Here’s the summary of the article on FactCheck.org refuting the bogus Kerry accusations on Cheney’s Halliburton connection:
A Kerry ad implies Cheney has a financial interest in Halliburton and is profiting from the company’s contracts in Iraq. The fact is, Cheney doesn’t gain a penny from Halliburton’s contracts, and almost certainly won’t lose even if Halliburton goes bankrupt.
The ad claims Cheney got $2 million from Halliburton “as vice president,” which is false. Actually, nearly $1.6 million of that was paid before Cheney took office. More importantly, all of it was earned before he was a candidate, when he was the company’s chief executive.
Those who continue to maintain some sort of connection are grasping at straws. See Mitch Ratcliffe for one of the funniest, and most pathetic, examples.
UPDATE: Here’s my comment to Ratcliffe, whose blog is working again:
Leaving aside your highly imaginative summary of the last 20 years of American relations with Iraq and focusing on the substance of the debate, most of us were mainly impressed by the “stature gap.” Dick Cheney is a man with one of the most impressive resumes in America, having served as Congressional staffer, Congressman, White House Chief of Staff, Defense Secretary, CEO of a major multinational corporation employing tens of thousands, and Vice-President.
John Edwards is a kid with great teeth and nice hair who used to sue doctors by using religious appeals and junk science, generally disliked by the people who elected him to be Jesse Helms’ junior senator. He approached the debate like a yapping little Chihuahua dog, tossing made-up figures and non-facts around repetitively and irresponsibly in an attempt to hide the inconsistencies in his own position.
Is the for the liberation of Iraq or against it? Does he want to speed-up the contracting in Iraq, or slow it down (by ending no-bid contracts)? Does he want to increase the US troop strength or reduce it? Does he have the ability to draw additional nations into the peace-keeping coalition, or has he already alienated those, like Poland, the UK, and Australia, who are already part of it?
You want to dwell on the exigencies of Saddam’s twisting relations with the US over a 20 year period – and meaningless terms of Cheney’s employment contract – because you have to run from these questions.
What else can you do?
I quote from factcheck.org’s summary of the debate…
“Cheney wrongly implied that FactCheck had defended his tenure as CEO of Halliburton Co., and the vice president even got our name wrong. … fact, we did post an article pointing out that Cheney hasn’t profited personally while in office from Halliburton’s Iraq contracts, as falsely implied by a Kerry TV ad. But Edwards was talking about Cheney’s responsibility for earlier Halliburton troubles. And in fact, Edwards was mostly right. But, hey, maybe Factcheck.org is biased. well, you can check out this from my blog here. BTW, I wouldn’t go so far as to go into Cheney’s golden parachute; as I noted here, there still appears to be a conflict of interest.
The rest of your post is hiliarious.
“… most of us were mainly impressed by the “‘stature gap.'” You mean you and your alters?
“…one of the most impressive resumes in America…” Yeah, his votes in Congress were quite “impressive.” His requested budget cuts as defense secretary…take the air out of any claims that Kerry’s soft on defense.
“…CEO of a major multinational corporation employing tens of thousands…” where his fine leadership sent that company’s stock down 80% and where he advocated trading with our enemies…
“… tossing made-up figures and non-facts around repetitively and irresponsibly in an attempt to hide the inconsistencies in his own position…” While Edwards was off on a few figures, Cheney’s bald-faced lie about “Presiding over the Senate every Tuesday” (or was it Thursday?) is belied by the Congressional record. Cheney has been in an “undisclosed location” or making secret agreements with energy companies for 4 years. A miserable failure.
“Is the for the liberation of Iraq or against it?” I assume that the “the” is a “he.” But why don’t you ask that question of the people you so breathlessly support when the evidence is lacking?
“Does he want to speed-up the contracting in Iraq, or slow it down (by ending no-bid contracts)?” See last link.
“Does he want to increase the US troop strength or reduce it?” He wants peace with honor. You figure it out.
“Does he have the ability to draw additional nations into the peace-keeping coalition, or has he already alienated those, like Poland, the UK, and Australia, who are already part of it?” Believe it or not, those nations soon enough will be out of Iraq, and not because of John Kerry, but because of George W. Bush.
It’s time that Bush and his supporters take ownership and responsibility for the mess they’ve created in Iraq and do the honorable thing. And it’s not what they’re doing now: negotiating with the terrorists.
John, you say Kerry/Edwards want “peace with honor” and I should figure out what that means. Well, I can’t, and they’re not helping me figure out what they mean.
And that’s the point, not your Halliburton smokescreen which merely points out how bitter and disenfranchised you feel about the world we live in.
There is no Easter Bunny, John, and there is no magic bullet that’s going to make all the terrorists go away. There’s only hard work.
As I said, the choice is between a candidate who has not only read Sun Tzu, but lived what he wrote, and one who can’t even pronounce his name.
The biggest blunder of this “war,” has been to use it as a pork-barrel project for every sort of company like Halliburton that came along, when improving the lot of the average Iraqi was job number 1.
It’s also prima facie evidence that “liberation” was never really the goal of this adventure- for if it was liberation, there were people around who knew what to do, and they were rebuffed.
It always amuses me to hear Democrats complaining about pork-barrelling by Republicans. Historically, which party has been the primary promoter of farm subsidies, federal highways, federal medical insurance, and welfare? And which party controls the corrupt patronage systems in Boston, Philly, Chicago, and San Francisco?
Hint: it’s not the one with the elephant in their logo.