No matter how much the Republicans stonewall on this, there is an American interest far more relevant than that of the “Whitewater” investigation. Given that the bar has already been set previously by the GOP for the threshhold level necessary to commence an independent investigation, I cannot possibly see the reason for delaying on an independent investigation now.
If the American people can spend time on spunk-covered dresses, surely we can find out how the U.S. troops are being sold out by a bribe-crazy, over-charging, crony-capitalist company like Halliburton. Now, if Halliburton is doing nothing wrong, we can also find that out … but it is important given the Halliburton connections right up to the top levels of the Bush administration, that we get an independent look at this.
The American people deserve an impartial examination of the controversy.
Well, we’ll need to find a Ken Starralike who can use his skills to get everything right on down to Neil Bush’s bifurcated… uh, I mean somebody who’s able to get into this investigation like a tick on a dog.
What the hell? You make an allegation and I have to supply evidence that supports and contradicts your theory or allegation? No, I do not. You made an allegation and one that you cannot prove. When I make allegations, I can generally prove them that is why I make them and if I cannot I am challenged. Neither you nor MFGR have posted anything here that proves anything. Until you do, your issue remains unproved and I wonder why the media is so eager to print these allegations and none of the defenses of Halliburton. Strange huh? Wonder why that is? In the meantime, nothing that either you or MFGR says will change the fact that we have a court system that works. It did for Enron, Worldcom, Tyco and Arthur Andersen, all Clinton Era scandals and I am sure that it will work for Halliburton. But until the courts prove anything, I suggest you cool your heels and remember what it takes for a lawyer to make a good case and hysterical denunciations ain’t a part of that deal.
Clearly Fred’s standard line is that no investigation should ever be conducted against a Republican or a Republican-crony company unless the case is already proven. In his view, Republicans can commit murder, bank robbery, etc. and should never even be investigated for it unless the charges are already “proven”. Meanwhile, he clearly believes a hypocritical standard should be applied to Democrats.
That’s why a full independent investigation needs to be conducted into the Halliburton fiasco as soon as possible – and the investigators need to be given the fullest possible discretion to ensure that they can depose and question top members of the Bush administration.
As usual, the old tried but true lying exaggerating bull because you cannot prove your point. I wonder why if Tyco, Worldcom, Enron and Arthur Andersen all managed to get tried under our present court system, why Halliburton should face such an independent investigation. An investigation is ongoing and all you little schemers and screamers are frustrated because you cannot prove that Halliburton did anything wrong. This is why you continue to shift and ask for new demands when your old ones have been met. You are not interested in the TRUTH you are only interested in finding a way to shame Cheney, the White House, etc. and this has nothing to do with Halliburton. If you really cared about corporate honesty and decency, you would be screaming like hell about the abuses that occurred during the Clinton administration. Only Republicans however can have corporate scandals, just as the homeless and welfare mothers not getting enough to eat etc. are only concerns during Republican administrations because we all know that Democrats cannot be corrupt and that only Democrats despite the best evidence to the contrary really care about what happens to the poor. The fact that most democrats control all the union levers, the educational institutions etc. is a moot point. We er they need more money for us and for the betterment of our country. right um hmmmm so squeal on and on and on because it is apparent to all of us that your frustration and anger stem from your lack of proof. Well, where is it this proof that you have? You dont have any and denial aint a river in Egypt MFGR it aint a river in egypt hahahahahahahahaha
I’ve never argued with you Fred, because you don’t argue but filibuster to what ends I’m never too sure because this is an internet forum a space that no matter how long you rant for you can never fill.
However, Halliburton declaring a low profit in no way shape or form vindicates Halliburton. It’s just poor conceptualization on your part.
I never said it was proof that Halliburton was not guilty. I was asking why the other side of the story is buried on page 11 in the same newspapers that print allegations of abuse on the front page. When something like this indicates that Halliburton is not making money then that should be posted as continuing information necessary to an informed debate about an issue that has been made prominent by the media and one that should be balanced. That WAS my point. So when anyone else proves that Halliburton is guilty I am sure that I will be just as eager to see them punished. Are you as quck Foxie to point to all the allegations being strewn around on this forum as to date being UNPROVED as well? That is what so many of these lefties fail to understand, proof not how anyone feels about it is how justice is served.
You can’t tempt me into your deadly web. However, I will point out to you some fundamental arguments about monopoly and agency behavior and leave you to draw your own conclusions.
On a security level I think it is completly reasonable to have a single company providing a lot of the logistic services to the military. The reasons being fairly obvious. If you have many companies you risk security. How to gear up a number of companies to serve the military and to do the job seemlessly would be a management nightmare in a conflict situation.You can probably think of a miriad examples to back why one would choose to have a single nobid contract given the nature of military supply.
That then leads to the question of why one should have a company provide the services at all. Basic economics tells you that this is a classic situation where the social good is served by having the government provide the service. The primary reason being that the logistics almost must be served by a monopoly contractor. However, monopoly contractors make monopoly profits or super profits. They can fix price and in the case of Halliburton they may well be the only available supplier so they can behave strategically to reduce cost to themselves. This means that they can squeeze even more tax payers dollars out of the government. It is an obligation of the government to create an economic environment where monopoly profits don’t exist, so that these profits form a social good.
Normally, if one wanted to privatize an industry it is to increase the public good from that industry. Typically speaking companies would behave competitively to reduce price and decrease costs. In the case of Halliburton given the nature of its business it is difficult to see how and why they would behave this way. It would be more prudent to assume they are ripping you off blind than to believe otherwise. I guess that’s why you don’t hear so many commentators putting their hands up to voice their sympathy for the plight of poor old Halliburton.
I dont really care about all that. I am asking for proof that Halliburton is guilty and I want to know why this company cannot be tried or investigated in the same way that Worldcom, Enron and others of the Clinton corruption were. Second, I want to know why any evidence mitigating Halliburtons guilt is buried on page 11 while the unproved allegations are front page material. That is what I want to know. All the rest of this stuff is irrelevant to me.
I dont really care about all that. I am asking for proof that Halliburton is guilty and I want to know why this company cannot be tried or investigated in the same way that Worldcom, Enron and others of the Clinton corruption were. Second, I want to know why any evidence mitigating Halliburtons guilt is buried on page 11 while the unproved allegations are front page material. That is what I want to know. All the rest of this stuff is irrelevant to me.
That’s why you don’t even understand your own point Fred. It doesn’t mitigate their guilt. If that is even the correct expression. They are a monopoly contractor so they will behave in such a way as to show minimal profits. Its on page 11 because every man and his dog knows that already.
The question you should be asking is if the government were to do the services itself could they do it better and cheaper?
Peoples angst arises because it was when Cheaney was Secretary of Defense that he layed the ground work for privitization of these military services. He then quite understandably ended up as CEO of the one firm in America that could provide the services he as an unelected offical had created.
Its simply a question of public good Fred? Is Halliburton in a postion to provide better service than if the government were to do that business itself. If not why has that kind of business evolved? Who benefits? If the people of the US aren’t benefiting because Halliburton is a monopoly then who?
Mein Gott, Fred, they are just as bad as the dirty, rotten French. what traitors! They should be shot.
[quote]
Iran: Indeed, Halliburton has said it does about $30 million to $40 million in oilfield service business in Iran annually through a subsidiary, Halliburton Products and Services Ltd. The company says that the subsidiary fully complies with US sanctions laws, but the matter currently is under investigation by a federal grand jury in Houston.[/quote]
Iran? Hey, aren’t those the same guys you’ve been yearning to go in with another shock and awe campaign, the one you’re so gung-ho about, you’d enlist yourself? What next, selling services to Kim Jong Il?
By the way, and to be fair,
[quote]
Stock Options
That still would leave the possibility that Cheney could profit from his Halliburton stock options if the company’s stock rises in value. However, Cheney and his wife Lynne have assigned any future profits from their stock options in Halliburton and several other companies to charity. And we’re not just taking the Cheney’s word for this – we asked for a copy of the legal agreement they signed, which we post here publicly for the first time.
The “Gift Trust Agreement” the Cheney’s signed two days before he took office turns over power of attorney to a trust administrator to sell the options at some future time and to give the after-tax profits to three charities. The agreement specifies that 40% will go to the University of Wyoming (Cheney’s home state), 40% will go to George Washington University’s medical faculty to be used for tax-exempt charitable purposes, and 20% will go to Capital Partners for Education , a charity that provides financial aid for low-income students in Washington, DC to attend private and religious schools.[/quote]
Fox thinks the Halliburton ‘good news’ shows up on page 11 or so because everybody already knows Halliburton has a too-sweet deal in Iraq. The deal is so obviously too-sweet that it will take more than news of ‘low profits’ to vindicate Halliburton enough to cause demand for such news to appear on page 1, no matter how much help the Heritage Foundation throws its way. In other words, he thinks the media’s treatment of ‘low profits’ reflects Halliburton’s current reputation.
fred smith, otoh, thinks that any bad rap Halliburton has is caused by the media. Your opinions are exactly converse.
I think the verdict is at hand, too. Interesting story in today’s (16-Nov-04) edition of the Wall Street Journal ranking America’s ‘most respected’ companies; well, the 60 largest corporations anyway.
Halliburton finished at #58, just ahead of #59 MCI (WorldCom) and #60 Enron. The WSJ hardly surveyed the riff raff, either; their readership demography usually fits well within that of the top income decile of the US. WSJ readers are a pretty financially-savvy lot.
It might be time, fred, to adjust your thinking and allow for the possiblity that everybody but you thinks the KBR deal stinks.
Good. Then, I will wait eagerly for Halliburton to be prosecuted and fined just as Clinton era fiascos like Worldcom, Enron et all were. When the proof is out, I am sure the company will get penalized. I mean you all do have proof dont you. Anyone? I mean you must have something.
Fair enough JB. Did not know about the Iraq and Libya nor the Iran thing. I do not approve and I am glad this company was fined and penalized for that. To be fair though when has the French government ever penalized a company for such illicit activities? Usually, they have the governments blessing and can deduct bribes from their taxes. AND why is it that after all these years, the only two members that ban bribes of any kind by any of their companies or nationals are the US and UK. Where is France and where is Germany on this? Some morality. Some international law. Some not breaking international norms. When the hell will Germany and France ratify these antibribery laws.
Fred, you’re missing the point. Halliburton is American. Cheney worked at Halliburton. Cheney is the Anti-Christ. Therefore Halliburton is the tool of the Anti-Christ.
[quote=“fred smith”]Good. Then, I will wait eagerly for Halliburton to be prosecuted and fined just as Clinton era fiascos like Worldcom, Enron et all were. When the proof is out, I am sure the company will get penalized. I mean you all do have proof dont you. Anyone? I mean you must have something.
Fair enough JB. Did not know about the Iraq and Libya nor the Iran thing. I do not approve and I am glad this company was fined and penalized for that. To be fair though when has the French government ever penalized a company for such illicit activities? Usually, they have the governments blessing and can deduct bribes from their taxes. AND why is it that after all these years, the only two members that ban bribes of any kind by any of their companies or nationals are the US and UK. Where is France and where is Germany on this? Some morality. Some international law. Some not breaking international norms. When the hell will Germany and France ratify these antibribery laws.[/quote]
Again, by your comments, you either conveniently change the subject or intimate that I criticize US while defending Germany and France. This is not the case.
I just think that for a long time now, you’ve been minimizing any US company participation in these countries such as Iran, and yet, a large US defense contractor, with close ties to the govenment, to the Army, has been doing business with an ENEMY of the US. This is IRAN we’re talking about, one of the purported AXIS of EVIL.
Now I don’t expect nor ask that you retract all previous opinions and stubborn, adamant statements, but I do expect that you would be a little more careful with your sweeping statements, black-and-white kaleidescope vision, and a look-at-them, don’t-criticize-us cavalier attitude.
