Iraq/Halliburton

[Steph]

We regularly hear about CEOs incomes. I'd be interested in hearing about the wealth of Mr. Cheney. Can anyone point me towards a link?

Oh, can anyone post a :rant: about the wealth of the presidential team in the Oval Office?

How many TRILLIONS was spent on this war?

[PantyFanatic]

Homeland Security says that is classified information. :starwars:

[PantyFanatic]

..... at least that is what the Swiss banker told me. :shrug:

[gekkogecko]

Try:

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org

[gekkogecko]

Oh, in particular, this page on the site:

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/cheneyflops2.html

[IowaMan]

Uh oh, this one will be the true test of whether or not my step-dad is actually a lurking member of Pixies. :nod:

I'm pretty sure he would be able to check out the stories and pics without actually making himself known but get the subject of Bush and/or Cheney rolling and he'll come pouncing out of the woodwork. If about 20 different links appear that link those two from everything from the JFK assasination to the rise in gas prices, I'll know he's here. :rofl:

[WildIrish]

The good news is that the US government has all the money they'll ever need.

The bad news is that it's currently in our pockets. :(

[jseal]

For those who are interested in facts on some of these issues (http://www.house.gov/ethics/ETHICS_IN_GOVERNMENT_ACT_LINK_PAGE.htm) ...

[Steph]

The good news is that the US government has all the money they'll ever need.

The bad news is that it's currently in our pockets. :(

That's the thing, though! I read an article about your pension plan and how it's basically fucked yet ours is set forever. My government has fixed our old age pension and it was a top-secret deal when the powers that be up here talked to the mucky mucks down there.

They listened but the fact remained that it was a "Canadian" idea therefore it held no water.

They mocked it, g-d-it!

Our pension plan is golden. Yours . . . not so much.

[PantyFanatic]

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."


Thomas Jefferson








;)

[jseal]

Thomas was, and remains, correct.

[wyndhy]

How many TRILLIONS was spent on this war?
i prefer to remain in blissful ignorance. :D

[Doomsday]

Must.. resist... urge... to rant. Must... not.... get drawn... back into.. politics. So... depressing...

Eh.... I'm so tempted to go in depth what I think about well, just about every facet of the current two-faced, cowardly, war-mongering, and idiotic Administration, but talks about politics rarely end in anything positive. It also depresses me.

[Jude30]

Must.. resist... urge... to rant. Must... not.... get drawn... back into.. politics. So... depressing...

Eh.... I'm so tempted to go in depth what I think about well, just about every facet of the current two-faced, cowardly, war-mongering, and idiotic Administration, but talks about politics rarely end in anything positive. It also depresses me.

It may not end in anything positive but they can be wildly entertaining.

[LixyChick]

Politics and religion and war...

I can say that they are three subjects that should be avoided so as not to cause debate and/or bad feelings. Also, that this country separates church and state.

Oh...wait...that's NOT necessarily true anymore now...is it?

Um...NEVERMIND! I can't speak on this subject due to the fact that I LOVE YOU PEOPLE!

[jseal]

... Oh...wait...that's NOT necessarily true anymore now...is it? ...

LixyChick,

They never were - at least as some might want.

[Coastie]

Personally I enjoy talking about it even with people of opposing views, you learn more that way than if you talk to all people who have the exact same view, but I realize most people get way to caught up in the debate and the conflict becomes personal. So yes I steer away from politics and religion.

[Oldfart]

The last war the military-industrial complex didn't profit from was fought with sticks and stones.

[scotzoidman]

The last war the military-industrial complex didn't profit from was fought with sticks and stones.
And I'd be willing to bet "Og's Sticks & Stones Inc." soon figured out how to clean up supplying both sides even then...

Didn't someone once say that all wars are fought over commerce?

[Coastie]

And I'd be willing to bet "Og's Sticks & Stones Inc." soon figured out how to clean up supplying both sides even then...

Didn't someone once say that all wars are fought over Resources?

Changed that.. but yes I think for the majority of them.

[Jude30]

Carl von Clausewitz, in On War said "war is a means to a political end". He also said "War is merely the continuation of policy by other means". Basically the same thing.

On War is one of those books most people should read, and I kick myself for having never gotten around to it.

[Coastie]

You can read On War here http://www.clausewitz.com/CWZHOME/VomKriege2/ONWARTOC2.HTML

if it so intrests you.

[gekkogecko]

Jude30, yes, I highly recommend Clausewitz. And, if you have the time, Sun Tzu, "The Art of War".

But as a follow-on to Clausewitz, read Gen Rupert Smith's, "The Utility of Force", Alfred A Knopf publishers, 2005.

[Steph]

The last war the military-industrial complex didn't profit from was fought with sticks and stones.

I understand that but Cheney is making SO much money in Iraq. It's sickening, IMHO.

[jseal]

I understand that but Cheney is making SO much money in Iraq ...
Steph,

Do you have any evidence to support that claim?

[Jude30]

Do you have any evidence that doesn't?

Does he still own stock in Halliburton? If so it would seem to be pretty obvious that he has earned a crap load of money off of dividends from that stock which would have greatly benefited from the no bid contracts Halliburton was awarded.

[Oldfart]

The unspoken (till now) question was whether these plutocrats failed to stop this war in order to line their pockets.

It will take a congressional enquiry to absolutely establish whether this happened, so until that day, all is cynical speculation.

Sad, innit?

[jseal]

Jude30,

For anyone who might be interested in facts on some of these issues (http://www.house.gov/ethics/ETHICS_IN_GOVERNMENT_ACT_LINK_PAGE.htm) ...

[wyndhy]

^^^that stuff reads drier and more remote than a vcr programming guide. :D

[jseal]

wyndhy,

Quite true! That stuff is also the federal law addressing some of the rather amusing speculations I have read here.

[wyndhy]

which speculations?

[jseal]

wyndhy,

Well, two that come to mind are the unsubstantiated suggestion that the Vice President is violating federal law, and another is that, in the absence of proof to the contrary, the Vice President is guilty as accused.

[Jude30]

All that site gave was the law it did not list Chenney's holdings.

[jseal]

Jude30,

In light of that, permit me to refer you to my previous post.

[Jude30]

Would you mind being less cryptic and just saying what you mean?

[jseal]

Jude30,

I did say what I meant in my post to wyndhy above. I find the unsubstantiated suggestion that the Vice President is violating federal law (and must have been doing so for more than seven years), and that, in the absence of proof to the contrary, the Vice President is guilty as accused, amusing speculations.

[Steph]

Steph,

Do you have any evidence to support that claim?

I would think it's common knowledge. I don't need to cite every bibliographical reference here. I'd invite you to disprove my opinions.

[jseal]

Steph,

I shall take that as an admission that you are unable to substantiate your claim.

[Jude30]

Jude30,

I did say what I meant in my post to wyndhy above. I find the unsubstantiated suggestion that the Vice President is violating federal law (and must have been doing so for more than seven years), and that, in the absence of proof to the contrary, the Vice President is guilty as accused, amusing speculations.

And I asked if you had seen his holdings report. Since he's supposed to release it. Seriously do you honestly expect your argument to be just a block of legalese that noone but a lawyer can understand, and expect us to read through it all to detect the one tid bit of information that you want us to know?

[wyndhy]

i gotta say, jseal, i didn't see where anyone said it was illegal, just immoral. perhaps i missed it.

[Steph]

Steph,

I shall take that as an admission that you are unable to substantiate your claim.

I guess I knew starting this thread you could attempt to thwart debate with your quest for links. In any case, if you look at my first post, I asked for links and some lovely Pixies provided them. Read them and then tell me again I can't substantiate my claim.

That was never my point in starting the thread. I debated starting it but I just got miffed thinking about Cheney's profits.

I certainly didn't start this thread to begin a link-pissing contest with you. AGAIN, I'd ask you to provide me with links that DISPROVE my claims. Show me the links that show Cheney is starving because of this war. YOU show me links that Halliburton ISN'T profiting from this war. Man, you're the biggest wet blanket I've ever "met".

[jseal]

In order:

Jude30,

You give your location as Midwest. I live in Maryland. This means that we share the common heritage that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. In this instance, it seems that you expect the accused to prove his innocence by providing what you think you need to make that assessment.

Steph,

I commend your clairvoyance in knowing that I might be so rude as to ask you to substantiate your claims. You were correct, and remain so. I believe that wyndhy was referring to your posts as accusing Mr. Cheney of immoral behavior. I do think it appropriate to back up such accusations with persuasive data, even if you do not.

In general:

If either of you are interested in securing the information you presume exists and further presume will support your positions, you may begin your efforts by following this link (http://www.house.gov/ethics/ega105.html), which points you to where you may get it. This is not unusual; reviewing the tax returns of those covered by ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT ACT has been done by others in the past (http://www.frugalfun.com/presidential-tax-returns.html).

Note please that I am not saying that Mr. Cheney is innocent of the behavior of which you accuse him. I do find it odd that the immoral behavior of which he is accused has managed to slip past those in a position to exploit it – Congress - while being so generally known that supporting evidence is unnecessary.

The first time I recall such vitriolic loathing was when I was working in Jeddah. One of my co-workers was a Brit who loved to hate the current PM, Margaret Thatcher. Once, after a particularly impressive rant, during which he accused her of precipitating the Falklands War, I asked him if he thought she liked seeming people in misery. He paused for a moment, and then said “Yes”. At least he was consistent.

The last time I recall such irrational fulminations was when President Clinton was impeached. Fortunately fewer than 67 votes could be mustered in the Senate trial.

I am persuaded that, based upon your unsubstantiated claims of immoral behavior and “guilty until proven innocent” positions, and that when these surprising positions were identified, they were claimed to be acceptable, there exists no reasoned response to your positions. As mere facts of law seem only to be inconveniences, law seems insufficient. As requests for facts are considered a hindrance to this discussion, it leaves it “fact free”.

I am unsure what contribution I might be able to make to a fact free discussion unencumbered by the inconvenience of lawful behavior.

[scotzoidman]

Note please that I am not saying that Mr. Cheney is innocent of the behavior of which you accuse him. I do find it odd that the immoral behavior of which he is accused has managed to slip past those in a position to exploit it – Congress - while being so generally known that supporting evidence is unnecessary.
Congress has has no will to "exploit" any accusations of wrongdoing in the current administration until this past year, & even now the opposition majority is so slim as to preclude any real attempt to do so. Witness the feeble gasps of outrage concerning the Valerie Plame incident, the firing of attorneys for political reasons, and the endless list of other wrongdoings by the Bush/Chaney dictatorship that have gone unchallenged.

Anyone who doubts what I'm saying here is encouraged to look into the book Takeover (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0316118044/npr-5-20) ...if you're not pissed-off & terrified yet, as Yoda said, "You will be..."

[jseal]

... the Bush/Chaney dictatorship ...
scotzoidman,

Oh Puhlease! It incendiary remarks of this nature which make it difficult to discuss difficult, but important, issues reasonably.

[wyndhy]

why does that term "dictatorship" upset you so, jseal?

[jseal]

wyndhy,

... why does it not upset you?

... when it is a false statement?

... when it is used to describe your homeland?

... does it not tend to polarize opinion?

... does not democracy depend upon communication between the citizens?

... do is not discourse needed?

... would you be more comfortableliving in one than in a democracy?

... why does it not upset you?

[wyndhy]

i asked you first but ok.

because it's not personal
because it's not true or false, merely facetious
because my homeland allows the expression of various opinions about governance.

[wyndhy]

wyndhy,

... why does it not upset you?

... when it is a false statement?

... when it is used to describe your homeland?

... does it not tend to polarize opinion?

... does not democracy depend upon communication between the citizens?

... do is not discourse needed?

... would you be more comfortableliving in one than in a democracy?

... why does it not upset you?

(i missed the additions in the edit. to address the added questions...)

it does not polarize dicussion, anyone may add any opinion at any time, whether it's the opposite of earlier stated opinions or not

communication between citizens is not challenged or even defined by the word dictatorship, leadership is

discourse needed for what?

no

becasue it's not a personal attack

[WildIrish]

Halliburton pulled record profits last year. And the year before. And the year before that.

Mad profits. Obscene amounts of money.

Does Vice President Cheney own or has he received stock in Halliburton? Dunno. I don't have the time or the resources to try & track down his disclosure forms or tax returns, public record or not.

If someone cares enough to investigate and it's discovered that they did receive no bid contracts that could & should have gone to other companies, and profitted directly from that work...and as a result, so did the VP, well that should be addressed.

I am well aware that no bid contracts can be a nefarious agreement between "buddies" and can be struck to eliminate fair competition, but they also can take place between parties that understand the quality of work and fairness of price, and willingness & ability to mobilize and get the job done in a minimal time frame.

I admit to skipping the bidding process and just calling a contractor that I've done work with before & just telling them "I need you to do a job...get over here as soon as you can. And ballpark me a figure just so I know." Should I invite three parties to bid so I can be assured of a fair price? Yes. Have I been burned by going with a low bidder? Absolutely. When it is something that requires immediate action...I skip the bidding and go with a good source.

That having been said, I don't know which is the case...only that each scenario can happen.

[jseal]

It may not end in anything positive but they can be wildly entertaining.
Jude30,

So far, we have someone claim that facts are not necessary for a discussion, another who suggests that the accused is guilty until innocent, a third that asserts that the U.S. is in the grips of a dictatorship, and a fourth who claims that false statements are neither true nor false.

Sir, you were right on the money with your prediction! :thumbs:

[jseal]

WildIrish,

Thank you for the reasonable points. :)

[wyndhy]

jseal, you asked for my thoughts on why i wasn't offended, i gave them to you honestly and politely, which is to say with less sarcasm and more forthrightness than you afforded me. there's no reason to be insulting.

[jseal]

wyndhy,

But insultingis not insulting, merely facetious

[wyndhy]

well then, i stand corrected.

[jseal]

wyndhy,

Let us recognize that reasonable people can disagree.

[wyndhy]

i recognize that anyone can disagree, reasonable or not. i can also recognize when i'm being insulted and belittled.

[Steph]

So far, we have someone claim that facts are not necessary for a discussion

jseal,

I'm assuming you're referring to me. Again, I ask you to GIVE ME LINKS showing me Cheney is not profiting from Haliburton AND Haliburton is not profiting from this war.

You've asked me for links, I told you I was concerned about the economy. It's ridiculous that the US is trillions in debt yet, from WHAT I UNDERSTAND, Haliburton is reaping benefits. People have already provided us with Haliburton links in this thread.

Please SHOW ME PROOF that Haliburton is not profiting from the Iraqi war AND please SHOW ME PROOF that Dick Cheney is not involved with Haliburton.

[jseal]

... I ask you to GIVE ME LINKS showing me Cheney is not profiting from Haliburton AND Haliburton is not profiting from this war ....

... SHOW ME PROOF that Haliburton is not profiting from the Iraqi war ...

...SHOW ME PROOF that Dick Cheney is not involved with Haliburton.
Steph,

Now those would fall under the "guilty until proved innocent" observation.

[Steph]

Steph,

Now those would fall under the "guilty until proved innocent" observation.

Dude, you ask me for links. I'm asking for yours. I'm giving thoughts on something that's been proven as fact in links already provided in this thread. You're playing Devil's Advocate for whatever reason but I'm calling tit for tat here. I'm not here to argue things that are more boring than a VCR instruction manual (to paraphrase a Pixie).

I'm concerned that the US VP is profiting from war. If you are to contribute to this thread, I'd ask that you cease with the "innocent until proven guilty" rhetoric and show me that Cheney is not a war profiteer. Show me the non-money, as it were.

You have children. Are you not concerned about the economy they're inheriting?

When this administration finally leaves in a year, what is going to happen?

[jseal]

... something that's given as a fact ...
Steph,

No fooling?

[scotzoidman]

scotzoidman,

Oh Puhlease! It incendiary remarks of this nature which make it difficult to discuss difficult, but important, issues reasonably.
Puhlease yourowndamself...clearly you didn't bother checking out the link to the book in my post...the Bushco administration has set up the return of the Imperial Presidency that was knocked down after the Nixon years (which Dick Chaney was player in), & has set some dangerous precedents that not only affect us now, but could lead to frightening consequences from future presidents as well...

And I've tried being reasonable my whole life, & it got me nowhere...from now on, I'm a muckracker & a shitstirrer, & consequences be damned...

[jseal]

... from now on, I'm a muckracker & a shitstirrer, & consequences be damned...
scotzoidman,

Good luck!

[Steph]

Steph,

No fooling?

I'm still waiting for links that would disprove Cheney has financially benefited from this war. You can talk in circles but I would like to hold you to this point. You attack my POV but won't show me any evidence to the contrary and your tone leaves a lot to be desired.

[Jude30]

Scotz I think they interviewed the author of the book you linked on NPR earlier this week. He had a lot of interesting things to say about our VP, and the amount of time he's been working on increasing Executive power.

The best part though will be when a Dem is in power again and that President uses every power the Reps gave the Executive branch and the right will have noone to blame but themselves for the unprecedented power given to the Pres.

[Booger]

who suggests that the accused is guilty until innocent




Innocent until Guilty is a right you have in a court of law. This dose not apply to the court of public opinion.

[wyndhy]

well put, boog.

[scotzoidman]

:withstupi

"court of public opinion"...maybe it dates me, that I remember some fellow named "Adlai" coining that phrase :shrug:

[jseal]

scotzoidman,

Yes sir. I believe that it happened during the Cuban Missle Crisis.

[BIBI]

Cheney probably put all his holdings into his wife's name......lol

........and no, I have no links or sites of reference to prove this.

It's just my opinion! ;)

[scotzoidman]

As I understand things, typically when elected officials take office, they put all their investments in a trust, supposedly so they won't be involved in day-to-day dealings with their own stocks/bonds/etc...what I've never understood is how they're supposed to forget what companies they were vested in when they put it in the trust, & are we supposed to believe that they won't act in their own self-interest during their term of office...

[Steph]

During a slow period at work on the weekend, I was watching last season's episodes of Weeds. An outgoing city councillor was explaining the MOs of other councillors and threw out one line that made me snicker: He overcharges like Halliburton.

:)

[WildIrish]

are we supposed to believe that they won't act in their own self-interest during their term of office...


Yes, we're supposed to believe that. And it happens just many times as it doesn't happen. What it boils down to is integrity. A person of character and integrity will not abuse the position of trust they are in (beit political office or otherwise).

I am in a position of trust that could be abused for my personal wellbeing. I can steer business to vendors that would be more than happy to offer "finder's fees" or discounted work on my house in exchange for executing contracts with them. That I abide by the procedures established by the board of directors is less because it is what others expect of me than because it's what I expect of myself. I may live in a state where the governor and the mayors of a number of large cities felt free to take advantage of their power but that doesn't mean I have to. We all make choices in this world and at some point are called upon to live with them.

So at the end of the day, if Halliburton's profits are the result of an abuse of power linking back to VP Cheney then he should be held accountable...and all shareholders will suffer.

I feel so bold as to say that all of us here at Pixies would agree with that statement? But none of us here are capable of locating a smoking gun of that caliber so we're left criticizing opinions and arguing semantics.

[scotzoidman]

Yes, we're supposed to believe that. And it happens just many times as it doesn't happen. What it boils down to is integrity. A person of character and integrity will not abuse the position of trust they are in (beit political office or otherwise).

I am in a position of trust that could be abused for my personal wellbeing. I can steer business to vendors that would be more than happy to offer "finder's fees" or discounted work on my house in exchange for executing contracts with them. That I abide by the procedures established by the board of directors is less because it is what others expect of me than because it's what I expect of myself. I may live in a state where the governor and the mayors of a number of large cities felt free to take advantage of their power but that doesn't mean I have to. We all make choices in this world and at some point are called upon to live with them.

So at the end of the day, if Halliburton's profits are the result of an abuse of power linking back to VP Cheney then he should be held accountable...and all shareholders will suffer.

I feel so bold as to say that all of us here at Pixies would agree with that statement? But none of us here are capable of locating a smoking gun of that caliber so we're left criticizing opinions and arguing semantics.
Careful, dude, people may think you're not such a dumbass at large as you claim to be ;)

Sadly, there are smoking guns all over the place, but, as the saying goes, "There are none so blind, as they who will not see"...I'm thinking a new title is in order, "The Teflon Dick"...

[WildIrish]

"The Teflon Dick"...


I'd love that!


Wouldn't have to use lotion. :hot:





What can I say? My flashes of brilliance cum in spurts, then I'm right back to being a dumbass. :p

[jseal]

... if Halliburton's profits are the result of an abuse of power linking back to VP Cheney then he should be held accountable ...
WildIrish,

Yes.

[Steph]

WildIrish,

Yes.

I'm still waiting for you to respond to my post to you, sir.

[dicksbro]

Well, we do know the wonderful criminal Dr. Hsu gave $100K to Hilliary ... but, in the interest of fair play she's giving back $20K. I wonder where I can get a deal like that. :shrug:

I also wish I could get the secret service to protect me and pay the cost of my mortgage for the privilege.

Let's face it, I don't trust any of our politicians from either major party. I figure if they're honest ... they won't last. :(

[Jude30]

I also wish I could get the secret service to protect me and pay the cost of my mortgage for the privilege.

As for getting the Secret Service protecting you all you have to do is get your spouse elected President. Unless you'd like to change over 100 years of tradition/law the President's spouse has always enjoyed the service.

Secondly concerning them charging the Secret Service rent and getting their mortgage paid for... maybe you should learn how to use Snopes.com (http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/landlord.asp)

Link shows what you think you know you don't really know.

[wyndhy]

still, there is much money wasted in government excess. intense secret service for ex-presidents might be a bit too much, and guarding empty houses is way, way, way too much.

[Steph]

Well, we do know the wonderful criminal Dr. Hsu gave $100K to Hilliary ... but, in the interest of fair play she's giving back $20K. I wonder where I can get a deal like that. :shrug:

I'm still interested in Cheney's profits from this war. I figure it's a wee bit more than a $100K.

[Jude30]

In the grand scheme of things the amount spent on the secret service to protect ex-Presidents is probably negligible. I also don't consider it money wasted since even as ex-Presidents they are still targets after they tenure.

[WildIrish]

Well, we do know the wonderful criminal Dr. Hsu gave $100K to Hilliary ... but, in the interest of fair play she's giving back $20K. I wonder where I can get a deal like that. :shrug:



Apparently that number is up to $850k. :eek:


That's approaching real money!


And though they haven't charged it...I'd have no problem accepting the $1,100 a month the government deemed the Clintons are able to collect for the Secret Service taking up space in their home. :D

Hell, for that money I'd be glad to let them take up space in MY home! Mrs. WI probably wouldn't mind either. ;)

[jseal]

I'm still waiting for you to respond to my post to you, sir.
Steph,

I believe that your post quoted below is the one to which you refer.
I'm still waiting for links that would disprove Cheney has financially benefited from this war. You can talk in circles but I would like to hold you to this point. You attack my POV but won't show me any evidence to the contrary and your tone leaves a lot to be desired.
If that is true, then my response to you is that you are mistaken.


You made a claim of the form “such-and-such is true”. The particular claim was:

... Cheney is making SO much money in Iraq ...
I asked if you had any evidence to support your claim. You will notice that there is no circularity involved. You made a claim. I asked if you could support your claim. Please note also that inquiring if you can substantiate a claim you have made does not amount to an attack on you point of view. Finally, as you were the one to make the claim, it is your responsibility to substantiate it; I am under no obligation to provide any evidence to the contrary. Your claim stands or falls on its own merits.

You have not yet provided evidence to warrant your claim. Should you do so, and I find the evidence you provide credible and persuasive (that Halliburton's profits are the result of an abuse of power linking back to VP Cheney), then I, like other reasonable people, will agree that appropriate remedies should be sought against Mr. Cheney.

[WildIrish]

Despite having denied there being any continued financial interest in Halliburton, as a shareholder Mr. Cheney has experienced an increase in his net worth. While it was noble of him to give up any unvested stock options when he took office, this amounted to 400,000 of the 1,160,000 share options he had at the time of his resignation from Halliburton. Within a week of resigning, Mr. Cheney exercised options to purchase stock at less than then current value. But then that is what the whole point behind stock options is. At any rate, this netted him $35 million.

He continues to hold 433,333 stock options.

As Halliburton's profits rise, so do all stockholders. And part of Halliburton's profits are from lucrative contracts for services in Iraq. Not all of them, obviously, but $10 billion is nothing to sneeze at. That figure was from 2005.

That having been said...owning stocks and options does not constitue a crime. Nor does his continuing to collect annual compensation from Halliburton.

What you're asking for, jseal, is not whether or not he profitted, but for proof that Mr. Cheney is directly responsible for the contracts Halliburton is/was awarded that generate the profits they (and in turn he) reap. That, I repeat, is a smoking gun that none of us will find.

[jseal]

WildIrish,

Yes sir. You are probably correct about that.

[Steph]

And though they haven't charged it...I'd have no problem accepting the $1,100 a month the government deemed the Clintons are able to collect for the Secret Service taking up space in their home. :D


Don't all former presidents have secret service? I'm confused about this point.

[jseal]

Steph,

President Clinton will be the last president to receive lifetime protection. In 1997, Congress modified the law to limit Secret Service protection for subsequent presidents to 10 years after leaving office.

[Steph]

You have not yet provided evidence to warrant your claim.

I think many people have shown he's profited. AGAIN, I ask you to disprove these claims.

Please show me how Mr. Cheney is not profiting from Halliburton.

[jseal]

Steph,

Many thousands of people profit from Haliburton. It is a "for profit" corporation. Profit is what it is in business to achieve.

[Steph]

I had promised myself I'd leave Pixies. It's mostly an American site. I wanted people to join this thread to discuss the positive things the Bush admin has put forward.

Sadly, I've got jseal writing the way he normally writes.

Bullshit aside, your VP is profiting from this war. There are links in this thread that prove it.

Jseal, you have kids in university. I'll ask you this -- what are you thoughts on the American economy? How do you feel about the debt incurred from this war?

I lowered myself to almost gloat because my country refused to join this war. I stood by it then, I stand prouder now. I read a lot. I am against this war more now.

I was asking for comments. Of course, jseal, you're you. I ask you straight questions, I get links back.

Tell me your thoughts on this war. Tell me your thoughts on the economy. What are your feelings on the economy your grandchildren will face. If possible, give me some opinions. No links, please.

[jseal]

Steph,

... I wanted people to join this thread to discuss the positive things the Bush admin has put forward ...
I have a difficult time accepting that as stated when the initial post to this thread was

We regularly hear about CEOs incomes. I'd be interested in hearing about the wealth of Mr. Cheney. Can anyone point me towards a link?

Oh, can anyone post a :rant: about the wealth of the presidential team in the Oval Office?

How many TRILLIONS was spent on this war?

... Sadly, I've got jseal writing the way he normally writes ...
Yes. I write the way I normally write. Just as it would be inappropriate for me to tell you to adopt some artificial technique when you try to communicate with others, so too I feel that it is inappropriate for others to tell me to write in a way that I find odd, artificial, or bizarre.

... Jseal, you have kids in university. I'll ask you this -- what are you thoughts on the American economy? How do you feel about the debt incurred from this war? ...
It is not immediately obvious what relevance the fact that my children being in college has to the two following questions. If your allusion is to the debt burden of the “Iraq event” future generations (my children) will be obliged to discharge, then you may want to consider it - the debt burden of the “Iraq event” – as a fraction of what the total U.S. Federal Debt was at the time the event ends. This would provide a reasonable representation of “the debt incurred from this war”. Then, deflating the 2003-2008 dollars to 1975, 1953, 1945, 1918, etc., we would be in a position to plausibly compare the “the debt incurred from this war” with the debt incurred from those wars.

You will need to provide more information about your question of my thoughts on the American economy for me to answer that question usefully.

... I lowered myself to almost gloat because my country refused to join this war. I stood by it then, I stand prouder now. I read a lot. I am against this war more now ...
Good. Democracies need knowledgeable citizens.

... I was asking for comments. Of course, jseal, you're you. ...
You received my comments.

... I ask you straight questions, I get links back ...
You received more than “just” links. I use links to warrant claims I make. Providing supporting information, as the links do, is a customary practice employed when people attempt to persuade others. I recommend it to everyone. The alternative, to people like me, is unpalatable - expecting people with whom you are having a discussion to accept whatever you say because you said it. That seems unreasonable.

... Tell me your thoughts on this war. Tell me your thoughts on the economy. What are your feelings on the economy your grandchildren will face. If possible, give me some opinions. No links, please.
War has always existed. It is a result of how we as humans are constituted. You may want to keep in mind that Bernard Kouchner, the French foreign minister, said today that the world should prepare for war over Iran's nuclear program. I shall be glad to see this war end, but I am not so foolish as to expect an end to wars.

You will need to be less vague in re your request of my thoughts “on the economy”.

Neither you nor I nor anyone has the least idea of the nature of the economy (Maryland? American? Global?) my grandchildren will face. My grandchildren, when they will need to deal with, face, or interact with “the economy” as independent agents will not do so until 2028 at the earliest. Anyone who claims that they can speak authoritatively on the economy of Maryland, much less that of the U.S. or that of the whole world twenty years (or more, no grandchildren on the horizon yet) in the future either does not know what they are talking about and is a fool, or does, and is a liar.

[dicksbro]

Steph, I don't know exactly the answer to your questions regarding the cost of the war in Iraq (and Afghanistan) but what I did was go out to "Ask Jeeves" and found the US GDP (Gross Domestic Product) was about 11.75 TRILLION dollars in 2004 ( http://www.ask.com/web?q=What+is+the+US+GDP&qsrc=0&o=0&l=dir ). I then asked about the cost of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and a chart was shown indicating that as of this point in time, the war has cost (IN TOTAL) about $450 BILLION. If my math is right, that's about 4% of the year 2004's GDP. (USA Today reports that by 2010, it could reach $600 BILLION ( http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-05-18-csm-iraq-costs_x.htm) which would be about 5% of the 2004 GDP for the US.

As far as people profiting from the war, I have no doubt many in Washington (and other places) have. People from both parties. In fact, anyone who has investments in any products or services that go to supporting the effort there, but I really don't know how much any of them have directly realized from the war or any knowledge whether any decisions or positions they have on the war are a result of any financial dealings. I honestly don't know where you'd find that information. If anyone does, please let me know ... for Cheney and the top leadership of both parties. Might be interesting.