Whats really going on in IRAQ no "Happy News"

[dijetlo]

>>t's not funny, it's not... but... quote:kicked by a donkey 1<<

It was an islamic fundamentalist donkey (or perhaps a "foriegn" donkey, who's come to Iraq for nefarious purposes). Don't worry, Rusmfeld is on top of this and assures us this ass is a "dead-ender".

 

[jimnyc]

Man, that sucks. Of all the horrible ways to die in Iraq, and you get kicked by a donkey?

Does anyone have the story with this?


I'll bet the Muslim man treats the donkey better than the women.

 

[Aquarian]

it's in the link under the count, he's not dead, just got kicked in the leg...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3211745.stm

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Aquarian
it's in the link under the count, he's not dead, just got kicked in the leg...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3211745.stm

I guess I should have read that article, huh? LOL I got so used to skipping the majority of Dawoud's links as I usually read all my news stories in the morning already.

Glad to hear he's alive. Hope he didn't get kicked in the family jewels! Wherever it was, I bet it hurt like hell!

 

[Dawoud]

Former Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney was playing fast and loose with the truth when, during a Sept. 14 interview on "Meet the Press," he claimed that "since I left Halliburton to become George Bush's vice president, I've severed all ties with the company, 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."

As it turns out, in 2001 Cheney pocketed $205,298 in deferred salary that was paid by Halliburton. In 2002, he collected $162,392. And he is scheduled to collect similar amounts in 2003, 2004 and 2005. And Cheney has retained unexercised options for 433,000 Halliburton stock shares.

The Senate on Thursday rejected an amendment to the administration's $87 billion Iraq spending package that was written to prevent further fiscal abuses. Sponsored by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., the amendment would have barred funds from going to contracts with companies that owe deferred compensation to Cheney and 21 other administration officials. It was defeated by a 65-34 vote, with only Democrats (including Wisconsin's Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl) voting to impose basic ethical standards.

 

[jimnyc]

Hey, it's Pete the Plagiarizer!

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1020-04.htm

Considering there were no spelling or grammatical errors I'm sure nobody would have suspected you wrote that anyway.

I guess I'd be embarassed if I kept linking to "commondreams.org" as well. I'll give you a hint, Dawoud, the rest of us live in reality while you live in dreamland, life is not all a conspiracy.

 

[dijetlo]

>> I'll give you a hint, Dawoud, the rest of us live in reality while you live in dreamland, life is not all a conspiracy.<<
The devil you say, I got my ol' tin foil helmet, ( never leave home without it) wrapped snugly around my bust of Ike (who once told me to "fear the growing power of the militry industrial complex".) The story isn't about a "conspiracy theory" though, this is just plain sloppiness.
Cheney originaly claimed he had "cut all ties". Then it turns out that he is recieving "deffered compensation", in the form of stock options. Since the value of the stock is tied to the value of the corporation, it's hard to argue that the recent "single vendor" contracts haven't added to Cheneys personal wealth.
What's missing is the proof Cheney used his influence to get the contracts for Haliburton. Without that, it isn't criminal (at least under the current laws governing "payolla"). What it does do is reflect really badly on the administration who ran on a platform of "honesty and integrity" in the Whitehouse.

 

[eric]

As it turns out, in 2001 Cheney pocketed $205,298 in deferred salary that was paid by Halliburton. In 2002, he collected $162,392. And he is scheduled to collect similar amounts in 2003, 2004 and 2005. And Cheney has retained unexercised options for 433,000 Halliburton stock shares.

First of all this has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted. My post concerned net profit margins to the Halliburton Corp, not Cheney's deferred salary. Since you brought it up though, lets give it some thought. Do you think this situation is unique? Allow me to enlighten you; most if not all high level executives receive compensation pakages at their time of departure from their corporation.

As far as Cheney's situation is concerned here is what happened:

In 1998 Cheney decided to defer his 1999 salary, he elected to receive it over a period of 5 years, this is called a "nonqualified plan". He bought an insurance policy back in 2001, at a cost to him of $15,000, to guarantee that he would receive his deferred salary regardless of whether Halliburton stayed in business. This way he would not have a stake in Halliburton's continued success.
The insurance policy would pay Cheney $140,000 a year for five years if Halliburton went insolvent and was unable to pay.

He also assigned all of his Halliburton stock options to a charitable trust, which is legal and irrevocable, and receives no tax benefit from them. In fact only the trustee of the trust can decide when to sell them.

His compensation so far is roughly $368,000, not a lot of money in reality. Many CEOs receive amounts such as this as Christmas bonuses, with salaries in excess of $1,000,000. Taking into account his current financial holdings as well as his ability to make new corporate alliances, do you really believe that this small amount of money influenced his decisions on Iraq?

 

[eric]

Man, that sucks. Of all the horrible ways to die in Iraq, and you get kicked by a donkey?

Does anyone have the story with this?

Jim I'm not sure, but I believe that Leftwingnutcase.com has an unconfirmed report that the DOD hired the donkey. According to the article this was a highly classified project, but someone in the bush camp leaked the info., exposing the donkey's identity. PETA is up in arms over this cruel exploitation of an Ass. They further go on to say that this secret project violated many treaties, as the US is now developing Weapons of Ass Destruction.

Author Unknown.

 

[Dawoud]

Former Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney was playing fast and loose with the truth when, during a Sept. 14 interview on "Meet the Press," he claimed that "since I left Halliburton to become George Bush's vice president, I've severed all ties with the company, 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."

So eric tell me what part of this isnt a lie?
Accounting slight of hand and blind trusts and voodoo economics dont change the fact he went on national TV and mislead the american people.
even if he gave every bit of it away ( and you can bet that wont happen) its still a lie
Remember Bush and Cheney have kept Bushes biggest campaign contributor " Ken Lay" out of the slammer ever since the Enron scandal.
And if hes so on the up and up why has he fought tooth and nail in the courts to keep his "energy taskforce" records away from us the people who have a right to records of what our public officials are doing?

 

[eric]

Accounting slight of hand and blind trusts and voodoo economics dont change the fact he went on national TV and mislead the american people.

No, if the american people are mislead it is their own fault. His financial disclosure clearly laid out the financial arrangements between Halliburton and himself. You can infer what ever you want, the fact remains that as far as the letter of the law is concerned, he was not misleading. You can call it slight of hand, voodoo economics, and the like, it does not change the legal status. It is up to the people to educate themselves as to how the law works. If we used your contention as a baseline for judgement, then all people with tax shelters are misleading the IRS, and almost all campaign contributions would be deemed misleading, Democrat and Republican alike. No, the law provides for these scenarios, and using the law to your benefit is in no way misleading.

Now, I know you will say the law does not make a difference, but that is to be expected. Look at your next statement :

even if he gave every bit of it away ( and you can bet that wont happen) its still a lie

If I give you my car, and say I no longer own it, how am I lying?

Remember Bush and Cheney have kept Bushes biggest campaign contributor " Ken Lay" out of the slammer ever since the Enron scandal

What does this have to do with the debate? I guess you just thought you would throw that in. This is a another thread in itself, lets not get off topic. Once we start on this subject we must not forget Global Crossing and Whitewater. So lets not go there right now.

And if hes so on the up and up why has he fought tooth and nail in the courts to keep his "energy taskforce" records away from us the people who have a right to records of what our public officials are doing?

You can agree or disagree with the current laws, but the people do not have the legal right to all records, period. This is not such a bad thing, we need to place SOME trust in our elected officials, could you imagine if every conversation or meeting were to be made public. Our government would come to a grinding halt. Lets face it, to get anything done in politics requires compromise, deals to be cut, and the like, it comes with the territory.

 

[Dawoud]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031025/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq



Also, near the flashpoint city of Fallujah, three civilians were killed and two wounded when their convoy came under fire. An American engineer and an Iraqi security guard said U.S. troops shot at their vehicles, but the military denied that.
In the incident near Fallujah, three SUVs of the European Landmine Solutions, a British-based private contractor, were hit by gunfire, according to an American engineer with the firm, David Rasmussen, who was hospitalized with wounds.
Asked where the shots came from, Rasmussen replied: "from the USA."
The Iraqi security guard traveling with the convoy, Laith Yousef, gave the same account.
"We were the target of an attack by the Americans," Yousef said. "They shot at our car. The translator burned to death in the car. A man with us was killed. He was going to get married next week."

 

[Dawoud]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...p/20031025/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_police_killing

 

[dijetlo]

>>"remember Bush and Cheney have kept Bushes biggest campaign contributor " Ken Lay" out of the slammer ever since the Enron scandal."--- What does this have to do with the debate?<<
Honesty and integrity.

>>His financial disclosure clearly laid out the financial arrangements between Halliburton and himself.<<
But his statements contradict his financial statement, he verbaly stated he severed all ties, in fact he is recieving payments based on deffered stock options. He based his verbal statement on his "blind trust" arrangement, but the purpose of a blind trust is defeated by defered stock payments (he knows what is being added to his stock portfolio, its' value, and what Government actions will increase the value of his stock.)

>>"And if hes so on the up and up why has he fought tooth and nail in the courts to keep his "energy taskforce" records away from us the people who have a right to records of what our public officials are doing?"-- You can agree or disagree with the current laws, but the people do not have the legal right to all records, period.<<
Try Again, this from here
>>District Court Judge Paul J. Friedman ordered the government to produce the documents on March 5, 2002.<<
Once a partial list of documents were released, it became known that Cheney was considering the rescources and production capacity of Iraq in formulating the US policy, odd since at the time Iraq was limited by the UN "Oil for Food Program", i.e. they couldn't sell the vast amounts of oil the US was counting on when it formed its' policy. This was also before anybody (but Cheney and the PNAC true beleivers) was considering attacking Iraq. (March 2001)
>> Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as 2 charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.<<
Sounds more like the "Iraqi energy taskforce" doesn't it?
The sticking point is the involvement of Enron, Haliburton and lawyers from oil industry lobbying groups at the policy meetings. If Cheney even suggested that the occupation of Iraq was on the administrations plate during these planning sessions (and evidence suggests they discussed it at length) he's broken enough laws to go to jail for about a decade.

 

[Dawoud]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...re_mi_ea/iraq_hotel_attacked&cid=540&ncid=716


Six to eight rockets struck the Al Rasheed Hotel early Sunday, where U.S. military and civilian employees stay, the U.S. military said.
A spokesman for the military command said there were an "unknown number of casualties" and a quick reaction force had been dispatched to the scene. U.S. officials declined further comment.
The luxury hotel is located in an area tightly controlled by the U.S. military on the western side of the Tigris River near the headquarters of the U.s.-led coalition.

Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, who began a three-day tour of Iraq on Friday, was in Baghdad, but his whereabouts were unknown.

 

[eric]

>>"remember Bush and Cheney have kept Bushes biggest campaign contributor " Ken Lay" out of the slammer ever since the Enron scandal."--- What does this have to do with the debate?
Honesty and integrity.
<<

Sure, why not broaden the debate, instead of addressing the issue at hand? The honesty and integrity of politicians could fill an entire message board.

Your inferrence seems at odds with a statement by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, who is the one who requested a Congressional report on the matter. His statement :

"I believe the vice president is an honorable man," Lautenberg said at a news conference, "I just think he made a mistake."

>>His financial disclosure clearly laid out the financial arrangements between Halliburton and himself.
But his statements contradict his financial statement, he verbaly stated he severed all ties, in fact he is recieving payments based on deffered stock options. He based his verbal statement on his "blind trust" arrangement, but the purpose of a blind trust is defeated by defered stock payments (he knows what is being added to his stock portfolio, its' value, and what Government actions will increase the value of his stock.)
<<

Care to explain how he is receiving payments on Options that have not yet vested ?

If you are going to provide a link, please a reliable one, like Money, Forbes, Wall Street Journal, etc., not a propaganda site.

>>"And if hes so on the up and up why has he fought tooth and nail in the courts to keep his "energy taskforce" records away from us the people who have a right to records of what our public officials are doing?"-- You can agree or disagree with the current laws, but the people do not have the legal right to all records, period.<<

Yes some document are of the public record, other are not, this is as issue the courts decide. In this case the court did rule that some of the documents be released, but it is understandable, even if nothing was underhanded, why the public is not entitled to all meetings and conversations.

As far as the documents detailing oil fields, pipelines, etc, in Iraq, making it sound like policy was based on an impending war, keep in mind there were also documents like the following:

The Saudi Arabian and United Arab Emirates (UAE) documents likewise feature a map of each country’s oilfields, pipelines, refineries and tanker terminals. There are supporting charts with details of the major oil and gas development projects in each country that provide information on the projects, costs, and capacity.

 

[dijetlo]

>>Sure, why not broaden the debate, instead of addressing the issue at hand? The honesty and integrity of politicians could fill an entire message board.<<
I have to agree with you on that one, my point (poorly stated as it was) was that it is not realistic to suggest we should "trust" politicians who have not demonstrated honesty and integrity. Without this kind of trust the appearence of a conflict of interest should reasonably be assumed to be a conflict of interest.
>>Care to explain how he is receiving payments on Options that have not yet vested ?If you are going to provide a link, please a reliable one, like Money, Forbes, Wall Street Journal, etc., not a propaganda site.<<
I don't need a link for this one, though I am wondering why you think Money, Forbes and the Wall Street Journal aren't "propaganda" sites? They make efforts to curb thier partisanship with varying degrees of success (in the case of the WSJ, for example, they do a respectable job of it.Though if we want to debate that point we should start a new thread.)
His stock options are defferred compensation from Haliburton which he gained as a result of forgoing his salary in 1998. He knows how much (the number of stocks can excersize his option for) he is going to get each year, he knows the value of the company and he knows what actions the Government might take to improve the value of his investment. The purpose of the blind trust is defeated by this since he knows these stocks are going into his portfolio.
>>The Saudi Arabian and United Arab Emirates (UAE) documents likewise feature a map of each country’s oilfields, pipelines, refineries and tanker terminals. <<
How about Venezuala (our primary oil supplier)? The article doesn't mention the energy taskforce using any info about them, does it? It leaves me wondering why the energy taskforce is so interested in Iraq when we don't buy any oil from them.
FYI The pipelines, refineries and terminals in UAE and SA are needed to transport and refine Iraqi crude, since the Iraqi infrastructure is in such poor shape.
(but you do get points for reading my source and using the un-excerpted data as a counter argument.)
In all seriousness, I am pretty careful about knowing the source of my data and weighting it appropriately. The most recent link is to Judicial Watch, I thought you'd appreciate that and cut me some slack.

 

[eric]

I do appreciate that and I do not think judicial watch is a bad site. Speaking of sites, what I was eluding to with Money, Forbes, and the like, is their knowledge of how financial instruments work, not their new stories. I can assure you their knowledge in this area is superb.

Look I think it is obvious that Halliburton is receiving favor from the US govt.; to me this was to be expected knowing the nature of politicians. Anytime a situtation arises which can be taken advantage of, it will be, by Democrat and Republican alike. It has nothing to do partisan politics, but rather human greed and a lust for power.

Where we differ is that I do not believe this was the driving force behind the war. In my book it is just not enough money. The contracts seem large, but as you well know from your own business, it is not the size of the contract that matters, on the contrary it is the net profit that is all important.

 

[metanoia2k]

Sir James of York

You said:
"...Where we differ is that I do not believe this was the driving force behind the war. In my book it is just not enough money. The contracts seem large, but as you well know from your own business, it is not the size of the contract that matters, on the contrary it is the net profit that is all important..."

The estimated Oil Reserves have a current market value of multiple TRILLIONS of dollars. That is the "T" word.


I believe that Sir John Browne, CEO of British Petroleum is as powerful an influence on Tony Blair's conviction about the war as the PMs concerns about WMD or his compassion for the oppressed people of Iraq. I also believe that the documents which Cheney is witholding from Judicial Watch (a conservative public interest group) in their lawsuit to access the Energy transiiton records will one day reveal the blueprint for Iraq occupation and Corporatizing Iraq's oil fields.

The war wasn't fought FOR Halliburton, it was fought for much, much more...Halliburton is just a beneficiary.

Let me end by saying that it is interesting how those of you with a Republican bias seem to shrug your shoulders at corrupt practices under a Republican regime; remember how exercized you all got over shadowy real estate deals involving Hillary BEFORE her husband was elected president? For THAT, congress saw fit to appoint a special prosecuter. Here we have a president whose administration is engaged in what appears to be wholesale corrupt practices and felonious leaking of covert information and yet the Republicans AND you, Sir James, are all too willing to shrug your shoulders and say "...that's just politics..."

As you say, so you make it so.

Shame on you!

 

[metanoia2k]

...hard to tell you guys apart, sometimes. I apologize.

Point remains the same, however.