Cheney/Halliburton: Causal Connection?

Now for the PNAC crowd...ready, aim, fire!

Those that oppose profit-based companies...ready, aim, fire!

and so on.

Hey Grateful 1 thanks for stopping by, always appreciate the input ! ! ! !

These seem to be fairly believable facts, but the facts also remain that there is no credible evidence for invading Iraq...I don't believe it was necessarilly just to make Halliburton more wealthy, but they are benefitting from a completely contrived war. Defense contractors make huge amounts of profits during and after wars like this and Vietnam...There is a lot of corruption surrounding contracts for for these foreign projects since there is very little oversight by anyone. We have even lost billions in cash shipped over to Iraq! It is very nieve to think that Cheney could not benefit in some huge way from the war in Iraq. Even if he is not presently doing so...they will be very kind to him when he retires from offfice. How do you know he is not in line for a 200 million dollar job on the board of directors? One thing is for certain, the average American is losing big time on this war! Clinton had our budget, and deficit under control, and then the Republicans took office, and look at our deficit now! It is already well known how many of our politicians end up in cushy, high paying jobs after they leave government...it doesn't take much research to find those facts...they get high paying jobs as lobbyists, board of directors..consultants..with businesses they supported while in office...I'm not even of liberal beliefs...you don't have to be a liberal to not tolerate lying, and cheating in our government...besides..they all do it...The bottom line is that all the intelligence that was used to support this war is bogus, and has not been proven by anyone to be true...so there has to be some underlying reasons, and I don't think it could only be oil...because the world will not tolerate us taking their oil...all Americans should be getting free oil....

Dave, nice rant dude, right on, power to the people, righteous man, righteous.

Cheney has profitted over $12 million since he started his illegal war and began handing out no-bid contracts to his company.

Perhaps the illustrious pseudo super hero would like to prove his lies, rather than just utter them????

I don't believe a word you say, and why should I ??? You're obviously a fool.

There's only one reason to suggest you have the facts, but are unwilling to prove it--- you're a liar.

The pseudo super hero would rather pretend "you can do your own research" than to put up--- it's too bad we can't get him to just shut up.

I have to assume between the facts and what I perceive as sarcasm that this is essentially a hit AGAINST Cheney and Halliburton...Then again these days on Gather you can never tell....jJack as usual your facts on on spot...I am just having a problem figuring out on this article, whether or not your slamming them or rallying for them....I think I know, but from the comments, I'm gettin a little confused....Hopefully I'm not asking stupid questions here.....

Clarkie Clarkie Clarkie, YOU entered the conservation with INSULTS, YOUR first words in this thread were ---- "Delusion seems rampant amongst the wacky wingnuts these days"

First you call me delusional, then you call me a wacky wingnut. I ask you to PROVE your stupid charges, you whine about being called a loser.

Go ahead and feel sorry for me, numb nuts, it only proves just how insane you actually are.

Todd, I am NOT attempting "hit" Cheney at all. I find it preposterous that a company with such a history, can be properly put into context as "the wrong choice" when there IS NO OTHER CHOICE TO MAKE ! ! ! ! ! !

Halliburton INVENTED THE OIL DRILLING PROCESS ! ! ! ! ! ! They've been doing government contract work (Halliburton, or the company they swallowed, The Brown Root Company) for the military, SINCE THE MILITARY STARTED FARMING SUCH WORK OUT ! ! ! ! ! !

No one does what Halliburton does, NO ONE ! ! ! ! ! There are other much smaller companies in the same business, but NONE can boast of the same type of experience as Halliburton.

As I said, Halliburton INVENTED the oil drilling process, they have worked extensively in the ME, in war zones, and former war zones, particularly Iraq.

Halliburton BUILT THE OIL RIGS IN IRAQ, who else are you going to contract with to do the work, someone Sad damn used himself, or some outsider that isn't familiar with the projects?

There's nothing sarcastic about the above article. It is a straightfoward piece of history about a singularly American, uniquely successful company without peer, Halliburton.

Yeah but, jJack, they are sooo big, man. And they make all that money. And now they control the government, cause like Cheney owns it and he really controls the government. And like all these wars are just so those guys can get richer and richer and make us dependent on them and when they own everything we have to do what they say or they will get the government to declare war on us and kill us, man. So what we really ought to be doing, man, is like boycotting Halliburton and when they declare bankruptcy we can like try them for treason and kill them, first. Then we can like set up a new government agency that will go around the world and fix all this stuff we broke and like not charge them anything because it's our fault anyway, man. Man, don't you know nothing?

Don't understand the dispute here. Everyone knows that Bush has been propping up our economy (at least on Wall Street) by defense spending. How else do expect them to do it -- they can't spend it on services to regular Americans because that would be "too socialistic." So the only way that you can implement Reagonomics with out taking the economy directly to the bottom of the ocean is to spend, spend, spend on defense. Unfortunately, that requires you also to fight, fight, fight as well. I propose that during the next Republican misadventure into Reaganomics that instead of dropping bombs on the enemy we drop American made cars, gadgets and appliances -- it will have the same effect and it will enable the rightwingers to prop up the economy and hire somebody other than Haliburtin to do it. Wouldn't it have been much, much more satisfying if General Motors instead of sending all of their electric car fleet directly to the crusher they would have dropped them from about 2000 feet on various suspected hang-outs of Saddam and Osama?

Rex *chuckle*

Everyone knows that Bush has been propping up our economy (at least on Wall Street) by defense spending.

Everyone?? Please don't project your delusions into my brain, eh ???

Your amusing little suggestion is nothing more, merely amusing. The fact is, defense spending is a fraction of what we spend on so called "entitlements."

In 2005, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (the main programs for the elderly) cost $1.034 trillion, twice the amount of defense spending and more than two fifths of the total federal budget. These programs are projected to equal about three quarters of the budget by 2030, if it remains constant as a share of national income.

So you see, you are free to froth and drool as long as you feel good about yourself, I don't mind. But please, don't expect me to accept your fantasies as my own.

I prefer to stick with the facts.

In 1962, early in the Vietnam War, defense spending amounted to about 9 percent of GDP and spending on Social Security was about 2.5 percent. Medicare and Medicaid had not yet been created.

Recently released figures from the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services show that in 2005, the U.S. health care tab came to 16 percent of the GDP.

During the big defense buildup of the Reagan era in the mid-1980s, defense spending was about 6 percent of GDP. It fell to about 3 percent by 2000, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Today it stands at 4.5 percent.

In the last 25 years mandatory spending - Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, retirement benefits - has grown from 26 percent of all federal spending to 53 percent and growing.

Meanwhile, discretionary spending - which funds what most people think of as government, the military, health research, infrastructure, etc. - has declined from 68 percent to 38 percent.

It's no wonder the government can't balance the budget and instead, racks up debt. "We the people," the American citizen as government representative, DEMAND a deficit, because we refuse to even consider the possibility there is no other choice but to break the promises foolish politicians of the past have made.

The American people know darn good and well it is a "freebie" for THEM that is being discussed, and won't do a thing to get rid of THEIR "entitled" benefits.

Don't listen to their plaintive cries about the "children." They don't give a darn about the children, or the country, or they would be marching in the streets for government to DO THE RIGHT THING and END THE MADNESS of government funded healthcare.

Despite the war in Iraq, defense spending is only a fifth of the budget; so-called entitlement payments to individuals are almost 60 percent -- and rising. In fiscal 2006, the federal government spent almost $2.7 trillion. Social Security ($544 billion), Medicare ($374 billion) and Medicaid ($181 billion) dominated. There was $199 billion more for payments to the poor, including the earned-income tax credit and food stamps.

Does anyone really want to end the National Institutes of Health at $28 billion? Or how about the $41 billion we spend to support federal courts, prosecutors and police (the FBI, DEA, Border Patrol)?

Amtrak, which serves a tiny number of passengers, is concentrated in the Northeast and costs $1.3 billion annually. But politically, ending such programs is hardly worth the trouble.

People suggest "cut the waste" but whatever waste exists is meaningless in a discretionary budget that is only about 1/3 of the budget?

In a nearly $3 trillion budget, even 10 Amtraks are a footnote.

Bush brags his budget would end or sharply reduce 141 programs. But most are microscopic; total savings would be $12 billion, or 0.4 percent of spending.

In 2006, military spending (including the war in Iraq) totaled $520 billion, slightly less than Social Security. If it had been halved, the savings would have barely covered the current deficit ($248 billion).

The richest 1 percent pay about a quarter of all federal taxes. In 2006, that was about $600 billion. To cover the deficit would require about a 40 percent tax increase. Two-thirds of all federal taxes come from the richest fifth

It might help if Americans called welfare programs -- current benefits for select populations, paid for by current taxes -- by their proper name, rather than by the soothing (and misleading) labels of "entitlements" and "social insurance."

But most Americans don't want to admit that they are current or prospective welfare recipients. They prefer to think that they automatically deserve whatever they've been promised simply because the promises were made. Americans do not want to pose the basic questions, and their political leaders mirror that reluctance.

We all know something needs to be done and the numbers are pretty clear, there is really only one option, which means there are no options, there is only one thing to do if we are to save the nation from insolvency.

Dismantle the welfare state, where the average benefits received for these so called "social insurance programs," will soon exceed taxes paid.

Comparing taxes paid to benefits received, it is possible to calculate the rate of return on a worker's social security "investment," just as one would for a private investment.

Such calculations show that social security's rate of return was very high for the first population cohorts covered by the system. Rates of return for those reaching sixty-five in 1950 averaged about 20 percent.

By 1965 returns fell to about 10 percent and they continued this downward trend because tax rates had increased and retirees had now been taxed for all or most of their working lives.

In 1995 the rate of return, that is the dollar amount of what you put into the system, compared to what you receive, was 2.8%

Soon, we'll ALL be taking out MORE than we've put into the system, are you "entitled" to that too ?

The average Social Security payout is $955 a month, $11,460 annually.

Currently, 53% of people in the workforce have no pension, and 32% have no savings set aside for retirement. The number of traditional pension plans — the kind that guarantee a set amount of money for life and that have propped up many of the pre-boomer generation — has fallen to 29,651 in 2004 from 112,208 in 1985.

25% of retired women, including 46% of unmarried Hispanic women, have no income beyond Social Security. AARP also says 33% of retired African-Americans live on Social Security alone.

These numbers can only grow, causing more debt.

When Social Security was launched around 70 years ago Sunday, it was meant to be a supplement for retirees, not a full pension. But today, 10.6 million people, or 22% of the 48 million who will receive Social Security benefits this year, live on that check alone.

Social Security was designed in an era when the average life expectancy was 65, and when families of 3 or 4 children were more rule than the exception. In those early years there were 30-40 workers paying Social Security taxes for every 1 retiree receiving benefits. Today, there are 3 workers for every retiree soon there will be just 2. Due to declining ratios of workers to seniors, the Social Security payroll tax, which was once just 2%, has now passed 12%.

In 1953, the maximum benefit was 30.5% of the average wage; in 1981 it was greater than 50%; in 1995 it was equal to 60.5%.

Expressed in 1995 dollars, the average monthly benefit in 1950 was $269.30, in 1968 was $381.38, in 1995 it was $719.80. Also the number beneficiaries has risen substantially from 222,488 in 1940 to 37.5 million in 1995.

In terms of the percentages of the population over 65, only 7% receive benefits in 1940 whereas 91.3% receive benefits in 1995.

Social Security, provides over 90% of income for half the seniors below the poverty line and 50% of income for two-thirds of all beneficiaries.

One third of all unmarried women depend on Social Security for 90% of their income. Only 20% of women age 65+ received any type of pension in 1990 and that amount equaled only $409/month.

The 1990 median income for widows 65+ was $9,366 for white women and $5,938 for black women. Forty percent of all widowed and divorced women age 65+ had incomes below $7,500.

Women pay 38% of all social security payroll taxes yet receive 53% of benefits- primarily because they live longer and the fact that the benefits are not sex adjusted.

There is SOME good news, in this bleak landscape, such as:

More than 7 in 10 American workers would support the creation of either a mandatory or optional Social Security personal account that will give them the opportunity to take control of and invest a portion of the Social Security taxes they are currently paying.

Not surprisingly, younger workers, who are most concerned about the solvency of Social Security, showed the strongest support for this proposal.

According to government figures, old-age poverty has dropped from about 50 percent in the 1930's to around 10 percent today. Most of the credit goes to Social Security.

And here's the not so good, but ironic news:

A 65-year-old single man who retires this year after a career in which he earned an average of $36,500 a year, in 2005 dollars, will get $164,000 in retirement benefits over the rest of his life, on average, based on his expected life span of 81.1 years.

That is about $8,000 less than he would receive if he invested his payroll taxes at a 2 percent rate of return, after inflation.

But a single woman with a similar earnings profile can expect to receive $206,000 - or $28,000 more than she would get by investing the contributions at the same 2 percent rate, merely because she is likely to live longer.

By 2025 about 38% of the working age population will be Black, Latino or Asian and they will be supporting a largely white elderly population.

So you can easily see, it isn't the funding of the military that is the problem.

OK... Now that we have cleared that misunderstanding up.....Here is my question. Regardless of Halliburton's standing in the world or the fact that they do monopolize the industry. Why, especially in this day and age when many other companies could still do what they do, are they the only choice....I think it's simple, my opinion only, of course.

Because Cheney does have a major say in what happens in that company. Not to cross thread this at all, but in my investigations into other areas, Power and prestige has truly become a common denominator when it comes to what people and what corporations control things such as this....The ones with the money and the clout....

The reason they have the experience is because they have much like in the "Old Days" of AT&T when they monopolized the phone/communication industry. They could, they did and no one challenged them.
Now the question is "Why" didn't anyone challenge them...Well check out the board of directors, check out the backers and financiers and the people involved in the company. That's why....The Govt won't let anyone do what Halliburton does simply because Halliburton IS basically the Govt... No not literally...But figuratively.

Let's face it:
It is a straightfoward piece of history about a singularly American, uniquely successful company without peer, Halliburton.

Without a doubt, jJack you are correct in that statement. The question is how did they become that singularly American, uniquely successful company without peer???

The question is how did they become that singularly American, uniquely successful company without peer???

Just like any other company becomes successful. They did it just like Sam Walton did it. They entered their field, did it better than anyone, and soon took control.

There's nothing sinister in becoming so good, you become a monopoly. This is the ultimate end game, in a capitalist society.

Let's start with the very first event to put Halliburton on the map. The very first event that continues to bring Halliburton MILLIONS to this very day.

Halliburton, the MAN, not the company, invented something called the "Cement Jet Mixer." This invention placed Halliburton ALONE among his "peers" in the industry, and as a result his expertise and product became ubiquitous within the oil drilling industry.

Tell me please, how did this group of conspirators arrange this ?? How did they implant this idea into Halliburton's head ??

Next, let's go with another example of fate, that demonstrates the illogic of your position.

A completely different company, known as The Root Brown company developed alongside Halliburton's company, specializing in another area of expertise, but related industry, construction, specialized construction for rebuilding, including roads and other infrastructure. A company that was able to help our military and our government during WWII to such an extent, during their formative years as a company, they were able to establish themselves as the preeminent provider of such services.

When Halliburton dies, these two companies merge. This is all by design ???

How does Halliburton force Sad damn to use their services ?? After all, it is Sad damn that extends the building of the two rigs in Iraq in 1973, it is Sad damn that continues to pay Halliburton all through the 70s, 80s, and right up to the first Gulf War.

How did Halliburton make Sad damn do all of that ???

Or does Halliburton control the world, and not just the USA government ???

This is what you DON'T say, isn't it Todd ??

Halliburton is just a "tool" of the greater "evil" forces you see at work in the world, yes ??

Thanks Dale.

What these loons miss is this--- no one denies Cheney's connections to Halliburton, or that he made/makes a great deal of money based on those connections. Such things are a given, easily verified and defended.

When you jump to the conclusion however, that Cheney as the puppet master, forced Bush, the mindless drone, into telling lies about Iraq, so they could "dupe" the liberals about the "real truth," all to get them to vote for a war that is ostensibly fought only to enrich Cheney, Halliburton, and assorted friends, is obscene, and laughable on its face.

There is no causal connection that can be proven, it is all conjecture based on circumstantial "evidence."

Let's put it this way. One day I am home alone, I walk into my kitchen and see an apple on the table. I leave the kitchen without touching the apple, yet when I return, the apple is eaten, with only the core present on the table.

There is no way of knowing how this apple changed status. We only have basic facts. First it was there, then it wasn't.

This is much like Halliburton's rise on the scene, just in reverse. First they weren't there, then they were. You can follow all of the known facts about their rise, and interpret these facts in whatever manner best pleases your preconceived notions.

Or, you can simply accept these facts at face value, and try not to put any evil or good, into their existence.

"If you were duped by your Husband and Bush, what makes you think you won't be duped again by some other man when you are president?"

Trust me, someone, somewhere along the line, is going to ask Billary just that.

I hear the loons are most prevalent on the left side of the bay. With that gun, you should get quite a few.

I don't think humor is ever "necessary" but it's always welcome.

jJack,

"Or, you can simply accept these facts at face value, and try not to put any evil or good, into their existence."

No doubt, whoever ate that apple would vote for this option.

In the immortal words of Mick Jagger, "Go ahead, bite the big apple, hope you don't find no maggots."

There's evil in the world, Mr Midnight. There are greedy and power thirsty people who do cold calculating things to get what they want. Such folk really do seek and achieve positions which facilitate that. They would of course love it if we all took your advice, and "simply accept the facts at face value". The fun loving guys at Enron were sure hoping that plan would remain popular.

Halliburton is not a big ole dude, that does things for simple, person-like reasons. If some of the folks that got to be leaders there happen to be among those cold calculating fellas, really gruesome things can happen. Not the sort of things we ought to pretend don't happen, if we are real grown up people, and not just mental masturbators getting off on the intellectual thrill of making everything look like indecipherable mush. So we won't feel so "different".

" Oh yeah, you're right...he was given 433,333 shares when he left, they hit a low of $8.00 and are now at $31.55. That's only $10 million +. Hardly worth mentioning."
You were asked for PROOF, Suoerman, not more ranting.

Dave H- -Slick's admin believed there were WMD in Iraq. Multiple members of his admin, including Slick, said it multiple times. And Slick called for regime change in Iraq. Are you aware of that?

Liz- -How about mounatin lion wrestling? Loon hunting is too easy these days. :-)

Mister Knight, yes there is evil in the world. That doesn't mean you've properly identified it.

Hello again Jay and Liz.

Spider woman, love your cat where can I get one. Although I incorporated the fact that defense spending is being used to prop up the economy, the fact is that is true. America spends more money on defense than all of our Nato Allies combined. What Reaganomics does is exactly what Eisenhower in his farewell address cautioned us not to do -- namely turn government over to the military industrial complex. Eisenhower was probably the most bipartisan President of the 20th Century -- he was recruited by both the Democrats and the Republicans to run for the Presidency. He opted to run as a Republican because he felt the Democrats had been in the ascendancy too long. Nearly all of the increased manufacturing in our region is tied to defense spending. I would challenge all of you to look around and consider what contracts the manufacturers in your region are defense related. There is absolutely no question that Reaganomics involves three components 1) cut taxes paid by the haves, 2) decrease domestic spending, and 3) increase defense spending. The third component attempts to make up for the second -- unfortunately, it does so in a very hapzard way which tends to be more profitable to the economic elites than anyone else. The psychology is that you convince the citizenry that domestic spending is socialistic or communistic and hence evil. Then you convince the citizenry that defense spending is patriotic. In the meanwhile the "have mores" don't give a damn about any of this, they are only interested in personal economic gain.

I incorporated the fact that defense spending is being used to prop up the economy, the fact is that is true.

Hardly--- you can say it, but you sure can't prove it.

America spends more money on defense than all of our Nato Allies combined.

The USA spends more on defense than the next 20 nations of the world COMBINED ! ! ! ! So what ????

That doesn't prove defense spending "props up" the economy.

What Reaganomics does is exactly what Eisenhower in his farewell address cautioned us not to do -- namely turn government over to the military industrial complex.

Just plain STUPID. As I've already demonstrated, what the USA spends on the military is PEANUTS compared to what is spent on SS, Medicare, and Medicaid, the top three items in federal expenditures.

Nearly all of the increased manufacturing in our region is tied to defense spending.

Flat out LIE--- one he doesn't even bother to validate because HE CAN'T.

There is absolutely no question that Reaganomics involves three components 1) cut taxes paid by the haves, 2) decrease domestic spending, and 3) increase defense spending.

Sure, Reagan and Bush both cut taxes, so what ??? Domestic spending, INCLUDING THE NON DISCRETIONARY PART OF THE BUDGET that includes SS, Medicare, andMedicaid, so called "entitlements" takes up over 60% of the budget, and the military spending is about 20% YOU MORON, domesting spending isn't going DOWN, it is going UP--- as defense spending goes DOWN.

In 1962, early in the Vietnam War, defense spending amounted to about 9 percent of GDP and spending on Social Security was about 2.5 percent. Medicare and Medicaid had not yet been created.

Recently released figures from the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services show that in 2005, the U.S. health care tab came to 16 percent of the GDP.

During the big defense buildup of the Reagan era in the mid-1980s, defense spending was about 6 percent of GDP. It fell to about 3 percent by 2000, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Today it stands at 4.5 percent.

You're an idiot, that tries to make the same argument, even after you've been proven incorrect.

If you speak again, the only response you'll receive is name calling. Attempting to pass off lies, as the truth, requires name calling in return.

Excuse me, I am on the local business incubator board and our office represents a town and the regional development commission and I can assure you that I am not lying. I don't see the significance of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security funding to defense spending. Proven incorrect? Where? And what does Eisenhower's farewell warning have to do with providing health coverage to the elderly and some social security to the elderly? Nothing, so what is your point?

"The USA spends more on defense than the next 20 nations of the world COMBINED ! ! ! ! So what ????" So what? That means that the country which is fueling 3rd World countries desires to become nuclear is, undoubtedly America. It also mean we are trying to play policeman to the world. Attempts such as that have always ended badly insofar as the average person in that society and has resulted in venomous hatred of the country wielding that kind of power. Roman Empire, British Empire, French Empire, Spanish Empire -- many of our problems today are the result of the British Empire deciding who was going to live where, and who was going to rule and where their borders are. Iraq itself is a problem created by the British and compounded by us. Israel/Palestine same thing.

You're simply not capable of carrying on an adult conversation,

Why would I want to carry on an "adult" conversation with a whining child like you ????

While your points about Halliburton are correct, that in no way diminishes the fact that Cheney has profitted enormously from his prior connections to the company, as a direct result of actions that he has taken in the white house.

And while Halliburton has made lots of money, along with Cheney, there is no causal factor you can point to, much less prove, that demonstrates any causal relationship between Cheney's position, and Halliburton's use/contracts in Iraq or elsewhere.

Halliburton is one of the shining poster children for the corporate fleecing of taxpayers.

Only in the very dull minds of idiots like you.

Companies like this rely entirely upon public subsidy for their existence, and routinely hire high-ranking former government officials to carry their water for them.

So what ??? Such activity in no way demostrates, much less proves, your silly accusations of corruption because of such activity. Corruption exists only in your fantasies, until you can PROVE corruption.

The "free market," to a rightwinger, is something that allows a company to loot the US treasury for whatever they damn well please, without any restrictions.

Hardly, once again, ,that is just your over active imagination at work, unless of course you can PROVE corruption, which idiots like you cannot do, your only source of "power" in this world is to lie, and hope everyone believes your stupid lies.

Oh, and btw, your case for Halliburton seems to indicate that they are a monopoly

Then DO something about you freakin' LOSER, don't just whine about it, DO SOMETHING you moron. If what YOU pretend is "truth" it should be that difficult to PROVE it, you simpering dolt.

Excuse me, I am on the local business incubator board and our office represents a town and the regional development commission and I can assure you that I am not lying

Then you are an ignorant piece of feces that is simply misguided.

I don't see the significance of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security funding to defense spending.

Probably because you are an idiot, although I'm sure there could be other reasons.

And what does Eisenhower's farewell warning have to do with providing health coverage to the elderly and some social security to the elderly?

Nothing, you idiot. YOUR claim was that defense spending is bankrupting this country. It is an idiot claim, and I demonstrated why. Defense spending is NOTHING compared to the so called "entitlement" welfare progams like SS, Medicare, and Medicaid.

so what is your point?

I already told you, you're just too freakin' stupid to understand.

He's as pointless as he is offensive and ignorant.

Clark is a name caller Clark is a name caller. *sticking out my tongue*

You have to realize, however, that the neocons are literally obsessed with destroying the entire social fabric of this nation, in order that all public funding can be directed to the corporate masters. They will not rest until every penny of social spending has been re-directed to corporate entities, in particular the military industrial complex. Far better to kill people with bombs than to help them with basic survival needs.

Lunacy, from a madman, I'm not even Jewish, how could I be a neocon, you dumb ass.

That means that the country which is fueling 3rd World countries desires to become nuclear is, undoubtedly America.

Another stupid statement from a low achieving moron. Try to prove that silly accusation farm boy.

It also mean we are trying to play policeman to the world

We have to fill the void, no one else will. If the nations of the world rely on American might to protect them, that's up to THEM.

It also mean we are trying to play policeman to the world. Attempts such as that have always ended badly insofar as the average person in that society and has resulted in venomous hatred of the country wielding that kind of power.

What it actually means, you have no idea, as evidenced by your stupid statement above.

You're an idiot, loser, shut your mouth or try to PROVE what is coming out of it, rather than whining like a weak woman.

That goes for you too, pseudo super hero.

jJack,

I sure hope that was a "character" talking, cause if that in any realistic way captures what really goes on inside your head . . . yikes.

John, your appraisal is duly noted, for what it's worth.

Interesting post, jJack. I always love it when the a leftie debunks their fellow lefties "talking points". It's even more fun to see them react to it. I have to go back, and read Clark's comments, to have more fun. Just had to give you a "thumbs up" on this expose, before I get into the muck.

Notice, Spartan doesn't give a source, I wonder why.

You don't have to debunk fantasies you know.

Interesting discussion, since I am late I will only refute the whole Cheney/Halliburton lie. The far left really should let this go, there is proof that he gains nothing from their stock, and it has been out since 2004:

" Contrary to this ad's message, Cheney doesn't gain financially from the contracts given to the company he once headed."

When I see someone from the far left still use this attack, I begin to realize that facts are no longer pertinent, as long as the lie is still worth telling in their own little world.

An excerpt from the article, in case you would just like the 'nitty-gritty':

'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.

Cheney and Rumsfeld both had the ambition to be President since they worked in the Nixon administration and both ran for the Presidency. I wonder, what's a few million dollars matter to them, compared to having power?

*ROFL* good one Steve ! ! ! ! ! Look at them back track now *ROFL*

First they say Cheney is a crook for taking money, then when you PROVE he isn't taking the money, they say "big deal, he's a millionaire already."

*ROFL* the lefties are such LOSERS *ROFL*

Spartan, I don't believe a word you say--- try leaving a link, and maybe your lies will be scrutinized more closely. I doubt if you can supply a link to the GAO that validates your lies.

Do your own homework, jJack.

*ROFL* what a LOSER *ROFL* First he says he took the data "from the US Government Accounting Office Website."

Yeah, what a joke, and what a liar. If he actually DID take it from that website, he'd have the URL to supply.

The simple truth is, Spartan CANNOT supply a link, or he would do so. Spartan is a bald faced LIAR, unless he can PROVE he's not a liar.

Here's my source to the FACTS listed above if you want them.

Not sure if I am one of the wingnuts in question, but ok:

The Change in Breakdown between 2000 and 2005*


Category Share in 2000 Share in 2005 Change in Share
Military 23.9¢ 28.5¢ 20%
Health 17.3¢ 20.2¢ 17%
Interest Debt 26.6¢ 18.7¢ -30%
Income Security 6.2¢ 6.6¢ 7%
Education 2.7¢ 4.1¢ 50%
Vet Benefits 3.8¢ 3.7¢ -2%
Nutrition 2.5¢ 2.7¢ 11%
Housing 2.2¢ 2.0¢ -7%
Environment 1.7¢ 1.4¢ -18%
Job Training 0.4¢ 0.3¢ -21%
Other 12.7¢ 11.6¢ -8%

All spending has increased over the past 6 years, while Military has risen 20% more than the others, the 70% is a bit deceiving.

Since the major increase happened in 2003, post 9/11 and has leveled back off again.

This table further details the military expenditure each year, and is compared at constant 2007 prices:



Year $ billions At 2007 prices Change from
previous year (%)

2008 643.9 643.9 2.84%
2007 626.1 626.1 7.46%
2006 571.6 582.66 -0.05%
2005 554 582.93 0.34%
2004 534 580.93 4.03%
2003 500 558.42 27.97%
2002 382 436.36 8.00%
2001 348 404.03 4.82%
2000 323 385.46 0.81%
1999 310 382.38 4.95%
1998 289 364.35 n/a


I have to assume "other" refers to earmarks and other Government spending that they decide not to classify, go figure.

While the increase is dramatic in 2003, it was obviously in response to 9/11. Is it too much? If our boys are in war zones, I would rather see them get all the armored Humvees, body armor and all the state of the art weaponry that is available.

"You have to realize, however, that the neocons (or insert communists, left-wingers, oilmen, enviros, gun-toting cats) are literally obsessed with destroying the entire social fabric of this nation..."

Please put the drugs away and stick to facts. This political hallucogen that gets passed like an online bong around here never fails to ruin any conversation. Use facts, not speeches. Smoke settles.

The fact of the matter is, the jobs that are being negotiated in the Middle East have to be filled be responsible corporations. Halliburton happens to have a long history and good track record of fulfilling governmental expecatations, and also has an ex-executive now as VP. It's got an inside ear... if I recall correctly, having distinct advantages in competition is a facet of capitalism. So why even debate it? Are we attempting to moralise something that is purely economical, or are we jockeying for moral high ground? Do tell me, if you were the once big man of Halliburton and are now VP, wouldn't it be natural to recommend your old company?

-John Calvignome

Sorry, all that time spacing them out just to have gather reformat it at post :(

The charts are available on the links I provided. Military spending share did increase 20% in respect to other costs, but was far from the highest increase. Education went up 50% in that time, Helath spending 17%.

Steve, don't worry about the "spacing" --- the content is what counts ! ! ! ! ! Thanks for VALUABLE input on this article ! ! ! ! ! !

John, I agree. Halliburton happens to have a long history and good track record of fulfilling governmental expecatations, VERY long.

Realizing as I do the "factual" nature you have jJack, along with what are obviously people who feel the same, I ask you this question before I waste the time posting the link....Simply because I have a feeling that you along with John and a few others might slight this as just another "Hit" attempt on what you are trying so hard to defend....Are you willing to see what others consider "Factual" information even though you might not agree? If so let me know...I have found quite a few things that might open your eyes to the "alternative"....I'm not trying to change your mind, just get you and others to open up to the possibilities that all you have researched might not necessarily be "facts" either......

Todd, I have no idea what you are talking about--- this article specifically, or something else entirely ???

Are you discussing the NAU ???

I am always open to seeing the "facts" from ANYONE that disagrees with me. If I can actually verify what you say is "fact" -- as actual fact, then I won't have a problem telling you I have changed my mind, and why.

The problem I find, comes when people want to point to actual "facts" and draw illogical conclusions from this fact.

For example, with this article, can ANYONE PROVE a CAUSAL CONNECTION between Cheney being a former CEO at Halliburton, and the fact that Halliburton enjoys a near monopoly on the type of contracts they fulfull for the government.

There is NO CAUSAL LINK ANYONE CAN PROVE. They simply tell you "Cheney used to run Halliburton, and still gets lots of money" --- and add that fact with "Halliburton gets a number of no bid contracts" --- to create a third "fact" that isn't fact at all--- just conjecture, "Since Cheney used to be CEO at Halliburton, it is "obvious" the Halliburton contracts are rife with corruption."

Fact 1 and Fact 2, are actual facts. Fact 3 isn't a fact at all, it's merely conjecture extrapolated from Fact 1 and Fact 2.

Nope...nothing to do with the NAU....This article specifically....I'm not gonna preach my articles on yours...I don't play that shit...I promise to stay on topic, YOUR topic and not vary from it...Ok...

First off let me say that your "History of Halliburton" is absolutely correct, understandable and I agree with you 100%...BUT...from the late 70's-80's..to the present....here we go...This is a long one jJack...Hope you don't get pissed off at me, but as you say..."Facts are Facts"....

Cheney/Halliburton Chronology:

"The good Lord didn't see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratic regimes friendly to the United States" - Richard Cheney

1992

Halliburton subsidiary Brown & Root is paid $9 million by the Pentagon (under Cheney's direction as Secretary of Defense) to produce a classified report detailing how private companies (like itself) could provide logistical support for American troops in potential war zones around the world. Shortly after this report, the Pentagon awards Brown & Root a five-year contract to provide logistics for the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. The General Accounting Office estimates that through this contract, Brown & Root makes overall $2.2 billion in revenue in the Balkans.2

1995

Without any previous business experience, Cheney leaves the Department of Defense to become the CEO of Halliburton Co., one of the biggest oil-services companies in the world. He will be chairman of the company from 1996 to October 1998 and from February to August 2000. Under Cheney's leadership, Halliburton moves up from 73rd to 18th on the Pentagon's list of top contractors. The company garners $2.3 billion in U.S. government contracts, which almost doubles the $1.2 billion it earned from the government previously. Most of the contracts are granted by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers.3 Halliburton's overseas operations go from 51% to 68% of its revenue. According to the Center for Public Integrity,4 under Cheney's leadership the company also receives $1.5 billion worth of assistance from government-sponsored agencies such as OPIC (Overseas Private Investment Corporation) and the Export-Import Bank, a huge increase compared to the $100 million that the company had received in federal loans and guarantees in the five years prior to Cheney's arrival. Years later, during the 2000 campaign in a broadcasted vice presidential candidates' debate with Joe Lieberman, Cheney asserts that "the government has absolutely nothing to do" with his financial success as chairman of Halliburton Co.5 Halliburton pleads guilty to criminal charges of violating a U.S. ban on exports to Libya by selling Col. Qaddafi six pulse neutron generators, devices that can be used to detonate nuclear weapons.6 Halliburton pays a $3.8 million penalty to settle alleged violations of the U.S. trade ban.7

1996

Halliburton subsidiary European Marine Contractors (EMC) helps lay the offshore portion of the Yadana natural gas pipeline in Burma. Several human rights organizations allege tremendous human rights abuses are associated with the project, as thousands of villagers in Burma are forced to work in support of the pipeline and related infrastructure. Many lose their homes due to forced relocation, and there are reports of rape, torture and killings by soldiers hired by the companies as security guards for the pipelines.8

1997

Cheney contributes to the creation of an influential right-wing policy group called the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). The group advocates for the removal of Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime as early as January 1998, and is later revealed to be the intellectual center of the drive to war in Iraq.9

March: The Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), a U.S. government agency, helps Halliburton by providing "political risk insurance" worth up to $200 million for the development of natural gas in Bangladesh.10 Halliburton subsidiary Brown & Root (now Kellogg, Brown & Root, KBR) launches a major Caspian project for the Azerbaijan International Operating Company, despite congressional sanctions against aid to Azerbaijan for human rights violations.11 Indonesia Corruption Watch names Kellogg Brown & Root (Halliburton's engineering division) as one of 59 companies using collusive, corrupt and nepotistic practices in business deals involving former president Suharto's family.12

Even with the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act in place, Halliburton continues to operate in Iran. It pays the Department of Commerce $15,000 to settle allegations that the company has broken anti-boycott provisions of the U.S. Export Administration Act for an Iran-related transaction, without admitting wrongdoing.13 Halliburton also continues to do business in Libya throughout Cheney's tenure.

The GAO (General Accounting Office), the auditing arm of Congress, reports that KBR overbilled the Army for costs associated with its work in Kosovo. It is revealed that the firm used more workers and equipment than necessary to clean offices and provide electricity and backup power supplies to bases, and charged nearly $86 per sheet for plywood that it bought for $14.06.14 As a result of the GAO's critical report, KBR's logistics contract was not renewed by the military, though the company was re-hired in 1999.

Cheney appears in an Arthur Andersen promotional video praising the firm's accounting practices, saying: "I get good advice, if you will, from their people [Arthur Andersen], based upon how we are doing business and how we are operating, over and above the normal, by-the-books auditing arrangement".15 KBR is later investigated by the SEC for accounting fraud - in a case similar to the charges leveled against Anderson's other client, Enron.

1998

Cheney oversees Halliburton's merger with Dresser Industries, one of the companies that helped Saddam Hussein rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure after the First Gulf War, despite economic sanctions against Iraq. Dresser also had faced major liability issues concerning asbestos which prove to be onerous for the company's financial health.16 Halliburton uses two foreign subsidiaries to do $23 million worth of business with Iraq.17

1999

Halliburton's KBR division is re-hired by the military, after being fired in 1997, for a $180 million a year contract to supply U.S. forces in the Balkans with logistical support. The company is also working on major contracts to build oil infrastructure in Brazil and Nigeria for companies like Chevron, Petrobras and Shell. It has a $200 million contract with Chevron and its partners in the enclave of Cabina (Angola), where the company services over 330 wells in 30 fields, which provide eight percent of U.S. oil imports; the concession is the source of 80 percent of the Angolan government's revenue.18

2000

August: Cheney leaves his position as Halliburton's CEO to run as Bush's Vice President. Halliburton announces that it is giving Cheney a retirement package worth more than $33.7 million.19 Under public pressure, Cheney sells company stock worth $30 million. October 5: In a broadcast debate with Joe Lieberman, Cheney asserts that "the government has absolutely nothing to do" with his financial success as chairman of Halliburton Co.20

Halliburton is by now the world's largest diversified energy services, engineering, construction and maintenance company, with some $15 billion in revenues annually, 100,000 employees, and 7,000 customers in over 120 countries.21

2001

KBR wins a $300-million exclusive contract to supply logistics to the Navy, providing services like cooking, construction, power generation and fuel transportation.22 One of Cheney's largest projects as Vice President is to coordinate the development of a new National Energy Policy (NEPDG). According to the former climate policy adviser in the Environmental Protection Agency, who was present at the task force's sessions, Cheney "continually pushed plans to increase […] oil supplies while paying little heed to promoting energy efficiency and clean energy sources".23 Casting as an inevitability that by 2020, the United States will need to import two-thirds of its oil, mainly from the Arabic peninsula, the NEPDG recommends "that the President make energy security a priority of our trade and foreign policy".24 April: After having unsuccessfully requested information on recent secret meetings between the Cheney-led National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG) and executives of several energy industry companies, Representatives John Dingell and Henry Waxman ask the GAO (General Accounting Office) to request information about those meetings.

July: GAO Comptroller General Walker requests records from Dick Cheney providing the names of the attendees for each of the meetings.25

November: Kellogg, Brown & Root is paid $2 million to reinforce the United States embassy in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, under contract with the State Department.26

December: Kellogg, Brown & Root secures a 10-year deal with the Pentagon with no cost ceiling to provide support services to the Army.27 The contract is known as the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP). This contract is a "cost-plus-award-fee, indefinite delivery/indefinite-quantity service," which means that the federal government has an open-ended mandate and budget to send Kellogg, Brown and Root anywhere in the world to run humanitarian or military operations for profit.28

2002

February: Kellogg, Brown & Root pays out $2 million to settle a lawsuit with the Justice Department, which alleged that the company defrauded the government in the mid- 1990s by overbilling expenses.29 KBR was accused of inflating contract prices for maintenance and repairs at Fort Ord, California, a now-terminated military installation. The lawsuit, filed in Sacramento, alleged KBR submitted false claims and made false statements in connection with 224 delivery orders between April 1994 and September 1998. The false statements were allegedly made during Cheney's term as CEO.

February 27: The New York Times reveals the identity of some of the top executives from the oil and gas industry that met with Cheney on Feb. 8, 2001.30 One of them is Robert J. Allison Jr., the Chairman of Anadarko Petroleum, with which Halliburton has been doing business since 1959. The Times also reports that Cheney's wife Lynne had been a director and significant stockholder of Union Pacific Resources, an energy company that had merged with Anadarko in 2000, and that she received Anadarko stock worth $250,000 to $500,000 from the merger.

March: The press identifies the names of 22 oil and gas companies whose officials met in secret with the NEPDG.31 Nineteen of these were among the top 25 energy industry financial contributors to the Republican Party. Among the nineteen were Enron, ExxonMobil, BP Amoco, Anadarko Petroleum, Shell Oil, and Chevron.32 David M. Walker, the comptroller general of the GAO, as well as Judicial Watch, launch lawsuits against Cheney because he refuses to turn over to Congress documents that reveal the identities of industry executives involved in the National Energy Strategy.33 The GAO's lawsuit will be abandoned in February 2003, after Republican threats to cut the GAO's $440 million budget.34 But Judicial Watch's legal efforts continue. (see below)

May 22: A New York Times article alleges that Halliburton artificially inflated its stock price between June 1999 and May 2002 and counted cost overruns on construction projects as additional revenue.35 Following these allegations, the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) launches an investigation into Halliburton's accounting practices.36 The company's then-accountant was Arthur Andersen.37 Despite the ongoing investigation and previous revelations about cost overruns, Halliburton continues to receive government contracts worth billions.

June: Brown and Root is awarded a $22 million deal to run support services at a military camp in Uzbekistan, a country whose leader, Islam Karimov, is a ruthless dictator accused of human rights violations and boiling his political opponents alive. This is the first LOGCAP contract in the "war on terrorism".38

June: Halliburton informs workers its pensions will be reduced in value in order to pay for mergers and acquisitions.

July 15: Newsweek publishes the article, "Halliburton CEO Says Cheney Knew About Firm's Accounting Practices" revealing that Cheney was aware that the firm was counting projected cost overrun payments as revenues.39

July 29: A New York Times article quotes Cheney about corporate fraud: "The American people can be certain that the government will fully investigate and prosecute any wrongdoers". Cheney says the reform measure will "protect investors, bring more accountability to corporations and toughen controls of the accounting industry".40

July/August: It is revealed that while Vice President Cheney was Halliburton's CEO, the number of its subsidiary companies in offshore tax havens increased from 9 (in 1995) to 44 (in 1999). One of these subsidiaries (Halliburton Products and Services Ltd.), incorporated in the Caiman Islands, is used since 2000 to get around sanctions on doing business in Iran.41 At the same time, Halliburton's federal taxes dropped dramatically from $302 million in 1998 to an $85 million rebate in 1999.42

Despite these revelations, the company continues to be awarded massive government contracts, including a new 10-year deal with the Army with no lid on potential costs. In the year 2002 alone, Brown & Root received $1.3 billion for services to the U.S. government.43 These services include a $115 million contract to design and construct an embassy compound in Afghanistan; $37.3 million to build 816 detention cells at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; and $2 million to reinforce the U.S. embassy in Uzbekistan.44 As the press and Democratic Party leaders increasingly focus on Cheney's role in alleged accounting violations at Halliburton,45 the Bush administration turns the nation's attention to Iraq.

August 26: Cheney delivers a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Nashville, warning that "seated atop of ten percent of the world's oil reserves, Saddam Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of a great portion of the world's energy supplies, […] and subject the United States to nuclear blackmail."46

October: A Washington Post article describes Cheney as the "fulcrum of foreign policy", and that his influence for a pro-war policy comes to the fore on the eve of a possible conflict with Iraq.47 Cheney's wife Lynne is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a "right-wing think tank exercising significant influence in Washington circles"48 which is one of the leading architects of the Bush administration's foreign policy and one of the leading voices pushing the Bush administration's plan for "regime change" through war in Iraq.49 The AEI has received funding from the Bechtel Foundation and ExxonMobil.50

November: Brown & Root begins a one-year contract, estimated at $42.5 million, to cover services for troops at bases in Bagram and Kandahar, Afghanistan.51

2003

January: The Wall Street Journal reports that Halliburton officials met informally with representatives of Vice President Cheney's office back in October to figure out how best to jumpstart Iraq's oil industry following a war.52 Cheney and Halliburton deny it.

March: Congressman Henry Waxman launches an inquiry into the fact that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has secretly awarded a no-bid contract to KBR to extinguish oil well fires in Iraq. The contract has a huge cost ceiling of $7 billion, with additional fees of up to seven percent ($490 million). The mission and the contract have been "awarded without any competition or even notice to Congress, [… and] were entered into on March 8, but not disclosed publicly until March 24".53 This contract is open-ended. It is also a "cost-plus" contract, i.e. the company is guaranteed to recover costs plus an additional percentage of those costs as its profit. It is later revealed that the contract not only includes fighting fires, but also operating the oil fields. The administration replies to Waxman's questions on the lack of competition: "To invite other contractors to compete to perform a highly classified requirement […] would have been a wasteful duplication of effort. […] Only Kellogg Brown & Root Services […] could commence implementing the plan on extremely short notice" and "No other contractor could satisfy mission requirements in the time available".54 However, CBS reports that other qualified companies had attempted to bid on the contracts, but were shut out of the process. Bob Grace, president of GSM Consulting, after having contacted the Pentagon to inquire about the contracts, received a letter from the Department of Defense dated December 30, 2002 saying that it was "too early to speculate what might happen in the event that war breaks out in the region".55 This was "more than a month after the Army Corps of Engineers began talking to Halliburton about putting out oil well fires in Iraq",56 and in fact one month after the Secretary of Defense had granted such a contract to Halliburton.57 Furthermore, KBR did not actually put the fires out itself, but subcontracted the job to other companies: Boots & Coots International Well Control Inc., and Wild Well Control Inc.58

Thousands of employees of Halliburton are working alongside U.S. troops in Kuwait and Turkey under a package deal worth close to a billion dollars. KBR is also supporting operations in Afghanistan, Djibouti, Georgia, Jordan and Uzbekistan. The overall anticipated cost of task orders awarded since the contract award in December 2001 (LOGCAP) is approximately $830 million.59

May 8: Halliburton admits having paid 2.4 millions of dollars in bribes to a Nigerian official in return for tax breaks.60

May 30: Twenty shareholder class-action lawsuits accusing Halliburton of using deceptive accounting practices while Dick Cheney led the company is settled for 6 million dollars. Halliburton doesn't admit to any wrongdoing.61

July 8: Following Judicial Watch's attempt to force the White House to disclose the names of nongovernmental officials who were consulted by the task force in 2001, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirms a lower court judge's order and thereby rejects Cheney's bid to keep all the workings of the Energy Task Force secret.62

Sept. 14, 2003: On NBC's Meet the Press, Cheney said, "And since I left Halliburton to become George Bush's vice president, I've severed all my ties with the company [Halliburton], 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." But the vice president conveniently forgot to mention that he continues to receive from the company deferred salary of over $150,000 per year while maintaining 433,333 shares of unexercised stock options.

December 2003: The Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) confirmed in a preliminary audit that Halliburton and a Kuwaiti firm, Altamnia, had overcharged the U.S. government by at least $61 million through Sept. 2003 for the cost of gasoline imported into Iraq. Halliburton's KBR unit had been charging $2.64 per gallon to transport gasoline into Iraq while its competitors were transporting gasoline for less than half that price. The DCCA formerly asked the Pentagon's inspector general to investigate the overcharges and said the fuel importation contract was given to Altanmia "under unusual circumstances."

2004

January: Halliburton reportedly wants to drill on Mars at U.S. taxpayers' expense.

January 16, 2004: House Democrat Henry Waxman (D-CA) discloses serious irregularities regarding Halliburton Co.'s contract to transport oil into Iraq.

January 17, 2004: The Army awards Halliburton subsidiary KBR a contract worth up to $1.2 billion to rebuild the oil industry in southern Iraq. The Army previously had awarded a no-bid contract to KBR in March 2003 for the purpose of rebuilding Iraq's oil infrastructure in both the north and south of the country. But, under charges of cronyism and favoritism leveled at Halliburton, the Army subsequently opened the contract for competitive bidding in the Fall of 2003. The Army split the contract into one for northern Iraq and one for southern Iraq. The northern Iraq contract, worth up to $800 million, was given to a joint venture of California-based Parsons Corp. and the Australian firm Worley Group Ltd.

January 23, 2004: In Paris, a French judge warns that Cheney could be charged over allegations that Halliburton paid $180 million in bribes to build a Nigerian gas plant.

January 24, 2004: Halliburton admits two of its employees accepted a $6 million bribe in exchange for awarding Army subcontracts to a Kuwaiti-based company involved in rebuilding Iraq. Halliburton fired the employees.

January 25, 2004: CBS Television's 60 Minutes program shows how Halliburton does business with Iran even though U.S. law bans companies from doing business with the country.

January 26, 2004: New York City's controller accuses Halliburton of taking blood money from state sponsors of terrorism, such as Iran and Libya. Controller William Thompson - who oversees an $80 billion pension fund for city workers - says cops and firefighters are outraged that their retirement portfolios include stock in U.S. firms getting fat off contracts with rogue nations like Iran, which funds the terror groups Hezbollah and Hamas and is suspected of giving sanctuary to Al Qaeda leaders.

January 30, 2004: New York Times columnist, Bob Herbert, details how Halliburton evades U.S. taxes and export bans by establishing foreign subsidiaries. Halliburton's Wendy Hall admits the company paid only $15 million in taxes in 2002 even though the company earned $339 million in profits from continuing operations and $12.5 billion in total revenue.

January 2004: Halliburton discloses that a subsidiary paid a $2.4 million bribe to a Nigerian government official's business in exchange for favorable tax treatment.

January 2004: Halliburton admits in an internal memo that its cost controls for government contracts are "antiquated" and "weak" and its procurement "disorganized" and marked by "weak internal controls." The memo, which was leaked to the Wall Street Journal, contradicts the company's public statements which claim it has a "rigorous system of internal controls" for contracts in Iraq.

January 2004: Halliburton begins an advertising campaign to improve its tarnished image with the public. A television spot running on CNN says Halliburton supplies hot meals, laundry and telephone links for soldiers in Iraq. The ad shows a man in desert camouflage holding a phone, his lip trembling, and shouting, "It's a girl!" "Halliburton: Proud to serve our troops," an announcer says.

February: The Pentagon reports that Halliburton Company would repay the government for overcharges estimated at $27.4 million for meals served to American troops at five military bases in Iraq and Kuwait last year. In one military camp in July 2003, KBR billed the government for an average 42,000 meals a day but served only 14,000 meals. Pentagon auditors found the overcharges during a routine audit of Halliburton.

March: As of March 1, 2004, KBR is awarded reconstruction work in Iraq and Afghanistan worth at least $3.9 billion.

Todd, the only one of your "facts" above, that I can dispute is this one:

But the vice president conveniently forgot to mention that he continues to receive from the company deferred salary of over $150,000 per year while maintaining 433,333 shares of unexercised stock options.

"Contrary to this ad's message, Cheney doesn't gain financially from the contracts given to the company he once headed."

And that's only because Steve Y already offered it up in this thread.

About the rest of what you've posted, I cannot comment on at this moment because I am not fully aware of all of these "facts."

However I will say this: Nothing you've stated demonstrated a CAUSAL LINK. It is ALL simply circumstantial. You point to a "fact" and simply assume the worst case scenario for Cheney.

Look, I don't care if Cheney has "industry experts/insiders" to his office to discuss energy policy. Doesn't matter to me, in fact it makes sense.

In addition, Cheney isn't the only guy that makes money in the private sector, based on his political career. I don't care if Cheney had "no prior business experience" when he was appointed to Halliburton as CEO. What difference does that make ???

The guy is obviously a good manager, tough, and ready to make the decisions that need to be made. The fact he didn't have prior experience means very little to me, they were buying a name to put on the letterhead. So what ???

Tell me, do you know who Madeline Albright is being paid by now ??? I do, and it isn't pretty. But I'm certainly not going to suggest she is now a foreign operative simply because she is being paid by a country that is ostensibly on our "watch list."

Much of what you've posted above "looks bad" on first glance, but I would be required to ask you were all of this info came from, and how have the "facts" been twisted to fit the agenda of the writer ???

Just as in the example earlier But the vice president conveniently forgot to mention that he continues to receive from the company deferred salary of over $150,000 per year while maintaining 433,333 shares of unexercised stock options. while this stuff is TECHNICALLY "true" it pushes the boundries of being fully "correct."

If you go to Steve Y's link, you'll see exactly what I mean. So many things are so easily misrepresented, and yet--- so easily believed.

Unless you could validate each and every accusation made in your post, I would have to assume it is little more than vindictive gossip spread by Cheney's enemies in an attempt to discredit him.

You didn't provide any links, and I can tell you pasted it from a copy somewhere, as it still had a great deal of reference numbers embedded in the text.

It would take quite some time to actually run down all of those accusations.

No problem...I'll supply them for you...I just wanted to see whether or not you were even open to this dialogue before I did it....

1 "Defending Liberty in a Global Economy", speech at the CATO Institute, http://www.cato.org/speeches/spdc062398.html, June 23, 1998

2 GAO report, http://www.gao.gov/archive/2000/ns00225.pdf, September 2002

3 Pratap Chatterjee, Dick Cheney: Soldier of Fortune, www.corpwatch.org, May 2, 2002

4 Knut Royce and Nathaniel Heller, Cheney Led Halliburton to Feast at Federal Trough, Center for Public Integrity, August 2, 2000

5 see note 20 below

6 William Baue, Pay Dirt or Payola? How Halliburton Strikes it Rich, http://www.socialfunds.com, April 11, 2003

7 The Houston Chronicle, July 15, 1995

8 Earthrights International, http://www.earthrights.org/halliburton/hallintro.shtml

9 William Bunch, Invading Iraq not a new idea for Bush clique, Philadelphia Daily News, January 27, 2003

10 John Rega, Government Ties Helped Cheney and Halliburton Make Millions, in: Bloomberg News, October 6, 2000 and OPIC press release, http://www.opic.gov/pressreleases/archive/press97/press/press97/7-11.htm

11 ibid.

12 ibid.

13 Jason Leopold, Online Journal, http://www.onlinejournal.com, April 20, 2003

14 David Morris, Congress Daily, April 16, 2003 and GAO reports GAO/NSIAD-97-63 and GAONSIAD-00-225, http://www.gao.gov

15 Los Angeles Times, July 12, 2002

16 New-York Times, August 1, 2002

17 ibid.

18 Pratap Chatterjee, Dick Cheney: Soldier of Fortune, http://www.corpwatch.org, May 2, 2002

19 Robert Bryce, The Candidate from Brown and Root, in: The Texas Observer, October 6, 2000

20 Bloomberg News, October 6, 2000

21 Earthrights International, http://www.earthrights.org/halliburton/hallintro.shtml

22 Jeff Gerth, Van Natta Jr., In Tough Times a Company Finds Profits in Terror War, in: New York Times, August 13, 2002

23 Jeremy Symons, How Bush and Co. Obscure the Science, in: the Washington Post, July 13, 2003

26 Pratap Chatterjee, The War on Terrorism's Gravy Train, http://www.corpwatch.org, May 2, 2002

27 New-York Times, In Tough Times, a Company Finds Profits in War, July 13, 2002

28 Pratap Chatterjee, the War on Terrorism's Gravy Train, http://www.corpwatch.org, May 2, 2002

29 Department of Defense, Criminal Investigative Service, Press Release, February 7, 2002

30 New-York Times, Oil Executives Lobbied on Drilling, Feb. 27, 2002

31 New-York Times, Top G.O.P. Donors in Energy Industry Met Cheney Panel, March 1, 2002; Energy Firms Were Heard on Air Rules, March 2, 2002; and Oil Executives Lobbied on Drilling, Feb. 27, 2002

32 Report of the Minority Staff of the Committee on Government Reform, http://www.house.gov/reform/min, March 22, 2002

33 New-York Times, Top G.O.P. Donors in Energy Industry Met Cheney Panel, March 1, 2002

34 Peter Brand and Alexander Bolton, GOP threats halted GAO Cheney Suit, in: The Hill, http://www.thehill.com, February 19, 2003. For more information on this case, see the Natural Resources Defense Council's website, http://www.nrdc.org, and Judicial Watch (http://www.judicialwatch.org)

35 New-York Times, Under Cheney, Halliburton Altered Policy on Accounting, May 22, 2002

36 New-York Times, Cheney Promises Corporate Crackdown, July 29, 2002

37 William Baue, Pay dirt or Payola? How Halliburton Strikes it Rich, http://www.socialfunds.com, April 11, 2003

38 Pratap Chatterjee, Halliburton Makes a Killing on Iraq War, http://www.corpwatch.org, March 20, 2003

39 Newsweek, Halliburton CEO Says Cheney Knew About Firm's Accounting Practices, July 15, 2002

40 New-York Times, op.cit., July 29, 2002

41 Erwin Seba, Reuters, March 20, 2003

42 Arianna Huffington, Holding Dick Cheney 'Accountable' http://www.Alternet.org,, August 5, 2002

43 CBS News, Halliburton: All In The Family, April 27, 2003

44 Keith Ashdown, Halliburton's Road to Riches, http://www.taxpayer.net, May 8, 2003

45 Among others: Wall Street Journal July 11th, 17th and August 8th, Houston Chronicle July 10th, 12th and 29th, Washington Post July 18th, New-York Times July 20th, 29th and August 1st, San Francisco Chronicle August 4th, Boston Globe August 8th.

46 Cheney's speech, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/08/20020826.html

47 The Washington Post, October 13, 2002

48 Media Transparency, http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipients/aei.htm

49 Wikipedia, http://www.wikipedia.org

50 Media Transparency, http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipients/aei.htm

51 Pratap Chatterjee, Halliburton Makes a Killing on Iraq War, http://www.corpwatch.org, March 20, 2003

52 Thaddeus Herrick, U.S. Wants to Work in Iraq, in: Wall Street Journal, January 16, 2003

53 Rep. Henry Waxman, letter to Lt. Gen. Robert Flowers, http://www.house.gov/reform/min/inves_admin/admin_contracts.htm, March 26, 2003

54 ibid.

55 CBS News, Halliburton: All In The Family, April 27, 2003

56 ibid.

57 On November 15, 2002 the Office of the Secretary of Defense awarded a classified Iraqi oil Field Plan work order to Halliburton, worth $1.8 million. (Work Order number T.O. 0031)

58 Los Angeles Times, After The War: Getting Iraq's Oil Pumping Again, April 22, 2003

59 Pratap Chatterjee, Halliburton Makes a Killing on Iraq War, http://www.corpwatch.org, March 20, 2003

60 Oliver Burkeman, Cheney firm paid millions in bribes to Nigerian official, in: The Guardian, May 9, 2003

61 Associated Press, May 31, 2003

62 Henri E. Cauvin, Cheney Loses ruling on Energy Panel Records, in: The Washington Post, July 9, 2003

63. http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/about_hal/chronology.html

I'll do some research.

halliburtonwatch.org did all of their work in the run-up to the 2004 election. I will not say everything they uncovered is inaccurate, but I would question the possible spin they place on the facts.

The Kerry ad that FactCheck refuted was based on 'findings' from halliburtonwatch.org. They have ceased their 'research' since the election year, which is why the story ended in early 2004.

I would question the possible spin they place on the facts

Exactly my point. There are "facts" and then there are FACTS.

I apoligize for my ignorance on the Albright situation...No I don't know who she is employed by right now...I do know she has her own LLC company that obviously has alot to do with world politics and I DO KNOW FOR A FACT that she is a member of the Trilateral commission...

C'mon guys we all know that there are "facts" and then there are "Facts" Don't dwell on the last entry Steve...That's bullshit....Research the rest of the list there were 62 others and you just "ZEROED" in on the 63rd...Your side spins it as much as mine and you know it...Although, I have NO side...I'm simply debating this with two very intellegent people, at least I hope so!!!!

My only "side" is the truth. If in fact Cheney can be PROVEN to be the corrupt dictator so many suggest, he needs to be put in jail.

As I said, I'll do some research and have a look at some of these accusations.

No sides here either bud :) And yes, both sides spin the facts to their advantage, here however my only position is in defense.

The 63rd is the chronology that lists all the other references. I have no doubt Halliburton made quite a bit of money through all of this, and will continue to do so while we finish the job. There are not many, if any other company large enough to handle the job they have undertaken, and even they do not appear to be adequately prepared.

I do fully believe that all contracts in Iraq should continue to be audited, if there is fraud from any of them then action against them (get our taxpayer money back) should be taken immediately.

The Cheney connection however, is overplayed by the far left. If he was actually making money from all of this, I would be with you 100%. A deferred salary is nothing out of the ordinary for departing CEO's, nor is a compensation package when they leave. The fact that he gave away all of his future stock options to charity prior to taking office does show he tried to provide separation from his former company. Had he not done this, the story would have more traction.

jJack, that's all I ask....Thank you for the respect...And I am more than willing to return it....You are a worthy opponent when it comes to reasonable debate and it's always a pleasure to challenge you, as it is for you to challenge me....Research your ass off brother....LOL.....I look forward to agreeing or disagreeing...My mind is open....

You know what Steve....Everyone speaks of the "MONEY"....You're missing it...In today's day and age it not money...They already have that...IT'S POWER.......Money is no longer the "Standard"....It's who you control, How you control, What you can achieve by controlling......No disrespect intended, but "Please" wake up...To what is happening....Let me re-empahsize....I AM NOT....REPUBLICAN....DEMOCRAT.....I AM AMERICAN....This country belongs to you and me....Are you "RICH"...Probably not...You are struggling to make ends meet and raise your family and kids just like I am...I am a veteran, I LOVE my country and I am sick and tired of these assholes leaving me in the trenches....I'm not on the front any more....I tired of "Digging foxholes" to cover my family's ass....

I have a lot of respect for the author of this article...Some things, most things, I agree with him on..Hands down...I enjoy reading his stuff, but this is just one thing that we will probably have to agree to disagree on...

Who knows, one of us might change our minds...That's what good debate is all about, and jJack is a master when it comes to that....

The Cheney connection however, is overplayed by the far left. If he was actually making money from all of this, I would be with you 100%. A deferred salary is nothing out of the ordinary for departing CEO's, nor is a compensation package when they leave. The fact that he gave away all of his future stock options to charity prior to taking office does show he tried to provide separation from his former company. Had he not done this, the story would have more traction.

I couldn't have said it better. Even so, I will be taking a look at Todd's links, and then doing further research to either validate, or reject the accusations.

I'll get back to you as soon as I've done some digging Todd.

Liz, you're a conundrum to me, with your most recent posts. I'm not entirely sure what you are driving at, but I think it is complimentary. *G*

Last post.

Good, never come back again either, you liar.

Steve,
This is all in "Jest"...But I'm curious...Would you have even noticed 63 if it would have been 23?....Be honest and don't bullshit...Tell me the truth...

OK Queen

A liar and a name caller, what a surprise. Can't get anyone to believe his lies, so he goes away in a huff. What a joke.

Would you have even noticed 63 if it would have been 23?....

I know I would have, as I reviewed each of the URLs. I'm still going through the list of links.

With all due respect that question was to Steve....I know you would have....

I knew with out a doubt you would research every single one....Tell you what...This is really fun and educational...From my standpoint anyway... I'm not being sarcastic at all...This is one of the few posts that I really want to go for...All out...So I'm ready for anything you want to throw...Keep it cool and lets just take this as far as it can go...I will bury my normally obscene behavior and I promise I will be more than acceptable to your opinions....But....I am so gonna kick your ass on this one...
Are you ready for a really friendly, everything, anything debate????? LMAO.....???

*ROFL*

Let's Rock and Roll....

Very reassuring Mr. Midknight.

What's that Mister Knight ???

hey Todd, sorry last night was an early night for me :)

Actually, I had seen that chronology before, and as I went through the reference list you gave that site jogged my memory.

As for this not being about money, I guess you have lost me a bit. that whole chronology from that site dealt with the monetary aspects of the supposed Cheney/Halliburton connection.

Hey Steve...Yeah me too, no problem....I realize that sounded confusing...My point was that even though the money is a sub-plot so to speak....Cheney just like his buddy Rummy are both "Control Freaks" and for him to have the power to manipulate the way things fall when it comes to especially no-bid contracts, that should by all rights be "Bidded" contracts, that kind of power to men like that is almost better than money. Cheney has far more power in the White House than most people realize...Believe me, he is no Al Gore, he is not a typical V.P. He has more power and authority in Bush's WH than most presidents have had in the past...The man is a MAJOR player

My major point in this is that Hallibuton has continued to thrive in underhanded ways because of Cheney's influence and power and as far as I'm concerned they are a corrupt and politically controlled Govt puppet

The assertion that there is no other company with the capacity or know-how to do the work that Halliburton does is misinformed at best, more likely a blatant lie in this case.

Halliburton's Iraq operations are being funded by you and I; the American taxpayer. In light of this FACT, it only stands to reason that the fair, responsible way to go would be to bid out the contracts.

There are other qualified entities that should be able to compete for government contracts. I've read about at least one other company that lobbied the government for a shot at some of the oil-infrastructure-related work -- I'll dig up a link later.

A good portion of the work that We the People are picking up the tab for -- by Halliburton and Blackwater -- are jobs that at one time were done by the military.

I personally wouldn't think twice about the whole situation if the government would just put the work up for a damn bid.

It's a bit disingenuous to congratulate Halliburton for having a monopoly on Iraq contracts when they were spared the burden of actually having to compete for them.

I would love to see your reaction if it were a Democratic administration handing out no-bid contracts to the former company of the vice president, in a war that was started on the same exact premises, only with the "liberal" party in power.

You would see corruption and scandal running rampant.

That last comment was directed toward jJack, just to avoid any confusion.

Although I'm certain there are a few others in this thread who would be screaming their heads off if it were the same exact situation with the opposite party in power.

I would love to see your reaction if it were a Democratic administration handing out no-bid contracts

There is ample history of both parties using Halliburton/Brown Root for over 50 years. Both democrats, and republicans, yet YOU insist Halliburton gained it's foothold because of Cheney.

It's absurd. Cheney wasn't even in office when these two companies formed, or when they merged. The government has been using Halliburton/Root Brown for over 50 years because they get the job done.

The military is best left to fighting, and not in the support roles Halliburton provides.

Yes, there are other companies that COULD possibly do what Halliburton does, but with a proven track record over 50 plus years, the reasons Halliburton are chosen over these other companies isn't to be found in corruption, but competency.

I'm certain there are a few others in this thread who would be screaming their heads off if it were the same exact situation with the opposite party in power.

What you're "sure of," and what is reality, is obviously two very different things.

I don't dispute that the government has been using Halliburton for 50 years, or even that they're great at what they do.

You're statement that they are chosemn not because of corruption, but competency sort of implies that there aren't any other "competent" companies that could quite possibly do the job just as well, but at a lower cost to the American taxpayer.

This is just the nature of competitive bidding in a free market. When companies have to compete, they are motivated not only to do quality work in the interest of aquiring future contracts from the client, but they are less likely to be wasteful and overcharge -- which I'm certain you'll deny or defend the charges of Halliburton waste and fraud in Iraq.

While you say the military is "best left to fighting, and not to support roles," the reality is that there are elements of our military who's promary duty is support roles, and they are still performing those roles right now -- side by side with private contractor employees who are earning three times the salary as our servicemen and -women.

Bottom line is it all comes out of our paychecks when you get down to it.

I personally haven't done a whole hell of alot of research on this, but I would be willing to bet that in the 50+ years our government has been using Halliburton's services; they haven't been the one and only contractor to receive government foreign oil-infrastructure contracts, just as they probably haven't been just handed multi-billion dollar contracts without so much as having to compete with other companies for them.

What you're "sure of," and what is reality, is obviously two very different things.

I suppose you know everything, though; right?

You're always right, and everyone who disagrees with you is a loser or a liberal "loon."

It's funny, though -- it seems almost every time you say something is just my "silly opinion," it happens to be an opinion that is held by most Americans.

You, jJack, are among "the fringe." Most people who bother to read and look into BOTH sides of the spectrum, recognize that Cheney is nothing more than an insidious, secretive, subversive powermonger. He has corruption oozing from every pore in his body.

Just because you either don't bother to read anything that isn't pre-approved by right-wing pundits, or choose to ignore what information you do come across (or dismiss it as "far-left propaganda), doesn't mean there's nothing there.

Most of us here in the reality-based world can see the man for what he is and what he stands for; and it's nothing that should have the power of the Executive branch as his disposal.

God help us over these next two years.

jJack,

There is a thing you keep doing which is rather irrational, and I don't really know how to tell you in a way you will not see as combative or something. But I will try, cause I saw you respond to Todd in a reasonable manner.

Halliburton is not a "being". Think carefully about what is implied by a few of your most resent statements;

"There is ample history of both parties using Halliburton/Brown Root for over 50 years"

"It's absurd. Cheney wasn't even in office when these two companies formed, or when they merged"

A corporation can have any number of valuable capabilities, and people which work for it, but if TODAY the people that actually decide what the corporation will do are corrupt, then it will do corrupt things. It really doesn't matter who did what at some other time, or what equipment or experience the workers have. ALL that is needed for it to go "sour" is for it to engage "sour" people in some of the decision making positions.

Even a few such "sour apples" will be able to pull various strings and doctor various "analysis" to get the huge thing that is the corporation to do things it may never have engaged in before. No one is saying ALL of the thing called "Halliburton" is useless or corrupt, surely there are many good folks and much effective infrastructure which makes them capable of impressive things. However, it in no way inoculates Halliburton, or any other corporation, from being "used" by unscrupulous directors in unscrupulous ways.

Halliburton is not a "being", with a set "personality".

Excellent description John Knight....I wanted to say that same thing earlier, I just somehow got sidetracked...LOL...Seriously though...You are right on about that. The history of Halliburton isn't the question...It's the here and now and the future...Great point...

I suppose you know everything, though; right? You're always right, and everyone who disagrees with you is a loser or a liberal "loon."

Steve, I'll respond to you in a very reasonable manner, since you have attempted to do the same.

I don't pretend to know everything, but when I do know something, I am going to speak up.

Scum like Clark Kent, scum like Luckky, scum like Spartan, they want to pose as "rational" thinkers. They aren't. They are name callers of the worst kind, which is precisely why I have no problem whatsoever treating them, the exact same way they treat others.

They don't bother to validate what they say, they just say it, and proclaim it the truth.

As you might be able to tell from my comments with Todd, when I am approached with respect, I respond with respect.

I will not however, tolerate scum bags like Clark Kent, Spartan, or Luckky, run amok without a response. I'm willing to debate the issues with anyone, ANYONE.

The simple fact is, NO ONE has yet PROVEN a causal relationship between Cheney, and the government's use of Halliburton. I am well aware Halliburton is a company, I am well aware it is not a sentient being, I am well aware a company is only as good as the people leading, and working in that company.

I am NOT among the "fringe" in any sense of the word. I am among the vast majority of people in this country that believe in a G-d, believe in their government, and loves their family.

But even if I was among the "fringe" as you suggest, just because someone stands alone in their beliefs, in no way validates the majority that opposes him.

The "fringe" in the 60s were the people that were fighting for the CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL RIGHTS of all people, while the majority was quite content with the status quo.

At one point in time, the "fringe" believed the world to be round, while the majority believed it to be flat. We all know how that turned out.

The fact is, the "majority" is often wrong in their opinions and beliefs, just as the minority is often wrong in their opinions and beliefs.

Being the lone person promoting their own truth, in no way diminishes that truth, unless of course it can be PROVEN they are incorrect.

Which leads me back to "always being right."

I am not always "right" and never claimed to be. I simply DEMAND PROOF for your accusations of corruption, for your belief their is a causal relationship between Cheney's position in the government, and Halliburton's use in the field.

If you can PROVE Cheney is the corrupt dictator you believe him to be, then I say more power to you, and let's throw the corrupt thief in jail.

The simple fact is, it cannot be PROVEN, or the democrats would do just that. Instead they are content to thrown the accusations, without bothering to put their silly convictions into action.

Why won't they cut off funding if they believe the war is "wrong?"

Why won't they impeach Bush if they believe he "stole" the election and has committed "war crimes" while in office ???

I would have respect for the scum, if they would ACT on their silly accusations, but they don't--- hence, there is no reason to believe their conjecture has any validity whatsoever.

I will also say this, I recognize your name, as having been seen before, on various threads, but I do not ever remember directly calling YOU the type of names I normally reserve for the scum.

If I have, I apologize. If in the future you continue to treat me with the same type of tolerance you have shown here, I will guarantee I won't call you names again.

I'm open to ANY discussion of the FACTS--- but if you aren't willing to PROVE your facts, then don't expect me to simply accept them as my own.

There is no way I can "prove" Cheney is NOT corrupt, the onus is on those calling him corrupt to prove THEIR charges.

I dare ANYONE to produce EVIDENCE Cheney is a "corrupt" man.

John Knight, I addressed your comments in the comments above as well.

jJack,

I really don't think you have addressed my comment. In your article, and numerous times in this thread, you speak of Halliburton as if it were a being. That does not mean that when asked if it is, you will say 'yes', but it does mean that notion is functioning in your thinking, a subtle or hidden assumption, if you will. That indicates at least a mild state of delusion. (nothing at all unusual, we all do that sometimes)

You ask for "proof", but of course that is not what ordinary citizens can produce, for it is not within our power to actually see the things which might constitute such. Courts are the only recognized deemers of "proof", and we are to presume the innocence of individuals, till the courts have gone through a laborious analysis of the evidence. However, we are not to presume no crime has been committed, quite the contrary, it is our duty to be vigilant for improper behaviour.

When a store is broken into, we are not to jump to conclusions about those who may appear to have done this nefarious deed, but we are to report such a deed if we believe it occurred, and provide such evidence as we may have. What this means is, you have every right to ask for evidence, and some has been offered. To ask for "proof", and claim that only those with such proof are right for speaking up, is somewhat anti-social.

I personally think Mr. Cheney is a sociopath, you know, one of the 4 to 5 percent of the population that actually refrains from openly attacking the vulnerable BECAUSE there are laws and potential punishments for doing so. Since he is in a position of great influence over what this nation endures, it is therefore incumbent upon me to speak out about that possibility.

That's why we have freedom of speech, in large measure; so that IF such dark folk are operating in their dark ways, who happen to be in powerful positions, it will not be left unaddressed until it has been "proven". For those in positions of power, actually have power. They can frustrate impartial inquiry, and remain technically innocent with far more ease than you or I.

I do not advocate putting Mr. Cheney in prison, but I do advocate a thorough look into that potential outcome by proper authorities. I reject utterly any implication that I am acting against my society by doing so, it is simply my duty.

Halliburton and Nigeria:
A Chronology of Key Events in the Unfolding Bribery Scandal


1988: Dresser Industries acquires M.W. Kellogg, ten years before Dresser merges with Halliburton.

September 1994: M.W. Kellogg and three other companies form a partnership known as TSKJ, incorporated in Medeira, Portugal. Each partner owns a 25 percent equal share. Kellogg's three other partners are Technip of France, Italy's Snamprogetti, and Japan Gasoline Corp. The partnership submits a bid to Nigeria LNG to build a natural gas plant in Nigeria. Nigeria LNG is owned by the Nigerian government and Royal Dutch/Shell Group. TSKJ's $2 billion bid is not immediately accepted even though it was 5 percent lower than a bid submitted by competitor, Bechtel Group, Inc.

November 1994: As TSKJ awaits Nigeria's decision on the bid, Wojciech Chodan, an executive at Kellogg and later a consultant for Kellogg Brown & Root, meets with London lawyer Jefferey Tesler, who is known for his contacts and friendly relations with the Nigerian government, including its dictator Gen. Sani Abacha. During the meeting, they discussed channeling $40 million to Gen. Abacha through Mr. Tesler's firm Tri-Star, based in Gibralter, Spain.

March 1995: TSKJ formally hires Mr. Tesler as agent; TSKJ's bid has still not been accepted by Nigeria LNG. Mr. Tesler's employment contract is signed by an M.W. Kellogg executive on behalf of the TSKJ partnership. Mr. Tesler had been working on behalf of TSKJ prior to March 1995 and the employment contract was given to Mr. Tesler as a reward for his prodding of Nigerian officials. The employment contract provided that Mr. Tesler would be paid $60 million if Nigeria awarded the construction contract to TSKJ. Mr. Tesler's Tri-Star was contracted to receive at least $160 million in five agreements signed between 1995 and 2002, and the funds were directed to bank accounts in Switzerland and Monaco.

March 20, 1995: Dan Etete replaces Nigeria's former oil minister, who has a falling out with the dicatator, Gen. Abacha. "In an interrogation of Mr. Tesler, a French magistrate described the London lawyer's transfer of $2.5 million into Swiss bank accounts held by Mr. Etete under a false name between 1996 and 1998. Mr. Tesler confirmed making the payments but told the magistrate that the money was for an investment in offshore oil exploration leases in Nigeria and that he wasn't aware the accounts belonged to Mr. Etete, according to people familiar with the interrogation." (Wall Street Journal, Sept. 29, 2004.)

June 1995: Albert Jack Stanley is promoted to president and chief operating officer of M.W. Kellogg after serving as executive vice president since 1991 and various positions since 1975.

August 1995: Dick Cheney is hired as CEO of Halliburton, three years before he directs the merger of Halliburton with Dresser Industries and M.W. Kellogg. He serves as CEO until August of 2000.

December 1995: TSKJ is finally awarded the $2 billion contract from Nigeria LNG.

July 1996: M.W. Kellogg promotes Albert Jack Stanley to chairman, president and chief executive officer; he also becomes vice president of operations for the parent, Dresser Industries.

February 1998: Halliburton and M.W. Kellogg's parent, Dresser Industries, agree to a $7.7 billion merger directed by Dick Cheney. M.W. Kellogg is merged with Halliburton's Brown & Root subsidiary to form Kellogg, Brown & Root. Albert Jack Stanley is named as chairman of the new subsidiary. The Independent (UK) reported that "Mr Stanley had been appointed to his senior role at Halliburton by Mr Cheney when he was chief executive between 1995 and 2000." (The Independent, Oct. 3, 2004.) The Wall Street Journal confirmed that Cheney "named Mr. Stanley … to a top post at the company in 1998." (Wall Street Journal, Sept. 29, 2004.) Cheney told the Middle East Economic Digest in 1999 that, "We took Jack Stanley … to head up the organization and that has helped tremendously." (Middle East Economic Digest, April 9, 1999.)

1999: The TSKJ partners, with Kellogg Brown & Root acting as the lead partner, agree to reappoint Mr. Tesler as its agent during a meeting in London. Kellogg wanted Mr. Tesler, with whom it had a long-term relationship, to attend. But the representative from the French partner, Technip, wanted a different agent and insisted that Mr. Tesler be excluded from the meeting. William Chaudan, the Kellogg representative at TSKJ, said Mr. Tesler had been selected on Kellogg's recommendation and over Technip's "strong opposition." (Financial Times, London, Sept. 16, 2004.) Halliburton officials in Houston deny that Kellogg Brown & Root demanded Mr. Tesler's participation. Three new contracts with Mr. Tesler required TSKJ to pay his firm, Tri-Star, $32.5 million for his services in Nigeria. Richard Northmore, a sales manager for M.W. Kellogg in England, signed contracts with Mr. Tesler for TSKJ. Syed Nasser, M.W. Kellogg's legal director, acted as counsel to the TSKJ consortium, approving Mr Tesler's role. Bhaskar Patel, a sales and marketing vice-president who works in Kellogg, Brown & Root's office in England, also worked with Mr. Tesler.

March 1999: Halliburton announces the Nigerian government awarded a $1.2 billion contract to TSKJ to expand the construction of the natural gas plant from two trains to three trains in order to increase the plant's capacity by 50 percent. At the time, Stanley declared the contract award exemplifies Kellogg's "project execution skills." (Halliburton press release, March 11, 1999.)

October 1999: First shipment of liquefied natural gas is shipped from Nigeria.

October 2003: French magistrate initiates investigation of suspicious payments made by TSKJ after a former executive with one of TSKJ's partners, Technip of France, said Mr. Tesler is "directly linked to corruption in Nigeria." (Financial Times, London, Sept. 16, 2004.) Halliburton admitted that TSKJ paid $132 million in "advisory fees" to Mr. Tesler and that under Tesler's contract with the company the money was not to be used for bribery. But the French investigator said the payments to Mr. Tesler "appear completely unjustified." (Wall Street Journal, Sept. 29, 2004.) The money was paid to Mr. Tesler between 1995 and 2002, more than half of which came after 1999. Under French law, Mr. Cheney could be subject to a charge of "abuse of corporate assets" even if he knew nothing about the alleged improper payments during his tenure as Halliburton's chief executive. The U.S. antibribery law applies only to executives who are aware of illicit payments to foreign officials. (Dallas Morning News, Sept. 8, 2004.) The Wall Street Journal reported that French authorities don't have jurisdiction over Halliburton in this case but are sharing information with U.S. authorities. (Wall Street Journal, Sept. 29, 2004.) "A preliminary investigation by the Police Judiciaire of France found that LNG Servicos, a company indirectly owned by the four partners in the Nigerian joint venture, made four payments totaling at least $166 million at times that roughly coincide with the award of contracts. The payments went to a Gibraltar company owned by a London attorney to a Swiss bank account that was later closed at the request of the bank." (Dallas Morning News, Jan. 25, 2004.)

December 2003: Albert Jack Stanley retires as chairman of Kellogg Brown & Root, but retains a position as consultant for Halliburton.

June 2004: Halliburton fires Albert Jack Stanley after investigators say he received $5 million in "improper" payments from Mr. Tesler. It also fires William Chaudan, the Kellogg representative at TSKJ. Halliburton spokesperson, Wendy Hall, said that during the years he ran KBR, Mr. Stanley reported to David Lesar, Halliburton's president and chief operating officer at the time and CEO today. Mr. Lesar reported to Mr. Cheney when Cheney was chief executive. (Dallas Morning News, Sept. 8, 2004.) (Important Note: Lesar is an accountant and former Arthur Andersen partner, meaning he may have been in a position to know about the purpose of payments to Tesler when they occurred.) According to the Dallas Morning News, "Mr. Cheney ran Halliburton when one of four suspicious payments occurred." (Dallas Morning News, Sept. 8, 2004.)

June 2004: It is reported that Tesler put $1 million into an account held by William Chaudan, the Kellogg representative at TSKJ. "The company has since learned that even larger sums may have gone into the accounts of Mr. Stanley and Mr. Chaudan." (Dallas Morning News, Sept. 3, 2004.) Chaudan retired from M.W. Kellogg Co. in 1998, but had continued as a consultant. (Dallas Morning News, June 19, 2004.)

August 2004: Nigeria's parliament votes unanimously to summon Halliburton CEO, David Lesar, to answer questions over its bribery investigation. It issues a report recommending that Halliburton and TSKJ be disqualified from bidding on future government projects. It denounces what it calls Halliburton's "hide-and-seek games" to avoid questions from government investigators.

September 2004: TSKJ severs all ties to Mr. Tesler and his firm, Tri-Star.

September 2004: The Wall Street Journal reports on newly disclosed evidence by Halliburton, including notes written by M.W. Kellogg employees during the mid-1990s in which they discussed bribing Nigerian officials. The Financial Times of London said the evidence "raises questions over what Mr Cheney knew - or should have known - about one of the largest contracts awarded to a Halliburton subsidiary." (Financial Times, Sept. 16, 2004.) The written notes were discovered by Halliburton's lawyer, James Doty, a lead partner in the Houston law firm Baker Botts. The "Baker" in Baker Botts is Bush family lawyer James Baker, the same lawyer credited with winning Florida for Bush Jr. over Gore. Baker also served as President George H. Bush's Secretary of State. Doty was general counsel to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under the senior President Bush. He was SEC general counsel when the SEC investigated Bush Jr. for insider trading. Doty recused himself from the case, which was eventually closed without action. Bush Jr. was never interviewed. Although Bush's lawyers gave the "smoking gun" in that case to the SEC the day after it closed the investigation, Doty refused to reopen the case. (Washington Post, Nov. 1, 2002.)

September 2004: Nigeria's President Olusegun Obasanjo officially bans Halliburton from bidding on future government contracts because it violated safety regulations for nuclear material. The president accuses the company of negligently causing the disappearance of two highly sensitive radioactive devices used to take measurements in oil wells. The ban is apparently not related to the ongoing bribery investigations.

October 2004: Revelations about Halliburton's central role in the bribery investigation forces United Kingdom's Export Credit Guarantee Department (ECGD) to consider withdrawing its support of a 133 million (British pounds) loan made last year to Kellogg. ECGD said it originally supported the loan on the basis that Halliburton was merely a "subcontractor to the [TSKJ] consortium and financial arrangements were not their responsibility," but it was maintaining a "watching brief" on the French investigation. (The Independent, Oct. 3, 2004).

October 22, 2004: Investigators with Nigeria's parliament complain that Halliburton is not being cooperative in their investigation of the alleged bribery. The investigators say Mr. Tesler paid bribes on behalf of TSKJ to Nigerian government officials. The bribes were paid in installments: $60 million in 1995, $37.5 million in 1999, $51 million in 2001 and $23 million in 2002.

June 20, 2005: The French newspaper LeFigaro reports that a U.S. Justice Department official held "lengthy" meetings with French authorities in Paris on the issue of TSKJ bribes. It said an unnamed U.S. source asserted that the bribery scandal is "probably the most significant file of corruption" known in Washington today.

Sept. 22, 2006: A former Halliburton employee says he has evidence proving the company has embarked on a campaign to cover-up all wrongdoing, including attempts to mislead federal investigators.


Sources:

Solomon Hughes and Jason Nisse, "How Cheney's Firm Routed $132m to Nigeria via Tottenham Lawyer," The Independent (UK), Oct. 3, 2004.

Russell Gold and Charles Fleming, "Out of Africa: In Halliburton Nigeria Probe, A Search for Bribes to a Dictator," Wall Street Journal, Sept. 29, 2004, p.A1.

Michael Peel, "Nigeria gas consortium 'evasive', says probe chief," Financial Times (London), Aug. 23 2004.

Michael Peel, "Halliburton angers Nigerian MPs in 'bribes' hearing," Financial Times (London), Oct. 22, 2004.

"Halliburton 'backed' bribes probe agent," Financial Times (London), Sept. 16, 2004.

Middle East Economic Digest, April 9, 1999, p. 7.

Peter Behr, "Bush Sold Stock After Lawyers' Warning; SEC Closed Probe Before Receiving Letter From Harken's Outside Attorneys," Washington Post, Nov. 1, 2002.

Nigeria House of Representatives Petition Committee, Interim Report: The Halliburton/TSKJ/LNG Investigation, Summary of Facts, Sept. 2004.

Richard Whittle and Jim Landers, "Cheney's years at Halliburton under scrutiny," Dallas Morning News, Sept. 8, 2004.

Jim Landers and Richard Whittle, "Details emerge in bribery probe; Cheney isn't focus of French inquiry of Nigerian gas project," Dallas Morning News, Jan. 25, 2004.

Jim Landers and Richard Whittle, "Bribery case findings detailed; Halliburton says incidents predate ownership of firm," Dallas Morning News, Sept. 3, 2004.

Richard Whittle and Jim Landers, "Halliburton fires two consultants; Company says 'improper personal benefits' received in Nigerian gas deal," Dallas Morning News, June 19, 2004.

"Bush family lawyer James Doty hired to conduct internal probe of Halliburton involvement in Nigeria payments," Corporate Crime Reporter, February 16, 2004.

Ahamefula Ogbu, "$180m LNG Scam: Witnesses Stall Investigation," ThisDayOnline.com, Oct. 21, 2004.

www.Halliburton.com

I'm sorry I couldn't highlight this on the above comment before I posted so...The main part of this that I wanted people to see was this.....

August 1995: Dick Cheney is hired as CEO of Halliburton, three years before he directs the merger of Halliburton with Dresser Industries and M.W. Kellogg. He serves as CEO until August of 2000.

you speak of Halliburton as if it were a being

No, I didn't--- if you'd care to provide an example and why you think what you think about that example, I'm willing to listen.

that notion is functioning in your thinking

No, it doesn't. I'm surprised you would claim to know what is "functioning" in my brain.

That indicates at least a mild state of delusion

Only in your opinion. Once again, please demonstrate how this is "true" or don't extend the accusation again. Since you cannot read my mind, you obviously cannot determine if there are delusions there or not.

You ask for "proof", but of course that is not what ordinary citizens can produce

Apparently, neither can your leaders in the democrat party, even though they are quite content to spread the same empty accusation WITHOUT ACTING on them. If you can't PROVE your accusations, why are you free to hurl them ????

Courts are the only recognized deemers of "proof"

And if you could make a prima facia case, you would be able to take Bush to court for trial, or Congress for impeachment. The fact is, no one has such evidence to proceed with such a "case."

we are not to presume no crime has been committed

Yes, we are, unless of course there is EVIDENCE to the contrary. Giving a person the benefit of the doubt, in no way relieves us from our responsibility to be "diligent."

When a store is broken into, we are not to jump to conclusions about those who may appear to have done this nefarious deed, but we are to report such a deed if we believe it occurred, and provide such evidence as we may have

Indeed, and I am asking for nothing more, or less. The fact is, you can PHYSICALLY SEE if a store has been "broken into." It is far more problematic to "see" corruption in action, much less determine it's existence from circumstantial "evidence."

some has been offered

Such as ??? What evidence has been offered that demonstrates a causal relationship between Cheney's position, and the use/contracting of Halliburton???

I have seen NO EVIDENCE whatsoever, only accusations and unfounded extrapolation from known facts.

For example---- One of Todd's assertions from above---

Under Cheney's leadership, Halliburton moves up from 73rd to 18th on the Pentagon's list of top contractors.

I'm quite certain some would like to see something "corrupt" in such a move, and would like to assert it happened SIMPLY BECAUSE CHENEY IS CHENEY and has "clout."

The fact is, no causal relationship can be established to demonstrate something nefarious/corrupt happened to cause Halliburton to "jump" on the list. It is simply an EMPTY ACCUSATION, unless of course you can PROVE the link to corruption/tit for tat arragement.

To ask for "proof", and claim that only those with such proof are right for speaking up

I claimed no such thing. What I did claim, is that scum like Clark Kent will tell us such opinions as if they are beyond dispute, and undeniable "fact," and then suggest we are "rightie wingnuts" or some other such nonsense when we disagree.

I personally think Mr. Cheney is a sociopath

And, what would be your "evidence" for such an assumption ???

so that IF such dark folk are operating in their dark ways, who happen to be in powerful positions, it will not be left unaddressed until it has been "proven".

Well then, I suppose you supported Bush liberating Iraq then, since it was only prudent to liberate Iraq, when the ENTIRE WORLD thought they had, or were close to having WMD. There was no real disagreement about the issue before the war. I can provide quotes from Democrats, and from world leaders around the globe. There was no real question, in ANYONE'S mind about WMD being in Iraq; the ONLY question was what to DO about it.

I'm not sure how you can state what you state above, and yet, fault Bush for liberating Iraq.

Why should Bush have waited to have it "proven" by inspectors that couldn't "prove" anything in 12 years ???? So you see, your selective application of your "logic" invalidates the "logic" completely.

You apply your standard when you see fit, and disregard it at your convenience.

They can frustrate impartial inquiry, and remain technically innocent with far more ease than you or I.

That sounds a wee bit like class envy. I don't believe a word of it.

I do not advocate putting Mr. Cheney in prison

Why not ??? If he's the corrupt, crooked politician you suggest, why not ???

Hell, you would like me to believe Cheney is a "sociopath." This doesn't require a few well placed bars to cage him ??? Shouldn't we put HIM in prison before it is "proven" he is the "threat" you percieve him to be ???

Again, your selective application of "what is right" denies the "correct" label to be applied.

I reject utterly any implication that I am acting against my society by doing so

So do I-- I couldn't care less how many empty accusations you throw around, as there will always be enough people to see through such empty accusations.

Say whatever you like, say whatever pleases you, and fulfulls your needs. I don't really care. Just don't expect me to simply nod my head in agreement as an empty drone.

I'm all about freedom, that includes free speech. I don't care how many losers out there like Clark Kent are spewing their filthy lies. I just don't care. In the end, such idiots are moot, and are of no consequence whatsoever.

By all means, speak up whenever you feel the need. Just be prepared for the possibility others might not agree, UNLESS YOU CAN OFFER UP SOME FREAKIN' PROOF.

The rantings of a few disgruntled liberal loons certainly won't harm this nation, by all means, SPEAK ! ! ! ! !

And if you wanted a BJ, you'd get a real expert like Monica, right? After all, she DID handle the Biggest Dick in the land. So you why wouldn't you get an oil drilling company to handle oil question?

Spartan- -You make a claim, it's YOUR responsibility tp prove it Period. It is NOT your opponent's responsibility to disprove it. You STILL have not done so. That includes production of credible sources and links.

Superman- -You aren't doing too well on that count either. I challenged you some time back to back your figures. You have not done so.

jJack- -yeah, this is a blast! The Obama/Hillary/Saddam fan club are doing an amazing imitation of the Keystone Kops!

Oh, and I think we should recruit Liz as our Secret Agent. That is, if Cheney, Halliburton, and Brown and Root haven't already. :-)

we should recruit Liz as our Secret Agent

*chuckle* good one

jJack,

This is a silly way to discuss things, picking at each phrase as if it might mean anything one wishes. It's called "rationalizing". Within such meandering obfuscation one can drift off into all sorts of word games, with no rhyme or reason.

Look at some of the silly things you say;

I do not advocate putting Mr. Cheney in prison

Why not ? If he's the corrupt, crooked politician you suggest, why not?

How could you possibly not know the answer to that question?
What kind of mind would forget I had just acknowledged that presuming guilt is improper? Do you have some sort of short term memory loss?

But I'll give you an answer, because I'm starting to doubt you realize that rational thought requires something which may seem to some rather odd. It requires that one NOT consider the stuff that happens inside ones head to be a little window on the real universe. It requires one to leave open the possibility one has erred.

Through desire a man, having separated himself, seeketh and intermeddleth with all wisdom. A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discover itself

John there's nothing silly about asking you why, if you believe someone to be a "sociopath" -- why you wouldn't want that person in jail.

There is in fact, something VERY silly about someone suggesting a second person broke the law, but the first person doesn't advocate jail for such a law breaker.

How exactly can I be employing obfuscation, when I am asking direct questions based on your own words ????

Asking for clarity is obfuscation ????

I'm sorry you don't like my "style," -- the way I repsond to your comments. All I can say is "hard cheese buddy." I write the way I write, and I dissect your opinions the way I dissect them.

If you don't want your words open to scrutiny, don't offer them at all.

I have said before, and I'll say it again, I don't pretend to be infallible, I simply will not accept what something to be "true" simply because someone says it is true.

As I said before, I'm willing to accept whatever PROOF you have to offer on the subject. You however, continue to make ME the issue, the way I respond, and my perceived lack of respect.

I continue to respond to your every accusation, whether that accusation is about Bush, or about me. You continue to introduce red herrings, that have little bearing on the "Cheney/Halliburton" topic at hand.

I can only conclude the reason you continue to keep ME the focus, the reason you continue to find fault with my "style," or lack of respect, is precisely because you cannot PROVE any of the accusations you seem so intent on suggesting are true.

As for your lovely little irrelevant quote, I'll say only this:

There is no better path to enlightenment, or happiness, than to discover the nature of your heart, mind, and soul.

Only the fool seeks the external for validation, for meaning, for reason. The truly wise man knows, the only means to accomplish such things, is via the introspection of self, and the never ending quest for more information to facilitate continued, lifelong intellectual, mental, and spiritual growth.

You sir, may live the life you deem proper and necessary, and I will do the same. As for any further continued discussion on this matter, unless you focus on the issue at hand, I will refuse to further indulge your attempt at psychoanalyzing me, and instead, go back to the name calling with Clark.

I much prefer the straightforward hatred of boobs like the pseudo super hero, rather than the contrived and pretentious meanderings of someone that believes they have a lesson to teach me.

As I said, if you'd like to return to the Cheney/Halliburton discussion with some PROOF of your empty accusations, bring it on big boy.

I'm all about refuting misguided misfits that believe they know more than me.

jJack,

Great article! I accept your facts at face value and from that I'd say that Halburton has it made in the shade!

I'd like to know how many of the contracts they "won" were actually put up for competitive bid. Do you have that information?

And as for them being the biggest, I won't question that but another company can become immense if given the contracts to expand to that size, and they can do it quickly.

You did refer to Haliburton swallowing Morrison Knudson and I find that interesting as Morrison Knudson is still in business under the name of Washington Group and I've never heard of Haliburton owning it, although that is possible.

You've made a case for Haliburton being the sole anointed official construction company for the United States in perpetuuity but after reading you article, I believe that it will convince most people that Haliburton has had it altogether too good. The fact they "practically invented" drilling for oil is nice but what has it to do with awarding a contract the better part of a century after that invention?

If no others can truly do the job then competitive bids will go to Haliburton as they will be the only bidder. If another major company can and does bid against them it should be competitive bidding I would think.

Again, it was a great article and I appreciate the effort you've put into assembling the facts. It's the old story of two people seeing the same facts and forming different opinions from those facts.