So what are you claiming here? That the word 'notorious' didn't exist before this thread, or that Halliburton isn't " Known widely and usually unfavorably; infamous?"
No I am claiming that objective news can be slanted via use of negative adjectives and adverbs.
Here is your grammar lesson for the day.
Giant posted informative newslinks on AppleOutsider while playfully tapping his wife on the nose.
Giant posted notoriously slanderous newslinks on AppleOutsider while violently tapping his wife on the nose.
See how we changed the impression on that giant fellow there? You know this already of course of reaper of strawmen.
Quote:
I don't see where Shawn mentioned a subcontractor or lack thereof, or even that 'overcharging' referred to any specific instance.
As I cited above, the GAO found numerous instances of overcharging, so, yes, Halliburton has a history of it with or without the still ongoing and unresolved audit regarding fuel sales in Iraq.
But maybe you are talking about something from another thread.
I guess I am giving Shawn more credit for communication than you do. It was clear what he was talking about because he mentioned the "the notorious company that recently caused the President some discomfort about overcharging our government tens of millions of dollars in excess fees."
That would relate to Iraq and the fuel sub-contractor. Unless Shawn wants to claim that he meant 1993 or some other such nonsense and President Clinton as "recent."
So are you claiming that Halliburton is not "Known widely and usually unfavorably; infamous?"
Seems to be that Halliburton's position in the public mind as a symbol of corporate corruption in government contracts makes the label 'notorious' particularly appropriate.
Quote:
I guess I am giving Shawn more credit for communication than you do. It was clear what he was talking about because he mentioned the "the notorious company that recently caused the President some discomfort about overcharging our government tens of millions of dollars in excess fees."
Or maybe it's just the fact that I (and likely Shawn as well) am one of the millions of people that is aware that Halliburton is notorious for overcharging our government pretty consistently. Just because you are only aware of one case doesn't mean everyone else has the same limited knowledge.
So since you want to parse things, did it not cause a media fenzy that this discrepancy was uncovered, a discrepancy that fits nicely into the long history of Halliburton's overcharging?
It seems to me you are just looking to pick a fight.
So are you claiming that Halliburton is not "Known widely and usually unfavorably; infamous?"
Seems to be that Halliburton's position in the public mind as a symbol of corporate corruption in government contracts makes the label 'notorious' particularly appropriate.
Or maybe it's just the fact that I (and likely Shawn as well) am one of the millions of people that is aware that Halliburton is notorious for overcharging our government pretty consistently. Just because you are only aware of one case doesn't mean everyone else has the same limited knowledge.
So since you want to parse things, did it not cause a media fenzy that this discrepancy was uncovered, a discrepancy that fits nicely into the long history of Halliburton's overcharging?
It seems to me you are just looking to pick a fight.
I think Halliburton has little if no position in the public mind and certainly had even less so before Cheney became Vice-President. According the company website they operate in 120 countries and employ over 96,000 people. Whenever a company gets that size or deals with that many different countries, someone somewhere is going to be unhappy.
Even your own Halliburton claims are just innuendo. Most of the evil doings involving "lobbying Congress." Last time I checked people that lobbied Congress weren't notorious.
The claims about overcharging often appear to be related to exactly one item instead of the overall job. Even the most recent one wasn't for their overall work. I see plenty of companies taking losses on one project to earn better profits on another. If you go to Circuit City and buy a $40 DVD player, and just happen to pick up a $10 cable to go with it, are they "notorous."
And this from the man who claims all financial dealings are "complex." To bad you can't see above politics as to why someone might charge more for one item, while taking a loss on another, toss some favors in one contract, but be unable to do so on another, etc.
I should add that I think it's pretty naive to believe that the overcharing of fuel was not deliberate. Halliburton's long history of this and the extraordinary close ties between the Kuwaiti and US oil industries (can they really be considered seperate?) indicates this was not just some scamming of Halliburton by an independent foreign company, as the incident is now being portrayed.
Note that a waiver was signed by the head of the army corps of engineers after the audit started allowing Halliburton to continue buying fuel from Altanmia without disclosing costs.
Also, note that Halliburton refusedto hand over to auditors internal documents relating to the incident.
And, for the record, Halliburton now has the largest contract in Iraq. And, no, they did not have to bid.
And apparently this needs posting again:
Quote:
Iraq:
Quote:
Halliburton approved of the sanctions imposed on Iraq because as Dick Cheney explained, ?One major uncertainty is the potential negative impact on oil prices should Iraq reenter the market.?_ But at the same time, the morally amorphous company managed to work on both sides of the curtain._ Detailed investigative reports by the Financial Times and theInternational Herald Tribune revealed that Halliburton, through two if its subsidiaries, skirted the sanctions on Iraq and did some $23.8 million in business with the ?evil? regime._ The oil services company was paid to rebuild the very same Iraqi infrastructure that its CEO was complicit in destroying as defense secretary under Bush I._ Interestingly, one month prior to the publication of these reports, Mr. Cheney had claimed: ?I had a firm policy that I wouldn't do anything in Iraq, even arrangements that were supposedly legal.?_ Cheney's company did its business in Iraq through European subsidiaries ?to avoid straining relations with Washington and jeopardizing their ties with President Saddam Hussein's government,? (Risen 7-28-2002; Lee 11-13-2000; Bruno and Vallette 9-2000; Flanders 10-06-2001; Cavelli 11-19-2001)
And some of the crimes and fines (bold deals with overcharging and crazy accounting):
Quote:
Subverting Democratic Values and the Rule of Law - Criminal Activity
Between 1993 and 1994, Halliburton allegedly shipped Israeli goods illegally to Iran several times between 1993 and 1994._ As a result, the_ the Department of Commerce filed charges against the company._ While under the leadership of Dick Cheney, Halliburton agreed to pay a $15,000 fine for the alleged offense, but refused to admit it had violated any laws._ (Bruno and Vallette 2000; Flanders 10-06-2001)
In spite of the passing of the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act in 1995, Halliburton continued to do business with Iran through its multiple subsidiaries - while Cheney was the CEO. (Bruno and Vallette 2000; Flanders 10-06-2001)
Halliburton had extensive investments and contracts in Indonesia. One of its contracts was canceled by the post-Suharto government during a purging of corruptly awarded contracts._ Indonesia Corruption Watch revealed that Kellogg Brown & Root (Halliburton's engineering division) was among 59 companies using collusive, corruptive and nepotistic practices involving former President Suharto's family._ (Bruno and Vallette 2000; Flanders 10-06-2001)
Before Cheney, Halliburton was very active in Libya, making $44.7 million there in 1993._ In 1994, as a result of sanctions on Libya their income dropped to $12.4 million. Ignoring the sanctions, Halliburton did business in Libya throughout Cheney's tenure. A member of Congress accused Halliburton ?of undermining American foreign policy to the full extent allowed by law.? (Athans and Lolordo 8-16-2000; Bruno and Vallette 2000; Flanders 10-06-2001)
A 1997 investigation by the General Accounting Office (GAO) revealed Halliburton has repeatedly overcharged the government for its services._ For example, in one case, Halliburton charged the U.S. government $85.98 per sheet of plywood delivered to a location outside the U.S._ In another instance, the company attempted to bill the Army for the income taxes that its employees were liable for while working in Hungary._ (Chatterjee 5-2-2002a; Gerth and Van Natta 7-14-2002)
In 2000, the GAO discovered that Brown and Root had grossly mismanaged its expenditures at the army's facilities in Kosovo._ For example, contract labor working in the Balkans on the U.S. taxpayers' clock_ were encouraged to work extra hours doing redundant tasks.__ The report explained that at Camp Bondsteel laborers often cleaned offices_ and bathrooms over and over again - up to four times a day._ (Chatterjee 5-2-2002a; Hennessey 5-23-2002)_ Additionally, it revealed that Brown and Root had ordered so much furniture ($5.2 million worth) that the army had great difficulty finding room for it all._ Processing the order alone cost U.S. taxpayers $377,000. (Hennessey 5-23-2002)
The former Brown and Root contract manager, Dammen Grant Campbell, blew the whistle on his ex-employer, revealing that the Halliburton subsidiary had purposefully inflated its invoices by exaggerating the quantity and quality of the supplies its used on government contracts._ In the span of about 4 years, between 1994 and 1998, the company sent the government these fraudulent bills for 224 projects._ (Chatterjee 5-2-2002a)
KBR charged the U.S. Army $750,000 for electrical repairs that had cost them only about $125,000 at a base in California._ Commenting on the incident, A KBR lawyer explained, "The company happened to negotiate a couple of projects we made more money on than others._ On some projects the contractor may make a large or small profit, while on others it may lose money, as KBR sometimes did on this contract."_ (Gerth and Van Natta 7-14-2002)
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is currently investigating Halliburton for possible fraudulent accounting in 1998 and 1999._ The company is accused of booking $100 million in reimbursement income for cost overruns on construction contracts before its customers actually agreed to pay these extra costs._ The New York Times_ reported that according to a former Dresser Industries executive Halliburton claimed the income "to obscure large losses on several important construction contracts."_ Halliburton's auditor, Anderson Accounting, is assumed to have approved of the misleading financial statements._ (Berenson and Bergman 5-22-2002; Harrington and Toedtman 5-30-2002)_ According Halliburton's current CEO, David Lesar, Cheney had been aware the projected cost-overrun payments were being recorded as revenues._ (PRNewswire 7-14-2002) While much of the complacent public seems content that Cheney's former company is not being overlooked by the SEC, more critical observers_are calling attention to the apparent conflict of interest between Harvey Pitt, the current SEC chairman, and the allegations he is charged with investigating._ (Coile 7-1-2002; Fields 7-9-2002)_ Pitt at one time was a top lobbyist and attorney for several major Wall Street brokerage and accounting firms._ Even Al Gore has raised his voice._ In a speech on June 29, he complained: "They picked the principal lawyer and lobbyist for the big five accounting firms who, before coming to the government, went and pleaded with the SEC to open up loopholes for the accounting companies."___(Coile 7-1-2002)_ Another conflict of interest is that the SEC reports to the Vice President._ (Harnden 5-7-2002)
In May of 2003, Halliburton admitted to having paid $2.4 million to an official posing as a tax consultant in exchange for tax concessions from that country. According to Halliburton, the bribes, which took place between 2001 and 2002, did not involve senior company officers. The SEC is investigating the issue and Halliburton may ultimately be liable for some $5 million in back taxes in Nigeria. [Guardian, 5/9/03; Houston Chronicle,5/8/03]
Disregard for Human Rights.
Halliburton was accused by local villagers of being involved in the shooting of a protester by Nigeria's Mobile Police Unit._ Dick Cheney has lobbied heavily to prevent or eliminate federal laws that restrict Halliburton's ability to do business in this country. (Bruno and Vallette 2000; Flanders 10-06-2001)
Halliburton did a significant amount of business with the notorious regime in Burma. An investigation by EarthRights International in 2000 documented Halliburton's complicity in major human rights violations - including the murder, torture, rape, forced labor and forced relocation of some of Burma?s indigenous populations._ (Bruno and Vallette 9-2000)
And the lobbying:
Quote:
Halliburton lobbied Congress to lift sanctions on countries with which it sought to do business.
Even though the nation?s leaders and their friends in the executive suites of the world?s largest multinational corporations blissfully hail the wonders of ?free trade,? all available evidence indicates that one of the real forces behind corporate success is the ability to manipulate the conditions within which the so-called ?free market? operates._ In the case of Halliburton, this reoccurring theme is particularly acute._ While Halliburton opposed the the use of sanctions on some countries, it simultaneously supported imposing sanctions on other countries - depending of course on how the sanctions would effect Halliburton._ This policy of inconsistency demonstrates that the so-called principles of 'free trade' are applied only when it is profitable to do so.
Between 1995 and 2000, Halliburton, under the leadership of former secretary of defense and current Vice President Dick Cheney, successfully lobbied against the imposition of international sanctions against countries with which it wanted to do business._ In most cases these countries were being sanctioned because of serious human rights abuses._ Halliburton, along with a few other companies, attempted to argue that the best way to discourage the violations of human rights was to do business with them, or as they explained it ? ?engage.?_ Here are a few examples of cases where they successfully undermined sanctions.
Dick Cheney lobbied to lift sanctions against aid to Azerbaijan that were mandated under section 907 of the 1992 Freedom Support Act._ The sanctions were imposed because of concerns about the ethnic cleansing of the Abkhazis._ Cheney claimed the sanctions were the result only of groundless campaigning by the Armenian-American lobby. Then in 1997, Halliburton subsidiary Brown & Root bid on a major Caspian project from the Azerbaijan International Operating Company._ (Halliburton 8-11-1997; Bruno and Vallette 2000; Flanders 10-06-2001; Cohn 8-10-2001)
_It successfully lobbied, through the front organization U.S. Engage, against a 1997 bill intended to impose sanctions against foreign governments that persecute religious groups._(Bruno and Vallette 9-2000)
_It supported the overturning of the Massachusetts Burma law that discouraged the state government from awarding contracts to companies doing business in Burma, a country notorious for its repressive government._ Halliburton?s business interests in Burma and their complicity in major human rights violations - including the murder, torture, rape, forced labor and forced relocation of some of Burma?s indigenous populations - was documented in a 2000 report by EarthRights International._ (Bruno and Vallette 9-2000)
Dick Cheney has lobbied heavily to prevent or eliminate federal laws that restrict Halliburton's ability to do business in Nigeria. (Bruno and Vallette 2000; Flanders 10-06-2001)
As the CEO of Halliburton, Dick Cheney lobbied relentlessly against the Iran-Libya Sanction Act of 1995 and tried to secure Halliburton an exemption._ The oil company was very upset that it was being prevented from participating in the development of Iran's offshore oil fields and it wanted to take an active part in the construction of proposed pipelines that would carry Caspian Sea oil to the Persian Gulf._ He argued that the ?the unintended result of our policy toward Iran is to give Russia more leverage over the independent states of central Asia and the Caucusus by blocking export routes toward the south."_ (Bruno and Vallette 2000; Flanders 10-06-2001)
And if Clinton screwed a goat it would be a scandal.... so should I start a thread on that as well?
You should call it what it is, an investigation, not what it could be if some magical hypotheticals happen to work out like you want them to in your head. All you do is show your bias and how you will lie to get others to believe that. You lied about the Halliburton scandal. You cite sources that don't report, but rather spin. Then since their spin isn't harsh enough for you, you have to add even more spin yourself.
I mean look at you thread title. It is just a hypothetical. It would be like me starting a thread called, "Will Dean urinate on his audience?"
I mean if he did, it would be an explosive scandal.
So it is okay to speculate without any proof, or even named actions with regard to wrong doing. Your article doesn't even say what Cheney did to be investigated about, but it could be "explosive."
What a joke...
Nick
^
We're talking about the investigation of a company under Cheney's helm as CEO. A very good question to ask is "Will Cheney be indicted?" not:
I though Shawn was arguing that Cheney did something wrong.
It's obvious that Shawn was arguing that Cheney might have done something wrong at that the word 'notorious' was referring to Halliburton, a company that has been guilty of plenty in the past and deserving of the moniker 'notorious'.
And if Clinton screwed a goat it would be a scandal.... so should I start a thread on that as well?
I mean look at you thread title. It is just a hypothetical. It would be like me starting a thread called, "Will Dean urinate on his audience?"
I mean if he did, it would be an explosive scandal.
What a joke...
Nick
Nick with all due respect. Please refrain from these kinds of statements.
Discussion based on a minimum level of respect is possible and it would not hurt you to have a minimum level of dialogue with Shawn and the others. The problem I keep seeing is that you want to mock Shawn over and over and keep this thread derailed.
Yeah, all those front page stories and nobody has ever heard of them.
I get ~ 3 times more google hits for "Halliburton" than I do for "corn flakes."
Well I'm sure that corn flakes doesn't have one AP story written about it and collect a couple hundred hits from having newspapers add it to their daily paper and hence their websites.
But I get 6 times more google hits for "Jennifer Lopez" so think about how "notorous" she must be.
Likewise look at the first page of returns for halliburton and you will see how it has become a leftist conspiracy chess piece. alternet.org, motherjones, halliburtonhell.blogsplot.com, counterpunch.org, earthrights.org, commondreams.org, truthout.org, and that of course is just the first page.
Quote:
Hmmmm. And this from a man who only invests in real estate. You haven't even started to learn the most basic formulas.
You are funny. You always make these sort of open ended claims of ignorance of others. Meanwhile you never actually make a claim of what it is I do know that is wrong, or what you know that is right. In every financial claim you've made regarding matters, you reveal nothing of your own holdings, and claim me wrong. You even made several claims about me and my holdings that were of course totally wrong.
So keep lying and ducking. As they say, put up or shut up. Post some info and support your claims or stop making them.
As for the rest, I addressed it before. Lobbying isn't notorous. It almost always uses the same sources. And again, why should I give credence to claims like this.
Quote:
Halliburton was accused by local villagers of being involved in the shooting of a protester by Nigeria's Mobile Police Unit._ Dick Cheney has lobbied heavily to prevent or eliminate federal laws that restrict Halliburton's ability to do business in this country. (Bruno and Vallette 2000; Flanders 10-06-2001)
No person named. (It's like Halliburton is a person) accused by local villages? No names, no charges, no courts in any country and they didn't even do the crime, it occured by Nigeria's Mobile Police Unit.
Regardless of how I feel about Halliburton, there are several LARGE leaps of logic in claims like this and I won't make them just because it would be politically convenient.
We're talking about the investigation of a company under Cheney's helm as CEO. A very good question to ask is "Will Cheney be indicted?" not:
"Will Dean urinate on his audience" or
"If Clinton screwed a goat"
Actually no. What we are talking about is an investigation where a judge believes some retrocommisions paid by Haliburton and Technip were bribes. The man named is Jeffry Tesler as being the party that did all this. Yes he worked for Halliburton. However claiming Cheney would be charged because of this is like claiming Clinton would go to jail because of Charlie Trie.
Nick with all due respect. Please refrain from these kinds of statements.
Discussion based on a minimum level of respect is possible and it would not hurt you to have a minimum level of dialogue with Shawn and the others. The problem I keep seeing is that you want to mock Shawn over and over and keep this thread derailed.
It is not cool.
Fellowship
I'll be happy to have you apply the same standard to Shawn, giant, chu and others when they begin the litany of liar remarks, parsing, discrediting the argument because of the source and so on. I'm only mocking Shawn in that I am showing him exactly how he posts. Perhaps you should call him on it when he does it daily.
I'll be happy to have you apply the same standard to Shawn, giant, chu and others when they begin the litany of liar remarks, parsing, discrediting the argument because of the source and so on. I'm only mocking Shawn in that I am showing him exactly how he posts. Perhaps you should call him on it when he does it daily.
Nick
Hey listen, scandal is a good thing to them.
"Bush lied, the CIA lied, Blair lied, Cheney to bribes, your a liar, I'm a liar... wouldn't like to be a liar too"
I have been looking over thread after thread, and see the same thing over and over. Scandal is their currency.
If people are interest in political threads, they should remind that they will met fun threads for them (critic of the other camp), but they also met annoying threads ( critics of people or idears of their own side.)
You can't complain when you met annoying threads, anyway you will post in reaction an onother thread for the opposite side. The rule is simple : adress the thread it self, do not derail it. You will have your revenge in an another thread.
I have been looking over thread after thread, and see the same thing over and over. Scandal is their currency.
That's because you're close minded and partisan. You don't understand that people should get upset when someone ****s them over, even if that person ****ing them over is a politician.
That's because you're close minded and partisan. You don't understand that people should get upset when someone ****s them over, even if that person ****ing them over is a politician.
That's because you're close minded and partisan. You don't understand that people should get upset when someone ****s them over, even if that person ****ing them over is a politician.
I am not a partisan, you could call me a common sense-isan if you like. But I am not a partisan. I think both extremes are just that; extremes. Being such they usually graze the truth now and then, but there natures prevent them from coming to grips with it.
I am not a partisan, you could call me a common sense-isan if you like. But I am not a partisan. I think both extremes are just that; extremes. Being such they usually graze the truth now and then, but there natures prevent them from coming to grips with it.
I think you're being honest, and you really do believe you're a centrist, I just happen to disagree.
I think you're being honest, and you really do believe you're a centrist, I just happen to disagree.
If my views fall right from your far left view only goes to prove i am close to center. If your view of a partisan is anything that falls right of you, 95% or more of american is partisan.
You think I am RIGHT leaning because I defend this president from the viscous attacks by the left. But you see I would do that for you and for any other president. I feel it is a more difficult job that any of us can imagine and deserves our respect and benefit of the doubt.
Comments
Originally posted by giant
So what are you claiming here? That the word 'notorious' didn't exist before this thread, or that Halliburton isn't " Known widely and usually unfavorably; infamous?"
No I am claiming that objective news can be slanted via use of negative adjectives and adverbs.
Here is your grammar lesson for the day.
Giant posted informative newslinks on AppleOutsider while playfully tapping his wife on the nose.
Giant posted notoriously slanderous newslinks on AppleOutsider while violently tapping his wife on the nose.
See how we changed the impression on that giant fellow there? You know this already of course of reaper of strawmen.
I don't see where Shawn mentioned a subcontractor or lack thereof, or even that 'overcharging' referred to any specific instance.
As I cited above, the GAO found numerous instances of overcharging, so, yes, Halliburton has a history of it with or without the still ongoing and unresolved audit regarding fuel sales in Iraq.
But maybe you are talking about something from another thread.
I guess I am giving Shawn more credit for communication than you do. It was clear what he was talking about because he mentioned the "the notorious company that recently caused the President some discomfort about overcharging our government tens of millions of dollars in excess fees."
That would relate to Iraq and the fuel sub-contractor. Unless Shawn wants to claim that he meant 1993 or some other such nonsense and President Clinton as "recent."
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
notoriously
So are you claiming that Halliburton is not "Known widely and usually unfavorably; infamous?"
Seems to be that Halliburton's position in the public mind as a symbol of corporate corruption in government contracts makes the label 'notorious' particularly appropriate.
I guess I am giving Shawn more credit for communication than you do. It was clear what he was talking about because he mentioned the "the notorious company that recently caused the President some discomfort about overcharging our government tens of millions of dollars in excess fees."
Or maybe it's just the fact that I (and likely Shawn as well) am one of the millions of people that is aware that Halliburton is notorious for overcharging our government pretty consistently. Just because you are only aware of one case doesn't mean everyone else has the same limited knowledge.
So since you want to parse things, did it not cause a media fenzy that this discrepancy was uncovered, a discrepancy that fits nicely into the long history of Halliburton's overcharging?
It seems to me you are just looking to pick a fight.
Originally posted by giant
So are you claiming that Halliburton is not "Known widely and usually unfavorably; infamous?"
Seems to be that Halliburton's position in the public mind as a symbol of corporate corruption in government contracts makes the label 'notorious' particularly appropriate.
Or maybe it's just the fact that I (and likely Shawn as well) am one of the millions of people that is aware that Halliburton is notorious for overcharging our government pretty consistently. Just because you are only aware of one case doesn't mean everyone else has the same limited knowledge.
So since you want to parse things, did it not cause a media fenzy that this discrepancy was uncovered, a discrepancy that fits nicely into the long history of Halliburton's overcharging?
It seems to me you are just looking to pick a fight.
I think Halliburton has little if no position in the public mind and certainly had even less so before Cheney became Vice-President. According the company website they operate in 120 countries and employ over 96,000 people. Whenever a company gets that size or deals with that many different countries, someone somewhere is going to be unhappy.
Even your own Halliburton claims are just innuendo. Most of the evil doings involving "lobbying Congress." Last time I checked people that lobbied Congress weren't notorious.
The claims about overcharging often appear to be related to exactly one item instead of the overall job. Even the most recent one wasn't for their overall work. I see plenty of companies taking losses on one project to earn better profits on another. If you go to Circuit City and buy a $40 DVD player, and just happen to pick up a $10 cable to go with it, are they "notorous."
And this from the man who claims all financial dealings are "complex."
Nick
Note that a waiver was signed by the head of the army corps of engineers after the audit started allowing Halliburton to continue buying fuel from Altanmia without disclosing costs.
Also, note that Halliburton refusedto hand over to auditors internal documents relating to the incident.
Originally posted by trumptman
I think Halliburton has little if no position in the public mind and certainly had even less so before Cheney became Vice-President.
Yeah, all those front page stories and nobody has ever heard of them.
I get ~ 3 times more google hits for "Halliburton" than I do for "corn flakes."
And this from the man who claims all financial dealings are "complex."
Hmmmm. And this from a man who only invests in real estate. You haven't even started to learn the most basic formulas.
[trumptman shamelessly defends these crooks]
Let me refer you to my reaction to the claim that Halliburton was out of the big Iraqi contracts after a public uproar back in march:
Originally posted by giant in March 2003
KBR doesn't need the main contract. Not only that, but to say halliburton's out/cheney's out shows an IMMENSE lack of synapse activity.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...n&pagenumber=1
And, for the record, Halliburton now has the largest contract in Iraq. And, no, they did not have to bid.
And apparently this needs posting again:
Iraq:
Quote:
Halliburton approved of the sanctions imposed on Iraq because as Dick Cheney explained, ?One major uncertainty is the potential negative impact on oil prices should Iraq reenter the market.?_ But at the same time, the morally amorphous company managed to work on both sides of the curtain._ Detailed investigative reports by the Financial Times and theInternational Herald Tribune revealed that Halliburton, through two if its subsidiaries, skirted the sanctions on Iraq and did some $23.8 million in business with the ?evil? regime._ The oil services company was paid to rebuild the very same Iraqi infrastructure that its CEO was complicit in destroying as defense secretary under Bush I._ Interestingly, one month prior to the publication of these reports, Mr. Cheney had claimed: ?I had a firm policy that I wouldn't do anything in Iraq, even arrangements that were supposedly legal.?_ Cheney's company did its business in Iraq through European subsidiaries ?to avoid straining relations with Washington and jeopardizing their ties with President Saddam Hussein's government,? (Risen 7-28-2002; Lee 11-13-2000; Bruno and Vallette 9-2000; Flanders 10-06-2001; Cavelli 11-19-2001)
And some of the crimes and fines (bold deals with overcharging and crazy accounting):
Subverting Democratic Values and the Rule of Law - Criminal Activity
Between 1993 and 1994, Halliburton allegedly shipped Israeli goods illegally to Iran several times between 1993 and 1994._ As a result, the_ the Department of Commerce filed charges against the company._ While under the leadership of Dick Cheney, Halliburton agreed to pay a $15,000 fine for the alleged offense, but refused to admit it had violated any laws._ (Bruno and Vallette 2000; Flanders 10-06-2001)
In spite of the passing of the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act in 1995, Halliburton continued to do business with Iran through its multiple subsidiaries - while Cheney was the CEO. (Bruno and Vallette 2000; Flanders 10-06-2001)
Halliburton had extensive investments and contracts in Indonesia. One of its contracts was canceled by the post-Suharto government during a purging of corruptly awarded contracts._ Indonesia Corruption Watch revealed that Kellogg Brown & Root (Halliburton's engineering division) was among 59 companies using collusive, corruptive and nepotistic practices involving former President Suharto's family._ (Bruno and Vallette 2000; Flanders 10-06-2001)
Before Cheney, Halliburton was very active in Libya, making $44.7 million there in 1993._ In 1994, as a result of sanctions on Libya their income dropped to $12.4 million. Ignoring the sanctions, Halliburton did business in Libya throughout Cheney's tenure. A member of Congress accused Halliburton ?of undermining American foreign policy to the full extent allowed by law.? (Athans and Lolordo 8-16-2000; Bruno and Vallette 2000; Flanders 10-06-2001)
A 1997 investigation by the General Accounting Office (GAO) revealed Halliburton has repeatedly overcharged the government for its services._ For example, in one case, Halliburton charged the U.S. government $85.98 per sheet of plywood delivered to a location outside the U.S._ In another instance, the company attempted to bill the Army for the income taxes that its employees were liable for while working in Hungary._ (Chatterjee 5-2-2002a; Gerth and Van Natta 7-14-2002)
In 2000, the GAO discovered that Brown and Root had grossly mismanaged its expenditures at the army's facilities in Kosovo._ For example, contract labor working in the Balkans on the U.S. taxpayers' clock_ were encouraged to work extra hours doing redundant tasks.__ The report explained that at Camp Bondsteel laborers often cleaned offices_ and bathrooms over and over again - up to four times a day._ (Chatterjee 5-2-2002a; Hennessey 5-23-2002)_ Additionally, it revealed that Brown and Root had ordered so much furniture ($5.2 million worth) that the army had great difficulty finding room for it all._ Processing the order alone cost U.S. taxpayers $377,000. (Hennessey 5-23-2002)
The former Brown and Root contract manager, Dammen Grant Campbell, blew the whistle on his ex-employer, revealing that the Halliburton subsidiary had purposefully inflated its invoices by exaggerating the quantity and quality of the supplies its used on government contracts._ In the span of about 4 years, between 1994 and 1998, the company sent the government these fraudulent bills for 224 projects._ (Chatterjee 5-2-2002a)
KBR charged the U.S. Army $750,000 for electrical repairs that had cost them only about $125,000 at a base in California._ Commenting on the incident, A KBR lawyer explained, "The company happened to negotiate a couple of projects we made more money on than others._ On some projects the contractor may make a large or small profit, while on others it may lose money, as KBR sometimes did on this contract."_ (Gerth and Van Natta 7-14-2002)
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is currently investigating Halliburton for possible fraudulent accounting in 1998 and 1999._ The company is accused of booking $100 million in reimbursement income for cost overruns on construction contracts before its customers actually agreed to pay these extra costs._ The New York Times_ reported that according to a former Dresser Industries executive Halliburton claimed the income "to obscure large losses on several important construction contracts."_ Halliburton's auditor, Anderson Accounting, is assumed to have approved of the misleading financial statements._ (Berenson and Bergman 5-22-2002; Harrington and Toedtman 5-30-2002)_ According Halliburton's current CEO, David Lesar, Cheney had been aware the projected cost-overrun payments were being recorded as revenues._ (PRNewswire 7-14-2002) While much of the complacent public seems content that Cheney's former company is not being overlooked by the SEC, more critical observers_are calling attention to the apparent conflict of interest between Harvey Pitt, the current SEC chairman, and the allegations he is charged with investigating._ (Coile 7-1-2002; Fields 7-9-2002)_ Pitt at one time was a top lobbyist and attorney for several major Wall Street brokerage and accounting firms._ Even Al Gore has raised his voice._ In a speech on June 29, he complained: "They picked the principal lawyer and lobbyist for the big five accounting firms who, before coming to the government, went and pleaded with the SEC to open up loopholes for the accounting companies."___(Coile 7-1-2002)_ Another conflict of interest is that the SEC reports to the Vice President._ (Harnden 5-7-2002)
In May of 2003, Halliburton admitted to having paid $2.4 million to an official posing as a tax consultant in exchange for tax concessions from that country. According to Halliburton, the bribes, which took place between 2001 and 2002, did not involve senior company officers. The SEC is investigating the issue and Halliburton may ultimately be liable for some $5 million in back taxes in Nigeria. [Guardian, 5/9/03; Houston Chronicle,5/8/03]
Disregard for Human Rights.
Halliburton was accused by local villagers of being involved in the shooting of a protester by Nigeria's Mobile Police Unit._ Dick Cheney has lobbied heavily to prevent or eliminate federal laws that restrict Halliburton's ability to do business in this country. (Bruno and Vallette 2000; Flanders 10-06-2001)
Halliburton did a significant amount of business with the notorious regime in Burma. An investigation by EarthRights International in 2000 documented Halliburton's complicity in major human rights violations - including the murder, torture, rape, forced labor and forced relocation of some of Burma?s indigenous populations._ (Bruno and Vallette 9-2000)
And the lobbying:
Halliburton lobbied Congress to lift sanctions on countries with which it sought to do business.
Even though the nation?s leaders and their friends in the executive suites of the world?s largest multinational corporations blissfully hail the wonders of ?free trade,? all available evidence indicates that one of the real forces behind corporate success is the ability to manipulate the conditions within which the so-called ?free market? operates._ In the case of Halliburton, this reoccurring theme is particularly acute._ While Halliburton opposed the the use of sanctions on some countries, it simultaneously supported imposing sanctions on other countries - depending of course on how the sanctions would effect Halliburton._ This policy of inconsistency demonstrates that the so-called principles of 'free trade' are applied only when it is profitable to do so.
Between 1995 and 2000, Halliburton, under the leadership of former secretary of defense and current Vice President Dick Cheney, successfully lobbied against the imposition of international sanctions against countries with which it wanted to do business._ In most cases these countries were being sanctioned because of serious human rights abuses._ Halliburton, along with a few other companies, attempted to argue that the best way to discourage the violations of human rights was to do business with them, or as they explained it ? ?engage.?_ Here are a few examples of cases where they successfully undermined sanctions.
Dick Cheney lobbied to lift sanctions against aid to Azerbaijan that were mandated under section 907 of the 1992 Freedom Support Act._ The sanctions were imposed because of concerns about the ethnic cleansing of the Abkhazis._ Cheney claimed the sanctions were the result only of groundless campaigning by the Armenian-American lobby. Then in 1997, Halliburton subsidiary Brown & Root bid on a major Caspian project from the Azerbaijan International Operating Company._ (Halliburton 8-11-1997; Bruno and Vallette 2000; Flanders 10-06-2001; Cohn 8-10-2001)
_It successfully lobbied, through the front organization U.S. Engage, against a 1997 bill intended to impose sanctions against foreign governments that persecute religious groups._(Bruno and Vallette 9-2000)
_It supported the overturning of the Massachusetts Burma law that discouraged the state government from awarding contracts to companies doing business in Burma, a country notorious for its repressive government._ Halliburton?s business interests in Burma and their complicity in major human rights violations - including the murder, torture, rape, forced labor and forced relocation of some of Burma?s indigenous populations - was documented in a 2000 report by EarthRights International._ (Bruno and Vallette 9-2000)
Dick Cheney has lobbied heavily to prevent or eliminate federal laws that restrict Halliburton's ability to do business in Nigeria. (Bruno and Vallette 2000; Flanders 10-06-2001)
As the CEO of Halliburton, Dick Cheney lobbied relentlessly against the Iran-Libya Sanction Act of 1995 and tried to secure Halliburton an exemption._ The oil company was very upset that it was being prevented from participating in the development of Iran's offshore oil fields and it wanted to take an active part in the construction of proposed pipelines that would carry Caspian Sea oil to the Persian Gulf._ He argued that the ?the unintended result of our policy toward Iran is to give Russia more leverage over the independent states of central Asia and the Caucusus by blocking export routes toward the south."_ (Bruno and Vallette 2000; Flanders 10-06-2001)
All this just from the CCR page where you can get more info on the company, including descriptions of the huge contracts: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/c...lliburton.html
Originally posted by trumptman
And if Clinton screwed a goat it would be a scandal.... so should I start a thread on that as well?
You should call it what it is, an investigation, not what it could be if some magical hypotheticals happen to work out like you want them to in your head. All you do is show your bias and how you will lie to get others to believe that. You lied about the Halliburton scandal. You cite sources that don't report, but rather spin. Then since their spin isn't harsh enough for you, you have to add even more spin yourself.
I mean look at you thread title. It is just a hypothetical. It would be like me starting a thread called, "Will Dean urinate on his audience?"
I mean if he did, it would be an explosive scandal.
So it is okay to speculate without any proof, or even named actions with regard to wrong doing. Your article doesn't even say what Cheney did to be investigated about, but it could be "explosive."
What a joke...
Nick
^
We're talking about the investigation of a company under Cheney's helm as CEO. A very good question to ask is "Will Cheney be indicted?" not:
"Will Dean urinate on his audience" or
"If Clinton screwed a goat"
Originally posted by trumptman
I though Shawn was arguing that Cheney did something wrong.
It's obvious that Shawn was arguing that Cheney might have done something wrong at that the word 'notorious' was referring to Halliburton, a company that has been guilty of plenty in the past and deserving of the moniker 'notorious'.
Originally posted by trumptman
And if Clinton screwed a goat it would be a scandal.... so should I start a thread on that as well?
I mean look at you thread title. It is just a hypothetical. It would be like me starting a thread called, "Will Dean urinate on his audience?"
I mean if he did, it would be an explosive scandal.
What a joke...
Nick
Nick with all due respect. Please refrain from these kinds of statements.
Discussion based on a minimum level of respect is possible and it would not hurt you to have a minimum level of dialogue with Shawn and the others. The problem I keep seeing is that you want to mock Shawn over and over and keep this thread derailed.
It is not cool.
Fellowship
Originally posted by giant
Yeah, all those front page stories and nobody has ever heard of them.
I get ~ 3 times more google hits for "Halliburton" than I do for "corn flakes."
Well I'm sure that corn flakes doesn't have one AP story written about it and collect a couple hundred hits from having newspapers add it to their daily paper and hence their websites.
But I get 6 times more google hits for "Jennifer Lopez" so think about how "notorous" she must be.
Likewise look at the first page of returns for halliburton and you will see how it has become a leftist conspiracy chess piece. alternet.org, motherjones, halliburtonhell.blogsplot.com, counterpunch.org, earthrights.org, commondreams.org, truthout.org, and that of course is just the first page.
Hmmmm. And this from a man who only invests in real estate. You haven't even started to learn the most basic formulas.
You are funny. You always make these sort of open ended claims of ignorance of others. Meanwhile you never actually make a claim of what it is I do know that is wrong, or what you know that is right. In every financial claim you've made regarding matters, you reveal nothing of your own holdings, and claim me wrong. You even made several claims about me and my holdings that were of course totally wrong.
So keep lying and ducking. As they say, put up or shut up. Post some info and support your claims or stop making them.
As for the rest, I addressed it before. Lobbying isn't notorous. It almost always uses the same sources. And again, why should I give credence to claims like this.
Halliburton was accused by local villagers of being involved in the shooting of a protester by Nigeria's Mobile Police Unit._ Dick Cheney has lobbied heavily to prevent or eliminate federal laws that restrict Halliburton's ability to do business in this country. (Bruno and Vallette 2000; Flanders 10-06-2001)
No person named. (It's like Halliburton is a person) accused by local villages? No names, no charges, no courts in any country and they didn't even do the crime, it occured by Nigeria's Mobile Police Unit.
Regardless of how I feel about Halliburton, there are several LARGE leaps of logic in claims like this and I won't make them just because it would be politically convenient.
Nick
Originally posted by ShawnJ
^
We're talking about the investigation of a company under Cheney's helm as CEO. A very good question to ask is "Will Cheney be indicted?" not:
"Will Dean urinate on his audience" or
"If Clinton screwed a goat"
Actually no. What we are talking about is an investigation where a judge believes some retrocommisions paid by Haliburton and Technip were bribes. The man named is Jeffry Tesler as being the party that did all this. Yes he worked for Halliburton. However claiming Cheney would be charged because of this is like claiming Clinton would go to jail because of Charlie Trie.
Nick
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Nick with all due respect. Please refrain from these kinds of statements.
Discussion based on a minimum level of respect is possible and it would not hurt you to have a minimum level of dialogue with Shawn and the others. The problem I keep seeing is that you want to mock Shawn over and over and keep this thread derailed.
It is not cool.
Fellowship
I'll be happy to have you apply the same standard to Shawn, giant, chu and others when they begin the litany of liar remarks, parsing, discrediting the argument because of the source and so on. I'm only mocking Shawn in that I am showing him exactly how he posts. Perhaps you should call him on it when he does it daily.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I'll be happy to have you apply the same standard to Shawn, giant, chu and others when they begin the litany of liar remarks, parsing, discrediting the argument because of the source and so on. I'm only mocking Shawn in that I am showing him exactly how he posts. Perhaps you should call him on it when he does it daily.
Nick
Hey listen, scandal is a good thing to them.
"Bush lied, the CIA lied, Blair lied, Cheney to bribes, your a liar, I'm a liar... wouldn't like to be a liar too"
I have been looking over thread after thread, and see the same thing over and over. Scandal is their currency.
You can't complain when you met annoying threads, anyway you will post in reaction an onother thread for the opposite side. The rule is simple : adress the thread it self, do not derail it. You will have your revenge in an another thread.
hehe... love that word.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I have been looking over thread after thread, and see the same thing over and over. Scandal is their currency.
That's because you're close minded and partisan. You don't understand that people should get upset when someone ****s them over, even if that person ****ing them over is a politician.
Originally posted by bunge
That's because you're close minded and partisan. You don't understand that people should get upset when someone ****s them over, even if that person ****ing them over is a politician.
Care to share?
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Care to share?
I'm sharing some lovely stories in the 'public restroom' thread.
Originally posted by bunge
That's because you're close minded and partisan. You don't understand that people should get upset when someone ****s them over, even if that person ****ing them over is a politician.
I am not a partisan, you could call me a common sense-isan if you like. But I am not a partisan. I think both extremes are just that; extremes. Being such they usually graze the truth now and then, but there natures prevent them from coming to grips with it.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I am not a partisan, you could call me a common sense-isan if you like. But I am not a partisan. I think both extremes are just that; extremes. Being such they usually graze the truth now and then, but there natures prevent them from coming to grips with it.
I think you're being honest, and you really do believe you're a centrist, I just happen to disagree.
Originally posted by bunge
I think you're being honest, and you really do believe you're a centrist, I just happen to disagree.
If my views fall right from your far left view only goes to prove i am close to center. If your view of a partisan is anything that falls right of you, 95% or more of american is partisan.
You think I am RIGHT leaning because I defend this president from the viscous attacks by the left. But you see I would do that for you and for any other president. I feel it is a more difficult job that any of us can imagine and deserves our respect and benefit of the doubt.