Cheney's Halliburton Stock Options Soar to $9.2 Mil: How Are Your Investments Doing?

[Mr-Blonde]

source: Senator Lautenberg's blog (http://lautenberg.senate.gov/~lautenberg/press/2003/01/2005915804.html)

Lautenberg: Congratulations Halliburton and Vice President Cheney

Cheney's Halliburton Stock Options Soar to $9.2 Million

WASHINGTON -- Senator Frank R. Lautenberg reiterated his call for Vice President Dick Cheney to forfeit his continuing financial interest in the Halliburton Co (HAL), in light of the surging value of Vice President Cheney's Halliburton holdings. Vice President Cheney continues to hold 433,333 Halliburton stock options, now worth $9,214,154.93 (at close yesterday.)

"As Halliburton's fortunes rise, so does the Vice President's, and that is wrong," said Senator Lautenberg. "Halliburton has already raked in more than $10 billion from the Bush-Cheney Administration for work in Iraq, and now they are being awarded some of the first Katrina contracts. It is unseemly for the Vice President to continue to benefit from this company at the same time his Administration funnels billions of dollars to it."

All of Vice President's Cheney's stock options are "in the money" for the first time in years. According to the Vice President's Federal Financial Disclosure forms, he holds the following Halliburton stock options:

100,000 shares at $54.5000 (vested), expire 12-03-07 33,333 shares at $28.1250 (vested), expire 12-02-08 300,000 shares at $39.5000 (vested), expire 12-02-09

The Vice President has attempted to fend off criticism by signing an agreement to donate the after-tax profits from these stock options to charities of his choice, and his lawyer has said he will not take any tax deduction for the donations. Valued at over $9 million, the Vice President could exercise his stock options for a substantial windfall, benefiting not only his designated charities, but also providing Halliburton with a tax deduction.

The Vice President also continues to receive "deferred salary" from Halliburton. While in office, he has received the following salary payments from Halliburton:

Deferred salary paid by Halliburton to Vice President Cheney in 2001: $205,298 Deferred salary paid by Halliburton to Vice President Cheney in 2002: $162,392 Deferred salary paid by Halliburton to Vice President Cheney in 2003: $178,437 Deferred salary paid by Halliburton to Vice President Cheney in 2004: $194,852

In September 2003, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) issued a memorandum to Senator Lautenberg concluding that holding stock options while in elective office does constitute a "financial interest" regardless of whether the holder of the options will donate proceeds to charities. CRS also found that receiving deferred compensation is a financial interest.

The CRS report can be downloaded at:

http://lautenberg.senate.gov/Report.pdf

The CRS findings contradict Vice President Cheney's puzzling view that he does not have a financial interest in Halliburton. On the September 14, 2003 edition of Meet the Press in response to questions regarding his relationship with Halliburton where he was employed as CEO for five years, from 1995 to 2000, Vice President Cheney said:

"And since I left Halliburton to become George Bush's vice president, I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had, now, for over three years."

[The Heart Collector]

Hahaha I love how this administration just DOESN'T GIVE A FUCK.

[Lynn7]

Senator Lautenberg's attack is silly. Cheney is not Donald Trump. He has had like 4 heart attacks and he is a hard working, kind man. He has a nice wife and two nice daughters who will inherit all of this terrible money that he earned legally when he worked for the company.

Should we make sure to hire street people for important governmental jobs? Most of the senators are millionaires. I have more respect for a small town guy who did well (like Cheney who is from Wisconsin) than I do for the other senators who simply inherited their daddys' fortunes and live the high life without having worked a day in their lives in any real capacity.

[JohnTheHenchman]

Frank Lautenberg, the voice of the people.:rolleyes:

[The Heart Collector]

Originally posted by Lynn7
he is a hard working, kind man.

This is, of course, the same kind man who TOLD SOMEONE TO GO FUCK HIMSELF IN THE SENATE.

[JohnTheHenchman]

Actually him telling someone to "go fuck himself" in the senate is one of the few things about him that I admire.

[outsyder]

I think I'll go buy some Halliburton stock.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
This is, of course, the same kind man who TOLD SOMEONE TO GO FUCK HIMSELF IN THE SENATE.

That was because a guy who always acted really friendly to him (I think it was Senator Leahy from Vermont) was saying some very horrible things about him out in public-accusing him of all kinds of disreputable behavior and then he came up to Cheney in the Senate as if they were good old friends and that is why cheney said what he did. Does Leahy think it's all just politics as he tears down the character of a "friend"? Why would he want to be friends with someone who is so disreputable? I too admire Cheney for what he did. It shows that he is real and has real feelings and it is not all about politics to him.

[The Postmaster General]

The Vice President has attempted to fend off criticism by signing an agreement to donate the after-tax profits from these stock options to charities of his choice, [/QUOTE]


Tom DeLay better start up another Texans for a Republican Majority.



And yes, Lynn -- Truly Cheney's rags to riches story is something we should all admire, and because of which should not question the man. Much in the spirit of Don Vito Corrleone and Tony Montana --- Cheney surely has risen from nothing and made something for himself, and that's what's important.

[Raoul Duke]

Originally posted by Lynn7
That was because a guy who always acted really friendly to him (I think it was Senator Leahy from Vermont) was saying some very horrible things about him out in public-accusing him of all kinds of disreputable behavior and then he came up to Cheney in the Senate as if they were good old friends and that is why cheney said what he did. Does Leahy think it's all just politics as he tears down the character of a "friend"? Why would he want to be friends with someone who is so disreputable? I too admire Cheney for what he did. It shows that he is real and has real feelings and it is not all about politics to him.

He should have just taken the high road..Been the better man.

Jesus didn't tell Judas to go fuck himself, did he?


Heh, although it's funny to think of him doing that.

[The Postmaster General]

I just would like someone to give a real explanation based on facts -

Avoiding situations that concern a conflict of interest is one of the most obvious and stated rules of ethics.

How is Cheney having stock in a company that his adminstration is using to take money from the public NOT a conflict of interest.

No, making money through such means is not against the law - but marrying your 15 year old counsin isn't against the law in some states. That doesn't mean it's something that shouldn't be met with scorn.,

Pretty much every company in existance would fire someone under the same circumstances - Most companies have an entire policy about Conflicts of Interest.

The saddest part of all of this is hearing soldiers in Iraq complaining about the increased danger from Halliburton being there.

How many heads will be lost before Cheney decides to sell his stock?

Then there are people like Lynn, who are claiming that all he is trying to do is take care of his family - so he probably needs that extra million or else his poor wife and kids will suffer.

[Criminal Rock]

Vice President Cheney had already earned the salary that they have been paying him for the past 4 years now, that is he purchased an insurance policy with the company to guarantee that his earned salary would be paid to him no matter what happened to the company financially. This is what deferred salary means, and how it is practiced. And about his stock options, from what I know, and from what I heard, he placed 100% of these options into a charitable trust, in which I believe you have absolutely no control over the options after the move.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Tai Mai Jew
And about his stock options, from what I know, and from what I heard, he placed 100% of these options into a charitable trust, in which I believe you have absolutely no control over the options after the move.


On the surface, that seems noble, but I would still have to know exactly what the charity is before saying it's a gracious act. Of course, anyone is well aware -- There are big differences between the Red Cross, and, say Celebrations for Children, or a charity that your buddy runs -- which again, would create a conflict of interest.

I am not so much on attack in regards to Cheney - just on the notion that there is absoilutely nothing wrong with making decisions that are of global concern, when the situation creates a conflict of interest. There is much to Cheney's situation that I am not fully aware of, but the arguements I've thus far heard - in regards to there being nothing wrong with doing something like this -- That is not true.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Raoul Duke
He should have just taken the high road..Been the better man.

Jesus didn't tell Judas to go fuck himself, did he?


Heh, although it's funny to think of him doing that.

Substitiute the the names in the Cheney/Leahy story to Bill Clinton and some hated Republican and you would be saying Clinton did the right thing. Just becasue Cheney used the "F" word is not a good reason to blast him. Actually, Jesus would not have used the "F"word but he did teach us to confront people directly with our problems and that is what Cheney did.

[Raoul Duke]

Uh, no actually I wouldn't say Clinton did the right thing, how would you know what I'd think?

Jesus was a total pacifist. Cheney's "confrontation" was hostile.

But anyway, I'm sure you'll disagree. You got yo thang an' I got my thang.

[Criminal Rock]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
On the surface, that seems noble, but I would still have to know exactly what the charity is before saying it's a gracious act. Of course, anyone is well aware -- There are big differences between the Red Cross, and, say Celebrations for Children, or a charity that your buddy runs -- which again, would create a conflict of interest.

I am not so much on attack in regards to Cheney - just on the notion that there is absoilutely nothing wrong with making decisions that are of global concern, when the situation creates a conflict of interest. There is much to Cheney's situation that I am not fully aware of, but the arguements I've thus far heard - in regards to there being nothing wrong with doing something like this -- That is not true.

Well, one can only assume that Mr. Cheney and Co. didn’t send his stock options to “Charity for Cheney,” which is basically what everyone is trying to charge him of doing here.

I typed in “Cheney’s charitable trust” in yahoo’s search engine and I clicked on number eights link in which I found this 'here" (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=a4nSwa58JbGM&refer=top_world_news) and, most importantly, i found this...

Gifts to Charity

Their tax bill was pared by $404,695 in itemized deductions, including $303,354 in donations to charity in 2004, primarily from Lynne Cheney's book royalties. Beneficiaries included Capital Partners for Education, a Washington, D.C. children's education fund, Medical Faculties Associates Inc., a George Washington University medical Center fund, and the University of Wyoming.

Maybe this has nothing to do with his stock options, maybe I’m just plain wrong here, but then again every dime he spends, including what he gives to charities that being his charitable trust, he must claim, and I believe this accurately tells what company, or charity, he’s involved with today.

[The Postmaster General]

But my stand is that none of this should even be a concern had Cheney just followed a few simple rudiments to following proper ethics.

He isn't a dumb guy - it isn't like he didn't know that he could look bad by being involved in a conflict of interest - So I question what his benefit is in putting himself in such a positions, and it's obviously because there is too much money to be lost otherwise.

When a politican puts his integrity to question for the sake of making an extra million --- I will always find that suspicious.

I'm sure you are very familar with the conflict of interest concept, but read a few of these blurbs from Wikipedia:

"A conflict of interest is a situation in which someone in a position of trust, such as a lawyer, a politician, or an executive or director of a corporation, has competing professional and/or personal interests. Such competing interests can make it difficult to fulfill his or her duties fairly. Even if there is no evidence of improper actions, a conflict of interest can create an appearance of impropriety that can undermine confidence in the ability of that person to act properly."

"Having a conflict of interest is not, in and of itself, evidence of wrongdoing. In fact, for many professionals, it is virtually impossible to avoid having conflicts of interest from time to time. A conflict of interest can, however, become a legal matter if an individual tries to (and/or succeeds in) influencing the outcome of a decision, for personal benefit.
There often is confusion over these two situations. Someone accused of a conflict of interest may deny that a conflict exists because he/she did not act improperly. In fact, a conflict of interest does exist even if there are no improper acts as a result of it."

"The best way to handle conflicts of interest are to avoid them entirely."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest


This is exactly why companies don't want employees engaging in situations where there is a conflict of interest. They find it is better to focus on business than focus on whether or not there is wrong-doing.

Cheney just doesn't care, and that bothers me.

I can't decypher all of that information you posted, and neither of us know the full extent of it -- Donations to charities equal tax breaks, for starters. Cheney works in a position where he can help decide who gets tax breaks.


Tai Mai - Think of it this way. If there was a male high school teacher who was hanging out after school with a female student. Wouldn't you question that?

Even if there is no wrong doing -- It is an established rule-of-thumb that the situation should be avoided - soley to avoid questions being asked. So why would an intelligent adult put themselves in that situation -- what do they have to gain?


And no - I'm not accusing Cheney of running this big scheme -- What I'm accusing him of is bad practices. It makes no sense why he would have set himself up like this -- no sense what-so-ever.

This is why I don't understand how someone couldn't question it. I don't understand why more people don't admit that Cheney is proverbally leaving the school grounds during lunch time with his station wagon full of teenage poo-nanny.

Whether or not he is actually doing something bad -- He's sure set himself in a position where it would be awfuly easy to do something bad, and wherr it looks like he could be doing something bad. Why would he go there?

[Criminal Rock]

Tai Mai - Think of it this way. If there was a male high school teacher who was hanging out after school with a female student. Wouldn't you question that?

I'd question that if it happened the way you described... Cheney didn't really put himself into that position, he didn't "hang out with the female student", it seems that he ran into her during Christmas Vacation, said their hello’s and goodbye’s, and went on their way.

[The Heart Collector]

Originally posted by Lynn7
That was because a guy who always acted really friendly to him (I think it was Senator Leahy from Vermont) was saying some very horrible things about him out in public-accusing him of all kinds of disreputable behavior and then he came up to Cheney in the Senate as if they were good old friends and that is why cheney said what he did. Does Leahy think it's all just politics as he tears down the character of a "friend"? Why would he want to be friends with someone who is so disreputable? I too admire Cheney for what he did. It shows that he is real and has real feelings and it is not all about politics to him.

I swear, if George W. Bush or anyone in the administration shoved his cock in a baby's mouth, you'd say the baby was sexually harassing him.

[Lynn7]

What I am doing is applying the same standards to everyone. What Bush haters are doing is using a double standard.

Are you telling me that if someone ( a friend)went around saying that you were a liar you would take the high road and keep being friendly with that person? I dont' think so- I think you might say the same thing that Dick Cheney said.

People all say that Cheney is and has always been a man of good character- except for his political foes who say bad stuff for political gain- and yet the same peopel who speak against him want to be his freind outside of the "game" who are you going to beleive? I'd say the evidence is on Cheney's side.

An Aesop's Tale
The Dog and the Hare


A HOUND having started a Hare on the hillside pursued her for
some distance, at one time biting her with his teeth as if he
would take her life, and at another fawning upon her, as if in
play with another dog. The Hare said to him, "I wish you would
act sincerely by me, and show yourself in your true colors. If
you are a friend, why do you bite me so hard? If an enemy, why do
you fawn on me?'


No one can be a friend if you know not whether to trust or
distrust him.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by Lynn7
What I am doing is applying the same standards to everyone. What Bush haters are doing is using a double standard.

So I take it you praised that guy who called Bush a loser awhile ago?

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Tai Mai Jew
I'd question that if it happened the way you described... Cheney didn't really put himself into that position, he didn't "hang out with the female student", it seems that he ran into her during Christmas Vacation, said their hello’s and goodbye’s, and went on their way.


Actually, the conflict of interest (not the female student) is the questionable action.

What you are saying though is that because he put the money into a trust, it's a non-issue for you. Do I have that part right?

That's not a bad thing, but as I said before - my issue was with people saying there is nothing wrong with engaging in conflicts of interest -- which there is.

Whether or not Cheney is -- As I said, is beyond me. My issue is with people saying it's perfectly okay to own stock in a company that you are benefiting through political action.

The best example I can think of is when I worked one place and they had this really bad lawn company - I mentioned to the person in charge of hiring that I had a friend who does a great job and would probably do it for cheaper --- I couldn't do that - A policy that states this would be a conflict of interest. Because who's to say that I wouldn't go out on lunch break and water the lawn so it would grow faster, and my buddy could get more work.

It's the same if Cheney could profit off of Haliburtin -- Who is to ask why would he pick THE BEST company, when he could pick the one that he could profit off of (not saying he is). Who is to say he's not creating issues in Iraq just for Halliburton to get more work??

It is nothing like what Lynn is saying - pefectly acceptable and nothing wrong with it. On the contrary, it is a an enormous lack of ethics, and something that is frowned on in the business community.

Had Lynn said what you are saying as a defense - I wouldn't hae spoken up, because obviously you are seeing a real reason why Cheney isn't in the wrong, and not one based on thinking he is a nice guy, and that owning stock in a company your administration is giving lots of work to is something that everyone does, and is acceptable.

[Scorpio24]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Substitiute the the names in the Cheney/Leahy story to Bill Clinton and some hated Republican and you would be saying Clinton did the right thing. Just becasue Cheney used the "F" word is not a good reason to blast him. Actually, Jesus would not have used the "F"word but he did teach us to confront people directly with our problems and that is what Cheney did.

Lynn I'm beginning to think that you have been sent here to take the piss.

I can see it now:

Cheeny........ The new Jesus.


Anyway back on topic. I have to agree with Bubba on this. I don't think he's saying that the problem is Cheeny being in controll of this wealth and directing it towards a charity. He's saying that he shouldn't have put himself in a situation where his intentions can be questioned due to this obvious conflict of evidence.

There is jail terms handed out regularly to people who are guilty of fraud through conflict of evidence. It's incredible to me that he is alowed stock in Haliburton. I mean it's an obvious conflict.

Also if it really is for a charity, why not sell up now give the charity all the proceed's and be done with it.

[Mr-Blonde]

The fact that the guy is profiteering from a war that he helped create presents an extremely humungous conflict of interests wouldn't you say?!

[TheDeadWalk]

Originally posted by Lynn7
What I am doing is applying the same standards to everyone.

WIth all due respect, I beg to differ.

What Bush haters are doing is using a double standard.


Often times, this is true.



Back to Cheney's comments, he was in the wrong. You need to learn how to handle yourself when in a position of power. If you cannot 'take the high road', then you need to leave the office of The United States of America.

[Lynn7]

There are specific laws in place that deal with conflict of interest. When Cheney signed on to be VP he had to do certain things to the stock and he did those things. He worked at the company before anything came up-it's not like once the war started they gave him kickbacks.and to suggest that he started the Iraq war to further enrich himself is saying he is no better than a sociopath- I just do not beleive it. And why would everyone int he government go along with him even if it were true? To make Cheney rich? And again- what the heck is he getting rich for- to leave Lynne and the girls wealthy? It does not make any sense.

[Mr-Blonde]

I am not alleging that Cheney started the war solely for profit. His administration had been looking for excuses to go to war with Iraq since well before 9/11. The administration then cooked up all sorts of lies to get the popular support to go to war, but that is a whole other thread. All I am saying is that the VP is now profiteering from the war and the hurricane disasters thanks to fat juicy no bid contracts that were and are being awarded to Halliburton. Make no mistake about it-- war is big buisiness and it was Cheney's business before he ever took office. You have to be naive not to see the connection.

Why is it so impossible to believe that Cheney knew that Halliburton would profit from the war in Iraq? Is that really so hard to believe?

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by Mr-Blonde


Why is it so impossible to believe that Cheney knew that Halliburton would profit from the war in Iraq? Is that really so hard to believe?

Assuming one of the largest engineering and construction contractors in the world would benefit from any war is more common sense than anything else.

[JohnTheHenchman]

Originally posted by TheDeadWalk



Back to Cheney's comments, he was in the wrong. You need to learn how to handle yourself when in a position of power. If you cannot 'take the high road', then you need to leave the office of The United States of America.

Says you.

Was it illegal? Oh...no....looks like he doesn't have to leave!

[Mr-Blonde]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
Assuming one of the largest engineering and construction contractors in the world would benefit from any war is more common sense than anything else.

You seem to be missing the point. You don't see how being a former defense contracter exec and continuing to profit from said company as Vice-President of the USA could cause a conflict of interests?

Cheney was a warhawk before he ever took office. And this has definitely helped to shape the Bush administration's ghoulish foreign policies.

[Lynn7]

ghoulish foreign policy? I beleive in our foreign policy- I beleive that our actions are to the benefit of our national security.Why can't people just accept that there are two philosophies at work here- that does not make one postion righteous or evil. They are simply two schools of thought on how to handle a dangerous situation.If Bush had started the war before 9-11 I would agree that he was acting in a suspicious way.But he was reading to school children the day of 9-11- he wasn't in the war room planning a nefarious attack.

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by Mr-Blonde
You seem to be missing the point. You don't see how being a former defense contracter exec and continuing to profit from said company as Vice-President of the USA could cause a conflict of interests?



All I know is Cheney took the legal steps necessary to become Vice President. Severing whatever business deals that would have prevented him to do so. So be mad at the requirments to become vice president, not Cheney.

[Scorpio24]

Originally posted by Lynn7
ghoulish foreign policy? I beleive in our foreign policy- I beleive that our actions are to the benefit of our national security.Why can't people just accept that there are two philosophies at work here- that does not make one postion righteous or evil. They are simply two schools of thought on how to handle a dangerous situation.If Bush had started the war before 9-11 I would agree that he was acting in a suspicious way.But he was reading to school children the day of 9-11- he wasn't in the war room planning a nefarious attack.

Bush wan't in the frigging White House 40% of the time before 9/11 never mind the war room.

Im fed up this argument that we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here. YOU WENT TO WAR WITH IRAQ BECAUSE OF WEAPONS OF MASS DISTRUTION THAT DIDN'T EXIST. Mr Blonde is spot on. It is a ghoulish foriegn policy. The war in Iraq was based on lies and false facts. Then all of a sudden it's fine that you were doing it because he was a bad man anyway. So in that case North Korea and Iran should watch out right? Yea I don't think so either. I have no argument about Afghanistan. You were attacked and you went to try to hunt them down. So you should.

Iraq has nothing to do with that. The massive upsurge in terrorism in that country has only happened since mine and your goverment went to war under false pretences with no plan of how to deal with the after effects.

Lets not sugar coat this war as fighting over there so that we don't fight them over here.

[The Postmaster General]

I would agree with Lynn's sentiments if not for the soldiers in Iraq who complain about Halliburton's employees, and the numerous rescue ops missons that detract from the war agenda in pursuit of keeping some blue color joe from getting his head chopped off.

And I've never heard of any laws governing conflicts of interest, only company policies that touch upon them. A conflict of interest is a situation that occurs, not an act with in itself. Dick Cheney has a conflict of interest with his Halliburton stock. That is inarguable. And since there have been reasonable questions arising from the use of Halliburton, it's perfectly fair to question Cheney's personal agendas and if they are interfering with the interest of the American public.

As far as him cussing someone out - that's of no interest to me other than proving he is not only crotchety, but bitter as well. That's mostly just funny, but I don't think it disqualifies someone as being a sucky politician.

[TheSpleen]

If you want to be perfect, sell everything you have and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.

It is almost impossible for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

I'll say it again - it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

[outsyder]

Originally posted by TheSpleen
If you want to be perfect, sell everything you have and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.

It is almost impossible for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

I'll say it again - it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

But if one gives all of his possessions to the poor, then doesn't that mean the poor (or formerly so) won't be accepted into heaven?

[TheSpleen]

Common sense confers proper judgement. Nothing was said that suggests someone should give all of his money to one poor person. But a perfect person would give it all to poor people ("the poor"), to help alleviate their suffering. The implication of the statement is crystal clear. Apologists will (as always) come up with some distortion of this to fit their own self-serving dogma.

[The Postmaster General]

All of this talk has brought a scenario to mind...


In Heaven it looks like a party is about to happen, but the guests haven't shown up. There are empty seats for as far as you can see, punch and chips that haven't been touched. No one is there, except for JESUS and GANDHI.

Gandhi looks at Jesus and says, "Okay next time I'm in charge of the invitations."

Jesus nods in agreement.


RDRR

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Scorpio24
Bush wan't in the frigging White House 40% of the time before 9/11 never mind the war room.

Im fed up this argument that we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here. YOU WENT TO WAR WITH IRAQ BECAUSE OF WEAPONS OF MASS DISTRUTION THAT DIDN'T EXIST.

That's what you say- I never saw it as only that. I see it as we need to get proactive and get those terrorists where they live. I could never nderstand those news shows that showed vido clips of terrorist camps with commando training- I used to think, why are we letting this go on? Shouldn't we be stopping this? And weapons of mass destruction are only a matter of time. To deny they exist is naive. To deny these people will use them against us is also naive. The Dems ridicule the weapons of mass destruction and they seem to think that if something is not a nuclear bomb then it cannot be a weapon of mass destruction. I differ in my opinion on these matters.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
All of this talk has brought a scenario to mind...


In Heaven it looks like a party is about to happen, but the guests haven't shown up. There are empty seats for as far as you can see, punch and chips that haven't been touched. No one is there, except for JESUS and GANDHI.

Gandhi looks at Jesus and says, "Okay next time I'm in charge of the invitations."

Jesus nods in agreement.


RDRR


Actually, this story is in the bible (without Jesus or Ghandi) about a man who is throwing a huge party and invites all his freinds and family to come- they all find excuses- they are busy with this and that and cannot find the time to come.so the man sends out his servants and tells them to go out on the streets and invite everyone who wants to come to come. And many do.

[Mr-Blonde]

Originally posted by Lynn7
That's what you say- I never saw it as only that. I see it as we need to get proactive and get those terrorists where they live. I could never nderstand those news shows that showed vido clips of terrorist camps with commando training- I used to think, why are we letting this go on? Shouldn't we be stopping this? And weapons of mass destruction are only a matter of time. To deny they exist is naive. To deny these people will use them against us is also naive. The Dems ridicule the weapons of mass destruction and they seem to think that if something is not a nuclear bomb then it cannot be a weapon of mass destruction. I differ in my opinion on these matters.

The fact that you think being proactive in Iraq is deterring anything is ridiculous. It's actually allowing them to recruit many more terrorists who were previously unradicalized and terrorism is actually on the increase worldwide. The president's "War on Terror" stategies are extremely flawed. He is prosecuting a dictator when he should be persuing Al Quaeda and Osama Bin Laden (if they are such a threat).

[The Postmaster General]

Nah, I got a picture and stuff for this one already. It's pretty cool. I drew Jesus and Gandhi like themselves but in AC/DC and Metallica shirts, and then made them posing like Beavis and Butthead with Christ being the brown haired one and Gandhi the one looking at him, and smiling. I was going to have Gandhi calling Jesus a dill-hole in the picture as to stay in part with the MTV theme, but I thought that wouldn't be right so I didn't do it. I started to take a camera shot of it but then I realized it wasn't that funny afterall.

So that's pretty much why, in addition to your bible quote, it's all pretty much coming together the way I see it. Pretty soon, I think, the majority will understand where the root values are falling apart and where it's being masqueraded as some fanciful party that should take precendence over the original intent of the core values.

I feel like the people we as a society had escaped religious percecution from have infiltrated America, royal lineage and all. Part of what created America was an ignorance of religion, in all due respect - that was a major driving force, although there were actually many other reasons.

But I just had to scoll up to see what the topic was supposed to be, so that's how far out we've gotten. I will just concede to the fact that this is all comical to me, and point out that Cheney shouldn't of had a conflict of interest stake, regardless of the legalities - this is all purely an ethical matter, and mine differ greatly in this matter. But who am I to talk, I don't have (scrolls up) 9.2 million in Halliburton stock and I haven't risen to the rank of Vice President and apparently a position where it's totally groovy for me to tell peopl to go fuck themselves WHILE I'M AT WORK - Yeah, so what the hell would I know about being nice and fair. Obviously everyone's comments on the man are purely unfounded.

[Mr-Blonde]

Dick Cheney: War Profiteer

by Tom Turnipseed

source: CommonDreams.org (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1117-22.htm)

Questions persist about Vice-President Cheney’s role in the ongoing investigation and scandal swirling about the White House. His chief of staff and confidante Lewis “Scooter” Libby has been indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice. Let’s take a look at some personal incentives for Cheney’s selling war to our country.

Cheney has pursued a political and corporate career to make himself very rich and powerful. He is the personification of a war profiteer who slid through the revolving door connecting the public and private sectors of the defense establishment on two occasions in a career that has served his relentless quest for power and profits.

As Defense Secretary, Mr. Cheney commissioned a study for the U.S. Department of Defense by Brown and Root Services (now Kellogg, Brown and Root), a wholly owned subsidiary of Halliburton. The study recommended that private firms like Halliburton should take over logistical support programs for U.S. military operations around the world. Just two years after he was Secretary of Defense, Cheney stepped through the revolving door linking the Department of Defense with defense contractors and became CEO of Halliburton. Halliburton was the principal beneficiary of Cheney’s privatization efforts for our military’s logistical support and Cheney was paid $44 million for five year's work with them before he slipped back through the revolving door of war profiteering to become Vice-President of the United States. When asked about the money he received from Halliburton, Cheney said. "I tell you that the government had absolutely nothing to do with it."

The Bush administration has dished out lucrative reconstruction contracts in Iraq to favored U.S. based corporations including Halliburton and denied contracts to many Iraqi and foreign based companies. To the conquerors go the spoils was the message on December 11, 2003 when Bush said, “The taxpayers understand why it makes sense for countries that risk lives to participate in the contracts in Iraq, It's very simple. Our people risk their lives, friendly coalition folks risk their lives, and therefore the contracting is going to reflect that.”

Bush’s statement is a stunning admission of how much corrupt corporations control our foreign policy. Under Cheney’s leadership Halliburton out did Enron in using offshore subsidiaries as tax shelters to hide profits to bilk U.S. taxpayers. Halliburton also utilized off-shore subsidiaries to contract for services and sell banned equipment to rogue states like Iran, Iraq and Libya. This would be illegal if done directly by Halliburton.

At last count Halliburton had 58 offshore subsidiaries in Caribbean tax havens. With Cheney at the helm Halliburton’s tax payments to the U.S. went from $302 million in 1998 to zero in 1999, when they also received a refund of $85 million from the Internal Revenue Service.

During Cheney’s tenure as CEO from 1995 to 2000, Halliburton Products and Services set up shop in Iran. The Halliburton subsidiary does approximately $40 million a year worth of oil field service work for the Iranian government. 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl visited the subsidiary in the Cayman Islands and found that it had no office and no employees. The mailing address was a local bank with which the subsidiary is registered. Stahl was met there by the bank’s manager who informed her that all mail to the subsidiary is forwarded to Halliburton headquarters in Houston. Halliburton had created the subsidiary to allow itself to do illegal business with a rogue state and to skip out on its taxes in the process.

With Iran’s president vowing to destroy Israel and being accused by the Bush administration of harboring and aiding al-Qaeda operatives, Cheney’s company is doing business with Iran through a subsidiary and dodging its tax obligations to the U.S.

Halliburton has been more closely associated with the invasion of Iraq than any other corporation. Before the Iraq War began, it was 19th on the U.S. Army's list of top contractors and zoomed to number 1 in 2003. In 2003 Halliburton made $4.2 billion from the U.S. government. Cheney stated he had , "severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest."

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) recently asserted that Cheney's stock options which were worth $241,498 a year ago, are now valued at more than $8 million-- for an increase of 3,281% . Cheney has pledged to give the proceeds to charity. Cheney continues to received a deferred salary from the company. He was paid $205,298 in 2001; $162,392 in 2002; $178,437 in 2003; and $194,852 in 2004.

The Congressional Research Service has concluded that holding stock options while in elective office does constitute a “financial interest” whether or not the holder of the options donates the proceeds to charities, and deferred compensation is also a financial interest.

Calling on Cheney to sever his financial ties to Halliburton, Lautenberg points out that the company has already raked in more than $10 billion for work in Iraq, and was handed some of the first Katrina contracts. The company has been criticized by auditors for its handling of no-bid contacts in Iraq, and there have been numerous allegations of over charging for services. Auditors found the firm marked up meal prices for troops and inflated gas prices in a deal with a Kuwaiti supplier. The company also built the American prison at Guantanamo Bay. Lautenberg said, "It is unseemly for the Vice President to continue to benefit from this company at the same time his Administration funnels billions of dollars to it.”

Cheney’s war profiteering requires redress and justice.