Dick Morris in todays NY Post, Disaster Is Lurking, makes an interesting point in the prospect of "bad news" in the perspective's closet.

He concludes With,

If accurate, there could well be some interesting time ahead. Keep in mind that the most important thing in picking a VP nominee is not necessarily the bagging of a state, but finding someone who will not hurt your campaign. Time may bear this out.

There is not a chance that Edwards can hurt his ticket NEARLY as much as corporate crony and profiteer Cheney has done...

The Right better be careful about whom it throws stones at, the Left has said very little about Cheneys corruption, simply because it is waiting for the correct moment...

RatBoy-

So the left waited four years. What, they didn't want Gore to win?

Listen, Edwards will do okay, no matter what they dig up. He's not Clinton, but good enough with words and playing the game. Edwards needs to worry about Kerry, not Kerry about Edwards. Kerry is one step emotionaly from death, and his hypocrisy is blatantly evident.

PS- Bush couldn't run without Chenney, let alone stand up. He needs someone to hold his strings.

Well, HamsterGod, I see that with each posting you have progressed from the self-professed novice of this forum to the partasan expert: all within 24 hours! Now, if that were true, it would be impressive considering the amount of knowledge you were able to attain here. However, you could also be a slight reincarnation of an older "dead and reemerged" poster. I wonder which it could be: hmmmm?

Anyway, things work themselves out eventually. With that in mind, I will also state something else. And I am sure that you will be adverse to concur here. It is generally acknowledged among the well informed within both the Republicans AND Democrats, that Hillary has her sights on the White House in 2008. This is indeed real. And too, BillyBob would get to move in also, savouring all the benefits, enjoying all the perks, and not having to face the Fleigerabwekrkanonen(FLAK) from the Republicans. Hillary can handle all that, thank you!

Now, for those of us who are able to use logic, it stands logical that it is to her benefit to have a free hand in 2008. JFK, the lesser, is an impediment, so if there is a great chance for his election, then she would be best NOT to allow this. And how is this accomplished. If you said Clinton operatives like Chris Lehane, Sydney Bloomenthal, etc, YOU WIN!!

So, as Dick Morris has stated, if the Republicans know about dirty laundry on the Breck Boy, just how much do you think that the Clintinistas know about BOTH the prospective candidates? Do you believe that J Edgar Hoover would be envious of the Clinton's intelligence reports? If you said yes, YOU WIN!!

Let's use some more logic here. Suppose JFK, the lesser, DOES win the General Election: what then? And keep in mind that this would be a last ditch, hard case scenerio. Somewhere after the first year of the Kerry presidency, Hillary would have to start butting heads with the magnetic and photographic President Kerry. A cat fight would appear, and Voila!, by 2007, we would have a contender to the Democratic Party for 2008. You think I am Wrong? How much would you like to wager here? What would you be willing to lose?

So, you do not think that Edwards could hurt the ticket of JFK, the lesser? And do you think that the Republicans will be the only ones throwing the stones? You may be able to see the Republican stones, but just because you may not see any Clinton stones does not mean that they aren't aimed at the Kerry/Edwards camplaign.

And as to your words about the Cheney corruption, if it hasn't appeared by now, good luck on finding any. All you have is the low rent accusations of he and his former employer.

Nice try, genius! I think we have your number here!

The problem here is that I dont disagree with you when it comes to Hillary's wants... It's obvious that she does have presidential aspirations - and of course there will be some decent in the Clinton corner with regard to the Kerry/Edwards ticket - there is no doubt about this... I was merely commenting on the "Right" oh master of this political forum -

The Cheney issue is easy for anyone with a room temperature IQ to figure out... However, when you are blindly Right Wing - as all of your posts seem to indicate - you will ignore the obvious...

Dick Cheney - CEO Haliburton... Dick Cheney - VP United States... Dick Cheney - liar from day 1, working to get his Iraq war and New American Centruy idealism on track... Dick Cheney's office - in charge of awarding non-bid contracts to companies working to "rebuild" Iraq... HALIBURTONS PROFITS UP 80% IN THE LAST YEAR...

strange how blind some people can be... isn't it Johnny boy?

No, I am a Jack of All Trades, but not a Master of this Forum. Tukyleith would agree with me here.


Really? Then produce your evidence from a TRUELY reputable source. Do you mind if I fail to hold my breath? Am I Right Wing? Certainly! I am an Individualist, who happens to be an Classical Liberal, not a Classical Libertarian, BTY.

Purely subjecture here. No evidence whatsoever. It is merely your opinion, and you know what opinions are like, right?

Is your "Serotonin gone" here? Really? Welcome aboard!

Really? Then produce your evidence from a TRUELY reputable source. Do you mind if I fail to hold my breath? Am I Right Wing? Certainly! I am an Individualist, who happens to be an Classical Liberal, not a Classical Libertarian, BTY. - Johhny Boy

Here you go - my little hamster:

Cheney, Halliburton face suit

Watchdog group to file suit against vice president and Halliburton over accounting issues.
July 10, 2002: 2:20 PM EDT

WASHINGTON (CNN) - A watchdog group that investigates alleged corruption by government officials said Wednesday it is filing a shareholders' lawsuit against Vice President Dick Cheney and the oil company he once headed over alleged fraudulent accounting practices.

http://money.cnn.com/2002/07/10/news/cheney_lawsuit/

Cheney, Halliburton and the Spoils of War
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=6288

Iraqi Money Funds Halliburton* The occupation authorities "came here and spent a lot of our money but very little of theirs," said a senior Iraqi official,. . .The CPA appears to have earmarked more than $6 billion of the Iraqi funds over the past two months alone, as it prepared to hand over political authority -- and control over the development fund -- to the interim Iraqi government . . . One of the principal beneficiaries of the development fund money was Halliburton Co., which was paid hundreds of millions of dollars to truck gasoline and other fuels into Iraq . . .Two former CPA officials involved in contracting issues said the CPA spent money from the development fund faster because it was not governed by the same rules requiring competitive bidding as the money from Congress was. . . .efforts to audit the process were stymied by the CPA, Rajiv Chandrasekaran, Washington Post, 7/4/04

Cheney: NeoCon Godfather*

It was Cheney who said to United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix as he embarked on his mission to Iraq, "We will not hesitate to discredit you"; Cheney who personally tried to force the CIA to give credence to Ahmed Chalabi's fabricated and false evidence on WMD; Cheney who, along with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (to whom he was deputy in the Nixon White House), undermined Secretary of State Colin Powell at every turn; and Cheney who is the neoconservatives' godfather. . .Even before his outburst in the Senate, Cheney had come to stand for special interests, secrecy and political coercion. Under the stress of Bush's falling polls, Cheney cracked. Sidney Blumenthal, Salon, 7/1/04

What Halliburton Whistle Blowers Say*

In testimony submitted to members of Congress, one [Halliburton] truck driver explained in detail how taxpayers were billed for empty trucks driven up and down Iraq and how $85,000 vehicles were abandoned for lack of spare tires. A labor foreman said dozens of workers were told to "look busy" while doing virtually no work for salaries of $80,000 a year. An auditor related how the company was spending an average of $100 for every single bag of laundry and $10,000 a month for company employees to stay in five-star hotels. "We saw very little concern for cost considerations," David Walker, head of the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of the Congress, told members of the Congress who attended a hearing at the Government Reform Committee in the House of Representatives. "There are serious problems, they still exist, and they are exacerbated in a wartime climate." Pratap Chatterjee, CorpWatch June 16th, 2004

Cheney, "f--- off"

Leahy and other Democrats have called for congressional hearings into whether the vice president helped the firm win lucrative contracts in Iraq after the U.S.-led war that toppled Saddam Hussein.
During their exchange, Leahy noted that Republicans had accused Democrats of being anti-Catholic because they are opposed to some of President Bush’s anti-abortion judges, the aides said.
Cheney then responded, “f--- off” or “f--- you,” two aides said, both speaking on condition of anonymity. . .According to Senate rules, profanity is not permitted in the chamber. But when the exchange occurred between Leahy and Cheney, the Senate was not in session, so there was technically no foul. MSNBC, June 24, 2004

Cheney/Halliburton Corruption2 *

Pentagon officials have acknowledged that a political appointee was behind the controversial decision to have Halliburton Inc. plan for the postwar recovery of Iraq's oil sector and had informed Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff before finalizing the deal, a Democratic lawmaker said Sunday.
The decision, overruling the advice of an Army lawyer, eventually resulted in the awarding of a $7-billion, no-bid contract to Halliburton, which Cheney ran for five years before he was nominated for vice president. Christian Miller. LA Times, 6/14/04

The Securities and Exchange Commission has launched a formal investigation of the company for possible violation of antibribery laws. The probe focuses on payments made years ago [while Cheney was Chairman] in Nigeria by Kellogg Brown & Root, Melissa Davis, TheStreet.com, 6/14/04

Cheney Halliburton

For the second day running, Democrats demanded more answers to questions raised by a newly unearthed Army e-mail that said Cheney's office "coordinated" action on a contract to rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure that was awarded to Halliburton. . .But Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins, chair of the Senate Governmental Affairs committee, says the panel will not be taking any action because Halliburton's contracts in Iraq already face probes by the General Accounting Office, defense auditors and the Pentagon inspector general.
U.S. officials have estimated the Texas company's Iraq deals, for everything from oil repairs to meals for the troops, could eventually total some $18 billion. Susan Cornwell, Reuters, 6/2/04

Cheney "Coordinated" Halliburton Contracts*

Russert asked, "Were you involved in any way in the awarding of those contracts?" Cheney's reply: "Of course not, Tim ... And as Vice President, I have absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of in any way, shape or form of contracts led by the [Army] Corps of Engineers or anybody else in the Federal Government." . . .The e-mail says Feith approved arrangements for the contract "contingent on informing WH [White House] tomorrow. We anticipate no issues since action has been coordinated w VP's [Vice President's] office." Three days later, the Army Corps of Engineers gave Halliburton the contract, without seeking other bids. TIMOTHY J. BURGER AND ADAM ZAGORIN, Time, 5/30/04

Cheney's War *

Dick Cheney had gotten the war he wanted. One year later, it's costing us a staggering $4.7 billion a month, or about $157 million per day.
A hefty chunk of that is being spent on support services provided in Iraq by Halliburton, the Texas company that Cheney ran before joining the Bush ticket in 2000.
Cheney says he has severed his ties to Halliburton and had nothing to do with the lucrative no-bid contracts awarded to the firm. Not everyone is persuaded that the connection is merely coincidental.
In any event, the money being spent in Iraq is secondary to the heartbreaking cost in casualties. The most well-trained and sophisticated fighting force in the world is once again involved in a maddening guerrilla war. . CARL HIAASEN, The Miami Herald, 4/25/04

Criminal Charge against Cheney*
This has been a very good war for Halliburton, which at last count had been awarded Pentagon contracts with the potential value of $11 billion. . . [U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin,] has asked Attorney General John Ashcroft to appoint a special counsel to investigate reports that Halliburton and other U.S. companies are conducting business with governments that stand accused of sponsoring terrorism. . . "Because these allegations involve a company that the vice president of the United States ran during the time of the alleged violations, we formally request that you appoint an outside counsel to investigate ...," Baldwin wrote. "The questions these allegations raise about the actions of a company run by Vice President Cheney are serious and disturbing. Corporate criminal penalties Editorial, The Capital Times, 4/20/04

Fox and Halliburton Can't Get it Right*

Bill O'Reilly, host of the most popular Fox News show, "The O'Reilly Factor," took to the airwaves on March 4, 2003 . . . [and] stated definitively that "a load of weapons-grade plutonium has disappeared from Nigeria" and that the theft "should send a signal to all Americans that a nuclear device could be planted here." . . .
O'Reilly was referring to a story that week about radioactive material missing in Nigeria. But it was not plutonium, as he claimed, or anything nearly as lethal as plutonium. It was a compound called Americium 241, wholly unsuitable for the creation of the imaginary "atomic device" . . . The compound, in fact, was misplaced by Vice President Cheney's old oil firm, Halliburton. David J. Sirota, Salon, 3/30/04

New Evidence Shows Cheney Continues Relationship with Halliburton in Violation of Government Ethics

6/14/2004 6:31:00 PM


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: National Desk

Contact: Jim Donahue, 310-456-3692 or Charlie Cray, 202-387-8030, both of HalliburtonWatch.org

WASHINGTON, June 14 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Pentagon admitted last week that Vice President Richard Cheney's office was informed before the Iraq war about the decision to overrule objections from the Army's own lawyers and award Halliburton a no-bid contract in Iraq.

The decision -- which led to a sole-source contract worth up to $7 billion -- was made by a "political appointee" of the Bush administration. This new information was disclosed today in a letter from Congressman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) to Vice President Cheney. Waxman discovered the information after meeting with Pentagon officials last week.

See Congressman Waxman's letter posted at http://www.HalliburtonWatch.org.
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease....id=165-06142004

Okay Johnny Boy - be a typical right winger and dismiss all of this, without sighting any facts - of course...

your God,

HamsterGod

In a liberals mind, the sky is always falling and America always is at fault. Hence the need for prozac and the continued rise in the cost of healthcare for every other American who really has problems.

HamsterGod, first go back to the "KerryCare" thread and read my latest post about civility. Perhaps you might wish to ammend your language. But, then again, maybe not?

As to Larry klayman's law suite, he may very well have merit. If the case continues, it will shake itself out one way or the other.

Your other presentations are still conjecture. AND, you are assuming that Cheney is still working for Halliburton, and I see no proof of this. The only way that your assumptions would work your way would be for this to exist. And THAT is where you should point your interests. Because if you cannot prove this, the rest of your claims are groundless.

And we still live under the assumption of innocence in this society, do we not?

And one other thing. Non bids during times of conflict are hardly new. It happens all the time, because the bidding process takes weeks at best, and mostly months before action is finally taken. When time is of the essence, it is not advisable to go through this process. So, this is too, a non-issue. Nice try.

John,

civility it is then, I believed that you were attacking me, however, if I was wrong, I apologize and will work under this hat...

And one other thing. Non bids during times of conflict are hardly new. It happens all the time, because the bidding process takes weeks at best, and mostly months before action is finally taken. When time is of the essence, it is not advisable to go through this process. So, this is too, a non-issue. Nice try. - John L

okay, here is where we differ, perhaps it is because of our idealogic differences, perhaps you are more inclined to support Cheney than I am, in which case your arguments make sense, however, I live under the belief that, all things being equal, the simplest explanation generally hold true - in this case, contracts for Iraq are going through Cheneys office - Cheney was the CEO of Haliburton - Haliburtons profits are up 80% in the last year... to me the explanations seems simple...

and in your mind, america is never at fault, and there's never a problem.





Imperator

Allow me to state this again. Richard Cheney is the Vice President of this nation, not CEO of Halliburton. He no longer works there, and will probably NEVER do so again. You need to realize this. He has divested himself of any legal connections to his former country. If you think that he would be so brain dead as to set himself up to legitimate criticism over this, you are also a "true believer" of conspiracy theories. It is not in his best self interests to do so. What about that don't you folks understand?

And no, I am not a normal supporter of Cheney. I am not a Republican either. Generally, I vote Libertarian, but this time around I believe as Mayor Koch( a Social Democrat, BTY) and think that National Security is the main issue. And of the two main candidates, GW Bush is, hands down, the superior candidate with regards to this issue. Period!

Listen up hamster-boy. The reason Halliburton got those contracts is because they are just about the best company anywhere to do that kind of work. They are a large international operation that not only pumps cement down exploratory oil wells but is into construction as well. Say Fleur Corporation got some (probably have) of the action. You libs would be wailing that there was an inside deal there too. Or, how about Bechtel?
Maybe, just maybe those companies get the contracts due to their expertise and not a conspriacy, eh?

How can we disagree on this, how is it that you cannot see the connection between Cheney and Haliburton and Iraq? HOW? you seem intellegent enough, yet you refuse, or fail, to see the connection... Hardly a conspiracy theory here, it's quite obvious what is happening... You honestly believe that Cheney's former relationship with Haliburton had NOTHING to do with the awards it has been given?

Honestly?

Really?

######, you are the perfect spokesperson for their cause, you really are...

You actually don't believe that money is being handed under the table to Cheney and the like from all of the corporations that are benefitting because of the Iraq war?

Really?

Honestly?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out, unless you dont want to, in which case, no matter what I, or anyone says to you, or shows you... No matter what evidence you are shown, unless Cheney himself came out and said that he was guilty of what I am accusing, you would NEVER believe it... that is the problem with this discussion - on the revearse, no matter what you tell me, I will never believe what you claim... as I said before, all things being equal, the simplest answer most often holds true...

How can a man who NEVER fought in a war be the best man to defend this country? How can a man so inept at creating world alliances be the best man to defend our country? you seem to think - erroneously I must add - that Kerry would come into office and just roll over - you like bush cause he is simple and you think that simple men are better in times of war... thats all I can figure here? It's just like the idiots in the bar who always say, thank God Bush was in office on 911, could you imagine what Gore would have done? it's such a worthless party line, I can hardly stomach hearing it... PROVE TO ME THAT GORE WOULD HAVE HANDLED 911 POORLY - you can't, neither can they... I can tell you this much, our security here, in the US would be MUCH better off with Gore in office, we would have more money to fight with - I can also tell you this, we would be getting much more world cooperation on this issue if Gore was in office -

I can tell you this much, our security here, in the US would be MUCH better off with Gore in office

The only thing Gore is good at is fronting for Grade "B" movies on Global Warming and going into riducleous ranting speeches that just confirm how unhinged he really is. Presidential material, I think not...

Bush is? he cant handle questions that reporters ask him... Bush is a puppet, lets all just be honest here... a likable guy, not too bright, easily manipulated...

You, like others probably dont like Gore because you know he is smarter than you, and you can never trust a man who is smarter than you, right?

Perhaps it is because I am willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt first, until proven wrong. And I see no problem here. Same with Bill Clinton. I simply do not believe for a moment that he is a Lefty Liberal Democrat, regardless what the Republicans say. In truth, is a "Good Old Boy" of considerable intellect, and a supreme opportunist. However, he is a real slickster, highly egotistic, and he does have a bad habit of not telling the truth as the average person thinks.

And, he fits the true defination of a sociopath. Not a particualarly bad one, but in his past position, a potentionally dangerous one. The war on Terror is a great example. And he DID commit perjury, whether you like it or not. The true shame is that he squandered a sizable portion of his potential while President. And whether he wishes to acknowledge this, it was primarily his own doing.

So, I am a realist. And I will also give Cheney the benefit, until you or someone else can prove it. Now, what is wrong with that?

Under this assumption, the fact that I used to be an Operator, and was a SOG weeney in Laos and Cambodia during the VietNam War, makes me better qualified to run military operations than someone such as Bush or Cheney. Naturally, I disagree.

And why should you or I bow to peer pressure, simply to be well thought of? I am interested in what is good for us, not how other people and countries "feel" avout us. Their butts are not on the line.

That is absolutely rediculous poppycocke. I do not oppose Kerry because I think that he would roll over. I oppose him because he is a Collectivist, who would be more comfortable increasing the power of the State over our every day lives. And do not bring up Bush, because this is one of the many faults I find with Bush. Kerry would increase our taxes, generate further regulation, retify Kyoto, among other things.

Also, he would be more willing to supbordinate the US to the UN,and bow to the will of the EU. I am certain that this would be disasterous. And too, the trend is leading away from this. As I have previously stated on this forum, the world is in the process of decentralizing, not the other way around. Due to the IT(Information Technology) Revolution, we(the world) are in the process of acting globally and thinking tribally. The UN as it exists is a huge dinosaur that hasn't fallen over yet.

And Bush is not simple minded. If you believe this, you are victim to your own sense of superiority. He has an MBA from Harvard, the first President to do so. He just talks Texan, and elites use this to look down their noses at him. It makes them feel superior. And, He is not prone to shotgun things, like Clinton. He is focused, like Reagan. He has picked a few subjects and hammered on to them. Clinton was all over the place. And in retrospect, the only true accomplishments of Clinton were done in concert with a Republican Congress, with the Congress initiating them. So if you think that someone who is highly intelligent, who is all over the place, happens to be great, then fine. Have your way if you wish. I, for one, will go with the person who is focused like a lazer beam.

We normally aren't, it's better than suffering a GUILT TRIP FOR NO REASON, all the time.

"you can never trust a man who is smarter than you, right?"

Nonsense, if this were true, we would all be following you.

Let me use this as an example of your tendency to say one thing and exhibit another. You want sincerely to be taken seriously, and be treated like an adult who is reasoning and logical. Yet, you make such a sophmoric and childish statement like the one above: and you want us to consider you a serious poster?

When you display some maturity and logic, I will engage you. Until then, go out and practice your skills, and allow me to engage others with whom I can either respect(C.Woww or Stroll), or enjoy(Thaiquila).