Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin
Did you even read the article? Apparently you didn't. Here is what it said:
The nonpartisan investigative Government Accountability Office, formerly the General Accounting Office, agreed with the administration’s assessment. It reported in June that the Halliburton subsidiary had been the only company “in a position to provide the services within the required time.” David M. Walker, who as comptroller general is chief of the G.A.O., told a House committee that the no-bid contract was justified “given the war in Iraq and the urgent need for reconstruction efforts.”
On the question of Mr. Cheney’s income from Halliburton, officials of the Bush-Cheney campaign said that before entering office in 2001, Mr. Cheney bought an insurance policy that guaranteed a fixed amount of deferred payments from Halliburton each year for five years so that the payments would not depend on the company’s fortunes. The officials also said he had promised to donate to charity any after-tax profits he made from exercising his stock options. These steps are not unusual for corporate executives who enter government.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/na...fact.html?_r=0 |
So you think it is OK that Haliburton received Billions in contracts pushing its stock price up because Cheney said he was donating it to charity? Your "unbiased" article doesn't address when Cheney left office. You know with the Options that he could now exercise and Sell at a price that Reflected the Billions in Revenue that was steered towards Haliburton. Again I thank you for the compliment on my intelligence. I think you may achieve average intelligence yourself if you can train yourself to think deeper and not simply regurgitate the party line pabulum that you google.
03-22-2015, 09:01 AM
Threaded Mode