The New Road

This is such a mean spirited post, you should start your own right-wing talk radio show.

And you think your party is above all of that. Look at your self, Jack.

Did we read the same post. How was pointing out that someone is finally investigating Halliburton mean spirited - are you a stock holder?

Chaney has deep ties to Halliburton so Jack's right in saying that an investigation could hurt him.

Jacqueline, if you are so interested in protecting the rights of the guilty, why are you so upset about Clinton? You seemed to have no problem with the continuous investigations of the Clinton presidency. Or the impeachment of the president based on a stained blue dress. Every time you mention Clinton it is with hatred, anger and disgust. Even though you benefited from his presidency.

But I am not allowed to get excited when a whistle blower finally emerges, who claims, rightly, that Cheney used his influence to get highly lucrative, no-bid, cost plus contracts to a company that he has a significant financial stake in.

Please. Your double standards are showing.

There are two critical issues with the Halliburton fraud. The first is that they had access to these contracts unfairly and are now overcharging us, essentially looting the public coffers. The second, and more grievous problem, is that these contracts have the effect of taking money away from local Iraqi contractors. That would stimulate the local economy in Iraq and give people jobs. People with jobs and families don't blow our soldiers up.

So not only is Cheney's company looting the government, they are putting our soldiers at risk by doing so.

So please, excuse me a little joy when I hear that this devastating practice might end and a corrupt man might go to jail because of it.

As to a potential double standard on my part. I can judge wrongdoing for myself. And in my opinion, the Lewinsky matter pales in comparison to this. All my man got was some oral gratification and a broken marriage. Your man get filthy rich off our tax dollars and irresponsibly puts our soldiers in harms way to do it.

"This one could take down Cheney!"

As if your team won the world series. Or Ted Bundy was caught. The glee. The joy. As for "the rights of the guilty", I believe the victims should have at least twice the rights of the guilty. I don't know where you got that. I wasn't even referring to Cheney. I was referring to your foaming-at-the-mouth, mean spirited joy at someone's downfall. The same way you're hoping Bush falls. It's just mean, Jack. As mean as the right wing. Sure I can excuse it, but I will point it out, especially when you spent the entire previous post chastising Republicans for it.

Now, for the issue at hand:

First of all, Halliburton has already been fined for the overcharges. Secondly, Cheney has not worked for Halliburton for years. He is getting deferred comp for the years he worked there. He does not benefit from their current profits.

These allegations are gray areas and not at all as proveable as a dna stain on a dress. Wrong is wrong. Lying is lying. Cheating is cheating. I have stated all of that before and I stand by it. If guilty, do the time.

From the source article:
"The GAO said earlier this year that the contract was properly awarded because Halliburton was the only contractor that could do the work."

and
" she (the whistleblower) specifically asked why the work was being extended for several years.

Beside her signature, Greenhouse wrote: "I caution that extending this sole-source effort beyond a one-year period could convey an invalid perception that there is not strong intent for a limited competition," the complaint said.

The oil restoration work was given to KBR without competitive bidding through 10 separate work assignments called "task orders." The orders were issued under an existing contract between Halliburton and the U.S. military that was awarded competitively in December 2001."

This is about the extension of the contract. Was that illegal? We'll see.

Would Iraqi's have gotten this work if Halliburton didn't? No. They weren't bidding. It was our European friends who were screwed out of the job. And that's fine with me.

Good on yah then. I appreciate the feedback.

If I offend you then I would recommend not reading me blog. To continue to do so would only continue to offend you. As I am unlikely to change my tone from what I consider in bounds.

Oh the hypocrisy!
It's okay for you to spout whatever the hell you want to, supported by the facts you choose to use to support, but it's not okay for Hannity, Colmes, Limbaugh, whomever, to do the same?

I fail to see the difference. Essentially, your audience could be the same as theirs. I totally disagree with your assessment that all media is republican controlled--though I have no facts to support that. Your assertion is biased on Fox news--which I think we can all agree is conservative. But hardly the mainstream norm. Consider people like Jacqueline and my boss who don't have cable--they don't know the reporters, commentators and hosts from Adam. I agree that most media is conservative leaning, but far and wide they TRY to present both candidates and their platforms in equal lights.

I have to laugh sometimes at the level at which some of the conservative hosts get to you--and yet you still listen. Follow your own advice to Jacqueline and quit listening!

What are you going to do if it's weeks again before we learn who the president is going to be? And what, pray tell, will you do if Bush is elected again?

I watch Fox because I am watching for the knife in the dark. If Bush wins again it will be the beginning of a very dark period from which our Democracy may not survive. Hannity is the voice of the movement that will get out the machetes.