posted on April 28, 2005 11:04:06 AM
You know, fenix, I think this is a good thing....this Ethic Committee where the dems have refused to meet and settle the 'aligations' against DeLay. Better not to have 'accusations' sit for this long. Prove it or drop it.
Yesterday I read that the Republicans have agreed to vote on a bill that will reverse the law passed whic changed the ethic committee rules back to where they were. So now maybe they can get on with what they're paid to do.
The benefit I see in this is that many who have done the exact same thing they accuse DeLay of will be called to answer their own charges of taking lobbyist money for trips.
Might just clean the House up a little bit. Keep everyone a little more honest...on both sides of the aisle. Make them all THINK before special interests buy their votes/favors. IF anyone has violated any rules/laws at all.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on April 28, 2005 11:28:06 AM
YAWNnnnnn Same old, same old.....Repugs just don't get it.
First, DUH..everybody knows everybody does it.
Second, "everybody" is NOT the CURRENT Speaker of the House which I think is third in line to be president ( and I'm sure some anal poster will google that).
Third, DeLie didn't like the ethics so he CHANGED them proving that, as CURRENT Speaker of the House, he has NO ethics.
Fourth, You think THIS is his biggest problem????...Hahahahahaha ...NOT !
OH, there is SO much more ...he's goin' down....
But then the neocons in here, who have no ethics just like their leaders, won't acknowledge the wrong doing because they have no ethics.
This has been proven by their conduct in the RT and Ebay...no ethics whatsoever.
posted on April 28, 2005 11:37:54 AM
Linda - I don't disagree that anyone, no matter what the party, that puts themselves up for sale to the highest bidder needs to be investigated and drummed out of office.
I would actually like to see an independent ethics panel of non Senate and House members put together that oversees and makes final judgement in all ethics investigations in either house in order to avoid any appearance of impropriety. That way we know that if someone is cleared it's because they really are innocent, not because they were able to make the right backroom deal and that the guilty really are guilty, not just unpopular.
But you gotta admit.... that was a great Ooops quote.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on April 28, 2005 11:50:53 AM
fenix - I agree on having an independent panel...but what I have a problem with in doing just that is there we go again...growing more and more government.
And as far as the statement being an ooops...I didn't see it so don't what what context it was said in...but maybe it wasn't an ooops. Maybe the person who made the statement truly believes there are way too many, on both sides, that do this sort of thing - and that few are being honest about their own actions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
edited to add: Just like Nancy Pelosi and a couple of other dems....the one's throwing the 'rocks' at DeLay....are now aware they live in 'glass houses' and have revised their own 'trip reports - changing them to cover their a$$ - now that other lobbyist payments for trip THEY took are being looked into.]
That's how some/many politicans have earned the poor credibility record they have.
[ edited by Linda_K on Apr 28, 2005 11:55 AM ]
posted on April 28, 2005 12:39:44 PM
I doubt if you can even find an independent council. It will be tough to do and who would appoint it?
Rules and Regulations are put down in writing so as everyone knows exactly what they should or shouldn't be doing. Why do we have to have babysitters for them. They are old enough to know better. I have no pity for either party that does things that are wrong. There are some decent politicans but they are in the minority. We have a senator from Wisconsin (democrat) who is probably going to run for President. He is a fine upstanding person and very well liked. I doubt if he has any skeletons in his closet. No matter who or what happens the other side cries foul. This would be a difficult task.
How long ago did Cheney leave Halliburton and the Democrats are still talking about it, at least here they are, but when the Republicans bring up past history that is wrong. How come?
posted on April 28, 2005 12:45:18 PM
Libra - the Cheney/Haliburton problem comes from two issues...
1) He recieved compensation from them after he left their employment and while he was Vice President
2) Haliburton has been given a stunning number of no bid contracts even though they have been investigated and and admitted fault in overbilling on past contracts which according to regulations should have excluded them from consideration.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on April 28, 2005 12:49:31 PM
Yes, fenix. No bids that were given under both this and the clinton administration to Halliburton.
ALL executives in corporations have the choice of taking their 'owed' compensation in increments. Cheney is no different. This is money he earned BEFORE he became VP and is being paid out in increments.
And you're correct, Libra, while the clintons are mentioned almost weekly in the news....mention it here and you'll hear about it. It's different standards for different posters.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on April 28, 2005 01:01:55 PM
Well Linda, I think the reason people object to the constant bringing up of Clinton is that it is so rarely relevent to the conversation at hand.
We could be discussing the an energy plan and inevitably someone witll either reply with a Clinton had sex or a Ted Kennedy is fat reply. It gets redundant and accomplishes nothing.
Besides, do two wrong really make a right? What is the point?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on April 28, 2005 01:06:24 PM
Since I don't believe it's 'wrong' I don't think this is a case of 'two wrongs'.
I only speak for myself, fenix, but when I have brought up his or her name it's the same song and dance....and IS relivant to the issue being discussed...just mentioning that the same things were done by the previous administration.....the left's hero.
I took Libra's post as meaning anything brought up from the past, by the right, is frowned on...but it's sure okay when the left does the same thing. Could be wrong...but that's how I took what she said.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on April 28, 2005 01:11:51 PMWe could be discussing the an energy plan....
Well we CAN do that later this evening. President Bush will be televised giving HIS version of HIS energy plan....not quite the same as the one the House just passed.
We'll see if the drunkard or the sex addict is even mentioned. [sorry, just too tempting after what you just said ]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on April 28, 2005 01:20:10 PM
That is what I said Linda.
But fenix Halliburtin got those indorsements during the Clinton administration. Didn't the Clinton Administration do the non bidding agreement?
Yes he did while he was VP but doesn't any CEO get payments after leaving. It just so happened he was VP. What was he supposed to do turn down the VP nomination? or maybe turn down the cash?
I bet Lee Iacocoa is still getting payments from Chrysler.
I doubt anyone gets a severance payment as large as they got in one lump sum.
posted on April 28, 2005 02:03:41 PM
Libra - do you mind telling me exactly how Haliburton got awarded no bid contracts in Iraq during the Clinton administration when it was Bush that declared the war?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on April 28, 2005 02:22:17 PM
fenix - You're kidding right? His administration didn't do so in Iraq....as I believe you well know. But they did award no bid contracts to Halliburton during their administration and we've rehashed it over and over. The links have been provided over and over.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on April 28, 2005 02:42:56 PM
Yes, and near the end of the administration they were placed under investigation for over billing. They have in fact been found guilty of, and admitted to, fraud of over billing during the Bush administration and despite the fact that regulations make then ineligible for contracts because of that fact, they have been awarded additional contracts.
I don't begrudge a competent company getting contracts Linda. That's not the problem. The problem is when someone proves themselves to be dishonest and ripping off the government and we proceed to hand them a key to another vault full of money. Come on - they are billing the government for gas that is coming from Kuwait at a cost of 50% over what we are paying for it here and they are getting it straight from the refinery. You don't see a problem with that math? You don't have a problem with the fact that those drastic overcharges are going to have to be paid for with your tax dollars?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on April 28, 2005 02:50:06 PM
fenix - What I'm tired of is the left still rehashing old...old...news. There have been checks and balances and Halliburton has only worked with the government to iron out discrepencies that have come up.
To me personally....there are few companies that do this type of work....I believe only 5 and that is the reason BOTH administrations choose to use their services. As I understand it Haliburton is the only American company that does this. Do I want to see the profit they make....which again I've read is a very small/tiny percentage of the 'contract'...go to an American company, rather than a foreign one...YES!!!
This Cheney business has been warn out. He's face nothing other than accusations....no proof of any wrong doing. PERIOD. After all this time you'd think the left would see this dog don't bark.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on April 28, 2005 03:53:10 PM
I didn't start the Haliburton discussion Linda, I just responded to it. Go back thru the thread. I think you will find that it was the right leaning Libra that brought it up.
Strange... lately when she grabs a topic out of thin air it has something to do with Ted Kennedy's weight.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on Apr 28, 2005 03:53 PM ]
posted on April 28, 2005 04:27:48 PM
fenix - I took it that she was just using it as an example of constantly speaking of issues that the left are still wanting to discuss/complain about. Just like some here still do about how and why we got into the Iraqi war. Nothing more.
But then you started with giving the facts as you see them...and when you made that one statement I was just very surprised and personally didn't want to continue rehashing ol' Halliburton and Cheney.
The point is it's true. It's often okay for one side to do but not the other......it's OUR MO here it appears.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on April 28, 2005 07:28:05 PMStrange... lately when she grabs a topic out of thin air it has something to do with Ted Kennedy's weight
Huh! Are you talking about me? I doubt I have ever mentioned Ted Kennedy's weight. Just his drinking and the "Mary Jo Kopecney Case".
I honestly don't care how fat a person is.
posted on April 28, 2005 11:44:24 PM
Just a tiny segment of the damage Halliburton has done:
Posted on Mon, Jun. 14, 2004
GOP refusing to allow testimony on Halliburton spending
By Seth Borenstein
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON - Halliburton Inc. paid high-priced bills for common items, such as soda, laundry and hotels, in Iraq and Kuwait and then passed the inflated costs along to taxpayers, according to several former Halliburton employees and a Pentagon internal audit.
Democrats in the House of Representatives, who are feuding with House Republicans over whether the spending should be publicly aired at a hearing on Tuesday, released signed statements Monday by five ex-Halliburton employees recounting the lavish spending.
Those former employees contend that the politically connected firm:
-Lodged 100 workers at a five-star hotel in Kuwait for a total of $10,000 a day while the Pentagon wanted them to stay in tents, like soldiers, at $139 a night.
-Abandoned $85,000 trucks because of flat tires and minor problems.
-Paid $100 to have a 15-pound bag of laundry cleaned as part of a million-dollar laundry contract in peaceful Kuwait. The price for cleaning the same amount of laundry in war-torn Iraq was $28.
-Spent $1.50 a can to buy 37,200 cans of soda in Kuwait, about 24 times higher than the contract price.
-Knowingly paid subcontractors twice for the same bill.
Halliburton is already under fire for allegations of overcharging the Pentagon for fuel and soldiers' meals. The latest accusations center on whether Halliburton properly keeps track of its bills from smaller subcontractors, Pentagon auditors said in a month-old report released Monday by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif.
The 36-page report by the Defense Contract Audit Agency said that Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root had a billing system that was "inadequate," had numerous deficiencies and billing misstatements and that KBR didn't follow laws and regulations relating to spending and recordkeeping. Its contracting practices are so bad, the auditors said, that KBR shouldn't be allowed to bill the Pentagon directly without the government poring over every detail in advance.
Statements by the whistleblowers - five of whom were identified - and the government's audit report "portray a company and a contracting environment that has run amok," Waxman wrote in a letter to Government Reform Committee Chairman Tom Davis, R-Va., on Monday.
Halliburton disputed the auditor's report and said Waxman was politically motivated.
Wendy Hall, a company spokeswoman, said Waxman's allegations do nothing "to feed a single member of our military, create a single unit of housing, repair a single oil well or supply a single piece of material for reconstruction."
Hall also noted that Halliburton continues "to be a target in this presidential election year. This is the 35th news release about Halliburton from the congressman's office since March 2003."
But one former Halliburton subcontracting manager, Marie deYoung, said in her signed statement that she had seen "significant waste and overpricing."
"Halliburton rarely collected adequate information from subcontractors to justify payment of invoices. When I attempted to properly verify invoice terms before setting up payment authorization, I was chastised," said deYoung, a former Army captain and chaplain who resigned from the company last month.
According to deYoung, Halliburton's financial staff lives at the five-star Kempinski Julai'a Hotel and Resort in Kuwait. "For a three-month period, the Kempinski hotel charged almost $1 million to house 100 Halliburton employees. By comparison, it costs less than $200,000 a year to lease tents that could house 400 soldiers. ... The military requested that Halliburton move into tents, but Halliburton refused."
AND , if you say , well Clinton did it ,too, then you must APPROVE of Clinton!
