Anyone care to know the real reason for Cheneys defense of Gitmo?

[John_Mace]

@Liberal

Nope. All his stock revenue goes to charity. All he gets is residual deferred income amortized for tax purposes. And after this year, that dries up as well, and he’ll get no money at all from them.

http://www.factcheck.org/article261.html

And the deffered income is all insured so that Cheney gets paid even if Halliburton goes backrupt.

Now, if someone wants to claim (ie, prove) that he is enriching his friends, have at it. But Cheney won’t get one dime more or one dime less whether Halliburton gets no fed contracts for the remainder of his tenure or gets every contract there is to be had.

Having said that, I do think it’s politically stupid for him to allow this kind of stuff to happen. It has the appearance of impropriety, and that’s all that really matters in politics.

[tnetennba]

Of course, one presumes that there is no money being shuffled around under the table, or stored in anonymous accounts in the Cayman Islands.

[John_Mace]

@cricetus

It only takes a few minutes at “FactCheck.org” to learn that they are less interested in “holding politicians accountable” than “criticizing ‘liberals’ and vindicating ‘conservatives’”. It’s more right-wing doublespeak. FactCheck.org is SpinDoctor.org.

That has to be one of the stupidest things I’ve read all week.

[Harborwolf]

Of course, Cheney could alwasy go back to Halliburton after his term is finished
:d&r:

[Reeder]

I never said Cheney would profit from it.
It’s called taking care of your buddies.

[tnetennba]

@John Mace

That has to be one of the stupidest things I’ve read all week.

Oh, go fuck yourself.

[LouisB]

@Liberal

Nope. All his stock revenue goes to charity. All he gets is residual deferred income amortized for tax purposes. And after this year, that dries up as well, and he’ll get no money at all from them.

http://www.factcheck.org/article261.html

In fact, the link you provided states that profit from the sale of his stock options will go to charity; I see nothing to indicate he owns no stock at all in Haliburton. If you can show me that he has no stock in the company, I will retract my comment.

[Liberal]

@EddyTeddyFreddy

That still leaves us with plenty of other reasons to despise the man, though.

I very much agree with that.

[Shodan]

@John Mace

That has to be one of the stupidest things I’ve read all week.

You didn’t read the OP?

Regards,
Shodan

[tnetennba]

I admitted I was wrong about FactCheck.org, which was based on “a few minutes” (as I said in my post), and a suspicion based on the fact it came from Liberal and that I’ve seen an awful lot of bogus “accuracy” and “fairness” sites. I see now that FactCheck is more reliable and attempts not to spin. I retract my comment. I do, however, stand by my “fuck you,” since it was a fly-by self-righteous piece of snottery and regarded a post on which I had already admitted hasty judgment.

[Liberal]

@LouisB

In fact, the link you provided states that profit from the sale of his stock options will go to charity; I see nothing to indicate he owns no stock at all in Haliburton. If you can show me that he has no stock in the company, I will retract my comment.

All his public shares went into blind trust on July 25, 2000, the day he resigned. That information is available just about anywhere. Try Wikipedia.

[John_Mace]

@cricetus

Of course, one presumes that there is no money being shuffled around under the table, or stored in anonymous accounts in the Cayman Islands.

That’s the second stupidest thing I’ve read all week.

[tnetennba]

@John Mace

That’s the second stupidest thing I’ve read all week.

What, you don’t read your own posts?

[BobLibDem]

The burden of proof is on those accusing Cheney of having a financial interest in Haliburton. Thanks to the good work of liberal , I’m satisfied that Cheney personally does not benefit financially. He is still reprehensible, but not for profitting personally. I believe Haliburton is making obscene profits off this war and very likely Cheney greased the skids to benefit his former cronies, and Cheney is still reprehensible for many things but not for making personal financial gain from the war.

[Lord_Ashtar]

@cricetus

Of course, one presumes that there is no money being shuffled around under the table, or stored in anonymous accounts in the Cayman Islands.

The problem with a statement like that is it can never be proven. Even if someone did somehow get a list of all accounts in all the Cayman banks and the account holders’ names, someone can just respond back with, “But how do we know he doesn’t have a Swiss/German/Nigerian/Martian bank account?”

[tnetennba]

@Lord Ashtar

The problem with a statement like that is it can never be proven. Even if someone did somehow get a list of all accounts in all the Cayman banks and the account holders’ names, someone can just respond back with, “But how do we know he doesn’t have a Swiss/German/Nigerian/Martian bank account?”

I do know and appreciate that you can’t prove a negative. However, it would be naive to presume that money doesn’t get slipped around between big business and the pols giving them multi-million and multi-billion dollar contracts.

[Psycho_Pirate]

@cricetus

Of course, one presumes that there is no money being shuffled around under the table, or stored in anonymous accounts in the Cayman Islands.

The tinfoil goes shiny side out, :wally .

[John_Mace]

@cricetus

What, you don’t read your own posts?

What’s next, George, are you going to tell us the one about the jerk store?

[tnetennba]

@Psycho Pirate

The tinfoil goes shiny side out, :wally .

Now THAT’S the stupidest thin I’VE read all week. Actually, it’s only like top 5. Somebody linked to the WorldNet Daily and somebody else posted some rubbish on the Schiavo case.

[Liberal]

@cricetus

I do know and appreciate that you can’t prove a negative.

Oy. :smack:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html