Where’s The There?
Tweet
The NY Times, in a page one story someone on staff apparently leaked to Matt Drudge (wonder why that is?) seems to be following the John Solomon/AP/Washington Post pattern in breathlessly reporting things about Democratic candidates that would seem to hint at impropriety but see none. First John Edwards, then Hillary Clinton, now Barack Obama.
Less than two months after ascending to the United States Senate, Barack Obama bought more than $50,000 worth of stock in two speculative companies whose major investors included some of his biggest political donors.
–
A spokesman for Mr. Obama, who is seeking his party’s presidential nomination in 2008, said yesterday that the senator did not know that he had invested in either company until fall 2005, when he learned of it and decided to sell the stocks. He sold them at a net loss of $13,000.
The spokesman, Bill Burton, said Mr. Obama’s broker bought the stocks without consulting the senator, under the terms of a blind trust that was being set up for the senator at that time but was not finalized until several months after the investments were made.
So apparently his blind trust bought some stock, then sold it when there was a possible conflict of interest… and he lost money. Is nothing else happening in the world why the team of the NY Times/Drudge decided that they should push this story?
I mean, besides the fact that he’s got the nerve to run for president and have a (D) after his name.
108 Responses to “Where’s The There?”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
That whooshing noise you hear is great irony bird passing by. He’s wondering about Cheney and Halliburton which you have consistently gone bonkers over and yet absolutely zero wrong doing re the Veep has been shown. However, Cheney is the “epitome of evil” and Obama is a naive little Candide fawn in the corporate forest.
…you’re joking, right? If there’s any irony here its that major media pays so much attention to the non-controversies on the Democratic side and not near enough to the very legitimate problems with, as you say, the Cheney-Burton connection. Halliburton has consistantly failed to provide the services they insist they will, not even being able to keep track of the money we give them, overbilling the US Govt, underpaying their employees, inflating their invoices, and causing more harm than good in general and in Iraq specifically. In any kind of sane business model the “CEO President” would have terminated any contract with a company like that years ago, and yet they keep getting no-bid contracts to solve problems they’ve shown themselves time and time again to be incapable of. Youre saying this would have happened even if Cheney weren’t VP?
LOOK BEHIND YOU A THREE HEADED MONKEY
*grabs rootbeer seltzer gun* Where!?!
Dugger, a few facts to consider:
1) Amount of money – Obama: $50,000 investment; 433 thousand in unexercised stock options ($31.65 price) = $13 million; $500k-$1 million in deferred compensation; $15k / year in 401(k).
2) Nature of Ownership – Obama: blind trust, passive investor; Cheney: former CEO, which indicates control in the eyes of the law.
3) Corrective Action: Obama: directed the trust to sell the stock for a $13,000 loss to remove the appearance of a conflict of interest; Cheney: deny that he has an ongoing interest in the company.
You are fine to try to play a moral equivalence game, but as you can see above, there is no comparison.
Doesn’t Dugger get tired of seeing his underpants at the top of the flagpole every time he runs into some facts?
Conservatives conned people into thinking Gore said he invented the internet. They’re conning people into thinking Gore’s a global warming hypocrite. They’re conning people into thinking Hillary gave a speech in a fake accent. So why not try to con people into thinking Obama’s corrupt? It’s simply what they do.
Also, Dugger’s metaphors are weird as shit. “The great irony bird”? “Candide fawn in the corporate forest”?
I guess we just have to chalk it up to rabies again.
“Candide fawn in the corporate forest” sounds like a Yes song.
Rex
You are aware that Cheney placed his shares in a blind trust, right? I mean you didn’t mention that for Cheney and you did for Obama. Oversight?
And an ex CEO ‘in the eyes of the law’ has what????? He has no say so in Halliburton due to his former CEO status. What did you mean?
Rex,
You are aware that Cheney placed his shares in a blind trust, right? I mean you didn’t mention that for Cheney and you did for Obama. Oversight?
I didnt actually mention that for either. My point was that the media will play up the lesser thing and ignore the greater, largely due, it would seem, to monetary interests. They go after Obama and not Halliburton because Halliburton’s got a lot of money. Same way Martha Stewart’s stock nonsense was given equivalence to Tycho, Global Crossing, Worldcom, Adelphia and all the other second teir corporate shareholder-scammers. (Granted, Enron got billing over Martha, but it stood alone in its achievement) Obama’s “scandal” is as relevant as a mosquito’s fart, and yet it gets page time where any investigation into Halliburton doesnt.
And an ex CEO ‘in the eyes of the law’ has what????? He has no say so in Halliburton due to his former CEO status. What did you mean?
Good point. Cheney is no longer CEO of Halliburton. And if the blind trust angle is to be believed, there is no reason for him to, for instance, influence the Govt’s will to contract one company over another. However, the question then must be asked, given Halliburton’s manifest failure to live up to their end of govt contracts, the damage theyve caused and the inflated prices they charge, why would the Govt continue to trust them implicitly with no-bid contracts to complete tasks they show no signs they could ever complete, for money they refuse to keep track of?
The way I see it, theres basically two possibilities: One is that the minds behind making that decision are not simply incompetant, but self-destructive, and see failure as a wonderful area to invest taxpayer dollars. The alternative, which is more likely, is that this counterproductive decision was influenced in no small part by someone who would stand to gain from Halliburton getting masssive contracts, and the most likely candidate is Cheney. I dont know what the connection is, and I could speculate, but I dont really need to know what the connection is to know that there must be one, the same way I dont need to know, on a microscopic level, how my stomach digests food in order to know that it does.
Maybe there is a legitimate reason for the Govt to keep using Halliburton in spite of its countless failures. Hell, maybe my hatred for the man is blinding me to it. I put it to you then Dugg, what would be a good reason for the Govt to keep paying Halliburton in spite of their myriad fuckups that doesnt suggest moneyed influence from anyone?
To all the pro-torture voters on this blog (Dugger, Jay, JWG, Pedro, Frank etc): science is finding that Bush’s favorite torture methods (sleep deprivation, stress positions, sensory deprivation) are just as bad psychologically as “having teeth pulled out, being burned, or being electrocuted.” And that doesn’t even take into account waterboarding, which Bush is too timid to defend or acknowledge. You can read about it here:
http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/64/3/277
The way I see it, theres basically two possibilities
The way I see it, there are many more possibilities.
But, of course, your imagination is limited by your ideological perspective.
In your world, all bad things are caused by one of two things: the evil of Pres. Bush, or the incompetence of Pres. Bush.
Dr. Anatole Gavage-Huskanoy: I only approve of the torture of liberals, which occurs every time Ann Coulter speaks.
The way I see it, there are many more possibilities.
Nice of you to enlighten us as to what these possibilities are that explain the problem, instead of calling me an ideologically blind incompetant for having a legitimate question.
Eat dick, Frank.
God damn it feels good to get back into the old routines, doesnt it?
Dugger, further clarification because you should know more than you do (or learn it.)
Dick Cheney’s deferred compensation is not in a blind trust. It is an unsecured obligation of the company to pay him money until he dies. It is held on the books as a liability. It cannot be held in an employee trust or else it would violate certain participation rules under section 401(a) of the IRC. As such, if Halliburton were to go out of business or to fall into financial trouble, this compensation could go away. That is but one of the reasons why the VEEP has an interest in the success of the company.
Second issue, Regulation D of the Securities Act of 1933 classifies any person as an affiliate who has any kind of controls over a security issuer. Current CEOs and other officers, current shareholders of greater than 5-10% are always considered affiliates. Former CEOs who own shares and stock options and who happen to happen to advocate for no-bid contracts with their former employers would also be considered affiliates “in the eyes of the law.”
There is simply no similarity, no moral equivalence between Cheney’s dastardly deeds and Obama’s stock purchase. Obama’s news is not news and should not have been brought up in respectable newspapers. If you weren’t such an ideological partisan, you’d see that as well.
science is finding that Bush’s favorite torture methods (sleep deprivation, stress positions, sensory deprivation) are just as bad psychologically as “having teeth pulled out, being burned, or being electrocuted.
Tell me about it Gavage!
I was a surgical intern… 36 hours on/12 off (if lucky), holding retractors for hours in stress positions in a dark room…it sucks.
but of course, burning to death on the high floors of a skyscraper is somewhat uncomfortable, as is being blown up by IED/s.
So I guess, EVERYONE is going to be a little uncomfortable when you decide to get into a fight eh?
A total non-response from Pedro. Typical.
Poor pedromd07. I can’t imagine the horror of being arrested with minimal cause, tossed into a dark room, and then forced to perform as a surgical intern for 36 hours.
That is what happened, right? That’s the equivalency that’s being implied.
Right, Rex… You say, “Eat dick,” and I chuckle at your immaturity.
Yes, same ol’, same ol’.
For a serious answer, you should ask a serious question.
My question, repeated here again for your benefit, is as follows: Given that Halliburton is failing to fulfill they’re obligations, not keeping track of our money, and overcharging us at that, why on earth would the US Govt be unwilling to consider hiring another company to do the job they cant? What sensible reason is there beyond the decision being influenced by someone who desires one outcome over another?
Now I would ask how that’s not a serious question, but I’m willing to bet you wouldnt be able to honestly answer that either, it would get in the way of you calling me names for being so immature.
Sonofabitch… First line “they’re” should read “their.” Goddam English degree failing me like that.
Also, eat dick, Frank.
First of all rex, please demonstrate that there was any other corporation out there that was willing and ABLE to do the job halliburton is doing.
Second of all, how long after Cheney leaves Halliburton is he going to be responsible for all of its actions going forward?
This is a tired leftist recording…
I have been anti-torture in all of my comments — always — here and on other blogs.
If you want to accuse me of de facto supporting torture if I vote for a candidate who condones certain techniques, then you’re opening up a messy can of worms for anyone who doesn’t support 100% of a candidate’s positions.
Maybe I should institute “DiSalle’s Law” — when you say, “Eat dick,” our interchanges come to an end. But I won’t do it ex post facto, so here’s your answer. (Which has been explained by Dugger on this site at least 5 times)
Halliburton benefits from being one of the few companies that can perform a large amount of required tasks. This cuts down on administrative costs. There is a provision in government purchasing and contracting which allows the government to forego the bidding process when appropriate. Regardless of whether Halliburton’s overruns are deliberate or accidental, if it were possible to obtain the same services for a lower amount, the potential lower bidder would be screaming his ass off by now.
Your assumptions do indicate a lack of imagination, unfortunately. Were I to think like you, I might say, “Either you lack imagination or knowledge.”
But I don’t think like you, thank God.
So the reason why we keep letting them over charge us to do a job they cant do, is because they’re the only ones who can do the job at a fair price?
Um… isnt that like an abused wife staying with her husband because he’s the only one who can keep her safe?
You want another company Pedro? I’ll concede I hadn’t heard of Schlumberger Limited before doing a Google search, but all it took was one to find them. “Schlumberger is the leading oilfield services provider, trusted to deliver superior results and improved E&P performance for oil and gas companies around the world.” They’re clearly in the same field, and Yahoo Finance has them operating at roughly the same scope as Halliburton. I dont know if they’ve made an offer, but then with the No-Bid contracts, I dont know that they even had or will have the chance to. And so we keep giving more and more money to Halliburton so they can do less and less. Lovely.
Also Frank, I’d reconsider “DiSalle’s Law,” since I’m reading it as “If you say the secret word I’ll stop talking to you” which few people, I would think, would interpret as a negative. However, let us establish a corrolary then, since we’re writing rules for how others should behave in order to placate our egos.
The Mundane Law – Calling someone “immature” or “stupid” or whatever for the crime of having a legitimate question without even addressing much less answering the question itself means everyone gets the right to talk to you however the hell they feel like, and you forfeit any right to complain contribute to the discussion thereafter. So Sayeth the Rex.
JWG, I concede that you are not necessarily a pro-torture blog commenter. You are simply a pro-torture voter.
Halliburton benefits from being one of the few companies that can perform a large amount of required tasks.
Or not.
Well, this thread certainly went downhill quickly.
From OW’s observation that the NYT gives crime-of-the-month coverage to Mr. Obama’s routine personal financial matters, we’ve devloved to:
A discussion of Mr. Cheney and his compensation from his former company,
pedro’s ruminations about torture and his surgical training,
and assorted name-calling and insults.
So I take it we’re all in agreement that the NYT story was a cock-up?
Fine. Assuming I voted for Bush, you have now declared yourself responsible for 100% of every position taken by any candidate you vote for.
Of course, the adults realize that no one is in 100% alignment with any candidate, but it’s the rule you want to live by so I’ll hold you to it.
That sounds like a fine idea to me. If I insult you, you get to insult me. Certainly better than the previous arrangement: I exist, therefore you can insult me.
As for your opening statement, the idea that Halliburton is not “doing the job,” is strictly your own. So your next statement doesn’t follow.
Quaker notes that for the first time — since yesterday (or was it this morning) a thread has wandered OT.
The truth is, if a Republican were involved in the exact same activities as Sen. Baraka (as Charlie Rangel called him last weekend), Oliver would be apoplectic.
The truth is, if a Republican were involved in the exact same activities as [Sen. Obama]…
Those activities were, again, a poor investment decision that he cut loose at a $13,000 loss when he was made aware of the conflict of interest.
I wouldn’t apoplectic, I’d be outright shocked if a Republican were willing to part with the money for his or her principles.
I don’t think so, Frank. Many republicans are involved in (gasp) stock trading. As are Democrats. Many have divested themselves to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
There is no story here. Move along.
In other “news,”
Anna Nicole is still dead and Scooter is still guilty.
JWG, are you actually denying that you vote pro-torture and merely talk anti-torture?
Oh yeah, made it up entirely I did I did.
Also this. Made this up completely too.
Also this too, utter, utter fabrication which shows that there’s no good reason to criticise Halliburton.
You are simply a pro-torture voter.
Hey Doc, didn’t you vote for Kerry in 2004? Since Kerry voted to give authorization to Bush to take military action against Iraq I guess that makes you (and everyone else here who voted for Kerry) a pro-Iraq-war voter. Welcome aboard!
there’s no good reason to criticise Halliburton.
You said it; I didn’t.
Incidentally, your degree in Emglish failed you again: “criticise” should be “criticize.”
The problem here seems to be that these are things we used to learn way before college.
Both are actually accepted “Emglish” spellings of the word, Frank. Seriously, go check. I’ll wait… *twiddles thumbs*
Also, good job addressing the point. Three cheers.
Not only was I a pro-Iraq war voter, I was pro-Iraq war. Sadly, I was wrong.
But are you willing to admit you were wrong to vote for a torturer?
I read all those citations, Rex, and the overwhelming common thread;
— poor training, miscommunication and lax record keeping
Do you remember that Army lady who was in charge of contracting that got demoted for suggesting that all these no-bid contracts were, if not downright illegal, highly unusual and suspect?
Wonder whatever happened to her?
Frank, even you have to admit that if these guys were remodeling your kitchen or replacing your roof (which, from the looks of things, they are not qualified to do), you wouldn’t have fired them long ago?
Incidentally, your degree in Emglish failed you again: “criticise” should be “criticize.”
The former is the original, more French spelling used in the UK. The latter is the harsher US variation. Both are acceptable. Unlike your face.
Assuming I voted for Bush, and assuming Bush actually supported torture, I still would have to believe that the reasons for voting for Bush did not outweigh that one position in order to admit I was wrong.
For instance, Richard Clarke claims in his book that Gore encouraged extraordinary renditions during the Clinton presidency, yet many more people voted for Gore than for Bush. Does that mean they are pro-rendition voters?
Like I said before, the adults know that a person won’t actually support 100% of a candidate’s positions.
Why am I not surprised that Pedro was a surgical intern?
Bloody jocks.
Quaker-4:24:15 PM: Indeed, but that’s all beside the point.
All the reich-wing can really DO anymore is stir the shit up in hopes of clouding out the truth.
Look how they desperately try to latch on to anything-ANYTHING, so they can shriek that we are no better than they.
And if that means being an accomplice with the assassination of truth, and the destruction of objective journalism in the name of advancing the party, so be it.
The NYT story was a smear job, plain and simple. But the Pedrugger continuum can’t come to terms with it, so they throw poop.
As usual.
whether the Hillary camp or the gop, I’d say they struck out again in the attempt to smear Barack Obama. They keep trying and it’s always so lame. Give it up.
“the adults know that a person won’t actually support 100% of a candidate’s positions.”
Huh? That’s not my point at all. My point is that when deciding who to vote for, either 1) opposing torture is not your priority, or 2) supporting torture is your priority. Given the way you’ve 1) voted for a torturer, and 2) defended his torturing, it seems safe to conclude that you are, in fact, pro-torture.
Both are actually accepted “Emglish” [sic] spellings of the word, Frank.
You are right. I sit corrected.
As to your reference to three items, I am no judge of the Federal contracting process. The people that are seem to be relatively satisfied.
Duros: I don’t own my own home, so I wouldn’t hire anyone to remodel my kitchen.
I did, a year or so, hire an alcoholic man diagnosed with a mental illness to lay the linoleum on my kitchen floor. He did a fine job.
If you are implying that certain vendors who work for government funds abuse the government’s largesse, that comes as no surprise.
It is also no surprise that the same or similar charges were leveled against government contractors during the Vietnam War — also an unpopular conflict. I suspect that the howling about Halliburton is more related to one’s ideological bent, than it is to properly shepherding the government treasure.
fd10801 | Mar 7, 2007 2:50:41 PM
“Right, Rex… You say, “Eat dick,” and I chuckle at your immaturity. Yes, same ol’, same ol’.
Name the last time Rex was banned from the blog, Frank.
Weren’t you planning on using Rex’s blog as your new soapbox?
Didn’t you express relief to be free of Oliver’s blog … “a case of not realizing you’re addicted until you have to do without”?
You are right.
Hey everyone! Look what I got Frank to say!
As to your reference to three items, I am no judge of the Federal contracting process. The people that are seem to be relatively satisfied.
Satisfied? Frank, Halliburton has been under investigation since practically day freaking Uno for the food, water, and pipeline failures, the lack of accurate bookkeeping, and a dozen other smaller things like charging $100 for a bottle of soda and crap. People who are “satisfied” with results like this, I submit to you sir, should not be the ones making such decisions. Since, however, such people do work, at the very least, in close proximity to Cheney, how is it such a ridiculous thing to suggest that it is Cheney’s connection to the company that prevents them from using another organization like Schlumberger or something? I have asked what other reason there could be, and you’ve basically said “well the people who chose it are apparently okay with it,” which doesn’t even remotely address the core of the problem, which is “Why?” Why, Frank, would these people be satisfied with a company that overcharges them for work they cannot successfully do?
Oh, also just realized, your little “The problem here seems to be that these are things we used to learn way before college,” is a sort of passive aggressive shot at calling me stupid (for correctly spelling a word) and in accordance with The Mundane Law I think I might actually be allowed to respond somewhat in kind in the same sort of backwards way, by responding with something like “I’m not saying you’re mother’s a whore Frank, just that most other people’s mother’s aren’t.” But I wont say that, because I feel it would demean us both, and we seem to be getting along so oddly well today.
Huh? That’s not my point at all. My point is that when deciding who to vote for, either 1) opposing torture is not your priority, or 2) supporting torture is your priority. Given the way you’ve 1) voted for a torturer, and 2) defended his torturing, it seems safe to conclude that you are, in fact, pro-torture.
Doc, that kind of thinking is idiotic. I can take every position that John Kerry has voted for or supported in the past and say that you’re anti-this or pro-that as JWG pointed out.
John Kerry opposes gay marriage. Therefore, you’re anti-gay.
John Kerry voted to authorize the war in Iraq. Therefore, you’re pro-Iraq war.
In fact, you’re somebody that is always lecturing others about their conscience, but you apparently had no problem supporting Kerry despite his Iraq vote and despite the fact he said he wouldn’t change much of what was happening in Iraq (ie, he certainly wasn’t going to close shop and get all the troops home). That’s in addition to his stance that gays should not be on equal footing in the arena of marriage.
Basically, all you cared about was winning, correct?
Hey everyone! Look what I got Frank to say!
Don’t flatter yourself. I said you were right, because you were right. What’s funny is that you’re amazed. What’s sad is that the day will never come when a liberal admits they are wrong.
your little “The problem here seems to be that these are things we used to learn way before college,” is a sort of passive aggressive shot at calling me stupid
*BZZT!* Wrong!
Remember, your major was English; mine was Behavioral Science.
From Frank shortly after being banned:
“So, rather than be misquoted, misinterpreted, and have things attributed to me that never occurred such as the explosion of my brain, because of something you did; I will post over here [Rex's blog] when my name is mentioned over on Oliver’s blog. As long as people keep me alive over there [OW's blog], and choose to do what they have consistently done: Make up stuff about me, and mock me for it, then I will use your blog to answer those lies.”
Hence, ‘new soapbox’.
Fine. And assuming you voted for Gore it’s safe to assume that you are pro extraordinary rendition. Way to go!
zadura
Since you chose to be snotty and incorrect.
‘Dugger, further clarification because you should know more than you do (or learn it.)’
Read much? Of course I didn’t say his deferred compensation was in a blind trust – but his shares. The deferred (this word is intentionally decsriptive and should give you a clue) comp was/is money he has already earned when he was employed full time at H.
Rex,
Maybe you are just a wee bit cynical. The Halliburton original contract was competed and H won. That was the kind of contract that large orders can be placed against – orders that some mistakenly call non-competitive contracts. It is a very, very complex contract, buying not just hardware, but a a large variety of manual and highly technical services. The billing is complex and the opportunity for mistakes is great – especially with a lot of the bills originating in a war zone. Halliburton won the contract and gets orders placed against it, because the Army rightly feels they are the proper and maybe only entity capabel of peforming within the governing need time and who can perform all of the very large variety of work. The VP is not the approval authority for the contract. Never has been. It is an Army contract approved at secretarial level. So your big bad conservative conspiracy will have to seek out the Army, including career Army procurement officers, and the SecDef at the time.
I’ll say it again. If progressives applied the same standard to Obama that they did to Cheney re Halliburton, the junior senator would be impeached. He shouldn’t be, but nor should Cheney have to endure this continuing ignorant criticism re Halliburton.
Put from another angle though Dugg, if conservatives applied the same standards to Cheney-Hallibutron that they do to Obama’s stock loss, to Reid’s house sale, and to the pivotally important crime of the decade that is Whitewatergate, Cheney would have been hanged by now.
Tell you what though Dugg, the second that Obama’s in a position where he keeps his shares of stock (not immediately selling them as he has here) in a company that sees an increase of 3200% in one year during his tenure, I’ll raise an eyebrow. If that company could only have seen that increase from Govt contracts that he would be in a position to influence (you can argue Cheney didn’t, but you can’t pretend he’s not a powerful figure within washington) then I’ll raise another eyebrow. And if then, the company Obama has this stock in, that sees the massive, unprecedented increase, that may have only happened due to his influence, and that company keeps their contract in spite of their failure to live up to their end of the contract and bilking the US Taxpayer for it, I’ll be the very first person to stand up and scream Motherfucker. Till then, I really dont see this as an issue where any kind of equivalence can be drawn.
As far as the contract being competed for, thats news to me. Citation please? Only that what I’m reading says that Operation Iraqi Liberty was considered a national emergency when it launched in March 2003 (christ four fucking years and we still havent won… but thats another thread altogether) and thus the Army was allowed to issue a contract to a single company without the otherwise requisite competition.
“John Kerry opposes gay marriage. Therefore, you’re anti-gay. John Kerry voted to authorize the war in Iraq. Therefore, you’re pro-Iraq war.”
No. See my last comment: gay mariage was not my priority, and I never claimed that it was. As for the Iraq War, as I said, when the resolution came, I probably would have voted for it — wrongly. What’s your point?
“assuming you voted for Gore it’s safe to assume that you are pro extraordinary rendition”
I did vote for Gore, but I did not know about the extraordinary rendition business until much more recently, so it didn’t affect my vote at the time. Even now, it’s strange that you’re so focused on it given that Gore is not in office, and a torturer is. Let’s review your own position: a) did you vote against torturer Bush when you had a chance? (clearly not), b) Did you speak out against the torturer while he was in office — WHEN IT MATTERED? (clearly not), or c) did you vote FOR torturers and then speak out about some OTHER torturer who was not even in office? (This is the JWG path to a torture-free America). Clearly you are the one who has put politics over principle, JWG. It’s really quite simple. And it’s not WJWD, either.
As it stands, you have provided no response to my analysis of yesterday, which I will now repost, JWG:
“Either A) opposing torture is not your priority, or B) supporting torture is your priority. Given the way you’ve 1) voted for a torturer, and 2) defended his torturing, it seems safe to conclude that you are, in fact, pro-torture.”
Wingnuts can’t grasp the concept of having your own opinions on something distinct from party lines or those of a specific candidate. You vote for someone, you agree with every single little thing they do.
Why else are they defending Bush? They’re working from an algorithm that results in “they voted for him, therefore I like what he is doing and what he is doing is good”.
You just have to understand the wingnut mind.
Actually, I voted for Gore in 2000 and chose not to vote for either Kerry or Bush in 2004. So I have never voted for Bush.
I spoke out against torture whenever it was brought up in the threads (both here and on other blogs.
I merely find it amusing that you are unable to apply the same standard to yourself that you are trying to apply to others. You (and I) voted for a torturer, but he was not elected. Either live with the consequences of your own definitions, or accept the fact that you are a hypocrite.
This is the Gavage-Huskanoy position. Are you claiming she is a “wingnut”?
“So I have never voted for Bush.”
Well, then that clears things up nicely. Why didn’t you say so earlier?
“You (and I) voted for a torturer, but he was not elected.”
The issue is the voter, not the candidate. Knowingly voting for a torturer reflects differently upon the voter than doing so in ignorance.
Also, I’m a dude, JWG.
If progressives applied the same standard to Obama that they did to Cheney re Halliburton, the junior senator would be impeached.
Really?
Gol’, I musta been in a coma. Who chaired the hearings? Did Mr. Cheney show up or did he stay squirreled away in his bunker?
Because I reject the premise that voting for a candidate means you have to be “pro” everything the candidate endorses. Therefore, my personal vote was immaterial.
No. See my last comment: gay mariage was not my priority, and I never claimed that it was. As for the Iraq War, as I said, when the resolution came, I probably would have voted for it — wrongly. What’s your point?
The point is, stop painting everybody else with the same broad brush. Using your logic, it doesn’t matter if gay marriage was not your top priority. You supported a candidate who is opposed to gay marriage, therefore (again according to the logic you’ve been using) it means you’ve automatically means you’re aligned with that position.
Now do you understand how absurd that logic is?
Because I reject the premise that voting for a candidate means you have to be “pro” everything the candidate endorses.
At least somebody gets it.
Hey, I am pro-mayonnaise on Pastrami sammiches. I won’t vote for any candidate who endorses yellow mustard.
I’ve been quite clear what my logic is, Jay. If you say you’re anti-X, but then you vote for a candidate who’s pro-X, it must mean that you’re not really THAT anti-X to begin with, and that it’s fair to call you a pro-X voter, which is what I did. I don’t get what you think you’re complaining about.
“I reject the premise that voting for a candidate means you have to be “pro” everything the candidate endorses.”
I agree. But you can’t call yourself an anti-X voter if you vote pro-X. And your anti-X talk doesn’t mean much if you don’t walk the anti-X walk.
Finally, I want to congratulate JWG. If you really refused to vote for Bush because of his torture gulags, then you deserve more credit for having a soul that I’ve given you. Congratulations, buddy.
I’ve been quite clear what my logic is, Jay. If you say you’re anti-X, but then you vote for a candidate who’s pro-X, it must mean that you’re not really THAT anti-X to begin with, and that it’s fair to call you a pro-X voter, which is what I did. I don’t get what you think you’re complaining about.
Doc, you’re changing your position as you go along. It was using this reasoning that I said it was fair to call you anti-gay, even though you support marriage rights for gays and voted for John Kerry who doesn’t. You said that wasn’t correct because gay marriage wasn’t a “priority” for you.
Make up your mind already.
Finally, I want to congratulate JWG. If you really refused to vote for Bush because of his torture gulags, then you deserve more credit for having a soul that I’ve given you. Congratulations, buddy.
That sounds like a compliment, but all you’re doing is patronizing the guy.
I did not vote for him for a number of reasons, most notably his massive spending impulses, his mismanagement of the war, and his attempts to cut back on civil liberties.
I doubt Kerry would’ve been much different. I was really hoping to see a Dean/Bush battle to really debate aspects of the war, but alas…
I think it’s fair to say that no voter agrees with a candidate 100%, and we probably don’t want an electorate that does. I mean, if you think folks are sheep now…
Most voters can reconcile themselves with the concept of “while I don’t agree with Sen. X (or whatever) on a or b, I totally agree with him/her on x, y, and z.
Torture being the wild card, of course. I don’t remember any candidate running on a pro-torture platform. I don’t really think one would do well at the polls if they did.
So you guys can stop duking it out about whether your candidate is pro-everything-you-hold-sacred. ‘Cuz he/she/it ain’t so.
Duros: I don’t own my own home, so I wouldn’t hire anyone to remodel my kitchen.
I did, a year or so, hire an alcoholic man diagnosed with a mental illness to lay the linoleum on my kitchen floor. He did a fine job.
duros winds up..here’s the point…
Swing and a miss by Disalle.
Duros: You should try reading the entire comment. Aparently, you missed this (which directly addresses the point):
Oh, and that’s DiSalle with a capital “S”.
“I reject the premise that voting for a candidate means you have to be “pro” everything the candidate endorses.”
I agree. But you can’t call yourself an anti-X voter if you vote pro-X
Dr. AGH, you are contradicting yourself.
Oh, I read that. But even during the Vietnam war, hell, during the entire Cold War, we’ve never had a single company taking advantage of our country and it’s taxpayers so blatantly and without conscience as we’ve seen with Haliburton and KBR.
I mean, really; charging our soldiers $10 for a Coke? In the desert? Someone needs their yellow ribbon magnet revoked.
And, no you did not directly address my point at all. You deflected.
My point was that if you hired someone to do a job and they totally screwed the pooch in doing that job, you, as a citizen, and presumably a wise consumer would fire that person and find someone who could do the job to your satisfaction.
Why is it that the government, OUR government, doesn’t have the same fiscal responsibility? And yet, Haliburton and KBR continue to get no-bid contract jobs awarded to them which they clearly do not have the expertise to complete.
Yeah. Someone who agrees that liberals should be tortured telling someone else to grow up.
I mean, that’s like the pot calling the kettle conservative.
I remind you that I wrote:
“If you say you’re anti-X, but then you vote for a candidate who’s pro-X, it must mean that you’re not really THAT anti-X to begin with”
Which is exactly how I would describe myself wrt gay marriage. I support gay marriage, and I voted for Kerry, who did not. The reason? I wasn’t THAT pro-gay marriage to begin with.
Frank said: “Dr. AGH, you are contradicting yourself.”
I don’t see how. Either you are an “Pro-X” voter, and vote for pro-X candidates, or you are not. There’s no ambiguity as far as I can see.
The Clinton’s lost 10 grand on Whitewater and the Repubs spent $100,000,000 ‘investigating.’ Expect them to call Ken Starr out of Pepperdine for this one. He’d just love rubbing shoe polish again.
Dugger, again, you do not understand things. This is a problem you should take pains to correct. Whether deferred compensation was previously earned, it must remain subject to a “substantial risk of forfeiture” in order to continue to receive favorable tax treatment. The “risk” is that the “compensation” still held by the company is a general liability of the company. If the company tanks, the liability is not held separate from the other liabilities of the company and is lower in priority than debt holders, tax liens and employees. Said simply, Dick Cheney has a personal interest in the success of Halliburton.
You ought to spend less time trying to assess your perception of my attitude and more time tryng to understand what you don’t know and educate yourself.
Doesn’t deferred by definition mean “later?”
Duros, the tax law provides that certain key executives, who exercise “control” over a business and are therefore fully aware of the risks, can defer more compensation than is allowed by 401(k)’s. It is often referred to as “non-qualified” deferred compensation. That’s what Cheney’s got.
I am happy to talk about it because I understand the issue well. I would be happy to educate Dugger, but he is so deep up his own partisan hindquarters that he no longer is able to see his own shadow.
Dr. AGH: Ambiguity is not contradiction. It’s pretty obvious, so explaining it is difficult. But I will try
1) “I reject the premise that voting for a candidate means you have to be “pro” everything the candidate endorses.”
2) You agree with 1)
3. But you can’t call yourself an anti-X voter if you vote pro-X
Our point was that in voting for a candidate “A”, who is Pro 1,2 and 3; and Anti 4,5 and 6, you need not support all that he supports and oppose all that he opposes to vote for “A”.
I venture to say millions of conservatives voted for Pres. Bush despite his inability to veto big spending bills.
Duros: during the Vietnam war … we’ve never had a single company taking advantage of our country and it’s taxpayers so blatantly and without conscience as we’ve seen with Haliburton and KBR.
I guess you’ve never heard of Sea – Land, or Lady Bird’s Fresca Fiasco.
“millions of conservatives voted for Pres. Bush despite his inability to veto big spending bills.”
Yes, because they prioritized something other than cutting spending. Thus, they can’t call themselves “small government voters” even though they might support that concept intellectually.
they can’t call themselves “small government voters”
Now you’ve changed the argument. Whether or not you call yourself a “fill in the blank ________” voter is not the issue here (or it wasn’t until now). The issue is “Can you vote for a candidate who has a position or two that you do not support?”
I have not “become” pro big government spending, because I held my nose and voted for the man who I thought could best manage the Global War on Terror.
It’s a choice between a lack of control of spending and a mismanagement of the GWoT. The Republicans are now paying for their fiscal irresponsibility; I didn’t want all of us to pay for mismanagement of the GWoT.
This, of course, is my opinion, so I will not be drawn into a long, drawn out battle over how Pres. Bush is handling the GWoT.
Stop calling it a gwot.
rex
Halliburton won the competed LOGCAP contract (I think) in 2001). That is a very large contract that calls for a level of goods and services as defined by a statement of work and dollar ceiling. Thus, the Army may have bought say $10B worth of potential goods and services. They can order against that $10B (say a B for oil fires, a B for water, etc) until they reach the ceiling.
They do things that way because lead time to award a contract, especially a high dollar contract is extensive and with a war going on, the Army does not have time to wait 2 years for bureaucrats to do a contract. With this one, they can place an immediate order against it. However, the contract is somewhat vague and calls for a wide variety of different things,. That disqaulifies most other comeptitors. How many can put out oil well fires, repair a tank, clear a runway, and set up a water system and do it in say a month. Almost none. Thats why Halliburton stock has been bought by investors. The downside is that for a while Halliburton sits there with a premium work force twiddling their thumbs – having to pay those peolpe. Also there is usually a very low guaranteed minimum. The ceiling may be $10B, but they may only get $500M in orders.
Quaker, I did not understand your point.
Some argue that the orders placed against this existing competed contract are non-competitive.
It is complex.
I thought it was a GSAVE now?
As I understand it, there are multiple contracts. LOGCAP (I believe, logistics capablities) is the big one.
Its all the same principal: a large dollar multi-purpose contract with a dollar ceiling, against which, individual orders can be placed – therby avoiding very lengthy procurement lead times (during which, the required good or service would not be available) each time.
Frank, I haven’t “changed the argument.” I began by calling people “pro-torture voters” by voting for Bush, and I stand by it (except in the case of JWG, who did not vote for Bush).
Halliburton won the competed LOGCAP contract (I think) in 2001).
Bit of incomplete history there, sir. Firstly, for those at home, LogCAP started in 1985 to better manage (through privatization) civil logistics, but in 1992 the then-Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney (coincidence?) expanded LogCAP to privatize most of the non-combat logistics for our troops. Cheney had the Pentagon pay 9mil to Halliburton subsidiary KBR to run a study to see if such a thing was a good idea, and KBR found (coincidence?) that not only was it a good idea, but that they were the right people for the job. Thats when it got the LogCAP contract initially.
In 1995, Cheney becomes CEO of Halliburton (coincidence?) and two years later, the LogCAP contract was not renewed because the GAO had found that Halliburton was engaged in fraudulent billing practices during the military action in the Balkans, inflating the contract price by 33%. Show of hands, who’s surprised? No, really, anyone? Hm…
At anyrate, Halliburton lost the contract to a competitor, DynCorp (as they arguably should have) but then got it again in 2001. Now what else happened in 2001… hmm… well I do seem to recall that Dick Cheney, the man who expanded the role of LogCAP, the man who gave money to KBR for them to tell him to give them more money, and the former CEO of Halliburton no less, achieved effectively the second highest elected office in the country, at a time of a compliant republican congress too… hm… No, you know what? I’m sure, I’m so very very sure that all these events had not a single thing to do with each other. The suggestion of a coincidence is a figment of my insane frothing bushate-mind no doubt, and the fact that we still keep them on in spite of their not providing safe drinking water or food to our troops just goes to show how… um, good… they are at… doing that…
What i was referring to specifically before though was actually the specific contract tied to the Iraq war itself, RIO (Restore Iraqi Oil). This contract was awarded without a bidding process in 2003 when we went into war because of the “emergency nature” in case Saddam blew the oil wells up again (I will grant, a legitimate concern at the time given he’s done it before). But in 2004, when scrutiny intensified, the contract was put up for bidding again. KBR did win it “legitimately” that time, in spite of numerous charges of cost-inflation that they’d managed to work together in only the previous 9-10 months.
Looking at my above comments I see Ive managed to incorrectly conflate RIO with LogCAP, and I apologize for that confusion, but my point remains that Halliburton’s failures and dishonest business practices extend to both, and that the only reason they could possibly be kept on in spite of that is if someone in a position to make that decision had a vested interest in the outcome, namely Cheney. There are competitors, such as DynCorp, Schlumberger, and GSM Consulting who have done and could do the same sort of jobs, and did bid on the contracts. And in spite of the previous positive relationship with DynCorp, they went with the pre-existing papertrail of problems that is Halliburton.
They went from what worked at a reasonable price to what doesnt at an unreasonable price. Honestly, why the hell else would they have done that if not for Cheney’s influence? If there’s a legitimate reason I’m dying to hear it.
“I have not “become” pro big government spending, because I… voted for the man who… could best manage the Global War on Terror.”
No, but you can’t call yourself a “small-government voter” anymore, either. You are a “big-government voter,” assuming that we agree that that’s what Bush is. Your vote was awarded on the basis of some other priority. I don’t think we’re actually disagreeing on this issue. If you’re anti-torture, but you vote pro-Bush because you like something else he’s done, then a) you’re really not that anti-torture; and b) you’re by definition a pro-torture voter. This is what I said in my initial comment. Nothing’s changed, Frank.
…and not to get into two arguments at once but I think I have to disagree, Dr. A. Someone isnt necessarily pro-torture just because they voted for Bush, but a relevant thing is they cannot call themselves Anti-torture if they vote for him. The morals of a person who does not condemn torture can be questioned, but it doesnt mean inherently that they support it, just that they dont see torture as a big deal. Likewise with the big/small govt thing. Its kind of akin to saying all catholics are pro-child-rape because of the preist scandals. They’re not, but by supporting a church structure that conceals the crimes and practically facilitates the preists in committing it, they aren’t really opposed to child rape either. In all cases, Govt size, Torture, and Child Rape are simply considered lesser issues than, for instance, winning the indefinable war on terror, or having wine and crackers on sunday morning. (Yeah, I’m being glib because I think all religion sucks. Lets not get into a fight over that here too now)
If you’re anti-torture, but you vote pro-Bush because you like something else he’s done, then a) you’re really not that anti-torture; and b) you’re by definition a pro-torture voter. This is what I said in my initial comment. Nothing’s changed, Frank.
Yes it has changed Doc and you keep changing on the fly. You weaseled out of the gay marriage issue with John Kerry by saying that you weren’t “THAT” pro-gay marriage as if there are tiered levels of support for certain issues. “Sorry, but my support for gay marriage is at level two on the 1-5 scale, therefore my vote for a candidate who doesn’t support gay marriage is irrelevant.” You said there’s no ambiguity. Therefore, with your logic, you’re anti-gay marriage. It’s that simple.
Yet on the other hand, you say that even if somebody whose priority is say, lower taxes and voted for Bush as a result, is “pro-torture” because they voted for Bush who supports torture.
When are you going to get it through your head that MOST PEOPLE ARE NOT ONE ISSUE VOTERS! It is completely idiotic to say that somebody supports a position simply because the candidate they voted for supports that particular position or policy.
Unions loathe free-trade agreements. They hated it when Bill Clinton expanded NAFTA (Clinton in fact was a stalwart free-trader), but I’m guessing you voted for him in 1996 despite that. That means you’re anti-union.
That sounds so dumb. But that’s exactly the tactic that you’re using.
I don’t know what you’re talking about, Jay. I am pro-gay marriage, but I cannot call myself a pro-gay marriage voter, because I voted for Kerry. When I went into the booth and pulled the lever, I was by definition not a pro-gay marriage voter. We agree.
Similarly, while in some abstract sense you think of yourself as being anti-torture. Even so, you pull the lever for Bush’s “mandate”, thus fulfilling the definition of a “pro-torture voter”.
I don’t see how what I’m saying makes people into one-issue voters. It doesn’t. What I’m getting at is that it doesn’t really mean anything to declare yourself anti-X if when you go to the voting booth, you vote for a candidate who’s pro-X. Like how you guys are “anti-torture” in some abstract, theoretical sense, but not in the way that counts: at the ballot box.
Apologies for the triple post, but what prompted this idea was a) the dishonestly (mainly to yourselves) when you tell yourselves you’re anti-torture, given your voting record, and b) the fact that Bush takes any vote, cast for any reason, as a “mandate” for everything that he does.
Empirically, that is the way a president sees your vote: not as a complex distillation of many competing priorities, but as a stamp of approval for literally everything that he does.
Rex
But you have nothing but conjecture and correlation about Cheney and Halliburton. Are you aware that the Clinton Admin made countless sole source awards, many to Halliburton. You know who did it for Clinton? The Army. You know who did it for Bush? The Army. Probably the exact same career procurement officials. Did they become mysteriously corrupt just under Bush? Neither Cheney nor Al Gore before were in the approval cycle. That has never been a job of the VP.
z adura: thanks for the clarification.
Frank:Ambiguity is not contradiction. It’s pretty obvious,..
That is precious.
Duggsy:Neither Cheney nor Al Gore before were in the approval cycle. That has never been a job of the VP.
I would bet it is a job for the SecDef, though, isn’t it?
*checks previous post*
dammit… misspoke, I said “make the decision” when I should have said “Influence.” I realize Cheney doesnt officially make the decision as VP (though as Duros points out, as SecDef he basically did, however this was before he became CEO I realise) but you cant believe he couldnt influence it if he wanted to.
But you have nothing but conjecture and correlation about Cheney and Halliburton.
…well yes thats true. I’m not pretending I’ve factually proven that Cheney’s keeping the Halliburton contract active one way or another, and I cant really demonstrate either that he has been or will be getting some sort of compensation for it. I can’t prove these things, thats what investigations are for. This connection I think deserves a serious impartial investigation because I think there are so many questions that any sane person has to ask, most of them centering on “Why would the government continue to honor a contract with a company that fails to provide the service they say, and overcharges to do it?”
Other companies with better track records have made offers, and yet we stay the course with Halliburton. In the face of everything, my question is still why? And the only theory that makes sense is frankly the most obvious one, that Cheney, former CEO fo the company that benefits at our expense, is influencing that decision counter to sound judgement, most likely because he has something to gain. What, I dont know, nor how exactly, and granted thats where the tinfoil hat begins to fall off, but what is the explanation otherwise?
This is why I feel that the Cheney-burton connection is a valid one worth investigating, due to its scope, the damage it can do, its potential cost to the taxpayer if left to continue, as suggested by all the evidence so far. That, to get back to the starting topic, would be a better expenditure of time and money than playing “Gotcha” with Obama’s sale of stock, which he took a loss on to remove any suggestion of impropriety.
Also, HUNDRET! WOOT!
Hundret? Are you signalling to the great irony bird? Seriously, what are you talking about?
That is precious.
Thanks, Duros.
Glad you appreciated it.
I meant that mine was the hundredth comment in the thread. Sorry, I keep mistaking myself for a funny person.
duros
Depends on the dollar amount.
Highest amounts go to Sec level.
rex
I don’t want to go after Obama. I’m merely pointing out you make an assumption about Cheney (evidently because of what you guess about his motives) that you don’t make re Obama. I’m betting both are human.
No, I dont assume the same about both because I have no reason to. Obama openly admits what happened and sold the stock immediately, and at a loss, because he wants to make sure he cant be called crooked. Cheney on the other hand is secretive and dodgy about what isnt an impossible set of circumstances, and rather than doing anything to clear the air, he tells Patrick Lehey to Fuck himself for asking about it. As i said, if Obama looked anynear as shady as Cheney does I’d be piling it on him too. He doesnt, I dont.
I’m betting both are human.
I’m not taking that bet re Cheney.
Cheney won’t even tell Congress who works in his frikkin’ office. do you really think he’s gonna tell you if he still has ties to Halliburton?
Ah, got it, Rex.
Highest amounts go to Sec level.
Apparently. Do they come in unmarked manila envelopes or do they use one of those shiny metal breifcases?
Hey, Rex, you are funny. And a good writer and researcher too.
Love that “Objection!” thingy.