Why? Clinton gave Halliburton "no bid" contracts during the 90s. At a time when Cheney actually DID RUN THE COMPANY. Since he donates the profits from those options to charity, what more would you ask of him? Is he bad for deferring his salary over the course of years, instead of taking it all in one lump sum? After all, he earned it before becoming VP. This is a non-issue. There are many reasons to hate Cheney. No need to make up dishonest ones over it.
Clinton also gave no-bid contracts to halliburton. if memory serves, halliburton built the original pipelines in iraq when they were first installed. who better to repair any damaged ones? forgot. there are actually like 3 companies in the world that can do what halliburton does. one of them is french - do you think that france should have gotten the contract after its opposition to the conflict. Like the conflict or not; that was not gonna happen. halliburton is only getting a 7% margin on its contracts over there. Do you know any other business that can operate on a 7% margin? I can't imagine that any other company could bid lower, do you? He also sold his stock then. He may be receiving payments from the stock that was sold, I'm not sure - I dont' follow Cheney's financial dealings. That's not uncommon to receive money over an extended period to help with the tax burden of the sale. Or deal with SEC issues. Things like that.
I don't think my accusation is totally baseless. Lorien is right when he says Cheney sold his stock and retired before the Iraq war. But he still appears to have connections to the company, at least this is what I get from what I read on his bio at Wiki. You shouldn't be surprised when people accuse the Bush admin of cronyism when they give no bid contracts to companies that are connected to the administration, whether in the past or present. It is easy to make the argument that this was one of the chief reasons for the invasion. Gtech, have you ever heard of a book called Confessions of an Economic Hitman, by John Perkins? This is a conflict as well. Whether it is Clinton or the Bush administration did it, I think it is a conflict of interest. Cheney has held important government posts prior to being Vice President. This isn't about me hating him. I'm trying to show why I feel money and power played an important role in the Iraq invasion, not freeing the Iraqis from the evil Saddam we put in power in the 1950s. Also, Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense under George HW Bush. This means he already had connections to politics by the time Clinton got him. Since the Clintons are buddies with the Bushes behind closed doors, all this is coming together now.
Tesla, I don't live in a delusional world where everything is one big huge conspiracy. Personal feelings do not discount facts. "Feelings" or "conspiracies" are not facts. You may be resistant to truth or facts, but that makes them no less factual. So now you believe "we" put saddam in power in the 50s? Does it ever end? Have you ever considered holding yourself accountable for the nonsense you put forward? Here's a math quiz to go along with your assertions of corruption above. Let me know what you come up with.
Umm, Gtech, you don't know your history. Yes, we did put Saddam in power. Check out this passage from Saddam's bio from Wikipedia: "In 1958, a year after Saddam had joined the Ba'ath party, army officers led by General Abdul Karim Qassim overthrew Faisal II of Iraq. The Ba'athists opposed the new government, and in 1959, Saddam was involved in the attempted United States-backed plot to assassinate Qassim."
Take a big big pat on the back from ya unca AGS. You are slowly waking up to the fact that the Bush and Clinton families are TWO CHEEKS OF THE SAME ARSE. Both as corrupt as each other.
Further evidence of our friendly relationship with Saddam. This is Rumsfeld shaking hands with him in the 1980s. It was during this time that we were using Saddam as a pawn against the Iranians. During this time, Saddam was playing by our rules, so he was our best buddy.
Gtech, since the U.S. cares about bringing freedom to the world, why didn't we stop the evil Saddam when he killed 5,000 Kurds:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack We just stood by and let it happen. The reason why the U.S. let Saddam kill the Kurds then is because the U.S. didn't care. Saddam was our buddy, and we overlooked his evil actions as long as he didn't piss off the United States government. During the 1990s, this all changed, and the rest is history. Saddam didn't play by the rules, so we had to take him out. Now, in one of my previous posts Gtech, I asked if you had read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" By John Perkins. The reason why I ask is because, in this book, Perkins talks about his employment as an "Economic Hitman" someone who puts third world countries in debt with large loans, working on behalf of the U.S. government. In the book, Perkins says that when these countries turn down loans, their leaders are targeted for assassination, and if an assassin can't get the leader, then the United States sends in troops. Well, this is what happened with Saddam. He didn't accept what the Saudi Arabians accepted. He didn't allow the U.S. to take over the country, and control the oil and infrastructure. Because of this, the United States invaded in 2003, and he was executed in 2006. Is it making sense now? Saddam could have become filthy rich, if he had just accepted the U.S. loans to take over his country. Yes, the people of Iraq would be in poverty, but Saddam would have been rich. But Saddam turned it down, and the U.S. had to make him pay. This is one of the reasons why we invaded Iraq. It doesn't have anything to do with bringing the Iraqis freedom. It is much more complicated than this......
A strong dollar doesn't translate into a strong economy. In fact a weaker dollar is more helpful to the economy by making out exports cheaper to other countries. There is a number of factors that go into valuing the dollar, the strength of the economy is not one of them. As for the $9 Trillion dollars we owe, the majority of it is owned to the US government as we borrowing from ourselves. While we may have $9 trillion in liabilities we also have $110 trillion worth of assets in which we get a 13% return on investment in terms of a 14 trillion dollar a year GDP.
Halliburton actually got cost plus 1% on its contract with the US government. In fact I believe they sold KBR (Their group that got the Iraq contract) last year because it isn't as profitable as drilling for oil is. As for him getting money from Halliburton, Cheney does receive an amount from them in an agreement similar to the one John Edwards has with his former law firm.
You're right in the sense that American goods are more affordable to foreign nations who will purchase more because of lower prices, the only problem is, Americans will be hurt because we will find it hard to pay for the basic necessities, food, housing, energy. Yeah, the Europeans are getting a great deal now that the dollar is weaker than the Euro. Some are even coming to the U.S. for vacation. But this should scare you, because in the past, Americans joked about how cheap it was in Mexico because of the exchange rate between the dollar and the peso, because the people of Mexico are pretty poor. Now the tables have turned, and Europeans are vacationing here because of exchange rates. For me personally, a weaker dollar isn't better. When I have to pay more money for food, housing, and energy, this makes my life harder, not better. You may be right from an import/export point of view, but inflation sucks, and it can rob you of your hard earned wealth.
A lot like last year when Israel was bombing the utter s*it out of Beirut eh mate? The silence from the US was quite astonishing in that case, but not surprising as Israel pwns the USA. They were even flying in bombs from the USA and using our airbases in the UK the scumbags.
The value of the dollar has no effect on Food and Housing, the price of housing is largely a local issue for example in California where environmental groups are able to limit how many houses are built in a neighborhood along with forcing additional burdens on developer which takes longer to build a house which all limits supply yet the demand is still there and the value/cost of housing increasing regardless of how the dollar trades on the exchange rate. As for food, the increase in the cost of food can be traced back to congress removing lawsuit protection against MTBE which forced refineries to switch over to ethanol along with congress demand that x number of gallons of ethanol be used ever year. Farmers went from using corn for food, grain and feed to turning it to ethanol which is more profitable for them since it trades similar to gas as it considered a substitute. That's the cause of your price increase in food not the value of the dollar. As for energy, there has been some correlation between a weak dollar and high energy prices.
Maybe I should come to your house and kidnap your family and see how you like it and if god forbid you decide to retaliate and defend your self you become the scumbag.
Boy, for all the oil we are sucking out of Iraq, you would think gas would drop below $3 a fucking gallon. I think it's a conspiracy...
Oh you didn't know? Jews are not allowed to defend themselves. If they do, they're evil nazis. Only muslims can shoot rockets into Israel because they are oppressed and mistreated. You must be new. Ask GAGS to give you a quick briefing on the rules here.
Iran is no threat, the "wipe off the map" quote was BS. Someone should tell the Iranian President. He doesn't seem to know it was BS. But according to Ahmadinejad, Israel is "an invader" and "cannot continue its life." It should be "wiped off the map," he said, but there's a way to deal with the Jewish state nonviolently, citing the fall of the Soviet Union. That was just reported today. Regarding the "conflict of interest" thing, I'm sure you'll all appreciate this: SEN. Dianne Feinstein has resigned from the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee. As previously and extensively reviewed in these pages, Feinstein was chairperson and ranking member of MILCON for six years, during which time she had a conflict of interest due to her husband Richard C. Blum’s ownership of two major defense contractors, who were awarded billions of dollars for military construction projects approved by Feinstein. By the way, Feinstein is a California Liberal. A lot like last year when Israel was bombing the utter s*it out of Beirut eh mate? Hezbullah crossed into Israel, attacked an outpost, and kidnapped two soldiers. And when they were returned...oh, wait. They haven't been returned. Further evidence of our friendly relationship with Saddam. This is Rumsfeld shaking hands with him in the 1980s. It was during this time that we were using Saddam as a pawn against the Iranians. During this time, Saddam was playing by our rules, so he was our best buddy. Uh, yeah that's usually how this whole war thing works. When they're our allies, we're friendly with them. When they become a threat, we deal with them. Just like Japan and Germany were our enemies, and our now our friends. Lorien is right when he says Cheney sold his stock and retired before the Iraq war. But he still appears to have connections to the company, at least this is what I get from what I read on his bio at Wiki. So you're basing your theories on a user-editable encyclopedia, that's been proven wrong before. As for the deficit, the cumulative deficit has fallen by 9.8%.
"Boy, for all the oil we are sucking out of Iraq, you would think gas would drop below $3 a fucking gallon. I think it's a conspiracy..." Heh.
Bush admits he targeted Saddam from the start Bush Admits He Lied About Rumsfeld For Political Purposes Bush takes responsibility for invasion intelligence President Bush Admits Iraq Had No WMDs and 'Nothing' to Do With 9/11 Bush admits Iraq had "nothing" to do with 9/11 Bush admits that Iraq Had Nothing To Do With 9/11 Bush Admits Bin Laden's Help Ensured Election Win Bush admits he cries a lot on the job Anyone (apart from GTit as he's beyond help) noticing a pattern emerging?
no it wasn't. how do you think the amount of oil that gets to the US from Iraq gets there? right, but I asked you why rumsfeld and bush LATER said there were no WMDs there and why the white house sais the same thing and why the CIA final report on this issue sais the same thing