VP Cheney Emerges From Secure Location, Lies to Press

[Goldstein]

[size=+2]Aides Back Cheney on Lack of Halliburton Ties[/size]


[size=-1]By Mike Allen and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, September 17, 2003; Page A16 [/size]



Aides to Vice President Cheney yesterday defended his assertion this weekend that he has no financial ties to the Halliburton Co., even though he still receives deferred compensation from the Texas-based energy conglomerate.

Cheney was chairman and chief executive of Halliburton until he joined George W. Bush's ticket. The firm has won Iraqi reconstruction contracts worth more than $1.7 billion and stands to make hundreds of millions of dollars more under a no-bid contract awarded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Cheney, appearing Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," said he has "severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interests. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had now for over three years."

Democrats took issue with that characterization yesterday, pointing to the deferred compensation Cheney receives from the company. Cheney's office said he received $147,579 in 2001 and $162,393 in 2002, under an arrangement he made in 1998 and cannot revoke. Democrats also pointed out that Cheney retains unexercised Halliburton stock options. Cheney announced in 2001 that he had signed an agreement to donate the after-tax proceeds to three charities.

Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) said Cheney "needs to explain how he reconciles the claim that he has 'no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind' with the hundreds of thousands of dollars in deferred salary payments he receives from Halliburton."

Cheney's communications director, Catherine Martin, said the payments are "not a tie" to Halliburton. She said Cheney took out a $15,000 insurance policy so that he would receive the deferred payments over five years regardless of whether Halliburton remains in business." It's money he already earned," she said. "It's not dependent on what happens to Halliburton."





© 2003 The Washington Post Company

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

Even if Cheney doesn't benefit his friends sure are. That is alot of money to spend without even considering your options. Not worried about a crooked politician *gasp* so much as an irresponsible government that spends money without thinking about it or sending it to friends.

 

[Voegelin]

You are so predictable Goldstein.

Why didn't you use the screen name Karl Marx? Or Trotsky? Or Zinoviev? Or Gubel'man Minei Izrailevich? Or Jakub Berman, Julius Rosenberg, Noam Chomsky, Ana Paulka, Lazar Moiseyevich Kaganovich, I.F. Stone, Harry Dexter White, Rosa Schwartz, Alger Hiss, Boris Morros etc...etc..

The tune is all the same.

 

[ZaraDurden]

Voegelin:

Why are you not willing to look at the other side, and possibly the truth?

 

[brewmama]

Why don't you look at the truth? Deferred salary is not a tie, as was stated. This is more slander and demonization to bring down Bush, and you guys constantly buy into it.

What exactly is wrong with bringing Iraq up to the 21st century? Who would YOU like to have the job? Don't you realize that a business in Iraq could have huge liabilities, similar to businesses that are brave enough to stay in the slums when the local residents destroy their own neighborhood? You guys are indeed totally predictable.

 

[yen]

This is more slander and demonization to bring down Bush

This is about Cheney, not Bush.

It is not slander, it's showing the facts. He DOES receive pay from his company, and his company got a LOT of thr projects in Iraq. That is pretty fishy if you ask me.

Also in another interview just a few days ago, he still claims Iraq was getting uranium from Africa. I guess he missed the memo saying that it's been proven that never happened

Why didn't you use the screen name Karl Marx? Or Trotsky? Or Zinoviev?

No offence but you seriously need to move on from these topics. The more you write about it, the more it appears you just have a grudge and aren't willing to look at both sides.

 

[brewmama]

This is about Cheney, not Bush.

It is not slander, it's showing the facts. He DOES receive pay from his company, and his company got a LOT of thr projects in Iraq. That is pretty fishy if you ask me.

Also in another interview just a few days ago, he still claims Iraq was getting uranium from Africa. I guess he missed the memo saying that it's been proven that never happened


eriously need to move on from these topics. The more you write about it, the more it appears you just have a grudge and aren't willing to look at both sides.

It's not "his" company. You didn't answer my questions about infrastructure in Iraq. If it's about Cheney, it's about Bush. You guys want to bring down everybody.

It has certainly NOT been proven that Iraq wasn't seeking uranium. One report wasn't true, but there are others, and Britain still stands by their intelligence. Or did you miss that memo.
Perhaps the fact that the CIA was pulled out of Nigeria, and a liberal State Dep't guy went over and had tea with the gov't guys, who said "Who us? Sell uranium to Iraq? Certainly not!" and were believed has something to do with our lack of intelligence on it.

As long as you guys keep bringing out these ridiculous claims, we will keep on setting the story straight. Sorry if that bugs you. After all, who started this thread?

 

[TheBear]

*** Baseball Cap On ***

Let's all keep to the topic at hand and not resort to personal ad hominems.

Thanks.

*** Chef's Hat Off ***

 

[ifriit]

If it's about Cheney, it's about Bush.

Actually, if it's about Cheney, it's about Cheney. I can understand the confusion, they sound quite similar.

It has certainly NOT been proven that Iraq wasn't seeking uranium. One report wasn't true, but there are others, and Britain still stands by their intelligence. Or did you miss that memo.
Perhaps the fact that the CIA was pulled out of Nigeria, and a liberal State Dep't guy went over and had tea with the gov't guys, who said "Who us? Sell uranium to Iraq? Certainly not!" and were believed has something to do with our lack of intelligence on it.

The documents indicating Iraq had received uranium from Nigeria were nearly as bad as if they had been written in crayon, according to CIA officials. Further, Britain does not stand behind that claim. I'm not entirely faulting you, however, because Bush opponents do tend to twist the Nigerian document dismissals as evidence that Iraq was not seeking uranium from any African nation, which Britain does claim to have evidence of.

If you're going to take a superior tone, at least try to get the facts straight. Please.

 

[yen]

It has certainly NOT been proven that Iraq wasn't seeking uranium.

Please tell me where I said this. Oh, right, you can't. I said he was still claiming Iraq had received uranium from Nigeria, which is false. The country doesn't even have what it would take to create such weapons of their own, much less start passing it out to others. Please don't put words into my mouth, saying Iraq wasn't even looking for it.

As long as you guys keep bringing out these ridiculous claims, we will keep on setting the story straight.

Sorry, I have yet to see any evidence supporting your 'stories'.

What exactly is wrong with bringing Iraq up to the 21st century? Who would YOU like to have the job?

They didn't ask us to, and we had no business being there other than lies. If we were there to liberate the people (one of a billion reasons for war), we should liberate the countries (that we send millions to in support) with worse human rights violations than Iraq ever had, and bring them up to the 21st century, but you don't see us doing that now do you.

 

[ifriit]

Please tell me where I said this. Oh, right, you can't. I said he was still claiming Iraq had received uranium from Nigeria, which is false.

Actually, you did say Africa, not Nigeria.

 

[Grizzly]

How does this sound,

The Vice President, former CEO of Halliburton, knows that his former company is in trouble. The asbestos lawsuits are hitting hard. He knows that a war with Iraq would reap a huge windfall for Halliburton (turns out to be 1.2 BILLION in NO-Bid contracts. Thats right, no bid.). Can you not see the conflict of interest here? This man is advising the president that we NEED to go to war with Iraq.

Even if he did it with the best of intentions, it still reeks of conflict.

I wonder where Dick will be employed after he leaves the White House....

 

[yen]

A slip up there, and my apologies. However, I am not saying Iraq was never looking for uranium totally, as brewmama seems to want to believe...

 

[datan]

It has certainly NOT been proven that Iraq wasn't seeking uranium.

what other reports?

As long as you guys keep bringing out these ridiculous claims, we will keep on setting the story straight.

what ridiculous claims? Name one in this thread--under than "Iraq seeking uranium from Nigeria"

 

[ifriit]

A slip up there, and my apologies. However, I am not saying Iraq was never looking for uranium totally, as brewmama seems to want to believe...

Agreed, but it is a common tactic to try to conflate the two among some sources, so it isn't entirely surprising for her to overgeneralize.

 

[yen]

Understandable

 

[datan]

What exactly is wrong with bringing Iraq up to the 21st century?

the mighty suspicious thing is using Halliburton to win > $1billion in no-bid contracts doing stuff like laundry, mail delivery and cleaning, paying someone many times what your army grunt would do for free [don't forget a full salary plus risk premium plus insurance]...

also, using Iraqi oil proceeds to fund said reconstruction without opening it up to international firms...mighty suspicious that Iraqi oil proceeds seem to end up by and large with American firms getting the contracts, no?

 

[brewmama]

the mighty suspicious thing is using Halliburton to win > $1billion in no-bid contracts doing stuff like laundry, mail delivery and cleaning, paying someone many times what your army grunt would do for free [don't forget a full salary plus risk premium plus insurance]...

also, using Iraqi oil proceeds to fund said reconstruction without opening it up to international firms...mighty suspicious that Iraqi oil proceeds seem to end up by and large with American firms getting the contracts, no?

Since it was America that went in and fought the war, no.

 

[Goldstein]

American companies didn't fight the war, however....

 

[burrow_owl]

Where are the accountants and securities lawyers on this board? cuz I haven't heard anyone mentioning the technical truth or falsity of his remarks (whether deferred income counts as a legal or financial tie for the professionals). One thing I do know is that he was contractually obliged to take those payments, so maybe there wasn't much he could do? I know, I know, it's weak, but I'd prefer to see the best argument for Dick before he's torn apart.