Arizwx wrote:David,
I repect your concerns for keeping Corporate America honest.. I am too.
Howver..first the swipe at Cheney(cleverly disguised within the Haliburton connection) with regard to War 'Profiteering' and now you alledge..cleverly once agian via Haliburton..that they supplied Libya with Oil Drilling equipment that 'could' be used to detonate a ThermoNuke?
What is your agenda?Be direct.
Is it your contention that Cheney has sold out this nation?Put is at risk?Knowingly?That is serious David.
Moreover..please explain why you believe he would do this.I am very interested.Once again,your allegations,cleverly disguised or not are VERY serious.
peace
david
[/quote]
the charges against halliburton for dealings with libya are not allegations, the plead guilty to them and paid a heavy fine, under cheneys watch.
judicial watch, most certainly NOT a liberal group (the go after republicans and democrats fairly equally) has suits against them for misdoings under cheney.
what this all comes down to is that any government dealings with halliburton given their history and relationship with VP cheney must be watched extremely carefully.
they have shown in the past that they will do anything for a profit, including breaking the law and dealing with outlaw countries. which goes back to my orignal post.
my agenda is this given halliburtons history should the government be giving them no bid contracts ? they have shown many times that they cannot be trusted to do whats right, so why should they be trusted not to "pad" their costs.
as far as VP cheney goes, the charges against them in dealing with libya, were before he came on board as CEO in 1995 so he was NOT a part of that misdealings. but the accounting misdeeds came under his watch.
also and i quote from the above article " SEC had begun a probe into the company's booking of cost overruns on energy-related construction jobs. This practice accounted for the overruns as revenue, even if customers had not yet approved the charges, and inflated Halliburton profits by almost $100 million in 1998. "
that is an enron like charge, not surprising considering that halliburtons accounting firm was arthur anderson.
it goes back to the fact that halliburton is not a company to be trusted with no bid contracts.
and i forgot who said it earlier, but it was said that it takes 3-4 months for a bid to go thru. the white house could have easily asked for bids for potential work in iraq in case of war as far back as october, but they chose not to.
while i dont think VP cheney is profiting personally from dealings with halliburton at this time (i believe he divested himself when he was elected)
there is definately a politcal connection between halliburton and the white house.
peace
david