BS: Halliburton owns the U.S. government

Subject: RE: BS: Halliburton owns the U.S. government
From: Peace
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 02:43 PM

"Subject: RE: BS: Halliburton owns the U.S. government
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Sep 05 - 03:06 PM

We have been wondering who the fool was that bought that bridge to begin with."

He'll be the first. You don't think I OWN it do you? Twit!

Subject: RE: BS: Halliburton owns the U.S. government
From: katlaughing
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 02:51 PM

Did read YOUR research link, did you read anyone else's?

In reference to Cheney:

The (Congressional Research Service) report says a public official's unexercised stock options and deferred salary fall within the definition of "retained ties" to his former company.

Subject: RE: BS: Halliburton owns the U.S. government
From: pdq
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 03:05 PM

...from the link GUEST rarelamb posted:


Stock Options - VP Dick Chaney

"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."

Subject: RE: BS: Halliburton owns the U.S. government
From: katlaughing
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 03:48 PM

From someone who says it better than I (my emphasis), an excerpt:

Published on Tuesday, September 23, 2003 by the Daytona Beach News-Journal
Cheney's War Stock
Editorial

In 2001, Halliburton paid Cheney a salary of $205,298. In 2002, the company paid him $162,392. He is to receive similar payments this year and for the next two years. Those are "deferred salary" payments -- not retirement benefits or payments from escrow accounts, but, as Lautenberg points out, "an ongoing corporate obligation that is paid from company funds." If Halliburton were to go under, the payments would stop.

That, of course, is not about to happen. The stock market has tanked in the last three years. The economy continues to lurk between recession and Herbert Hoover's shadow. But Halliburton's stock value in less than a year (going back to last October) has grown 75 percent. Hint: Halliburton is the Pentagon's top contractor in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And Cheney, a proponent, if not a fan, of both wars, holds 433,333 Halliburton stock options. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind. If Cheney's deferred salary and stock options don't constitute a financial interest of any kind, then the vice president's conception of reality is as questionable as his ethics. The fact that he has pledged not to profit from stock sales by giving profits to a charity doesn't diminish the extent of his ties.

Subject: RE: BS: Halliburton owns the U.S. government
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 04:05 PM

Thank you, kat. Case closed!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Halliburton owns the U.S. government
From: GUEST,Arkie
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 05:33 PM

Could Mr. Cheney receive his share when he leaves office?

Subject: RE: BS: Halliburton owns the U.S. government
From: katlaughing
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 06:12 PM

Yer welcome, Don.

Arkie, I'm looking for info on that. In the meantime, Cheney needn't worry about it...he's already received so much. this article from 2000 spells out a lot. Some excerpts:

Halliburton Corporation, the world's largest oilfield services company, confirmed August 16 that Republican vice presidential nominee Richard Cheney will receive a "golden handshake" worth up to $20 million upon his retirement as chief executive officer of the firm.

Although Cheney did not fulfill the terms of his contract as CEO, which requires that he serve until age 62, another three years, in order to collect full benefits, Halliburton's Board of Directors has decided to waive all penalties and give him the maximum severance and pension package, the bulk of which is in the form of stock options.

and (my emphasis):

Even without the pension and severance payments Cheney would leave Halliburton a wealthy man. He already owns stock worth more than $25 million, although he has never personally invested a penny in the company. Just last May he cashed in stock options that netted him a profit of $3 million, after he had already taken on the job of helping Bush select a vice-presidential candidate. He also made $1.3 million in salary in 1998 and again in 1999, and similar amounts in salary as well as bonuses of between $1 and $2 million in 1996 and 1997.

The waiver means that Cheney will not forfeit options to buy 400,000 ordinary shares of Halliburton stock at a favorable price. The Board also decided to lift the restrictions on another 140,000 shares of restricted stock, allowing Cheney to convert these into regular shares...

According to a Halliburton officer, the options cannot be transferred or donated to charity except after Cheney's death, by his heirs.

Cheney was named CEO of Halliburton in August 1995, despite his lack of previous experience in the oil industry, because company officials expected that his overseas and Washington contacts would prove advantageous. This judgment proved accurate, especially in the Middle East, where the oil sheiks remember Cheney as US secretary of defense during the Persian Gulf War.

And we are to believe he will NOT receive any profits?! He's been a "good boy"... Halliburton will not forget. Besides a ready job with them, they will find a way to profit him, now, or later, no matter. This is gross conflict of interest, imo.

Subject: RE: BS: Halliburton owns the U.S. government
From: katlaughing
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 06:37 PM

Here's one of the best and most telling background articles I have ever read on Cheney, from Rolling Stone. There are some very interesting comments by former colleagues of his near the end of the article.

Subject: RE: BS: Halliburton owns the U.S. government
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 07:39 PM

Y'know, pdq, I've been thinking about what you said above.

". . . the Firth Administration. . . ."

That has a nice ring to it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Halliburton owns the U.S. government
From: Peace
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 07:44 PM

It would provide the people of the USA with an honest government--and one with a brain. Go fer it, Don.

Subject: RE: BS: Halliburton owns the U.S. government
From: dianavan
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 08:17 PM

Excellent link, Kat.

Unempathetic is just a nice way of saying he's an asshole.

Subject: RE: BS: Halliburton owns the U.S. government
From: katlaughing
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 08:36 PM

Would that be the Firth of Fourth Administration, Don? (Couldn't resist!:-)

Thanks, dianavan!

Subject: RE: BS: Halliburton owns the U.S. government
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 08:41 PM

Hmmnnn, lots of assholes here, eh?

A shrewd businessman always creates a lot of jealousy.

Subject: RE: BS: Halliburton owns the U.S. government
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 08:42 PM

My dog wouldnt be jealous of you GUEST

Subject: RE: BS: Halliburton owns the U.S. government
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 08:58 PM

Actually I agree with GUEST 29 Sep 05 - 08:42 PM

What we are seeing in this thread is good old socialist left wing envy. Where the denigration of one of the most successful CEOs of a world ranked corporation gifts his stock options completely to charity is howled down by the liberal looney left for what reason? You, of the looney left have two choices (please answer honestly - if you are capable of that):

a) You don't like George W Bush as your President even although he was democractically elected as such.

b) You just plain and simple despise success

Subject: RE: BS: Halliburton owns the U.S. government
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 09:17 PM

It is b) as they are incapable of acheiving success.

Subject: RE: BS: Halliburton owns the U.S. government
From: Peace
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 10:26 PM

I could use some of that for the petunias, Guest.

Subject: RE: BS: Halliburton owns the U.S. government
From: dianavan
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 10:46 PM

"...even although" Cheney is one of the CEOs of a world ranked corporation he still has ties to Halliburton.

Who ranks these corporations, anyway?

Certainly wasn't the taxpaying public.

So, he's a businessman (without a drop of compassion) running the U.S.A.

Like I said, Halliburton owns the U.S. government.

Halliburton RUNS the U.S. government might be a more appropriate title.

Subject: RE: BS: Halliburton owns the U.S. government
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 11:20 PM

Dianavan:

Dick Cheney WAS a CEO of a world ranked corporation, not IS. I believe that his ties have been fully explained. Now what exactly is your objection to the trust, set up to ensure that any monies made go to charity - so far no government watchdog has pulled the current Vice-President up for any wrongdoing and I am fairly certain that they are watching for it.

The corporations are ranked for market share, profitability and overall performance by financial institutions all over the world. They invest, rather large sums, in the likes of Halliburton and other corporations, the money they invest is what pays peoples pensions, so in general, indirectly, it is the tax paying public.

Since when has any Vice-President run the USA with the elected incumbent still alive and in office - Oddly enough Dianavan I cannot think of one. And if you are given to left wing generalisations I suppose you can come up with some sort of evidence that all businessmen have not a drop of compassion (maybe Bill Gates qualifies in your book - ask those around the world who are currently receiving help from the man - they might put you right).

Neither Halliburton, or any other corporation owns the US Government, your current administration was elected by the American people, rather decisively, if memory serves me correctly. The fact that that result did not fall in with your desires is neither here nor there - learn to live with it for what it is, don't attribute it to anything other than it is - the free will of the American people.

Subject: RE: BS: Halliburton owns the U.S. government
From: dianavan
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 12:42 AM

Since I am Canadian, my current administration (hopefully) was not elected by the American people.

What country are you from?

Statements like, "...in general, indirectly, it is the tax paying public..." are pretty general and indirect.

Do you think the people are stupid? Are you a Fascist?

Subject: RE: BS: Halliburton owns the U.S. government
From: GUEST,H
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 09:37 AM

Dianavan, after reading your posts over the past few weeks, I am thankful you are not a citizen of the US. We have enough narrowminded and shortsighted people here now.

You constantly attack the poster rather than attempting to contradict the contents.

You are not the only one doing this, I must admit it is an easy route to take when one doesn't have supportive thoughts/facts to employ.

Please, stay up there. I guess you are basically an okay person but your approach to logic is something we do not require more of here.

Subject: RE: BS: Halliburton owns the U.S. government
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 10:18 AM

This is so insignificant as to not to be worth the typing time.
However, if given careful consideration as to the thought processes and the denial capability of some Libs.

On 27 Sep 05 @ 01:16 Peace said and I quote, "I have a bridge you might be interested in purchasing, rarelamb". To me, this indicates ownership by Peace. No where is anything being implied that she was in the position of a sales agent.

Later, I simply posted that "many of us had wondered who bought the thing to begin with."

Later, , on 29 Sep @ 2:43 PM., Peace said "He will be the first. You don't think I own it do you? Twit!"

Well, Gee whiz, Peace, you said you did "I have a bridge......."
I wonder how we should interpret your other posts. Please advise.
As I said, it is insignificant by itself but in the grand scheme of things....................?

Subject: RE: BS: Halliburton owns the U.S. government
From: TIA
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 11:01 AM

So the stock profits go to charity. Just asking - is there any tax deduction related to these charitable contributions? Them tax lawyers is tricksie.

Subject: RE: BS: Halliburton owns the U.S. government
From: GUEST,rarelamb
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 11:02 AM

Ha! Inconceivable :)

Well i've tried. I think we are at an impass.

For my part, I have :
1 Proven that no matter what happens to Hali, Cheney will neither lose money nor make money.

2 Without consideration there is no conflict of interest.



No one has proven 1 wrong.

For the oppositon has:

1. Been unable to prove that Cheney benefits when Hali makes money

2. puts forward the arguement that when Cheney leaves office, he will then get his benefits by getting a plum job with Hali. Therefore any legislation that helps oil companies today will be proof of a conflict of interest if he works for them in the future.




Let me first say that, 'Minority Report' was only a movie. It is absurd in the least to be crucifying a guy for what you think he might do in the future.

Second, by your standard every single congressman, senator, president and vice-president would have to recuse themselves from every piece of legislation that deals with any potential field they may enter after elected office.

Conspiracies are a poor substitute for logic and empiricism.

Subject: RE: BS: Halliburton owns the U.S. government
From: katlaughing
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 01:15 PM

Without consideration there is no conflict of interest.

Be sure to notify the Congressional Research Service, eh?

Guest...reduced to name-calling? That sure proves something.

Teribus: our current administration was elected by the American people, rather decisively, if memory serves me correctly.

51% to 48% is hardly what I would call "decisive."

Subject: RE: BS: Halliburton owns the U.S. government
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 01:51 PM

Katlaughing, this is the guest who did the last post as Guest. I assume that you are refering to me with regard to name calling?

Please, go back and read the 10:18 AM post today. Can you ascertain the quotation marks?

Thanks for your assistance in proving my point.

Subject: RE: BS: Halliburton owns the U.S. government
From: katlaughing
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 03:09 PM

For the record, I was referring to guests who posted at
29 Sep 05 - 08:41 PM and 29 Sep 05 - 09:17 PM. I meant to include some of what Teribus posted, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Halliburton owns the U.S. government
From: GUEST,rarelamb
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 03:52 PM

I question whether or not you have read my link. In the future, I will be posting the articles as opposed to providing links as it appears people do not read them.

""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."


In case you missed it:

"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.""

Subject: RE: BS: Halliburton owns the U.S. government
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 03:55 PM

tax implications....?

Subject: RE: BS: Halliburton owns the U.S. government
From: GUEST,rarelamb
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 03:58 PM

I would assume he gets the tax deduction the year he set up the irrevocable trust. As a Gift Trust instead of a CRUT charitable remainder unit trust, I think it was simply a strait gift.

Subject: RE: BS: Halliburton owns the U.S. government
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 04:14 PM

Nice try Katlaughing, but no cigar. The first, 8:14 was me quoting your friend Dianavan and the second was simply picking a choice offered by Teribus, no name calling there UNLESS "if the shoe fits".

Subject: RE: BS: Halliburton owns the U.S. government
From: katlaughing
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 04:37 PM

Is that really you?

Believe what you will rarelamb...impasse/splitting hairs it is. Seems obvious to many, many people.

Subject: RE: BS: Halliburton owns the U.S. government
From: Barry Finn
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 04:48 PM

To gain power & influence is legal & it is equal in value to money. Only difference between gaining money while being in a confit of interest is that leagly that can bring about, at worst, jail time (hah,hah)& digrace & for power influence no legal consequences & in the eyes of some, not digraceful.
Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Halliburton owns the U.S. government
From: Barry Finn
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 04:50 PM

By the way, I forgot to ask. Did Halliburton get any no bid contracts ot re build any parts of the Gulf Coast?
Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Halliburton owns the U.S. government
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 08:30 PM

Hey, I haven't had time to keep up with my pudder-stufff to much but, in case someone hadn'tr mentioned it, I'd just like to say:

HEY, TERIBUS!!!

Been a long time since Bush had you assigned to Mudville... Liie what gives??? Bush thinkin' that the Mudville folkie revolutionaries is plannin' to overthrow some small town in Oklahoma??? Hey, we can't even get folks to *tune* so I wouldn't worry none much about us...

But glad to see you got reassigned...

Jus' wish I had more time to mess with ya....

Danged...

Oh, Halliburton???? So, ahhhh, like why is it that they have become the *poster corporation* fir what appears to be very corrupt about yer guy's adminstration???

Seems we keep hearing thesame old story: "Well, Ralpf, no one else can do it!!!"

Hey, T-Bird, it's a friggin' taeriler... My couzin Rufus prolly knows more 'bout trailers than everyone at Halliburton combined....

Bugt welcome back, pal....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Halliburton owns the U.S. government
From: katlaughing
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 10:34 PM

Yes, Barry, they did and Congress is looking into it: Click Here.

Subject: RE: BS: Halliburton owns the U.S. government
From: Peace
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 10:43 PM

Nice to see that maybe Congress has grown a pair.

Subject: RE: BS: Halliburton owns the U.S. government
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 10:50 PM

So now Halliburton is the triler experts of the world...
Hmmmm??? My cousin Rufus knows more about trailers tha the top 100 employees at Halliburton...

But, like Teribus used to argue back inb the old days, Halliburton is the only company capible of buuying 10,000 trailers...

Nah, I think Rufus could out buy the top ten Halliburton tariler buyers....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Halliburton owns the U.S. government
From: Peace
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 10:57 PM

News articles here.

Subject: RE: BS: Halliburton owns the U.S. government
From: katlaughing
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 12:10 AM

Congress Tells Auditor in Iraq to Close Office

By JAMES GLANZ
Published: November 3, 2006

Investigations led by a Republican lawyer named Stuart W. Bowen Jr. in Iraq have sent American occupation officials to jail on bribery and conspiracy charges, exposed disastrously poor construction work by well-connected companies like Halliburton and Parsons, and discovered that the military did not properly track hundreds of thousands of weapons it shipped to Iraqi security forces.

And tucked away in a huge military authorization bill that President Bush signed two weeks ago is what some of Mr. Bowen's supporters believe is his reward for repeatedly embarrassing the administration: a pink slip.

The order comes in the form of an obscure provision that terminates his federal oversight agency, the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, on Oct. 1, 2007. The clause was inserted by the Republican side of the House Armed Services Committee over the objections of Democratic counterparts during a closed-door conference, and it has generated surprise and some outrage among lawmakers who say they had no idea it was in the final legislation.

Mr. Bowen's office, which began operation in January 2004 to examine reconstruction money spent in Iraq, was always envisioned as a temporary organization, permitted to continue its work only as long as Congress saw fit. Some advocates for the office, in fact, have regarded its lack of a permanent bureaucracy as the key to its aggressiveness and independence.

But as the implications of the provision in the new bill have become clear, opposition has been building on both sides of the political aisle. One point of contention is exactly when the office would have naturally run its course without a hard end date.

rest of article may be read HERE.

Subject: RE: BS: Halliburton owns the U.S. government
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 07:49 AM

Thanks for refreshing this thread, Kat...

Bush has reassigned T-Bird to Mudcat in the hopes that T can get everyone to see the light and vote Repub Tueasday...

...but I've been waitin' along time for T to explain just what special skills iot takes to purchase trailers...

Subject: RE: BS: Halliburton owns the U.S. government
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 01:40 PM

whats a few billion among friends?

Subject: RE: BS: Halliburton owns the U.S. government
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Nov 06 - 12:57 AM

Bobert - 30 Sep 05 - 10:50 PM
"...Teribus used to argue back inb the old days, Halliburton is the only company capible of buuying 10,000 trailers..."

Bobert - 03 Nov 06 - 07:49 AM
"I've been waitin' along time for T to explain just what special skills iot takes to purchase trailers..."

I don't believe that I have EVER mentioned Halliburton in association with buying trailers. Bobert on the other hand seems to think that I have, no doubt he can supply examples.

Subject: RE: BS: Halliburton owns the U.S. government
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Nov 06 - 09:05 AM

Okay, T-zer, what is it then that you would like to ***proclaim*** that Hallinurton is the only company in the world can do and thusly should be awarded no-bid contracts???

Puttin' out oil fire???

Building clinics???

Repairing electical facilities???

Fixing bridges???

Cooking???

If I am not mistaken you were a strong defender of the no-bid contracts in the period after the invasion, weren't you???

If not, then pardon me...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Halliburton owns the U.S. government
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Nov 06 - 02:28 AM

Bobert's post of 04 Nov 06 - 09:05 AM, is probably about as near as I will get to an acknowledgement from him that I have never mentioned anything about Halliburton and the purchase of trailers.

But rather than just admit his error, Ol' Bob tries to spin it. It does serve to illustrate that Bobert will "invent" facts, and attribute totally false statements to discredit those he is attempting to argue with.

On some of the red-herrings he threw up in the Bobert post referred to, I would direct "Good Ol' Selective Bobert's" attention to the years 1997 and 1998 (Minimum two years before your favourite bete-noir entered office). Invitations to Tender, on a competitive basis were sent out for a US Government (Pentagon) Frame Agreement Contract covering engineering and support engineering work and services with regard to the US Forces world-wide. The period of the Frame Agreement Contract was five years. Frame Agreement Contracts are very common and tend to be a very efficient way of getting jobs done. Halliburton won that competitive contract.

OK Bobert do the maths - five year frame agreement contract awarded on a competitive basis to Halliburton in 1998, Coalition troops enter Iraq in March 2003, against the threat by Sadam that he would do as he did before and set the oilfields ablaze, who is your contractor with regard to repair of oilfield infrastructure. 1998 + 5 = 2003, Frame Agreement Contract awarded on a competitive basis still in place, therefore contractor is Halliburton. Quite simple Bobert.

Subject: RE: BS: Halliburton owns the U.S. government
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Nov 06 - 09:49 AM

Danged, T, I must have been asleep at the wheel... I had forgotten that it was Clinton, and not Bush, who decided to invade Iraq and occupy it in 1998...

Not!!!

Come on T-zer... Do you rerally expect anyone to believe your story here??? I mean, do you really expect that a contract for "Services Package A" awarded to Halliburton in 1998 was all encompassing for "Services Package B" that would be required to meet the needs of a war and an occupation??? If so then one would have to assume that in 1998 someone in military procurments would have had to not only know that George Bush would be elected some 2 years later but decide to invade and occupy Iraq a couple years after that...

That, my friend, is a major stretch of imagination...

Plus, given the fact that a sitting Vice President was still recieving compensation from his former company, Halliburton, at the time when Halliburton was contracted makes this entire affair smellier than a box of of fishheads...

So, inspite of the Teribus world view, there will come a time when these no-bid contracts that were awarded to Halliburton will get a peek and if the Dems should prevail this Tuesday it could be sooner than later depending on just which of the Bush administartion scandals the Dems elect to bring out from under Bush's carpet...

But before you say "There you go again, Bobert, with yer factless predictions" keep in mind that over the past 5 years my predictions on Iraq have been purdy much on the $$$...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Halliburton owns the U.S. government
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Nov 06 - 08:21 PM

Not to worry.

Last week a secret bill (called an earmark) was sneaked into a larger bill that permanently fired the accounting officer whose job was to oversee the money going to Halliburton and other corporations in which the military outsources much of their "good work"

No more oversight/accounting = No more problems with scandalous theft.

Subject: RE: BS: Halliburton owns the U.S. government
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Nov 06 - 09:12 PM

Exactly, Donuel... This is the way it is done while it still can be done...

This kinda reminds me of Enron when they went weeks ordering folks to shread documents... This is why Bush ahs classified more document in 6 years then were classified in in total from George Washington to the end of Clinton's administration...

These crook are runnin' scared as well they should be and they are going to use the next 2 years to sandbag, classify and obstruct to kepp the American peopl;e from finding out just what a bunch a crooks they really are but the American people have allready figured it out... Yeah, evn the ones who are in denial deep down inside know it...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Halliburton owns the U.S. government
From: Slag
Date: 05 Nov 06 - 09:17 PM

hmmmm. Maybe that's why the economy is doing so well.

Subject: RE: BS: Halliburton owns the U.S. government
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Nov 06 - 05:52 AM

100 up!

Bobert - 05 Nov 06 - 09:49 AM

"Come on T-zer... Do you rerally expect anyone to believe your story here??? I mean, do you really expect that a contract for "Services Package A" awarded to Halliburton in 1998 was all encompassing for "Services Package B" that would be required to meet the needs of a war and an occupation??? If so then one would have to assume that in 1998 someone in military procurments would have had to not only know that George Bush would be elected some 2 years later but decide to invade and occupy Iraq a couple years after that...

That, my friend, is a major stretch of imagination..."

You obviously know little about contracts and contracting at the level required. The Frame Agreement Contract won competitively by Halliburton in 1998 was for the Pentagon in support of US Armed Forces on a world-wide basis, i.e. it covered anything that was required/could be required so your "Services Package A" and "Services Package B" arguement does not wash. The Frame Agreement Contract lasts for a fixed period and covers all eventualities for services, where these cannot be defined or quantified specific rates are set according to circumstance.