Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Clashes kill nearly 50 in southern Iraq
A series of recent high-profile attacks is eroding the security gains of the previous six months, when violence dropped across much of the country. The main insurgent group, al-Qaida in Iraq, has carried out many of the attacks against fellow Sunnis who have turned against it. But insurgents also struck with deadly suicide blasts this week against Shiites observing Ashoura.
Friday's clashes pointed to a third problem that shows no signs of easing: Shiites attacking fellow Shiites. The attacks were a reminder of persistent divisions within the Shiite community at a time when the Pentagon is claiming some success in calming armed opposition among the Sunnis.
Shiite factions have been engaged in a power struggle across southern Iraq. On Friday, two prominent Shiite leaders issued fresh challenges to the Shiite-led government in Baghdad.
Radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr warned he may not extend a six-month cease-fire by his Mahdi Army militia, because security agencies are packed with "criminal gangs," his spokesman said in reference to Shiites from rival groups. The group's cease-fire, due to expire next month, has been a major factor in the reduction in violence.
And Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, the head of parliament's largest Shiite political bloc, accused Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government and legislators of allowing "personal whims" to delay national unity. He urged them to pass stalled legislation on provincial elections and the distribution of Iraq's oil wealth, seen as vital to bringing Sunnis into the political process and stemming support for the insurgency.
On a visit to Baghdad on Tuesday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned that the recent reduction of violence could prove fleeting if the country's main groups do not reach an enduring agreement on the future of the country.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080119/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
Paying off sunni warlords and insurgents, and letting rival shia militia run southern Iraq is not a long term viable solution. I suggest we stop spiking the ball in the end zone, and pretending we've won a "victory" in Iraq.
Sounds like Democracy at work!!!
I would like to take this time to thank our Troops for freeing the Iraqi people!
Don't blame the troops. Blame the fukking incompetent, arrogant, lying bastards who started this war for oil, empire and $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. There were no WMDs, no mushroom cloud, no drones to attack US. They lied and our troops and Iraqi civilians died.
When the leave office, they will take their profits from Haliburton and The Carlyle Group with them. Sort of like Prescott Bush and his profits off of Polish slave labor from the Nazis.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
If there is an afterlife and God does punish the guilty, there will be a lot of those from this administration on the hot seat.
Don't blame the troops. Blame the fukking incompetent, arrogant, lying bastards who started this war for oil, empire and $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. There were no WMDs, no mushroom cloud, no drones to attack US. They lied and our troops and Iraqi civilians died.
When the leave office, they will take their profits from Haliburton and The Carlyle Group with them. Sort of like Prescott Bush and his profits off of Polish slave labor from the Nazis.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
If there is an afterlife and God does punish the guilty, there will be a lot of those from this administration on the hot seat.
Paying off sunni warlords and insurgents, and letting rival shia militia run southern Iraq is not a long term viable solution. I suggest we stop spiking the ball in the end zone, and pretending we've won a "victory" in Iraq.
No, actually we Know how our government works. apparently you do not. Do you really think those provisions can't be and AREN'T sidestepped????You are of course aware that Bush put his investments in blind trusts and has no idea what those investments are right? That Cheney did the same and even ordered that if the return on investments were over a set amount the rest went to charity?
For being so smart, you liberals sure are stupid about how our Government works.
I wouldn't call it extremist. At least 60% of Americans oppose the war in Iraq. It's why they tossed the repubs out of control of congress, well that and the Jack Abramoff stealing and selling of the govt. And the out of control deficits, falling dollar, irresponsible expansion of the money supply (so bad they are ASHAMED to report M3 and quit as of 2 years ago), rising inflation and unemployment, a first class housing debacle, inadequate regulation of the banking system resulting in chaos in the credit markets (also call the subprime debacle), rapidly inflating college tuition, gasoline, and healthcare costs. But don't worry, other than that, the repubs have done a fine job...I suggest we stop predicting failure with about as much accuracy. Your wishful thinking for no more reason than political partisanship is crap. You don't care about what's best for all. You only care about your extremist political viewpoint.
Sad.
You are of course aware that Bush put his investments in blind trusts and has no idea what those investments are right? (And I have land in Florida that will be just perfect for your new home.) That Cheney did the same and even ordered that if the return on investments were over a set amount the rest went to charity?
Cheney's Halliburton stock options rose 3,281% last year, senator finds
An analysis released by a Democratic senator found that Vice President Dick Cheney's Halliburton stock options have risen 3,281 percent in the last year...
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) asserts that Cheney's options -- worth $241,498 a year ago -- are now valued at more than $8 million. The former CEO of the oil and gas services juggernaut, Cheney has pledged to give proceeds to charity.
Halliburton has already raked in more than $10 billion from the Bush-Cheney Administration for work in Iraq, and they were awarded some of the first Katrina contracts," Lautenberg said in a statement. "It is unseemly for the Vice President to continue to benefit from this company at the same time his Administration funnels billions of dollars to it. The Vice President should sever his financial ties to Halliburton once and for all.
Cheney continues to hold 433,333 Halliburton stock options. The company has been criticized by auditors for its handling of a no-bid contact in Iraq. Auditors found the firm marked up meal prices for troops and inflated gas prices in a deal with a Kuwaiti supplier. The company built the American prison at Guantanamo Bay.
The Vice President has sought to stem criticism by signing an agreement to donate the after-tax profits from these stock options to charities of his choice, and his lawyer has said he will not take any tax deduction for the donations.
However, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) concluded in Sept. 2003 that holding stock options while in elective office does constitute a financial interest regardless of whether the holder of the options will donate proceeds to charities. CRS also found that receiving deferred compensation is a financial interest.
Cheney told "Meet the Press" in 2003 that he didn't have any financial ties to the firm.
Since I left Halliburton to become George Bush's vice president, I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest," the Vice President said. "I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had, now, for over three years.
Cheney continues to received a deferred salary from the company. According to financial disclosure forms, he was paid $205,298 in 2001; $162,392 in 2002; $178,437 in 2003; and $194,852 in 2004. (1 image)
I wouldn't call it extremist. At least 60% of Americans oppose the war in Iraq. It's why they tossed the repubs out of control of congress, well that and the Jack Abramoff stealing and selling of the govt. And the out of control deficits, falling dollar, irresponsible expansion of the money supply (so bad they are ASHAMED to report M3 and quit as of 2 years ago), rising inflation and unemployment, a first class housing debacle, inadequate regulation of the banking system resulting in chaos in the credit markets (also call the subprime debacle), rapidly inflating college tuition, gasoline, and healthcare costs. But don't worry, other than that, the repubs have done a fine job...
And you can't blame Clinton for this, he turned over a balanced budget and a sound system. This is all on Bush, Cheney, Greenspan, and Tom DeLay.
This is the key question. What would we get out of the dems? From an economic point of view, there is no doubt Clinton was the best president out of both Bush's.I didn't say the Republicans have done a fine job. I just don't think replacing idiot buereaucrats with even bigger loons is going to fix any problems.
This is the key question. What would we get out of the dems? From an economic point of view, there is no doubt Clinton was the best president out of both Bush's.
There will be looting of the till under both parties, its the nature of the Washington beast.
I vote to minimize killing of good young americans at war, as the means to feather the politicians nest.
Clinton left the nation far better positioned economically than Bush will. There has been no bigger economic idiot than Bush and his croonies. None. Deficit up 60% from 5 trillion to 9+ trillion in 7 years, with one more to go. Pathetic. Dollar lost half its purchasing power against the euro, and 2/3's of its purchasing power against gold.
Why do you call the dems a bigger bunch of idiots? The 90's were good for America. Not perfect, but MUCH BETTER than the Bush years, either one of them.
Pretty peaceful world, growing ecomomy, low inflation, high employment, balanced the budget, stopped a genocide in Kosovo at low cost to the US. So why do you call them bigger idiots?
Pure unadulterated BS! That same congress had control, WITH THE WHITE HOUSE ALSO, from 2000 to 2006, and THEY are the ones who screwed it all up. The only difference was Bill Clinton and the democratic leadership. If the 90's prosperity was due to the repub congress of the 90's, they could have stayed fiscally responsible, but without Clinton, they became drunken sailors because Bush is stupid, and he never vetoed a spending bill.Not because of Clinton, because of a Republican Congress. Congress not the President spend money or save money.
Cheney couldn't sell them because of Halliburton rules, and he couldn't transfer them to a blind trust, like many politicians do.
Keep in mind, these are options, not shares. There was still not insignificant risk. If Halliburton had tanked, the shares would be underwater, just like anyone else in the same situation.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 9:00 PM on December 16
FactCheck (the right-wing version of Media Matters) claims to have the document the Cheneys signed that assigns the profits from the sale of the options ot charity. (The PDF is no longer online, though -- this was a 2004 Kerry ad rebuttal.)
posted by dhartung at 9:11 PM on December 16
He doesn't deny having the options, does he? He just claims that the options do not mean that he has a financial interest in the company. The question, I think, is what the legal definition of "financial interest" is in the context in which the term is being used here -- presumably for the purposes of campaign finance, lobbying, conflict of interest, or securities law. That is a pretty complicated question, and a valid one.
And, unless you're looking for the answer because you're on a legal team that is trying to sue him, initiate proceedings against him formally, or do something formal and legal about the situation, I would just suggest that, rather than ask yourself whether you believe whatever legal definition game Cheney is trying to play, you just ask yourself whether you think it is honest of him to play that legal game, politically. What is the meaning of "is?"
Anytime a politician makes a statement whose technical truth depends entirely on parsing to death the legal definition of a key term, that politician has shown his true stripes, and is not worthy to represent anyone. That's my opinion, at least.
posted by The World Famous at 9:12 PM on December 16 [2 favorites]
Does he have enough money to buy the stock he has options to?
posted by smackfu at 9:20 PM on December 16
smackfu: that's hardly relevant. As long as the options are in the money, and someone has the cash to exercise them, they're almost cash.
That is a pretty complicated question, and a valid one.
It's not complicated at all, if one approaches the issue with anything like intellectual honesty. If you're holding an asset that will appreciate or depreciate directly in line with the ordinary stock of a company, of course you have a financial interest.
posted by pompomtom at 9:26 PM on December 16
Some fairly detailed information about Cheney's 2006 finances, including $6.6 million of unnamed options that were given to charity in 2006.
posted by ikkyu2 at 9:27 PM on December 16
As long as the options are in the money, and someone has the cash to exercise them, they're almost cash.
True. I was thinking the question was whether he had a controlling interest in the company, which options would not count as unless exercised and held.
posted by smackfu at 9:32 PM on December 16
Thanks, all. Ikkyu2's link had more or less what I was after, although his link was from whitehouse.gov and I asked for credible sources. (ha)
posted by king walnut at 10:20 PM on December 16
Apparently Cheney has arranged to have his stock options given to charity so they are of little concern. Of more concern is the fact that he was getting checks for $200,000 in deferred compensation each year from Halliburton while sitting in the White House that went right into his pocket. Now, technically he can claim that this is money that was earned before be became vice-president, but could you imagine the howling if, say Gore, had been collecting $200,000 checks while the Clinton administration was awarding no-bid contracts to his former employer. In addition, Cheney, who worked for Halliburton for five years, was handed a $20 million bonus as a going away present when he resigned to run for vice-president, an investment that has paid off handsomely.
posted by JackFlash at 12:34 AM on December 17
Cheneys lucrative Halliburton ties
Posted October 11th, 2005 at 2:24 pm
Share This | Spotlight | Permalink
About two years ago, Dick Cheney told a national television audience, ince I left Halliburton to become George Bushs vice president, Ive severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interests, Cheney said. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and havent had now for over three years. Even at the time, the claim wasnt true.
A non-partisan congressional report requested by Sen. Frank Lautenbergs (D-N.J.) office showed that Cheney still has substantial financial interests in Halliburton, including lucrative deferred compensation and more than 433,000 stock options. But instead of acknowledging the ties divesting himself from his former company, Cheney denied everything.
Lautenberg, to his enormous credit, has stuck with this story, and issued a report today explaining that the value of Cheneys Halliburton stock options rose in value 3281% in one year.
An analysis released today by the Office of Senator Frank R. Lautenberg reveals that Vice President Cheneys Halliburton stock options have increased in value 3,281 percent in one year. The stock options, which were worth $241,498 one year ago are now valued at $8,165,489.07. In light of the surging value of Vice President Cheneys holdings, Senator Lautenberg reiterated his call for the Vice President to forfeit his continuing financial interest in the Halliburton Co (HAL). Vice President Cheney continues to hold 433,333 Halliburton stock options and receives almost $200,000 a year in deferred salary from Halliburton.
As Halliburtons fortunes rise, so do the Vice Presidents, and that is wrong, said Senator Lautenberg. Halliburton has already raked in more than $10 billion from the Bush-Cheney Administration for work in Iraq, and they were awarded some of the first Katrina contracts. It is unseemly for the Vice President to continue to benefit from this company at the same time his Administration funnels billions of dollars to it. The Vice President should sever his financial ties to Halliburton once and for all.
Given the circumstances, that seems like a reasonable suggestion.
According to the Vice Presidents Federal Financial Disclosure forms, he holds the following Halliburton stock options:
* 100,000 shares at $54.5000 (vested), expire 12-03-07
* 33,333 shares at $28.1250 (vested), expire 12-02-08
* 300,000 shares at $39.5000 (vested), expire 12-02-09
This continues to be a political problem for Cheney that can be easily resolved. Cheney could simply do what he claims to have already done: sever his ties and remove his financial interests from the company. Considering Halliburtons lucrative government contracts, and the dubious conditions surrounding the deals, this should be a no-brainer for the White House.
Pure unadulterated BS! That same congress had control, WITH THE WHITE HOUSE ALSO, from 2000 to 2006, and THEY are the ones who screwed it all up. The only difference was Bill Clinton and the democratic leadership. If the 90's prosperity was due to the repub congress of the 90's, they could have stayed fiscally responsible, but without Clinton, they became drunken sailors because Bush is stupid, and he never vetoed a spending bill.
The dems were superior leaders of the government, in terms of providing an overall prosperous environment for all americans.
Don't blame the troops. Blame the fukking incompetent, arrogant, lying bastards who started this war for oil, empire and $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. There were no WMDs, no mushroom cloud, no drones to attack US. They lied and our troops and Iraqi civilians died.
If you believe we got in this war for oil, I would have to say it is your own arrogance and incompetence that brought you to that conclusion....
We got in THIS war for ISRAEL! And regardless of why we got in, we now have the responsability to do our best to complete the job and not abandon the situation...
If we've freed the Iraqi children from a life of tyranny, then it was worth it regardless of what anyone thinks or suspects of the reasons we went to war...
Do I wish we went to Afganastan and into Pakistan if we had to, and chopped off the heads of everyone that stood in our way until we captured and killed that bastard bin ladin and everyone in the AQ organization instead.... Maybe... But we didnt, so we must deal with what we have now, then get on track and finish the job...
I know one thing fighting over the past, would of, should of, and could of, is not going to help us progress as a people...
We got in THIS war for ISRAEL! And regardless of why we got in, we now have the responsability to do our best to complete the job and not abandon the situation.
LOL
So you admit bush lied about the reasons for war. And yet, I'd be willing to bet that 5 years ago, you were calling anyone who said bush was lying about the reasons for war, an anti-america, pro-saddam, terrorist lover.
