Did Bush lie, or did he lie? (1 Viewer)

[steen]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html
(April 20, 20)
Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

So he values the Constitution? Sure seems like he lied.

 

[aps]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html
(April 20, 20)
Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

So he values the Constitution? Sure seems like he lied.

Surprise surpise--he lied. (It's really not a surprise to me.)

 

[hipsterdufus]

War is Peace

War Is Peace

In order to fight terrorism, we must cause it, says Donald Rumsfeld.

It's okay that there were no “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq; that's not why we went to war.


“I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace.” — George W. Bush, 43rd President of the United States

Freedom Is Slavery

The Anti-Terrorism Act ensures US citizens' freedom by ensuring the FBI's ability to examine their activities.

Security cameras have been placed around the Columbia campus and around the island of Manhattan.

We encourage all true citizens of this country to join Operation TIPS, which, we promise, will help further an Orwellian society in ways that we at SOS cannot even begin to fathom.

While Victory Gin is not (as far as we know) yet available, the sale of freedom fries is an important first step; freedom fries and freedom toast are also now available in Congress. Also, check out Victory Beer, and W Ketchup
The truly Orwellian and praiseworthy Transportation Safety Administration gets our thanks for spotting anti-Americanism in passengers' baggage.

On surveillance cameras: “The value we gain in public safety far outweighs any perception by the community that this is Big Brother who's watching.” — Ron Huberman, Executive Director, Chicago Office of Emergency Management

Wearing a t-shirt which says “Protect Our Civil Liberties” is, of course, obscene, and will get you kicked out of Bush campaign rallies.

George Orwell Plaza, in Barcelona, has continuous closed-circuit television recording.

Ignorance Is Strength

Osama bin Laden's messages will no longer be shown in Oceania. This will improve the strength of the bloc.

There is no dissent in this country. Those who disagree with President Bush are merely confused.

The New York Times published an excellent piece of doublethink in its magazine section on Sunday 18 November. It is bad that Al-Jazeera fails to take American positions seriously. It is good that American media doesn't take Arab positions seriously. And all this from an Arab-American scholar who President Bush the First once called “more anti-Arab than the Israelis.”
Government agencies are requesting that certain government reports be removed from public libraries. An excellent indication that SOS is having influence at the highest levels!

The Guardian reports that PR firms have begun creating false citizens to try and shift the debate on certain key issues. Big Brother is certainly pleased!
Do not wear a “Give Peace a Chance” t-shirt at the mall, or carry a protest sign when passing through. It may be illegal.

It's good to know that the recent pro-war rallies have been sponsored by Clear Channel—we wouldn't want people expressing their opinions without the help of media conglomerates!

We're pleased to learn that the government has been removing information from websites which do not agree with the current administration's policies.

For example, the CDC's website no longer points out that condoms are an effective means of stopping sexually transmitted diseases.

Thanks, Time Magazine for removing articles from your website!
Reading an article critical of the government is a serious form of thoughtcrime—and, fortunately, the FBI takes such things seriously!
Do not email President Bush.

Youths in Arabic-speaking countries are encouraged to read Hi Magazine.
A recent study showed that thanks to Fox News and other Minitrue news sources, most Americans believe untrue things about the war in Iraq.
We are proud to present a special report on a specific instance of doublethink in the New York Times.

The FBI urges you not to carry almanacs, lest you be labeled a terrorist.

The Civil War will not be taught in US History courses in Georgia.

“Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything.” — Stalin, a man truly ahead of his time.

In the grandest pro-Orwellian tradition, science is (fortunately) no longer a tool for objective truth, but rather one to promote an agenda. Huzzah!

http://www.studentsfororwell.org/

 

[Stace]

War is Peace


http://www.studentsfororwell.org/

Oooh that cracked me up!!!

But yeah, Bush lied, nothing new there, I've been saying it for 5 years now.....

At least "no one died when Clinton lied".....no one got their civil liberties taken away, either... :mrgreen:

 

[tecoyah]

Oooh that cracked me up!!!

But yeah, Bush lied, nothing new there, I've been saying it for 5 years now.....

At least "no one died when Clinton lied".....no one got their civil liberties taken away, either... :mrgreen:

I found it hilarious as well....in a sick to my stomach kind of way. He more than lied....he broke the Laws of the land. This man needs to be held accountable for his actions at some point, and I can only hope that time is now....rather than waiting for something worse.

 

[SixStringHero]

Oooh that cracked me up!!!

But yeah, Bush lied, nothing new there, I've been saying it for 5 years now.....

At least "no one died when Clinton lied".....no one got their civil liberties taken away, either... :mrgreen:

IIRC people did in fact die when we went into the Balkans to remove Milosevec from power and were given the pretext that we would find mass graves.

Did this constitute a lie?
People did die under Clinton.

 

[Stace]

IIRC people did in fact die when we went into the Balkans to remove Milosevec from power and were given the pretext that we would find mass graves.

Did this constitute a lie?
People did die under Clinton.

That wasn't what I was talking about, so, moving on.......

 

[tecoyah]

IIRC people did in fact die when we went into the Balkans to remove Milosevec from power and were given the pretext that we would find mass graves.

Did this constitute a lie?
People did die under Clinton.

Unbelievable....are you really so blinded by supposed patriotism as to reach this far into someones statement for a straw to grasp onto....I mean.....please. Of course people died under Clinton, freakin' Duh. People die under every administration....that is obviously not the point, regardless of how hard you attmpt to sideline the actual discussion.

 

[SixStringHero]

That wasn't what I was talking about, so, moving on.......

Right, so no when you say "No one died, when Clinton Lied," what exactly are inferring?

 

[SixStringHero]

Unbelievable....are you really so blinded by supposed patriotism as to reach this far into someones statement for a straw to grasp onto....I mean.....please. Of course people died under Clinton, freakin' Duh. People die under every administration....that is obviously not the point, regardless of how hard you attmpt to sideline the actual discussion.

Military personnel did die under Clinton when we went into countries such as Somalia and Bosnia.

We went into the Balkans to remove Milosevec under the pretense we would find mass graves. Again, if memory serves me correctly we didn't find anything that would constitute mass graves.

I only brought this up because I find the 'No one died when Clinton lied' mantra highly ignorant.

For the record I'm no fan of Bush and he really isn't that great of a president, but I thought the same thing of Clinton as well.

 

[tecoyah]

I only brought this up because I find the 'No one died when Clinton lied' mantra highly ignorant.

OK...so....in summary....Bill Clinton lied.


Now, back to our regularly scheduled debate on the current president, and whether or not...HE...lied.


My opinion.....Yup, He did.

 

[steen]

I do find it odd, how conservatives SEVEN years after are still fixated on Clinton. It is almost as if, by keeping on talking about him, they can avoid thinking about the many lies shrub has told and the many of America's finest that he has let be killed for haliburton's oil profits

 

[SixStringHero]

I do find it odd, how conservatives SEVEN years after are still fixated on Clinton. It is almost as if, by keeping on talking about him, they can avoid thinking about the many lies shrub has told and the many of America's finest that he has let be killed for haliburton's oil profits

First off, I'm not a conservative.

And while you brought it up....Were you up in arms about Clinton's no bid contracts that were given to Haliburton in the Balkans?

 

[tecoyah]

First off, I'm not a conservative.

And while you brought it up....Were you up in arms about Clinton's no bid contracts that were given to Haliburton in the Balkans?

You mean this Right:

Then, in February 2003, the Corps of Engineers gave Halliburton a temporary no-bid contract to implement its classified oil-fire plan. The thinking was it would be absurd to undertake the drawn-out contracting process on the verge of war. If the administration had done that and there had been catastrophic fires, it would now be considered evidence of insufficient postwar planning. And Halliburton was an obvious choice, since it put out 350 oil-well fires in Kuwait after the first Gulf War.

The Clinton administration made the same calculation in its own dealings with Halliburton. The company had won the LOGCAP in 1992, then lost it in 1997. The Clinton administration nonetheless awarded a no-bid contract to Halliburton to continue its work in the Balkans supporting the U.S. peacekeeping mission there because it made little sense to change midstream. According to Byron York, Al Gore's reinventing-government panel even singled out Halliburton for praise for its military logistics work.

No one cared in the least...as no one knew. And had they it likely wouldnt have been a big deal. But, there wasnt an acting VP making money off the deal either. The perception here is important, regardless of any shady deals or not. By placing themselves in a position to be questioned through deductive reasoning, the Administration is getting what was inevitable.
I dont know if there is corruption going on here....but I sure as hell want to find out. And the smoke and mirrors used to fog the issue really shakes my confidence in the honesty of those in power.

 

[The Real McCoy]

I do find it odd, how conservatives SEVEN years after are still fixated on Clinton. It is almost as if, by keeping on talking about him, they can avoid thinking about the many lies shrub has told and the many of America's finest that he has let be killed for haliburton's oil profits

Common steen, you're smarter than that.

 

[hipsterdufus]

I do find it odd, how conservatives SEVEN years after are still fixated on Clinton. It is almost as if, by keeping on talking about him, they can avoid thinking about the many lies shrub has told and the many of America's finest that he has let be killed for haliburton's oil profits

Rule #1 of the neo-con men playbook. Everything is Clinton's fault.

 

[steen]

Common steen, you're smarter than that.

A war pushed by the inner circle from even before bush got into office, with enormous windfalls to oil friends of the administration. That it just happened to soon have cost as many of the lives of America's bravest as the 9/11 attack, based solely on lying excuses? What do you mean about "smarter than that"? The president is a corrupt crook who sold American lives for his friends' profits.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

War is Peace


http://www.studentsfororwell.org/

And now we know what is wrong with the left. They believe Bush is the next Hitler, they start with that conclusion, and then work their way backwards . . . ohhh, me.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html
(April 20, 20)
Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

So he values the Constitution? Sure seems like he lied.

Every president since and including FDR enacted wire taps without warrants, in fact the lefts poster boy Clinton not only did that but also enacted operation Echelon which tracked down key words on every computer on the net. You want to talk Orwelian societies it's the leaders you don't see coming that you have to worry about under the guise of gun control to supposedly protect the citizenry, multiculturalism, and P.C. thugs Clinton attempted to erect an Orwellian state right in front of our very eyes and through the liberally controlled media no one was any the wiser, remember Waco, let us talk of Orwell let us talk of politically correct, let us talk of new speak, let us talk of the ACLU, let us talk of the thought police, let us talk of multi-culturalism, let us talk of revisionist history, when it comes to Orwellian society the modern day leftists have brought us closer to it then in any other time in our history. Just ask yourself the next time you have the urge to say merry Christmas then stop yourself and say happy holidays instead who is truly Orwellian in nature the right or the left?

 

[Sob]

OK...so....in summary....Bill Clinton lied.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled debate on the current president, and whether or not...HE...lied.

My opinion.....Yup, He did.

Well, I'm certain this won't change any (closed) minds, but here goes, anyway:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/archive/digitalarchive.aspx?st=advanced&By=Norman%20Podhoretz

(A LOT omitted to fit maximum size requirement)

December 2005

Who Is Lying About Iraq?

Norman Podhoretz

The main “lie” that George W. Bush is accused of telling us is that Saddam Hussein possessed an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, or WMD as they have invariably come to be called...

George Tenet, his own CIA director, assured him that the case was “a slam dunk.” This phrase would later become notorious, but in using it, Tenet had the backing of all fifteen agencies involved in gathering intelligence for the United States.

The intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Israel, and—yes—France all agreed with this judgment. And even Hans Blix lent further credibility to the case in a report he issued only a few months before the invasion:

The discovery of a number of 122-mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker, and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions. . . . They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.
...

Lawrence Wilkerson:
I can’t tell you why the French, the Germans, the Brits, and us thought that most of the material, if not all of it, that we presented at the UN on 5 February 2003 was the truth. I can’t. I’ve wrestled with it. [But] when you see a satellite photograph of all the signs of the chemical-weapons ASP—Ammunition Supply Point—with chemical weapons, and you match all those signs with your matrix on what should show a chemical ASP, and they’re there, you have to conclude that it’s a chemical ASP, especially when you see the next satellite photograph which shows the UN inspectors wheeling in their white vehicles with black markings on them to that same ASP, and everything is changed, everything is clean. . . . But George [Tenet] was convinced, John McLaughlin [Tenet’s deputy] was convinced, that what we were presented [for Powell’s UN speech] was accurate.

“The consensus of the intelligence community,” as Wilkerson puts it, “was overwhelming” in the period leading up to the invasion of Iraq that Saddam definitely had an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, and that he was also in all probability well on the way to rebuilding the nuclear capability that the Israelis had damaged by bombing the Osirak reactor in 1981.

Kenneth Pollack, who served in the National Security Council under Clinton:

I participated in a Washington meeting about Iraqi WMD. Those present included nearly twenty former inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), the force established in 1991 to oversee the elimination of WMD in Iraq. One of the senior people put a question to the group: did anyone in the room doubt that Iraq was currently operating a secret centrifuge plant? No one did. Three people added that they believed Iraq was also operating a secret calutron plant (a facility for separating uranium isotopes).
...
Clinton in 1998:

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons-of-mass-destruction program.

Secretary of State Madeline Albright, in 1998:

Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.

Sandy Berger, Clinton’s National Security Adviser:

He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.

Clinton’s Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, was so sure Saddam had stockpiles of WMD that he remained “absolutely convinced” of it even after our failure to find them in the wake of the invasion in March 2003.
Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, and John Kerry, urged the President to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons-of-mass-destruction programs.

Nancy Pelosi, the future leader of the Democrats in the House, and then a member of the House Intelligence Committee:

Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons-of-mass-destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process...

Bob Graham:

There is no doubt that . . . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical, and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf war status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.

Senator Carl Levin also reaffirmed for Bush’s benefit what he had told Clinton some years earlier: Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, October 2002:

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical- and biological-weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members.

Senator Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee:

There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. . . . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.

Al Gore in September 2002:

We know that [Saddam] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.

Gore again, in that same year:

Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.

John Kerry, speaking in 2002:

I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force—if necessary—to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.

Ted Kennedy: We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.

Robert Byrd: The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical- and biological-warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons.

Editorials in the New York Times repeatedly insisted that without further outside intervention, Iraq should be able to rebuild weapons and missile plants within a year [and] future military attacks may be required to diminish the arsenal again.

The Times was also skeptical of negotiations, pointing out that it was hard to negotiate with a tyrant who has no intention of honoring his commitments and who sees nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons as his country’s salvation.

The Washington Post: [o]f all the booby traps left behind by the Clinton administration, none is more dangerous—or more urgent—than the situation in Iraq. Over the last year, Mr. Clinton and his team quietly avoided dealing with, or calling attention to, the almost complete unraveling of a decade’s efforts to isolate the regime of Saddam Hussein and prevent it from rebuilding its weapons of mass destruction. That leaves President Bush to confront a dismaying panorama in the Persian Gulf [where] intelligence photos . . . show the reconstruction of factories long suspected of producing chemical and biological weapons.3

Another fallback charge is that Bush, operating mainly through Cheney, somehow forced the CIA into telling him what he wanted to hear. Yet in its report of 2004, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, while criticizing the CIA for relying on what in hindsight looked like weak or faulty intelligence, stated that it did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence, or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq’s weapons-of-mass-destruction capabilities...

One more good one:

1 Hard as it is to believe, let alone to reconcile with his general position, Joseph C. Wilson, IV, in a speech he delivered three months after the invasion at the Education for Peace in Iraq Center, offhandedly made the following remark: “I remain of the view that we will find biological and chemical weapons and we may well find something that indicates that Saddam’s regime maintained an interest in nuclear weapons.”

I know, I know, nothing Clinton ever said "counts" anymore.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

You mean this Right:

Then, in February 2003, the Corps of Engineers gave Halliburton a temporary no-bid contract to implement its classified oil-fire plan. The thinking was it would be absurd to undertake the drawn-out contracting process on the verge of war. If the administration had done that and there had been catastrophic fires, it would now be considered evidence of insufficient postwar planning. And Halliburton was an obvious choice, since it put out 350 oil-well fires in Kuwait after the first Gulf War.

The Clinton administration made the same calculation in its own dealings with Halliburton. The company had won the LOGCAP in 1992, then lost it in 1997. The Clinton administration nonetheless awarded a no-bid contract to Halliburton to continue its work in the Balkans supporting the U.S. peacekeeping mission there because it made little sense to change midstream. According to Byron York, Al Gore's reinventing-government panel even singled out Halliburton for praise for its military logistics work.

No one cared in the least...as no one knew. And had they it likely wouldnt have been a big deal. But, there wasnt an acting VP making money off the deal either. The perception here is important, regardless of any shady deals or not. By placing themselves in a position to be questioned through deductive reasoning, the Administration is getting what was inevitable.
I dont know if there is corruption going on here....but I sure as hell want to find out. And the smoke and mirrors used to fog the issue really shakes my confidence in the honesty of those in power.

That's an outright lie Cheney recieves no money from Halliburton except for his pension of which the amount doesn't change if Halliburton is more successful, and guess what Cheney does with his pension, he gives it to charity. You want to know who gets profits from Halliburton??? Michael Moore owns stock in Halliburton, it's a fact look it up.

 

[hipsterdufus]

That's an outright lie Cheney recieves no money from Halliburton except for his pension of which the amount doesn't change if Halliburton is more successful, and guess what Cheney does with his pension, he gives it to charity. You want to know who gets profits from Halliburton??? Michael Moore owns stock in Halliburton, it's a fact look it up.

I wish I had stock in Haliburton back in 2004.

Graph released by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)

Cheneys stock options rose over 3000% last year.

Can't you see the conflict of interest in the VP / former Ceo of Haliburton granting multi-billion dollar contracts to his former company.

Where is the data that he gives all of this money to charity?

Even if true, he can change his mind at any time.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I wish I had stock in Haliburton back in 2004.

Graph released by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)

Cheneys stock options rose over 3000% last year.

Can't you see the conflict of interest in the VP / former Ceo of Haliburton granting multi-billion dollar contracts to his former company.

Where is the data that he gives all of this money to charity?

Even if true, he can change his mind at any time.

Kerry Ad Falsely Accuses Cheney on Halliburton
Contrary to this ad's message, Cheney doesn't gain financially from the contracts given to the company he once headed.

September 30, 2004
Modified: September 30, 2004
eMail to a friend Printer Friendly Version

Summary



A Kerry ad implies Cheney has a financial interest in Halliburton and is profiting from the company's contracts in Iraq. The fact is, Cheney doesn't gain a penny from Halliburton's contracts, and almost certainly won't lose even if Halliburton goes bankrupt.

The ad claims Cheney got $2 million from Halliburton "as vice president," which is false. Actually, nearly $1.6 million of that was paid before Cheney took office. More importantly, all of it was earned before he was a candidate, when he was the company's chief executive.


Analysis



A Kerry ad released Sept 17 once again attacks Cheney's ties to Halliburton, implying that Cheney is profiting from the company's contracts in Iraq. That's false.

Kerry-Edwards Ad

"Cheney Halliburton"

Cheney: I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had now for over three years.

Announcer: The truth: As vice president, Dick Cheney received $2 million from Halliburton. Halliburton got billions in no bid contracts in Iraq. Dick Cheney got $2 million. What did we get? A $200 billion dollar bill for Iraq. Lost jobs. Rising health care costs. It's time for a new direction.

John Kerry. Stronger at home. Respected in the world.

Announcer: I'm John Kerry, and I approve this message.

The ad isn't subtle. It says, "As vice president, Dick Cheney received $2 million from Halliburton. Halliburton got billions in no bid contracts in Iraq. Dick Cheney got $2 million. What did we get?" And it implies that Cheney lied to the public when he said in a TV interview that "I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind."

But as we document here, Cheney has insulated himself financially from whatever might happen to Halliburton. The Kerry ad misstates the facts.

$2 Million

To start, the $2 million figure is wrong. It is true that Cheney has received just under $2 million from Halliburton since his election, but nearly $1.6 million of that total was paid before Cheney actually took office on Jan. 20, 2001. Saying Cheney got that much "as vice president" is simply false.

We asked Cheney's personal attorney to document that, and he did, supplying several documents never released publicly before:

A Halliburton pay statement dated Jan 2, 2001 shows just under $147,579 was paid that day as "elect defrl payou," meaning payout of salary from the company's Elective Deferral Plan. That was salary Cheney had earned in 1999, but which he had chosen previously to receive in five installments spread over five years.
Another pay statement dated Jan. 18 shows $1,451,398 was paid that day under the company's "Incentive Plan C" for senior executives. That was Cheney's incentive compensation -- bonus money -- paid on the basis of the company's performance in 2000. Cheney had formally resigned from the company the previous September to campaign full time, but the amount of his bonus couldn't be calculated until the full year's financial results were known.
Cheney's personal financial disclosure forms, together with the pay statements just mentioned, show that Cheney has received $398,548 in deferred salary from Halliburton "as vice president." And of course, all of that is money he earned when he was the company's chief executive officer. Cheney was due to receive another payment in 2004, and a final payment in 2005.

The Kerry ad isn't the only place the false $2 million figure appears. The Democratic National Committee also gets it wrong on their website. The dates of the Halliburton payments don't appear on Cheney's personal financial disclosure form from 2001, and the DNC assumed -- incorrectly as we have shown -- that all the 2001 payment were made after he took office.

Deferred Salary

The $398,548 Halliburton has paid to Cheney while in office is all deferred compensation, a common practice that high-salaried executives use to reduce their tax bills by spreading income over several years. In Cheney's case, he signed a Halliburton form in December of 1998 choosing to have 50% of his salary for the next year, and 90% of any bonus money for that year, spread out over five years. (As it turned out, there was no bonus for 1999.) We asked Cheney's personal attorney to document the deferral agreement as well, and he supplied us with a copy of the form , posted here publicly for the first time.

Legally, Halliburton can't increase or reduce the amount of the deferred compensation no matter what Cheney does as vice president. So Cheney's deferred payments from Halliburton wouldn't increase no matter how much money the company makes, or how many government contracts it receives.

On the other hand, there is a possibility that if the company went bankrupt it would be unable to pay. That raises the theoretical possibility of a conflict of interest -- if the public interest somehow demanded that Cheney take action that would hurt Halliburton it could conceivably end up costing him money personally. So to insulate himself from that possible conflict, Cheney purchased an insurance policy (which cost him$14,903) that promises to pay him all the deferred compensation that Halliburton owes him even if the company goes bust and refuses to pay. The policy does contain escape clauses allowing the insurance company to refuse payment in the unlikely events that Cheney files a claim resulting "directly or indirectly" from a change in law or regulation, or from a "prepackaged" bankruptcy in which creditors agree on terms prior to filing. But otherwise it ensures Cheney will get what Halliburton owes him should it go under.

Cheney aides supplied a copy of that policy to us -- blacking out only some personal information about Cheney -- which we have posted here publicly for the first time.

<<<continued below>>>

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

<<<continued>>>

Stock Options

That still would leave the possibility that Cheney could profit from his Halliburton stock options if the company's stock rises in value. However, Cheney and his wife Lynne have assigned any future profits from their stock options in Halliburton and several other companies to charity. And we're not just taking the Cheney's word for this -- we asked for a copy of the legal agreement they signed, which we post here publicly for the first time.

The "Gift Trust Agreement" the Cheney's signed two days before he took office turns over power of attorney to a trust administrator to sell the options at some future time and to give the after-tax profits to three charities. The agreement specifies that 40% will go to the University of Wyoming (Cheney's home state), 40% will go to George Washington University's medical faculty to be used for tax-exempt charitable purposes, and 20% will go to Capital Partners for Education , a charity that provides financial aid for low-income students in Washington, DC to attend private and religious schools.

The agreement states that it is "irrevocable and may not be terminated, waived or amended," so the Cheney's can't take back their options later.

The options owned by the Cheney's have been valued at nearly $8 million, his attorney says. Such valuations are rough estimates only -- the actual value will depend on what happens to stock prices in the future, which of course can't be known beforehand. But it is clear that giving up rights to the future profits constitutes a significant financial sacrifice, and a sizeable donation to the chosen charities.

"Financial Interest"

Democrats have taken issue with Cheney's statement to Tim Russert on NBC's Meet the Press Sept. 14, 2003, when he said he had no "financial interest" in Halliburton:

Cheney (Sept. 14, 2003): I've 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. And as vice president, I have absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of in any way, shape or form of contracts led by the Corps of Engineers or anybody else in the federal government.

Shortly after that, Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg released a legal analysis he'd requested from the Congressional Research Service. Without naming Cheney, the memo concluded a federal official in his position -- with deferred compensation covered by insurance, and stock options whose after-tax profits had been assigned to charity -- would still retain an "interest" that must be reported on an official's annual disclosure forms. And in fact, Cheney does report his options and deferred salary each year.

But the memo reached no firm conclusion as to whether such options or salary constitute an "interest" that would pose a legal conflict. It said "it is not clear" whether assigning option profits to charity would theoretically remove a potential conflict, adding, "no specific published rulings were found on the subject." And it said that insuring deferred compensation "might" remove it as a problem under conflict of interest laws.

Actually, the plain language of the Office of Government Ethics regulations on this matter seems clear enough. The regulations state: "The term financial interest means the potential for gain or loss to the employee . . . as a result of governmental action on the particular matter." So by removing the "potential for gain or loss" Cheney has solid grounds to argue that he has removed any "financial interest" that would pose a conflict under federal regulations.

Conflict of Interest

It is important to note here that Cheney could legally have held onto his Halliburton stock options, and no law required him to buy insurance against the possibility that Halliburton wouldn't pay the deferred compensation it owes him. Both the President and Vice President are specifically exempted from federal conflict-of-interest laws, for one thing, as are members of Congress and federal judges.

And even federal officials who are covered by the law may legally own a financial interest in a company, provided they formally recuse themselves -- stand aside -- from making decisions that would have a "direct and predictable effect on that interest." And Cheney says he's done just that.

Cheney says he takes no part in matters relating to Halliburton, and so far we've seen no credible allegation to the contrary. Time magazine reported in its June 7 edition that an e-mail from an unnamed Army Corps of Engineers official stated that a contract to be given to Halliburton in March 2003 "has been coordinated w VP's [Vice President's] office." But it wasn't clear who wrote that e-mail, whether the author had direct knowledge or was just repeating hearsay, or even what was meant by the word "coordinated," which could mean no more than that somebody in Cheney's office was being kept informed of contract talks.

Indeed, a few days later it was revealed that Cheney's chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby was informed in advance that Halliburton was going to receive an earlier contract in the fall of 2002 -- to secretly plan post-war repair of Iraq's oil facilities. But being informed of a decision after it is made is a far cry from taking part in making it. And according to the White House, Libby didn't even pass on the information to Cheney anyway.

So to sum up, this Kerry ad's implication that Cheney has a financial interest in Halliburton is unfounded and the $2 million figure is flat wrong.

Sources



"Vice President Dick Cheney discusses the war with Iraq, the economy and other topics," NBC News "Meet the Press" 14 Sep 2003.

Jack Maskell, "Official's Stock Options In and Deferred Compensation From a Corporation as a "Financial Interest" of an Executive Branch Official in Such a Corporation," Memorandum , American Law Division, Congressional Research Service, 22 Sep 2003.

US Code of Federal Regulations,TITLE 5, CHAPTER XVI--OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS, PART 2640--INTERPRETATION, EXEMPTIONS AND WAIVER GUIDANCE CONCERNING 18 U.S.C. 208 (ACTS AFFECTING A PERSONAL FINANCIAL INTEREST) 5CFR2640.103(b)

Timothy J. Burger and Adam Zagorin, "The Paper Trail: Did Cheney Okay a Deal?", Time magazine, 7 June 2004: 42.

Larry Margasak, "Cheney never heard plan to give work to Halliburton for rebuilding of Iraq," The Associated Press 16 June 2004.


http://www.factcheck.org/article261.html

I'm so sick of you people besmirching a good mans name through slanderous lies of the highest order the truth of the matter is that Cheney is a good man who has taken a huge pay cut in order to serve the public interest you all should be ashamed of yourselves!

 

[steen]

What a lot of distraction to draw attention away from bush lying about spying on Americans without a warrant.