All this proves is that Kerry & Co. are desparate. If there were any link between Cheney and any Federal contract, he’d be facing federal corruption charges. Also, let’s take a look at the dates of those Halliburton contracts — I’ll bet a Susan B. Anthony dollar that more than a few of them predate the Bush administration.

Posted by: TL at September 17, 2004 02:45 PM

Isn’t Cheney entitled to those pension payments BY LAW? If he’s entitled to a pension from his years at Halliburton, then by golly he ought to receive it.

I think Cheney needs to step forward and say something like: “This is my duly authorized income from my years at Halliburton. I don’t give that up just because I became vice president…I earned it. You got a problem with that?”

Posted by: Sloan at September 17, 2004 02:54 PM

Cheney also donated his deferred compensation to charity, a fact the media likes to ignore given their “controversy” bias.

Posted by: Opinionated Bastard at September 17, 2004 02:59 PM

I think it was THE most ignorant move Bush could have made though. By authorizing a no bid contract with Cheney’s former company,who wouldn’t be questioning that?

I voted for W and will again,but that move was beyond retarded. At LEAST he should have bid the contract after initial emergency stuff. To me,it shows GW’s arrogance,he thinks what he does is not within the legitimate purview of we the people.

If the democrats chose a decent candidate,Bush would be losing by miles,IMO.

Posted by: FireballXL5 at September 17, 2004 03:32 PM

This is what they get when they hire someone like Carville to be a “consultant”. And it couldn’t happen at a better time. Bush just needs to keep on with a positive focus and let Kerry implode.

I’m beginning to think the conspiracy theory that the Dems don’t want Kerry to win so they can put Hillary in ‘08 is true.

Posted by: TexasGal at September 17, 2004 03:34 PM

BTW… the ad is wrong.. it is only 120 bl spent so far…not 200.
www.factcheck.org

Posted by: mr lawson at September 17, 2004 03:39 PM

Halliburton had the infrastructure needed to go into Iraq reconstruction immediately. I think the Republican justification is that they needed that infrastructure ASAP. Now they’re giving away parts of Halliburton’s workload.

I report, you decide.

Posted by: Connolly at September 17, 2004 03:44 PM

There are many good reasons why the Halliburton contract was EXTENDED. The extension is always an option in times of emergency. Not to mention that no other company could handle such a large and diverse specification. And to bid a contract it takes at least 6-8 months from the get-go at a minimum. Not to mention it would have tipped our hand in the planning for the war as well as caused us to postpone our invasion while our ships were sitting at sea waiting for a new contractor to get in place. And chances are about 99.9% that the contract even if it had been bid would have been awarded to Halliburton anyway. And you don’t really want to go to war with an untried contractor that you depend on to provide the vast support that Halliburton has been providing, everything from food, lodging, to fuel and more.

So people can scrutinize all they want and Kerry can try to use it to smear Cheney and Bush, but the reality is that, if there had been another way, they would have done it to avoid the hassle it has caused. There was no other way and they bit the bullet and did what needed to be done.

Posted by: TexasGal at September 17, 2004 03:45 PM

I think I hate this leftist lie more than any of them. These are very serious charges, both legally and morally, and they are utterly, totally unfounded.

Not to mention impossible: neither the White House nor any political appointee awards contracts of any kind to anyone in the US government. This is work handled by career civil service according to a very thorough framework of laws, regulations and oversight.

Other than Cheney, can anyone recall any case of a President or Vice-President—-or any member of the government in modern times for that matter—- accused of profiting from the Federal government? This is why you haven’t.

These charges indicate nothing other than the level of vindictive animosity Cheney’s political opponents nurture within themselves.

:jackson

Posted by: jackson zed at September 17, 2004 03:47 PM

JZ,

I swear it’s a mental illness. I propose that we expand on Bush’s plan to increase the number of county medical facilities to include large security wards for the mentally insane. I’m afraid we are going to be woefully short of bed space on Nov 3rd.

Posted by: TexasGal at September 17, 2004 03:55 PM

Cheney should do a Zell Miller and challenge Kerry to a duel.

And he wouldn’t be the first VP to do it!

Posted by: DWC at September 17, 2004 04:23 PM

Good, I don’t see any spew by the lefties on this subject yet. Cheney annuitized his pension to multiple payments…thats all. With bastards like Kerry running around, it makes me sorta lean toward taking a lump sum! ha ha This slander won’t kill the dems though…the one thats going to kill them in the end is the ad that shows the American Soldier in the surrender position…the gun over his head!! That ought to bury the fricks…where’s Don…Where’s Lakhim…all these good patriots!! ha ha

Posted by: dickmr at September 17, 2004 04:51 PM

From what I recall, Nixon was accused, but not indicted, for bribery charges in connection with various matters, including the awarding of some federal contracts. These ongoing scandals and the reporting of them led to the “My Dog Checkers” speech.

According to Sy Hersh’s “The Darker Side of Camelot”, Kennedy was widely suspected, although never indicted, in a kickback scheme involving General Dynamics and other defense contractors One of the major controversies in Bobby Kennedy being appointed Attorney General was that it effectively killed the ongoing investigations into these matters, not to mention any investigation into Sam Giancana and the mob-controlled unions election fraud activities.

LBJ . . .well, let’s just say he had a lot of very profitable investments and buildings named after him for somebody who never operated in the private sector after graduating from college (he was elected to H.R. at the age of 23).

Spiro Agnew resigned as VP after pleading nolo contendere to tax evasion and fined $10,000 in connection with allegations of having accepted multiple bribes totalling $30,00 while governor of Maryland or Virginia or something, prompting Eric Severeid to comment: “The amazing thing is that Spiro Agnew could be bought, but that he could be bought so cheap.”

Jimmy Carter should have been corrupt, it would have made him more interesting and might have kept him busy enough to keep him from being a total failure as president.

Neither Reagan nor Bush were the subject of personal corruption charges. Bill Clinton had Whitewater to deal with and his wife was one hell of a poultry futures trader. Their campaign finance practices are also legendary – having garnered the largest fines in the history of the FEC.

So, it ain’t exactly accurate to say that corruption charges are new to modern presidential politics and the mud flies in both directions.

As for Cheney, he is receiving deferred compensation – which is standard CEO compensation these days – which is fixed in amount and not dependent upon Halliburton’s financial results or stock price. Cheney has donated his stock options to charity, which has got to be a kick in the nuts to the charity, given what’s happened to Halliburton’s stock price under the Bush administration.

Also, doesn’t anybody want to note that the various investigations and audits that have been launched against Halliburton were all launched under the Bush Administration?

Posted by: TL at September 17, 2004 05:28 PM

Cheney has admitted he was still receiving pension payments.

If Kerry is elected President, does he give up his salary for the rest of his life as a Senator plan?

Posted by: TexasGal at September 17, 2004 07:41 PM

“I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven’t had now for over three years.”
“Cheney has admitted he was still receiving pension payments.”

I tire of pointing out the gross failure of those who supposedly are professional journalists, but the obvious question given these statements is “does Haliburton’s performance have any effect upon the pension benefits?”

This one question resolves the issue. How can any editor who purports to be interested in the truth fail to miss this gaping hole? I can only conclude the question was intentionally left unanswered.

Posted by: submandave at September 20, 2004 02:44 PM