No, he didn’t. This was what Reeder quoted:
There’s a critical distinction there. They bid to develop a plan. Then they were asked to implement the plan, with no bids.
reeder, why don’t you bitch about Haliburton selling gas to the Iraqi’s for 10 cents a gallon? You’ll get a lot more sympathy that way. (click the link on the Haliburton story to hear them casually mention that Haliburton is paying $1.50 a gallon and selling to Iraqi’s for 10 cents a gallon.)
Really? In the political climate that has prevailed since the Nixon debacle, it didn’t dawn on them? They’re not that stupid. But they are that arrogant.
There is nothing “made up” about the appearance of impropriety. If Clinton had been a grown-up and just said “shucks folks, I done wrong” right up front, the whole thing would have died. My point is, it doesn’t matter if there is nothing wrong morally or legally. To make it go away, he needs to remove the pressure. To remove the pressure, he needs to remove what’s causing it. Arrogance will prevent him from doing so.
Actually, it would be “pure libel”. But it’s yet to be shown whether or not a conflict of interest exists. An ethics investigation will decide that, but in the court of public opinion, he’s already a condemned man.
I don’t thinks so. I think the people pushing this shit have made a serious miscalculation.
Back in school nobody liked the whiny little tattle tale who made up gossip and accusations.
Cheney is not thumbing his nose at the people. The whiny bitches trying to create the appearance of improprietary are not the people.
And in this escalating uncivil and dishonest political climate I think the people are sick to death of the muckrakers crying wolf.
I think the people as a whole look at this and say “Look more bullshit.”
Or it might be that the ongoing interlocking mutual masturbation of Big Biz and the Pubbies is so well known it hardly rates the raising of an eyebrow.
I don’t think any escalation is occurring. I think it’s politics as usual. The “tit for tat” game is out of control in this country, but we keep sending the same people to Washington and turn a blind eye to campaign reform legislation. Graft and corruption in politics has been every-day since politics began, but the ability to ferret it out has been raised to an artform.
And we have become so desensitized to it that, as a voting public, we give a collective yawn when thugs like Cheney, Ashcroft, Rove and the rest are dragged out from under their rocks, hauled into public office, and then serve not the public, but themselves only. And I’m not just picking on the Republicans; they are just the current crop of flying monkeys occupying the White House.
I agree that it is ironic that Republicans are protected by the atmosphere that they themselves created…that all these allegations are nothing more than made-up scandalmongering.
Nowadays you can’t get traction with a complicated scandal. You need a good old fashioned easily understandable scandal, like the president putting his penis in someone’s mouth, or an intern found dead in a ditch somewhere, or suitcases full of money handed out in hotel rooms, or claims for WMD that turn out to be false.
Cronyism may be a problem, but it isn’t a scandal. You need more than that.
You’re talking about Richard Perle, and the whole Global Crossing impropriety thing here, RIGHT? 
Regardless of the ultimate legitimacy of the complaint, Cheney and company brought this scrutiny upon themselves by allowing some in the administration to play fast and loose with the conflict of interest rules. Who’s to know whether Cheney’s word is better than Perle’s if no one looks into the matter ?
So how does it come to pass that a moderator can call a poster an idiot? Is that fair play in the pit?
Well said. The spin doctors are so adept at muddying the waters of corporate payoff and influence peddling, that it is nearly impossible to prove wrongdoing without spending hundreds of millions. And even then (as in the case of Whitewater), the taxpayer ends up with a big handful of nothing.
Everyone (or everyone without a defend-Bush-right-or-wrong attitude) is fairly certain that this gang of thugs planned the Iraq war back in the 90s (I’ve provided cite on this in another thread). How large a leap of logic is it to believe they intended to profit by it? But how do you prove intent without a ‘smoking gun’ letter or other hard evidence?
Unfortunately, if you gut enough prior legislation, install a barrage of security measures to intimidate the public, and bray about god being on your side, most investigative journalists will give a good long pause before tackling something that could land them in jail without a lawyer.
Wow, that’s quite a sweeping set of beliefs you’ve instilled into everybody.
Not that I don’t think you’re totally nuts, but I’ll play along.
So, Cheney, who’s worth 100 million bucks or so, just doesn’t have enough.
In order to get more he leaves his job as CEO of Halliburton and becomes the Vice President for like 200k a year or so.
Him and George Bush have planned to start a war, get a bunch of Americans killed and cost 100 billion dollars or so, so that Halliburton and these other oil companies can get a foothold in Iraq and Middle East Oil.
Then Cheney’s stock options will go up and he’ll somehow renege on the pledged to charity thing, and he’ll make another ten million or so when and if Halliburton stock goes up.
Is that it?
Cuz if it is, you’re a nut.
Of course not. No wealthy people do, nor do we poor folks for that matter. 
I was speaking as a poster, and yes, I too can call someone an idiot if they act like one.
Reeder could you at least try to find some unbiased cites? Or even find the real story- that the Congressional Research Service found that Cheney still had financial ties to Haliburton. Come on- mutual funds? You sound like an idiot.
Scylla for someone who claimed they were being oppressed due to your political beliefs- you are sure quick to insults others.
Oh, by the way, four more weeks to go on your Thanksgiving pledge. Have you decided if you are going to stand behind your pledge or not?
Admirable sentiment- I am sure you followed it during the Clinton Administration right? I bet you could even show up instances where you shot down some right wing hate zealots absurd claims against the Clintons? I bet if I searched “Clinton” and your name, I wouldn’t find anything too interesting? Because this standard of yours applies to both parties right?
For those interested in the CRS report we discussed it here:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=213769&highlight=cheney
Reeder, you may want to check it out if you wonder what a legitimate Cite looks like.
Preview for the lazy or bandwidth impaired:
**
Dang, I read the book, but that part wasn’t in the movie.
I don’t believe I have the power to instill beliefs in anyone that isn’t willing to accept them, so your statement is obviously intended to be inflammatory. The poor attempts at sarcasm that follow it are devoid of argument and merit no response.
The name calling is contemptible, of course (but expected), and a transparent attempt to bait me into doing the same. Sorry.
I also find your continued ignoring of the facts, even though they were pointed out to you in that very thread, to be funny. But not in a Ha-Ha way.
Hamlet, the funny part was how Reeder had screamed to the world that the contract was no-bid, then starts a thread with the title “Halliburton won the bid in 2001”. That title just BEGS for the “See, it wasn’t a no-bid contract.” comment, which was comedy genius.
Take this thread, he’s crowing about conflict of interest. Why? Because Cheney has shares in a mutual fund. That’s stupid, the point of a mutual fund is to make sure your wealth is NOT tied to the success of any individual company. It’s called diversification.
The REAL issue is the unexercised stock options, pointed out by elf6c, not Reeder.
In the no-bid thread quixotic78 had to come along to point out that Reeder had completely misunderstood the article and put up a misleading title that confilcted with his (Reeder’s) earlier complaints.
I can’t wait for Reeder’s next pit thread, they’re always a fun read.
elf6c:
Fighting back against the oppressors, throwing of the chains, it’s all good.
Ummm, Yessssss. In fact, I thought I did. I saw no reason to wait until Thanksgiving when I had that WMD report. I guess you missed it. I’d give you the link to the GD thread but there’s hamster problems right now.
Hopefully you’ll have the decency to retract your insinuation that I would dare dodge an issue. Surely a man such as your self will humble himself at my feet for having the audactity to launch such an insinuation without having checked first.
Well it seems to me that you should have fucking checked before you made the frivolous insinuation. Why don’t you? I’m on record in several threads.
I am shocked and surprised to be impugned by such an impurator as yourself, you besmircher and vile insinuatatertotter.
You make fun of my being oppressed but you besmirch and besmirch without having first checked to see if your besmirchifications are accurate. Oh vile slander, or libel, or what have you. I grow to suspect you are not much of a gentleman.
As noted more then a few times, I don’t post nor review GD. I simply don’t have the time for it.
Given that you posted your thread here originally and your last position was rather unclear I was still a bit interested in your final determination. Seeing the WMD report didn’t find any weapons, active programs or anything but wet dreams and future post-sanctions aspirations, and that as of today (just checked Google News) no WMD’s have been found- I was curious. Not enough to post alone, but given that I wanted to post a response to the tone and tenor of your posts in light of your previous statements, I thought I would ask.
If you give me the link I will go to GD and see what you said.
Let’s see, you complain about the hamsters keeping you from providing me with a simple link, yet with the same breath chastise me for not bring them to their knees with such a massive search. Also, it was a bit of a retorical question based on the last Hillary Clinton thread you posted in the Pit.
The point was this- you seem to operate under a double standard: one for your conduct and one for those whose opinions differ from yours. The same pattern holds true with the Bush Administration versus the Clinton Administration. While there are more then a few dipstick here that do that- I had higher standards for your posts as I do believe you have something worthwhile to say, even if I don’t agree with it. So maybe I am calling you out on your posts in political threads, but only because you seem to be sliding towards Brutus territory.
Maybe the example of McCain can act as an example of what I am saying:
Bush says something stupid:
http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20031028/frontpage/135171.shtml
Rather then drink the KoolAid on the pollyanna approach, McCain spoke his mind: