that federal ethics laws treat Vice President Cheney's annual deferred compensation checks and unexercised stock options as continuing financial interests in the Halliburton Co.
The report, from the law division of the congressional research arm of the Library of Congress, said deferred salary or compensation received from a private corporation -- as well as unexercised stock options -- may represent a continuing financial interest as defined by federal ethics laws.
The seven-page report, dated Monday, did not name Cheney or Halliburton, but addressed the general legal question. It was prepared at the request of Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who said Cheney should "stop dodging the issue with legalese, and acknowledge his continued financial ties with Halliburton to the American people."
OK DNC attack dogs, answer me these two questions:
Scenario 1)
If Halliburton amkes 10 Gajillion dollars over the next 3 years, how much will Dick's income change?
Scenario 2)
If Halliburton goes 10 Gajillion dollars in debt, goes bankrupt, and implodes and defaults on every single loan and all it's assets dissolve into atoms, how much will Dick's income change?
No wonder you are the party of lawyers and unions.
Scenario 1)
If Halliburton amkes 10 Gajillion dollars over the next 3 years, how much will Dick's income change?
Scenario 2)
If Halliburton goes 10 Gajillion dollars in debt, goes bankrupt, and implodes and defaults on every single loan and all it's assets dissolve into atoms, how much will Dick's income change?
No wonder you are the party of lawyers and unions.
DealMonkey
Lifer
Let me phrase the issue with Cheney in a way that you RNC Campaign Rangers will understand: Does it matter that Clinton got a blowjob, or does it matter that he lied about it under oath?
This is just a loose analogy, not an exact situational relationship. Perhaps you will get the point. Then again, perhaps I assume to much . . .
🙂
This is just a loose analogy, not an exact situational relationship. Perhaps you will get the point. Then again, perhaps I assume to much . . .
🙂
DealMonkey
Lifer
No, but apparently one is required to determine the definition of "financial ties" and/or "...influence of, involvement of, knowledge of in any way, shape or form of contracts..."
Those are indeed tough concepts to get your head around I'm sure. 😛
Yes he does. How does he break the ties satisfactorily to meet your approval? If he signs over every check to charity, well he's still got a tie. Does he have to refuse all mail from Haliburton? They'd still be sending it, still the tie. How does one break a tie satisfactorily to meet the high ethical standards of the DNC?
Riddle me this. I think I've heard before that Kerry has no financial ties to the Heinz Empire. What's your definition on that?
I guess I would say to you alchy that I don't really have a problem with Cheney having ties to HB (though some scream conflict of interest), my beef is with his statement that he has none. Follow me?
If Kerry has stated he has no financial ties, he's lying. (Unless that prenup that the right-wingers made such a big deal about mention Heinz in some way) Do you have a link about this staement by Kerry?
Heh I should have read this post first. We should encourage this kind of illogical partisan thinking, splitting of legal hairs and grasping at straws.
Yes, Gaard, DealMonkey, I agree. This is all fraud and corruption. Shout it from the mountaintops! Wear a sandwich board and walk down wal-street with this! I can't possibly think of a stronger platform or argument than this one to support your ABB cause!
/out
Last post, but since you've slipped into sometime reasonable mindframe I'll respond 🙂
D.C. has been up front all along about what his compensation was (deferred compensation and options). He's said all along, even before the election (I've seen newsbits from 2000), what he would do to "sever the ties". He did exactly what he said, and probably had the advice of legal counsel. So by his definition (and one which nobody ever bothered to question or found a committee on until war broke out), he's not lying, he doesn't have any financial ties. When the comittee comes along and says "you have ties", why isn't he being sanctioned or charged? Probably because the comittee is there to define what ties are, and how they can be more fully severed. So how does that jibe with your beef? 😉
Regarding Kerry, I'll have to search 🙂 I know there have been some threads on it. He took out a loan using his (wife's) house as collateral for campaign finances, there's been some hubub about that.
dannybin1742
Platinum Member
because they pay him 150k per year, and he STILL owns 433,330 share of their stock, but thats not conflict of interet.--and yes these are the most recent figures
no one seems to remember there is video footage out there of him walking around with sadam in the early 80s dicussing oil contracts ----- which i'm sure is in the fahrenheit 911
let me pose this question
"Why would he jepordize his postion by going around telling the news and congress that saddams regime supported the 911 terrorists?"
DealMonkey
Lifer
Cheney could end this whole discussion by doing three very simple things:
1.) Giving up his deferred compensation. Donate it to the charity of his choice, as long as he doesn't benefit from it. Even donating it to charity would give him a tax break, but hey I'll throw him a bone.
2.) Permanently giving away his Halliburton options. No nonsense about a charitable trust or some such BS. Give it away now, to charity, so he does not benefit.
3.) Keep his fingerprints off all contract discussions/decisions with regards to Halliburton. Where there's smoke there's fire, and this Pentagon e-mail confirming the VPs office is involved in Army Corps decision-making when it comes to Halliburton contracts stinks to high heaven. Yes, it's only a small tidbit, but who knows what else will turn up?
Easy as pie, y'all. Texas tea! Pistol wink. 😉
1.) Giving up his deferred compensation. Donate it to the charity of his choice, as long as he doesn't benefit from it. Even donating it to charity would give him a tax break, but hey I'll throw him a bone.
2.) Permanently giving away his Halliburton options. No nonsense about a charitable trust or some such BS. Give it away now, to charity, so he does not benefit.
3.) Keep his fingerprints off all contract discussions/decisions with regards to Halliburton. Where there's smoke there's fire, and this Pentagon e-mail confirming the VPs office is involved in Army Corps decision-making when it comes to Halliburton contracts stinks to high heaven. Yes, it's only a small tidbit, but who knows what else will turn up?
Easy as pie, y'all. Texas tea! Pistol wink. 😉
Etech:
We should know the answer to this question, but the Republicans have ignored it and are hoping it goes away.
Do you actually want to know whether Cheney is violating the ethics law? If he is, will it make a difference to you? If it is a close case, should he divest completely to remove any appearance of wrong doing since he's arguably the second most powerful man in the world (or one heartbeat away from number one)?
Frankly, for DOD to let these Halliburton contracts with Cheney having any interest smells badly enough for me to think divestiture is the best option. Anyway, why would Republicans want to give this argument to Dems? Lots of people think one of the main arguments in favor of the war is our support of Halliburton. Why would Republicans want to give their opponents that easy argument?
Really, the Republicans are being too stupid. To win, Kerry only needs to sit back and watch the Republicans, especially Bush, self-destruct. Is this any way to run a campaign?
-Robert
We should know the answer to this question, but the Republicans have ignored it and are hoping it goes away.
Do you actually want to know whether Cheney is violating the ethics law? If he is, will it make a difference to you? If it is a close case, should he divest completely to remove any appearance of wrong doing since he's arguably the second most powerful man in the world (or one heartbeat away from number one)?
Frankly, for DOD to let these Halliburton contracts with Cheney having any interest smells badly enough for me to think divestiture is the best option. Anyway, why would Republicans want to give this argument to Dems? Lots of people think one of the main arguments in favor of the war is our support of Halliburton. Why would Republicans want to give their opponents that easy argument?
Really, the Republicans are being too stupid. To win, Kerry only needs to sit back and watch the Republicans, especially Bush, self-destruct. Is this any way to run a campaign?
-Robert
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
