Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (145652)	4/21/2002 2:59:42 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575189

The only incident I'm aware of is when Halliburton bought Dresser and Dresser had a couple of subsidiaries that were selling stuff to Iraq. I believe there was a rapid devestiture of those subsidiaries, and the period during which HAL was involved was measured in weeks. The amounts of the sales were immaterial to Haliburton's operation. When questioned about it, Cheney said it didn't happen but then corrected his statement a couple of weeks later. I think it is totally expected that Cheney would not have known about these relatively minor activiteis of twice- removed subsidiaries engaged in immaterial operation. It seems you are very forgiving when its a Republican. Mr. Cheney blatantly lied on Aug. 6th, 2000 then sort of corrected himself on Aug. 27th of that same year. The $28 million contracts, which may be chump change in Arkansas but here on the left coast we call that real money, required UN approval to insure that they did not violate sanctions in place against Iraq, sanctions Bush Sr. helped to put into place............wasn't Cheney Sec. of Defense under Bush Sr? I believe the UN approvals were obtained under Cheney's watch but even if they hadn't been how could he have missed that red flag as a former Sec. of Defense and as a potential VP candidate? But then, Reps. don't lie, do they Ray? They just make as much $$$ as possible with the enemy until they get caught? And you're freaked out about Clinton's sexual activities? Frankly, I think you need to give your priorities an update. ____________________________________________________________ njdc.org Return to NJDC in the News Financial Times Article Demonstrates: Cheney Broke His Word On Dealing With Iraq 11/03/00 Washington, DC: An article appearing yesterday on the Financial Times Internet site indicates that between September 1998 and last winter, GOP Vice Presidential candidate Dick Cheney - as CEO of Halliburton, a leading oil service company - oversaw $23.8 million of business contracts that were submitted for United Nations approval for the sale of parts and equipment to Iraq through two Halliburton subsidiaries, Dresser-Rand and Ingersoll-Dresser Pump. The article reports that the value of the contracts with Iraq by Halliburton's subsidiaries totaled more than any other US company, and that the "vast majority" of the contracts were approved by the UN sanctions committee. Although Halliburton sold its stake in Dresser-Rand in February 2000 and in Ingersoll-Dresser Pump in December 1999, Mr. Cheney told ABC's This Week program in August that his company had no dealings with Iraq during this period, through subsidiaries or otherwise. On Sunday, August 6th, 2000, Mr. Cheney had the following exchange with ABC's Sam Donaldson: DONALDSON: I'm told and correct me if I'm wrong, that Halliburton, through subsidiary companies, was actually trying to do business with Iraq? CHENEY: No. No. I had a firm policy that I wouldn't do anything in Iraq even - even arrangements that were supposedly legal. What we do with respect with Iran and Libya is done through foreign subsidiaries totally in compliance with US law. DONALDSON: It's a way around US law. CHENEY: No. No. It's provided for us specifically with respect to Iran and Libya. Iraq's different, but we've not done any business in Iraq since the sanctions were imposed and - and I had a standing policy that I wouldn't do that. On August 27th, Mr. Donaldson again asked Mr. Cheney on This Week, "All right. So you - you continue to say that you had not dealt with Iraq while you were CEO of Halliburton, is that correct?" Mr. Cheney replied, "That's correct," but then added to the contrary, "When we took over Dresser, we inherited two joint ventures with Ingersoll-Rand that were selling some parts into Iraq...." "The Financial Times article indicates that Mr. Cheney was either lying to ABC on August 6th about doing business with Iraq, or the burden is on him to make the difficult argument that as CEO of Halliburton, he was unaware that he was doing tens of millions of dollars of business with Iraq," said Ira N. Forman, Executive Director of the National Jewish Democratic Council. "Either way, it is unthinkable that Mr. Cheney would have been profiting from doing business with a pariah nation such as Iraq - a nation that repeatedly hurled Scud missiles at Israel, and a nation that Mr. Cheney himself led the fight against as Secretary of Defense. It makes a damning statement about either Mr. Cheney's veracity or his character that when it comes to doing business with Iraq, he would just proceed with business as usual. This entire episode raises serious questions about Mr. Cheney's priorities and his truthfulness," Mr. Forman added.

To: i-node who wrote (145652)	4/21/2002 3:00:34 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575189

So, what's your beef? HAL is a big company. The United States buys oil from Saddam every day. We do? Link please!

To: i-node who wrote (145652)	4/21/2002 3:09:16 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575189

And Reps don't lie.....they just refuse to hand over documents. I don't know which document you're referring to; however, a refusal to hand over documents is, in no way, in the same ballpark as "lying". You didn't know that for weeks the GAO was asking for an tapes of Cheny's conversations with oil executives and documents related to those conversations and the WH was refusing to comply? They do get the news in Arkansas, don't they? There can be legitimate reasons for refusing to hand over documents. Under the Freedom of Information Act, there are few if any reasons. Just because your political opponents demand it, that doesn't make it appropriate to do it. It was the GAO asking for them, not the Dems. It was only when they threatened to go to court did the WH comply with their request. There are other instances (for example, the Hillary Billing Records incident) in which a court order requires the handing over of documents, when a failure to do so is criminal. We are talking about your holy grail Reps here, not the Clintons......stop smoke screening.