posted on September 30, 2004 12:30:08 PMKerry Ad Falsely Accuses Cheney on Halliburton
Kerry Ad Falsely Accuses Cheney on Halliburton
Contrary to this ad's message, Cheney doesn't gain financially from the contracts given to the company he once headed.
09.30.2004
Summary
A Kerry ad implies Cheney has a financial interest in Halliburton and is profiting from the company's contracts in Iraq. The fact is, Cheney doesn't gain a penny from Halliburton's contracts, and almost certainly won't lose even if Halliburton goes bankrupt.
The ad claims Cheney got $2 million from Halliburton "as vice president," which is false.
Actually, nearly $1.6 million of that was paid before Cheney took office. More importantly, all of it was earned before he was a candidate, when he was the company's chief executive.
Analysis
A Kerry ad released Sept 17 once again attacks Cheney's ties to Halliburton, implying that Cheney is profiting from the company's contracts in Iraq. That's false.
[beginning of kerry's false ad and DNC's false statement on their website.]
Kerry-Edwards Ad
"Cheney Halliburton"
Cheney: I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had now for over three years.
Announcer: The truth: As vice president, Dick Cheney received $2 million from Halliburton. Halliburton got billions in no bid contracts in Iraq. Dick Cheney got $2 million. What did we get? A $200 billion dollar bill for Iraq. Lost jobs. Rising health care costs. It's time for a new direction.
John Kerry. Stronger at home. Respected in the world.
Announcer: I'm John Kerry, and I approve this message.
[end of kerry's false ad]
The ad isn't subtle. It says, "As vice president, Dick Cheney received $2 million from Halliburton.
Halliburton got billions in no bid contracts in Iraq. Dick Cheney got $2 million. What did we get?" And it implies that Cheney lied to the public when he said in a TV interview that "I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind."
But as we document here, Cheney has insulated himself financially from whatever might happen to Halliburton. The Kerry ad misstates the facts.
$2 Million
To start, the $2 million figure is wrong. It is true that Cheney has received just under $2 million from Halliburton since his election, but nearly $1.6 million of that total was paid before Cheney actually took office on Jan. 20, 2001. Saying Cheney got that much "as vice president" is simply false.
We asked Cheney's personal attorney to document that, and he did, supplying several documents never released publicly before:
A Halliburton pay statement dated Jan 2, 2001 shows just under $147,579 was paid that day as "elect defrl payou," meaning payout of salary from the company's Elective Deferral Plan. That was salary Cheney had earned in 1999, but which he had chosen previously to receive in five installments spread over five years.
Another pay statement dated Jan. 18 shows $1,451,398 was paid that day under the company's "Incentive Plan C" for senior executives. That was Cheney's incentive compensation -- bonus money -- paid on the basis of the company's performance in 2000. Cheney had formally resigned from the company the previous September to campaign full time, but the amount of his bonus couldn't be calculated until the full year's financial results were known.
Cheney's personal financial disclosure forms, together with the pay statements just mentioned, show that Cheney has received $398,548 in deferred salary from Halliburton "as vice president."
And of course, all of that is money he earned when he was the company's chief executive officer. Cheney was due to receive another payment in 2004, and a final payment in 2005.
The Kerry ad isn't the only place the false $2 million figure appears.
The Democratic National Committee also gets it wrong on their website. The dates of the Halliburton payments don't appear on Cheney's personal financial disclosure form from 2001, and the DNC assumed -- incorrectly as we have shown -- that all the 2001 payment were made after he took office.
Deferred Salary
The $398,548 Halliburton has paid to Cheney while in office is all deferred compensation, a common practice that high-salaried executives use to reduce their tax bills by spreading income over several years. In Cheney's case, he signed a Halliburton form in December of 1998 choosing to have 50% of his salary for the next year, and 90% of any bonus money for that year, spread out over five years. (As it turned out, there was no bonus for 1999.) We asked Cheney's personal attorney to document the deferral agreement as well, and he supplied us with a copy of the form , posted here publicly for the first time.
Legally, Halliburton can't increase or reduce the amount of the deferred compensation no matter what Cheney does as vice president. So Cheney's deferred payments from Halliburton wouldn't increase no matter how much money the company makes, or how many government contracts it receives.
On the other hand, there is a possibility that if the company went bankrupt it would be unable to pay.
That raises the theoretical possibility of a conflict of interest -- if the public interest somehow demanded that Cheney take action that would hurt Halliburton it could conceivably end up costing him money personally. So to insulate himself from that possible conflict, Cheney purchased an insurance policy (which cost him$14,903) that promises to pay him all the deferred compensation that Halliburton owes him even if the company goes bust and refuses to pay. The policy does contain escape clauses allowing the insurance company to refuse payment in the unlikely events that Cheney files a claim resulting "directly or indirectly" from a change in law or regulation, or from a "prepackaged" bankruptcy in which creditors agree on terms prior to filing.
But otherwise it ensures Cheney will get what Halliburton owes him should it go under.
Cheney aides supplied a copy of that policy to us -- blacking out only some personal information about Cheney -- which we have posted here publicly for the first time.
Stock Options
That still would leave the possibility that Cheney could profit from his Halliburton stock options if the company's stock rises in value.
However, Cheney and his wife Lynne have assigned any future profits from their stock options in Halliburton and several other companies to charity. And we're not just taking the Cheney's word for this -- we asked for a copy of the legal agreement they signed, which we post here publicly for the first time.
The "Gift Trust Agreement" the Cheney's signed two days before he took office turns over power of attorney to a trust administrator to sell the options at some future time and to give the after-tax profits to three charities. The agreement specifies that 40% will go to the University of Wyoming (Cheney's home state), 40% will go to George Washington University's medical faculty to be used for tax-exempt charitable purposes, and 20% will go to Capital Partners for Education , a charity that provides financial aid for low-income students in Washington, DC to attend private and religious schools.
The agreement states that it is "irrevocable and may not be terminated, waived or amended," so the Cheney's can't take back their options later.
The options owned by the Cheney's have been valued at nearly $8 million, his attorney says. Such valuations are rough estimates only -- the actual value will depend on what happens to stock prices in the future, which of course can't be known beforehand. But it is clear that giving up rights to the future profits constitutes a significant financial sacrifice, and a sizeable donation to the chosen charities.
"Financial Interest"
Democrats have taken issue with Cheney's statement to Tim Russert on NBC's Meet the Press Sept. 14, 2003, when he said he had no "financial interest" in Halliburton:
Cheney (Sept. 14, 2003): I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interests. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had now for over three years. 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 Corps of Engineers or anybody else in the federal government.
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.
Conflict of Interest
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.
posted on September 30, 2004 12:59:22 PM
Linda, don't you know by now the the libs are perfect, they don't make mistakes. It's always someone elses fault.
Hey, hey Ho, ho Kerry - sign the 1-8-0
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The person who has nothing for which he is willing
to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
posted on September 30, 2004 01:01:44 PM
YAAWWWNnnnnn....somebody wake me when she goes back to the funny one where she attacks Kerry's tan...snicker, snicker.
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.
Democrats have aggressively challenged Cheney's claim that he has no financial ties to Halliburton, despite those arrangements.
The Houston-based energy conglomerate has been awarded more than $2 billion in contracts for rebuilding Iraq, including one worth $1.22 billion that was awarded on a noncompetitive basis.
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."
Cheney, who was Halliburton's chairman and chief executive, has disclosed the payments and the 433,333 options. The report suggests no illegality.
Catherine Martin, Cheney's public affairs director, said: "The vice president has no financial interest in Halliburton. He has no stake in the company. He will in no way benefit from the rise or fall of Halliburton's stock price or the success or failure of the company."
Cheney said on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sept. 14 that he has "no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had now for over three years." His assertion came during a discussion of Halliburton's contracts in Iraq. Cheney said he had "severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interests."
Democrats disputed that because Cheney received deferred compensation of $147,579 in 2001 and $162,392 in 2002, with payments scheduled to continue for three more years.
In response, Cheney's office said he had purchased an insurance policy so he would be paid even if Halliburton failed. And his office also has announced he has agreed to donate the after-tax proceeds from his stock options to three charities.
However, the congressional report said that neither the insurance policy nor the charity designation would change the public official's disclosure obligation.
The continuing controversy over Cheney's statement puts him in the position of drawing criticism to the White House. In the past, White House officials have considered him a reassuring figure for viewers and voters.
Bush issued what amounted to a correction of another statement Cheney made on "Meet the Press." When asked about the possibility of a connection between former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein and the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Cheney said, "We don't know." Three days later, Bush said in response to a question that the government has no evidence of such a link.
The liberal group American Family Voices has spent more than $300,000 to run ads about Halliburton's connection to the administration. The group said the commercials are effective for raising money. The ads -- on cable in Washington and on broadcast television in New Hampshire and battleground states of the Midwest -- began last week and will run for at least another week, the group said.
posted on September 30, 2004 01:07:34 PM
Independent Media TV – It’s hard to imagine a company being more controversial than Halliburton in recent years. Enron obviously has been a very controversial company, but while Enron’s criminal behavior has been all over the television news, Halliburton’s criminal and controversial activity has flown under the radar of TV headlines, and therefore escaped serious public scrutiny. If you haven’t been following the Halliburton situation closely, I would imagine that you are in for quite a shock as I list them here.
Before outlining all the criminal, and controversial behavior, it’s important to mention that Vice President Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton from 1995-2000.
Tax Evasion
While Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, the number of Halliburton subsidiaries registered in tax-friendly locations went from 9 in 1995 to 44 in 1999. And guess what? Halliburton’s federal taxes plummeted from $302 million in 1998 to less than zero, an $85 million rebate in 1999. – Source – Tallahassee Democrat, August 6, 2002
Illegal Business Practices - Corporate Corruption
Remember that Cheney was CEO in the LATE 90’s. Although, the AP forgot to mention that in this article - ''A jury has awarded $70 million to a Houston man who claimed that Halliburton and another oil company cheated him out of the chance to develop an oil field in Kazakhstan in the late 1990s.'' – Source – Associated Press, October 25, 2003
Illegal Trade
In a letter to Donald Rumsfeld, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif) said, "Halliburton Co. subsidiaries and joint ventures had done business in Iran, Iraq and Libya, in spite of U.S. sanctions against those countries." – Source - San Francisco Chronicle, May 1, 2003
Illegal Arms Trade – Selling Warheads
“An attorney for the head of a New Mexico anti-terrorism training firm is asking why prosecutors have zealously pursued his client for allegedly stockpiling warheads but ignored the company from they purchased the weapons. The attorney for High Energy Access Tool's president David Hudak, says Halliburton Corporation solicited Hudak to purchase about 2,400 warheads. Bob Gorence says the company offered the warheads as demolition charges and not as the government-owned military items that are illegal to posses.” – Source - Associated Press, April 28, 2003
Bribing Officials, Part I
According to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission report filed by Halliburton, one of Halliburton’s subsidiaries paid a Nigerian official $2.4 million dollars in return for tax breaks. – Source - The Guardian, May 9,2003
Bribing Officials, Part II
The Halliburton subsidiary of Kellogg, Brown, and Root, and a French engineering firm, are being investigated by the French financial crimes squad for the payment of up to $200,000,000 in under the counter “commissions” (read: kick back, or bribe) for a contract in Nigeria. – Source - The Guardian, in London, Oct. 11, 2003
Illegally Price Gouging the Government, Part I
Under Cheney's watch, Halliburton was fined $2 million for consistently over billing the Pentagon. - Source – Tallahassee Democrat, August 6, 2002
Illegally Price Gouging the Government, Part II?
According to Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif), “Halliburton billed the government an average price of $1.59 per gallon (3.7 litres), excluding the company's fee of 2%-7%,”
“He (Waxman) said the average wholesale cost of gasoline during that period in the Middle East was about 71 cents a gallon, a figure an oil industry source told Reuters was accurate. That meant Halliburton was charging more than 90 cents a gallon to transport fuel into Iraq from Kuwait.”
“When we checked with independent experts to see if this fee was reasonable, they were stunned,’ said Waxman, adding a reasonable transport cost would be 10 to 25 cents per gallon, especially as the US military was providing security. – Source - Reuters, October 16, 2003
Illegally Price Gouging the Government, Part III?
“As of Oct. 19, Halliburton had imported 61.3 million gallons of gasoline from Kuwait into Iraq, and the company was paid $162.5 million for an average price of $2.65 a gallon, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif) and Rep. John Dingell (D) wrote.’’ - Source - Yahoo, October 30, 2003
Government Favors for Halliburton, Part I
During Cheney’s watch Halliburton received $1.5 billion in government financing and loan guarantees. - Source – Tallahassee Democrat, August 6, 2002
Immunity from Polluting Drinking Water – Government Favors, Part II
As part of the new Energy Bill, there is a provision that, if it becomes law, “the EPA would be helpless even if the technique pumped pollutants into drinking-water wells.” The provision, favored by Senate Republicans, has already passed the Republican controlled House. This provision specifically names the process, ‘hydraulic fracturing’, that will be immune from regulation from the Environmental Protection Agency. – Source - Denver Post, Sept. 14, 2003
Lying about a Nuclear Threat
There are many examples of this, but the most blatant is when he said that, “Iraq has reconstituted it’s Nuclear program”, then we found that that claim was based on documents he knew to be forged. These forged documents claimed Iraq attempted to purchase yellow-cake uranium from Nigeria. Cheney ask the CIA to send someone over to Nigeria. The CIA sent Ex-Ambassador Wilson over, and he found that the documents were fake, and reported this back to Cheney's office. This is the same Wilson whose wife was outed by senior Bush officials, after he told his story to the news. She was a covert CIA agent. Revealing her identify as a CIA agent could have risked the lives of many of her contacts. – Source – MSNBC, ABC, CBS, FOX
Conflict of Interest – Lying about Financial Ties
On NBC’s “Meet the Press”, Sept. 14, 2003, Cheney stated that he has “no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven’t had now for over three years.” He also said he had “severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interests.” – That is a bold-faced lie. In reality, “Cheney received deferred compensation of $147,579 in 2001 and $162,392 in 2002, with payments scheduled to continue for three more years.” – Cheney also has “433,333 stock options” valued at more than $10,500,000.00 (433,333 stock options * Today’s Stock Price). – Source - MSNBC, Sept. 26, 2003
The No-Bid Contract, Government Favors, Part III
Prior to the war, a Halliburton subsidiary was secretly awarded a two-year, no bid contract worth up to $7,000,000,000. It was originally communicated that the contract was to put out oil well fires and to handle other unspecified duties. As it turns out, those unspecified duties also give Halliburton control of oil wells, and much more. – Source - Chicago Tribune, May 8, 2003
More Lying
The stated reason why Halliburton received the no-bid contract is because the Bush Administration needed to keep it secret for 'National Security' reasons, and because of their unique resources to handle the problems, but - ''Bob Grace is president of GSM Consulting, a small company in Amarillo, Texas, that has fought oil well fires all over the world. Grace worked for the Kuwait government after the first Gulf War and was in charge of firefighting strategy for the huge Bergan Oil Field, which had more than 300 fires.” GSM Consulting was not given an opportunity nor a no-bid contract. – Source - CBS, Sept. 21, 2003
Losing an Abestos Lawsuit
In 2002, Halliburton agreed to a $4,000,000,000 cash-and-stock deal to settle 200,000 asbestos lawsuits. – Source - Reuters, Sept. 2, 2003
Government Favors, Part IV
“Senators are considering a measure that would create a $108 billion fund to pay workers exposed to asbestos, a cancer- causing insulation and fireproofing material. A study by lawyers for asbestos victims estimated the measure would save Halliburton and 10 other companies $15 billion, leading to concerns the company is delaying settlement talks in hopes the bill passes.” – Source - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, July 23, 2003
Corporate Corruption – Filing Bankruptcy to avoid taking responsibility for your actions.
If Government favors won’t work to avoid paying the asbestos lawsuit, then try filing for BANKRUPTCY. “The oilfield services company said it is now in a position to make a prepackaged Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing in November for its subsidiaries -- DII Industries, Kellogg Brown, & Root and others involved in asbestos litigation. Once filed, the bankruptcy plan automatically blocks any further asbestos claims, even if the court's stay has expired.” – Source - Reuters, Sept. 29, 2003
Even though they are making billions – ''Halliburton…yesterday reported soaring revenues from its contracts to help rebuild Iraq...The company said sales in the third quarter were 39% higher at $4.1 billion'' – Source - The Guardian, London, October 10, 2003
Paying Halliburton instead of buying food for the Iraqi poor
''Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif) and and Rep. John Dingell (D) also said last week that the UN oil-for-food program was being used to pay Halliburton, in possible violation of a UN Security Council resolution.'' – Source - AFP – October 27th, 2003 and the US Army Corp of Engineers
Tax Breaks for the Energy Industry (Including Halliburton), Government Favors V
“Congressional negotiators are weighing House and Senate proposals
posted on September 30, 2004 01:27:29 PM
Poor crowfart, getting all defensive, critizes everyone for their c & p's then resorts to the same tactics.
Poor poor crow, you're the perfect poster child for the motto "A mind is a terrable thing to waste".
Hey, hey Ho, ho Kerry - sign the 1-8-0
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The person who has nothing for which he is willing
to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
posted on September 30, 2004 01:47:54 PM
Poor poor crow, you're the perfect poster child for the motto "A mind is a terrable thing to waste".
I believe you meant "terrible" and you are correct, a mind is a "terrible" thing to waste- maybe you aren't aware, but that little abc symbol in the right hand corner is a spell checker- that's right, it will actually correct misspelled words for you- all you have to do is click it-
posted on September 30, 2004 02:05:31 PM
Katrinka, thanks to poor crowfarm, bear and linda now both know that the word "waste" is NOT spelled waist....so there is hope...but not much.
Bear's posts never ever really say anything or contribute an intellectual thought but the spelling is entertaining.
posted on September 30, 2004 03:39:28 PM
I notice, even with all the proof/verification provided on that site, that not one dem here has anything to say on the thread topic. Surprise, surprise. They just want to continue spreading their lies about VP Cheney and Halliburton. Figures.....
posted on September 30, 2004 04:12:36 PM
Ok Linduh, you want a response to your quote, "Kerry Ad Falsely Accuses Cheney on Halliburton. Contrary to this ad's message, Cheney doesn't gain financially from the contracts given to the company he once headed."
Here is something you can understand... I'll cut and paste the links for you.
Second paragraph, shows Cheney received deferred payments which include Interest. Interest made and paid for by Halliburton's current income, which is partially derived from contracts in Iraq.
Eleventh paragraph, Cheney is benefiting via 433,333 shares of Halliburton stock options, which also gain income and interest based on Halliburton's performance including those which are derived from contracts in Iraq.
Do you really need me to continue??? Cheney still gets money from Halliburton, whether it is deferred or not, he is still on their payroll, he receives interest on that which is paid by Halliburton's current profits, and his stock options continue to gain as Halliburton's profits continue to grow. How much clearer does it need to be that the guy still has ties to Halliburton even though Linda loves to claim, "Cheney doesn't gain financially from the contracts given to the company he once headed."?
All of these stock options, and deferred payments make you wonder why someone would do such a thing? I mean, it seems as though Dick might have had some insider information that would benefit his overall income by doing so.
posted on September 30, 2004 04:43:40 PM
rusty - I'm glad you did respond....now I can see why you continue to state this falsehood.
All money Cheney receives from Halliburton is money he earned BEFORE he left their company. All executives arrange this type of payment plan to reduce their tax burden.
He has earned no money that wasn't due him since 2000 when he left the firm. He only receives parts of what they owed him THEN...no money made by him AT ALL...since he because VP. Any income from his stocks is an an IRREVERSABLE trust...those funds *donated* to charities when and as the trustee deems appropriate.
Those are the FACTS you're choosing to ignore that are already stated in the above factcheck article.
Kind of like you tried to imply the two bills on the $87 billion were not voted on in the same time frame ...each together...between the House and the Senate. The bill kerry supported was voted down....as Bush didn't want it to be a loan. Said he wouldn't sign it if it was presented to him that way. They were both very much dealt with together, in the same time frame.
And h. clinton, Lieberman, Gephardt voted yes as did many other democrats who didn't want to deny our troops what they needed....unlike kerry and edwards who voted NO for funding out troops. I never said that item was a flip-flop either as you implied. You're great at implying things I haven't even said. What I've said about kerry's no vote...is that had all voted that way...kerry had voted to send them to war and then didn't vote to support their needs....which he didn't. Had all voted the way he did, rather than him being in a VERY small minority in the Senate who did vote that way....then our soldiers would have been placed at risk. Little did kerry care, he wanted it HIS way or they could just do without supplies.
And remember the VP so many dems were hoping kerry would choose as his VP..McCain...is a most loyal defender of the Iraq war.
posted on September 30, 2004 04:53:07 PM
Actually Linduh, I did point out that most of his income via Halliburton came from deferred payments, however, those deferred payments are paid for by Halliburton's current income and it pays interest to Dick Cheney, which ironically comes largely from their no-bid contracts with the United States Government while Dick Cheney is the Vice President. He continues to accrue more and more profits due to his ties to Halliburton.
Keep in mind, you are the one who has claimed, "Cheney doesn't gain financially from the contracts given to the company he once headed." You didn't say, he gained minimally, he gained largely, etc. Nope, you said, " Cheney doesn't gain", meaning he hasn't gained one penny during his current time in office as VP from his position with Halliburton. He actually does gain financially from those contracts given to the company he once headed. He gains them via the increasing stock value and interest paid which come directly from those contracts. Jesus H. Christ, Linduh, how can you be so blind to the fact that Dick's value in stock options increase as Halliburton continues to profit, by in large from the contracts in Iraq. Anyone in their right mind can clearly see the conflict in interest here.
[ edited by rustygumbo on Sep 30, 2004 04:55 PM ]
posted on September 30, 2004 06:47:07 PMI notice, even with all the proof/verification provided on that site, that not one dem here has anything to say on the thread topic. Surprise, surprise
No Linda the Democrats do not respond here because we all now the fear and lies you want to spread accross the country just like your pal Bush is doing to the America people.
DICK CHENEY SUPPORTS MY RELATIONSHIP: People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
YOU CAN'T HAVE BULLSH** WITH OUT BUSH.
------------------------------
posted on September 30, 2004 06:53:54 PM
katrinka3254, aaahhhhh. another perfect lib speaks. Comeback when you have more than 7 posts, or are you the newest of crows altered egos.
BTY, another of kerrys newest lying tactics.
Kerry's myth making
WASHINGTON -- John Kerry in a press conference last week repeated his accusation that Gen. Eric Shinseki was "forced out" as U.S. Army chief of staff because he wanted more troops for Iraq. The trouble is that the Democratic presidential nominee was spreading an urban myth. The bigger trouble is that it was no isolated incident.
Sen. Kerry last week also said the Bush administration may push reinstatement of the military draft, when in fact that idea comes only from anti-war Democrats. At the same time, he said retired Gen. Tommy Franks complained that Iraq was draining troops from Afghanistan, when the truth is he never did. Over a week earlier, Kerry blamed Bush for higher Medicare premiums when in fact they are mandated by law (one that Kerry voted for).
Exaggeration is a familiar political staple, but presidential candidates usually are held to a higher standard. Kerry's recent descent into myth making may reflect the campaign's anxiety in the final weeks. The immediate questions are whether he will engage in misstatements during Thursday's first presidential debate, and whether he will be challenged if he does.
Kerry is voicing inaccurate statements that have been repeated so often on the Internet, on radio talk shows and by campaign surrogates that they have come to be regarded as the truth -- for example, the explanation for how Eric Shinseki's long and distinguished military career ended.
Kerry picked up the story April 13 during a campaign event in Providence, R.I., declaring: "Gen. Shinseki said very clearly: We need 200,000 troops. And what happened to him? He was forced into early retirement." Kerry reiterated this last week at a Columbus, Ohio, press conference: "Gen. Shinseki told this country how many troops we'd need. The president retired him early for telling the truth."
That is not true, and even Bush critics in the Pentagon know it. The truth is that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, demanding control of the Army, collided with Shinseki on issues unrelated to Iraq. In March 2002, Rumsfeld announced that Shinseki's term as chief of staff would end as scheduled in June 2003 without extension -- an unprecedented action that made the general a lame duck. It was after that, not before it, on Feb. 25, 2003, that Shinseki told a Senate committee the U.S. would need "several hundred thousand" soldiers (not precisely 200,000) for Iraq occupation duty.
In his Philadelphia speech Sept. 24, Kerry declared: "All you have to do is ask Gen. Tommy Franks how surprised he was that those troops moved out of there (Afghanistan) when he was trying to do the job he was doing." As a former trial lawyer, Kerry should have known the answer to the question he was asking. He could have known by reading Franks' best-selling memoir ("American Solider", in which the general denies that Bush starved Afghanistan for the sake of Iraq.
"President Bush had stressed his concern that we maintain momentum in Afghanistan," wrote Franks (who supports the president's re-election). Indeed, when Kerry in a Sept. 21 press conference in Jacksonville, Fla., suggested that Bush had taken needed troops out of Afghanistan, Franks that very day said in an ABC radio interview with Sean Hannity: "That's absolutely incorrect."
One day after Kerry misrepresented the former Central Command commander in chief, the Associated Press reported that the candidate at West Palm Beach, Fla., "raised the possibility" of a reinstated draft. That is an old saw on the Internet even though there are no such plans at the Pentagon. The only advocates of renewed conscription are liberal Democrats, led by Rep. Charlie Rangel of New York, who believe it would discourage U.S. military intervention around the world.
Earlier, on Sept. 8 in Cincinnati, Kerry put the blame on Bush for higher Medicare premiums. In fact, health care experts told me, the premiums were mandated by a 1997 codification of the law on which Sen. Kerry cast a favorable vote.
On Jan. 8, 1976, I wrote a column detailing six major untruthful statements by Jimmy Carter -- about himself, not his opponents -- during two public appearances. He went on to the presidency without ever refuting what I wrote. It will be interesting to see whether John Kerry follows the Carter model during the four weeks left for this campaign.
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The person who has nothing for which he is willing
to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
[ edited by Bear1949 on Sep 30, 2004 06:57 PM ]
