Halliburton

With the Veep debate upcoming, I’m sure the old “Halliburton” stuff will be bandied about again. Here’s a good article with some sound stock price analysis showing the value of Cheney’s alleged help to Halliburton:

Cheney, Halliburton and the Stock Market
By James Ringo

A Google search for “Dick Cheney” and “Halliburton” produces about 123,000 web pages updated in the last year. The heat that topic generates is suggested by the fact that a similar search for “Michael Jackson” and “abuse” only produces 97,000 pages.

The interest, of course, is in the accusation that Vice President Cheney is corruptly using his influence to make a lot of money for Halliburton, a company of which he was CEO. These attacks, from Bush Administration opponents, have flown thick and fast since 2000. “Dick Cheney’s Slimy Business Trail” is how the web’zine Salon.com titled its attack in 2002. Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, during the current campaign, puts the idea in a more nuanced way: “Dick Cheney’s old company, Halliburton, has profited from the mess in Iraq at the expense of American troops and taxpayers.”

There is a lot of smoke here. Is there fire? The stock market, actually, has provided an answer. Since economists say the stock market reflects available information, we can turn that around and read information out of stock prices. So, if Cheney’s position as Vice President were a benefit to Halliburton, the investors in Halliburton would welcome that fact and bid up the stock price.

There are a number of time points which can be examined for such an effect. These are the times at which the chances of Cheney becoming VP changed dramatically. Three stand out: 1, Bush’s selection of Cheney as the Republican nominee for VP, 2, the November 7 election and 3, the United States Supreme Court’s final ruling deciding the 2000 Florida election controversy.

According to a CNN story of July 25, 2000, “Cheney emerged as the front-runner for the position quite suddenly last Friday, when it was learned that he changed his voter registration from Dallas, where he served as CEO of the oil field services firm Halliburton Co., back to Wyoming – which would eliminate a constitutional barrier to his serving as vice president.” The Friday in question was July 21, 2000. Halliburton’s closing price before that sudden emergence was 45.1 (close, July 20, 2000). Halliburton closed lower the day of the news, July 21, at 42.3. The stock actually lost ground despite the news that its former CEO had a significant chance of becoming Vice President.

The election results immediately after the November 7 vote were certainly less definitive than usual; however they did provide some new information. That information didn’t move the Halliburton stock price much. On November 7 Halliburton closed on the New York Stock Exchange, at 38.0. On November 8 it closed at 38.5.

The election result was made definitive by the United States Supreme Court ruling delivered the evening of December 12, 2000. Halliburton’s price? At the close of trading on December 12 (before the ruling was available) it was 38.1. The close on December 13 was 37.6. Again, changes in the probability of Cheney being Vice President didn’t affect the stock price.

What can be learned from these stock price movements? Investors didn’t think Dick Cheney’s becoming Vice President would mean higher profits for Halliburton. If they did, they would have bid the price up. And perhaps not incidentally, Halliburton today trades in the low 30s. The investors have spoken. All of this doesn’t mean that Mr. Cheney isn’t corrupt, just that if he is, the market doesn’t think he is very good at it.

James Ringo teaches at the University of Rochester.

All that report shows is that people didn’t know the plans Cheney and Bush already had cooked up to invade Iraq well before they took office.

You can bet their stock price will go up when their profits for the current financial year are published.

You can also bet that Cheney’ s buddies will look after him quite nicely when he retires from office too.

It’s sickeningly unethical.

Cheney claims he has no financial connection with Halliburton. But Cheney is paid approximately 150 thousand per year from Halliburton, in a deferred salary. Cheney is also loaded with Halliburton stock. I guess everyone has their own definition of what a “financial connection” is.

I hope John Edwards rips Cheney a new hole tomorrow on the Halliburton issue, during the debate!

[quote]deanosumo wrote:
All that report shows is that people didn’t know the plans Cheney and Bush already had cooked up to invade Iraq well before they took office.

You can bet their stock price will go up when their profits for the current financial year are published.

You can also bet that Cheney’ s buddies will look after him quite nicely when he retires from office too.

It’s sickeningly unethical.[/quote]

Ummm – the stock had no bump then, and it’s lower now, after their “secret plan.” What does that say?

Halliburton posted losses in the last quarter of 03 and the first quarter of 04, if memory serves.

Also, public officials have to liquidate their holdings into a blind trust.

If Cheney’s critics truly though he was unduly influenced by Halliburton, surely someone would sue?

Anyone?

Lumpy,

“I hope John Edwards rips Cheney a new hole tomorrow on the Halliburton issue, during the debate!”

Heh. The Democrats selected Edwards not because he has experience, ideas, or tenacity.

They selected Edwards because he is a pretty, pretty man.

I suspect this veep debate will not be like the one in 2000, which was great.

How do you distract John Edwards in the debate? Hold up a mirror.

[quote]Lumpy wrote:
Cheney claims he has no financial connection with Halliburton. But Cheney is paid approximately 150 thousand per year from Halliburton, in a deferred salary. Cheney is also loaded with Halliburton stock. I guess everyone has their own definition of what a “financial connection” is.

I hope John Edwards rips Cheney a new hole tomorrow on the Halliburton issue, during the debate![/quote]

http://www.factcheck.org/printerFriendly.aspx?docid=261

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.

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.

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.

Sources

“Vice President Dick Cheney discusses the war with Iraq, the economy and other topics,” NBC News “Meet the Press” 14 Sep 2003.

Jack Maskell, “Official’s Stock Options In and Deferred Compensation From a Corporation as a “Financial Interest” of an Executive Branch Official in Such a Corporation,” Memorandum , American Law Division, Congressional Research Service, 22 Sep 2003.

US Code of Federal Regulations,TITLE 5, CHAPTER XVI–OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS, PART 2640–INTERPRETATION, EXEMPTIONS AND WAIVER GUIDANCE CONCERNING 18 U.S.C. 208 (ACTS AFFECTING A PERSONAL FINANCIAL INTEREST) 5CFR2640.103(b)

Timothy J. Burger and Adam Zagorin, “The Paper Trail: Did Cheney Okay a Deal?”, Time magazine, 7 June 2004: 42.

Larry Margasak, “Cheney never heard plan to give work to Halliburton for rebuilding of Iraq,” The Associated Press 16 June 2004.

Interesting take, as always, from the WSJ Editorial Board:

Hullabaloo Over Halliburton
October 5, 2004; Page A22

Tonight’s Vice Presidential debate is expected to be a bare-knuckled affair – traditionally it’s the understudies who go negative while their bosses strike a higher tone. As well as making for good entertainment, this can give the voters some valuable information about the two tickets.

For instance, we expect that John Edwards will use the word “Halliburton” at least once as a shorthand way of accusing the Bush Administration of helping its friends in big business to ill-gotten gains. Last Saturday, John Kerry said, “In fact, the only people George Bush’s policies are working for are the people he chooses to help. They’re working for drug companies. They’re working for oil companies … and they’re certainly working for Halliburton.”

By sheer force of repetition the vague accusations hurled at Halliburton have unfairly dragged the company’s good name down to the level of Enron. It’s an article of faith among Democrats that Vice President Dick Cheney, who was Halliburton’s CEO from 1995-2000, is somehow funneling contracts its way and is being compensated by the company for these services. The company is supposedly gouging the U.S. taxpayer in Iraq and employing “Enron-style accounting,” in the words of the Kerry campaign. For good measure, Mr. Kerry recently accused the company of opening “some 20 offshore entities” on Mr. Cheney’s watch.

All that’s needed to refute this smear campaign are the facts: Mr. Cheney’s deferred compensation is a standard practice for retiring executives and an entirely legal way of spreading tax liability for previously agreed compensation, so it does not imply any continuing relationship with Halliburton. In order to re-enter public service, Mr. Cheney had to forfeit millions of dollars worth of stock options to avoid any conflict of interest. And he has zero control or even input regarding Halliburton’s Defense contracts.

But the attacks have gone on for so long despite no evidence of impropriety that there must be something else going on here. That’s what we mean by saying that voters can learn from a campaign’s negative attacks: They sometimes betray the accuser’s own biases. In this case, it is a prejudice against large corporations and preference for big government.

Consider that Halliburton is a poster child for the efficient contracting out of government functions to the private sector. It owes most of its involvement in Iraq to the third Logistics Civilian Augmentation Program, or Logcap III, awarded to its KBR subsidiary in 2001 through competitive bidding against four other contractors. Congress has supported this practice because, by using private sector employees for non-military functions, the armed forces put fewer soldiers at risk in a war zone. And the private sector can cook meals and wash uniforms more cheaply than the Pentagon. The Clinton Administration and other New Democrats understood the logic of this “outsourcing.”

Initially, Logcap III called for KBR to support 25,000 troops in a theater of war. As military men say, no war plan survives contact with the enemy, and today the company is supporting 211,000 soldiers and personnel in Iraq and Kuwait. In the course of ramping up such an enormous effort, there are bound to be difficulties. But KBR has done a tremendous job of responding quickly to changing circumstances. Some of the biggest snafus have occurred in accounting at both KBR and the Pentagon, and even then the company has blown the whistle on itself.

KBR’s other major contract in Iraq was Restore Iraqi Oil, a program to get the country’s petroleum flowing quickly to finance reconstruction. That contract was awarded without bidding, and with good reason. The company was simply the only one capable of handling all of the possible challenges, including oil-well fires and pipeline breakdowns. And the Pentagon’s confidence has been rewarded: KBR restored production to pre-war levels three months ahead of schedule.

Given the risky work and the firestorm of criticism from Democrats, one would think that Halliburton was making profit hand over fist in Iraq. Sadly for the company’s shareholders, that is not the case. Profit from Logcap would come mostly from an “award fee,” granted by the military on the basis of how well the company contains costs, and which may not exceed 2% of costs. Likewise, the profit potential on the oil contract is strictly limited and will probably end up between 1% and 3%, compared to the usual margin of 15% for private oil industry services. Halliburton is so underwhelmed by the returns on this government contracting that it is trying to spin off its KBR subsidiary.

Not surprisingly, there’s a lack of consistency here from the Kerry campaign. On the one hand, it criticizes the Bush Administration for not spending money Congress allocated to rebuild Iraq faster. Meanwhile, it criticizes the KBR oil contract needed to get oil flowing quickly. In an interview with this paper in May, Senator Kerry tried to back away from his primary-season labeling of companies that send jobs abroad as “Benedict Arnolds.” Now he’s back attacking Halliburton for doing business overseas.

All of this marks a striking return to the Old Democrat distrust of all private enterprise, which held that if it moves, tax it, if it keeps moving, regulate it, and when it stops moving, subsidize it. The idea of anyone making a dime of profit by taking over a government function and doing it better is anathema on the Kerry ticket, and the idea of that person then going into public service even worse. That’s the subtext of the Halliburton attacks on Dick Cheney.

One more thorough debunking:

http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerry200410050850.asp

Back during the GOP convention, the Democratic National Committee released this press release:
https://www.democrats.org/news/200409010011.html
“Democrats’ One Word Response to Cheney: Halliburton.”

Some connoisseurs of political argument and rhetoric might want multi-word responses to the man a heartbeat away from the presidency. Verbs, adjectives, heck, even a participle phrase might be in order.

But DNC Chair Terry McAuliffe, the architect of his party’s sterling victories in the 2002 midterm elections and the cunning mind behind “Operation Fortunate Son,” has concluded that the three syllables of the Contractor That Must Not Be Named have such awesome persuasive power that those other parts of a sentence are gilding the lily.

Dana Milbank, the Washington Post White House “reporter,” has written
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62623-2004Jul19.html
that “there is seemingly no charge the Bush campaign can level against John F. Kerry that will not produce a one-word retort: Halliburton.”

Newsday throws out the Democrats’ charge in plain sight:

"Four years after relinquishing the helm of one of the world's largest energy companies, Cheney has been unable to shrug off persistent and growing criticism about his stewardship of Halliburton and its intimate involvement in the administration's most serious undertaking: the war in Iraq."

Persistent, growing…and mostly off base.

Fourteen paragraphs in, Newsday bothers to mention, “None of the investigations have singled Cheney out for wrongdoing. The vice president has complied with financial disclosure rules and promised to donate to charity any after-tax profits from company stock options he maintains.”

Even Milbank wrote, “There is no proof the government was wrong to award Iraq contracts to Halliburton without competitive bidding, or that Cheney helped his former employer.”

In fact, if you look at most stories about Cheney and Halliburton, the facts ? well, no one has actually proven that Cheney’s done something illegal or explicitly wrong ? are buried at the bottom, while the shocking and scandalous allegations from Democratic officials are the lead.

After telling you what they want you to walk away with, Reuters notes:

http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=930888&tw=wn_wire_story

"Several documents have emerged indicating Cheney's office was aware Halliburton would get business in Iraq before it was announced, but no "smoking guns" have been found showing any impropriety or direct meddling by the vice president."

Do you love the scare quotes around “smoking gun”? "We haven’t found any “facts” to “prove” that Cheney is the “epitome of all evil,” but questions remain. Wink-wink. Nudge-nudge.

From the San Jose Mercury News:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/election2004/9834666.htm?1c

"Cheney has released documents showing that most of his deferred salary was paid after he resigned to run in 2000 but before he took office in January 2001. He has also arranged for his stock options to be sold without his input and all proceeds to be donated to charity. Democrats say Cheney nonetheless retains a financial interest in Halliburton's success."

GovExec.com notes that:

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1004/100404nj1.htm

Halliburton's work in Iraq includes a wide-ranging contract, called a LogCAP, that it won through competitive bidding in 2001 to provide food, fuel, and other logistical services to troops worldwide. That contract ? most of which is for services in the Middle East ? and the oil infrastructure contract are estimated to be worth a total of $11 billion. Most of that work has gone to KBR, Halliburton's construction and engineering unit.

Recently the Defense Contract Management Agency issued an approval letter that called KBR’s policies and practices “effective and efficient.”

A probe was launched to investigate reports that Halliburton had overcharged the government $61 million on its gasoline imports into Iraq. But as Byron York pointed out,
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200312190859.asp
Halliburton purchased the gas in Kuwait, where it was more expensive, instead of Turkey, because it was needed quickly in Basra, in southern Iraq, to prevent imminent civil unrest. Not only was it closer, but the supply routes from Kuwait were safer than the ones from Turkey. Once the supply routes were stabilized, gas was purchased from both sources.

And FactCheck.org points out,
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=261
(futilely, apparently) that Kerry’s latest ad about Halliburton gets the facts wrong:

"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."

Now ? there were cases where Halliburton employees have broken the law. Halliburton employees allegedly took $6 million in kickbacks from a Kuwaiti subcontractor, getting them fired. Pentagon auditors in August reported that the company hasn’t provided enough details to substantiate $1.8 billion of its work in Iraq and Kuwait.

All of these investigations, fines, and prosecutions are cited as evidence by Cheney’s foes that Halliburton is getting away with…away with…well, something bad.

Observation one: Perhaps this is the greatest diversionary tactic in history, where a corporation endures lawsuits, investigations, fines, a shattered public image and plummeting profit margins to hide really secret gains elsewhere.

Observation two: If Halliburton is somehow providing money or favors or something to Cheney in exchange for favors… isn’t the vice president doing an awful lousy job? Just what is he getting all that money from the contractor for?

Wouldn’t Halliburton have been better off if their previous CEO was some no-name corporate type instead of the next vice president of the United States?

Never mind. Logic is no adversary for the magic, powerful epithet of “Halliburton.”

Expect for John Edwards to use Terry McAuliffe’s one-word response a lot tonight.

This has to be the number one liberal inconsistency: “Bush is brilliant he cooked up the entire Iraq war, before he was even elected. He did this so he could make millions of dollars off of Halliburton. Bush is a moron and can’t think, speak or act without someone helping him.”

Hey, guys he’s either the evil genius, or a buffoon. You can’t have it both ways. Wait…maybe you can, after all John Kerry takes every side of an issue so why not?

I think Dick is giving all the money in the trust to charity anyway.

Yes, we can. Could he not be an evil buffoon? That would imply he didn’t engineer things but fell into them and then used the issues to best advantage.

Oh, okay. Cheney probably feels no loyalty whatsoever to the company he ran for 5 years before becoming Vice President. Sure, I believe that!

On another note, while Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, they illegally did business with Iran, Iraq and a third country (Syria I believe) that were all on the Watch List for being state sponsors of terrorism. These were Halliburton “subsidiary” companies who used a mailbox in the Caribbean as a way to skirt the law (as well as avoid paying taxes). The contracts with Iraq were worth 73 million dollars, for example.

[quote]Lumpy wrote:
Oh, okay. Cheney probably feels no loyalty whatsoever to the company he ran for 5 years before becoming Vice President. Sure, I believe that!

On another note, while Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, they illegally did business with Iran, Iraq and a third country (Syria I believe) that were all on the Watch List for being state sponsors of terrorism. These were Halliburton “subsidiary” companies who used a mailbox in the Caribbean as a way to skirt the law (as well as avoid paying taxes). The contracts with Iraq were worth 73 million dollars, for example.
[/quote]

73 million dollars? 73 million dollars? Gimmee a break. Kerry’s wife’s company sells that much in ketchup to McDonalds. Why aren’t your panties in a wad over the Kerrys’ systematic obesification of our nations youth?

If Cheney had done anything wrong, you’d think that the dems, what with the trial lawyer’s in their hip pocket, would’ve done something about it by now.

You accusations are just B.S. you licked up from moveon.org.

Lumpy,

You wrote:

“On another note, while Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, they illegally did business with Iran, Iraq and a third country (Syria I believe)”

Don’t include Iraq in that list!!! There were no WMD and no terrorists in Saddam’s Iraq!!! Remember that Saddam and Bin Laden don’t worship in exactly the same way so they would have never allied against a common ally.

Please be more careful with your words.

JeffR

[quote]vroom wrote:
Hey, guys he’s either the evil genius, or a buffoon. You can’t have it both ways.

Yes, we can. Could he not be an evil buffoon? That would imply he didn’t engineer things but fell into them and then used the issues to best advantage.[/quote]

(Eye roll)

Rainjack, Jeff,

Those have to be the worst posts I’ve seen in a long time.

Instead of actually discussing the points raised, you simply point in another direction entirely as if it were somehow related.

To borrow from Zeb, eye roll!

Vroom,

(second eye roll)

Cryptic deflections aside, there does seem to be a disconnect between Bush the evil planner of innumerable future wars and crafty usurper of civil rights under cover of night and Bush the yokel.

Looks to me like the shareholders have done pretty ok over the last couple of years. Nothing whatsoever to do with Cheney or no-bid contracts, of course. Just good bidnes mens. Like dubya.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Rainjack, Jeff,

Those have to be the worst posts I’ve seen in a long time.

Instead of actually discussing the points raised, you simply point in another direction entirely as if it were somehow related.

To borrow from Zeb, eye roll![/quote]

I made an absurd point to counter an equal absurdity. If Halliburton was guilty of any illegalities, they would have been prosecuted. Does Enron ring a bell? If they are found to have broken the laws, then they should pay the price.

As it stands today, it is only those in the Soros (sp) orgy that give these charges any attention.

Wrt the the no-bid contracts - are any of the Cheney’s-the-devil sheep throwing a bitch-fit over the fact that Clinton awarded the same type of no-bid contract to Halliburton in Kosovo(sp)? I haven’t heard a peep - or a bahahahaha as the case my be.

c’mon - the worst?