English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

If you studied your History, you would see that the Clinton Administration granted just as many contracts to Haliburton as the Bush Administration. This did happen in Serbia as well. Why is the media not pointing this out to the public?

2006-10-30 17:26:17 · 14 answers · asked by haterade 3 in Politics & Government Politics

Can anyone actually tell me exactly what Cheney's role was in Haliburton? How long was he with them?

2006-10-30 17:31:34 · update #1

14 answers

You could very well be right, but I'd like to see some facts other than just an assertion that Clinton "granted just as many contracts"

It's no accident that Cheney got to be CEO of Halliburton. Former government officials are often handed these kinds of jobs, even though they don't have much experience in private business. Why? Because of the CONTACTS that they have with the government; the kind of contacts that will ensure that their new employer gets huge government CONTRACTS!

Government service at the high levels is no longer something someone does because they want to serve the public or even just because they like the power. There's a pot of gold at the end, a very high paying job in the private sector.

----
Wikipedia says he left government employ in 1993, became CEO and chairman of the board of Halliburton in 1995 and remained in those jobs until he became Vice President.

Here's more:

"Under Cheney's tenure, the number of Halliburton subsidiaries in offshore tax havens increased from 9 to 44.[15] As CEO of Halliburton, Cheney lobbied to lift U.S. sanctions against Iran and Libya, saying that unilateral moves to isolate countries damaged U.S. interests. ..."'During the election campaign Cheney tells ABC News. “I had a firm policy that we wouldn’t do anything in Iraq, even arrangements that were supposedly legal.'"

However, during his time as CEO, Halliburton was selling millions of dollars to Iraq in supplies for its oil industry.

2006-10-30 17:28:43 · answer #1 · answered by ? 5 · 1 1

It is based on two things:

1) Osama Bin Laden's mention of it in 2004. He said many companies would profit off of the Iraq War. It seems this propoganda worked into the American psyche since many companies profit off of any war.

2) The bigger problem is Dick Cheney's indisputable connection to Halliburton and allegations of self-dealing and favoritism. However, his agreement with Halliburton does not generate personal profit to him so much. There are some sketchy dealings that go on there though, especially his unexercised stock options. The Democratic public also does not trust large corporations and their possible influence in foreign relations. The Democratic party plays on this.

To answer your comment Cheney was the CEO and Chairman of Halliburton. In 2000 he was a staunch supporter of Bush and was surprised when Bush asked him to be his VP. Cheney retired from the company during the 2000 U.S. presidential election campaign with a severance package worth $34 million. As of 2004, he had received $398,548 in deferred compensation from Halliburton while Vice President. Cheney also retains unexercised stock options at Halliburton, which have been valued at nearly $8 million.

The person below me has fleshed out some questionable accounting practices Halliburton has been involved in since the War started in 2003.

2006-10-30 17:34:31 · answer #2 · answered by ? 5 · 1 0

Clinton and Bush have done MANY of the same things only to the leftist media, Clinton could do no wrong and Bush can do no right. Halliburton is the most able company for many of these jobs because they already have the people and the equipment set up to be.
For instance Clinton did not sign the Keoto treaty and this was not talked about, while Bush does not sign it and he is a horrible man bent on destroying the environment. It's the same type of thing.

2006-10-30 17:30:28 · answer #3 · answered by inzaratha 6 · 2 2

Well, tell me what Haliburton does for Iraq now and how many American and Iraq people die in this war? what about 3 trillion dollars that foot the war bills and there are no way out? By the way, the gap between the Rich and the poor are growing widen and now You and I have to pay more taxes for these Haliburton benefactors and please wait and see your taxes next year.I hate the Media but I am not a fan of Clinton but he did his job well so no one die in Serbia. I hate to criticize our beloved President. However we should analyze the media and the context then you and I can conclude why the media is trying to tell us something?

2006-10-30 17:42:54 · answer #4 · answered by ryladie99 6 · 3 2

I agree that the liberals do look to extend Bush a lot, & we do advance that Clinton at terrific replaced into/is incompetent, yet isn't it time we initiate conversing suggestions. the subject concerns on the horizon if no longer already right it is sufficient to concentration on. changing the economics of Renewable capacity is my well known. yet another one in each and every of mine is how does one get people to be sure that they could advance extra mutually than by capacity of retaining the different returned. What occurred to united we stand, divided we fall? we are doing an incredible job falling.

2016-10-21 00:58:11 · answer #5 · answered by mchellon 4 · 0 0

Duh.

Because Haliburton was granted a no-bid contract to provide services to the US government in Iraq and has since:

Profited insanely.

Misused and misspent taxpayer dollars in massive quantities. (For which they are under several Federal investigations).

Exposed our troops to inferior equipment, inferior food and inferior security. (For which they are also under investigation).

Why isn't the Right Wing Noise Machine along with Republican State Television (Faux, sorry, Fox "News") reporting this?

Too close to the election?

2006-10-30 17:45:58 · answer #6 · answered by marianddoc 4 · 2 1

I am not sure and am just asking, but did CLinton have and interests associated with Haliburton. We know that GWB had personal ties to the company.

2006-10-30 17:32:31 · answer #7 · answered by This Is Not Honor 4 · 0 2

So without really knowing the facts here or having a strong opinion either way on this way, let me answer this in a more general way. Sometimes it's not about simple statistics. Some concerns pertain to conflict of interest or a perceived conflict of interest.

2006-10-30 17:29:13 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

Good point!
But its the latest thing to blame it all on Bush!
If your pants fall down, its the fault of Bush...
If you bump your head, Its the fault of Bush...
If your car stalls, its the fault of GW....
Every thing is Bush's fault....
Hardly do I ever see a leftist call him President Bush!
Oh gee that might make them admit they lost the election!
I am sick of hearing the left wine!
You never hear any one blame Clinton for anything!
its like he was the best president in the world or something!
Oh gee its ok he was a womanizer!
How many blouses did the man look down as he was campaigning to get voted into office!
The only reason Clinton won the second time was because a bunch of us Republicans decided to vote for Perot!

2006-10-30 17:34:22 · answer #9 · answered by TRUE GRIT 5 · 1 2

This talking point has GWB as the puppet for Dick Cheney and his Halliburton interests.

The US people are that stupid and only the liberals have all the answers.

Get those talking point dems to tell you all the ownership interests their politicians possess.

2006-10-30 17:29:50 · answer #10 · answered by ? 7 · 2 3

fedest.com, questions and answers