The Commissar of Politburo Diktat has branched out to start a blog (Friends of Saddam) to track developments in the ongoing UN Oil for Food corruption scandal. He’s looking for co-authors, especially foreign ones (really especially Iraqi ones). Hopefully, it’ll become a good resource for one of our less reported scandals: check it out.
36 thoughts on “New Blog – Friends of Saddam”
Comments are closed.
ABC News rehashes the first breaking news
Thanks for the good words.
Timmy makes a good point. Two days into this effort, and I’m quickly discovering that the challenge is sift out all the repetitive, out-dated rehashes that various news sources present as “news.”
Interesting how right-wingers are utterly uninterested in investigating the scandal of Dick Cheney’s close connections with Iraq under Saddam Hussein, isn’t it? cite
Well, no, it’s not really interesting, because it’s too obvious. Making a scandal out of Halliburton corruption is too close to home.
The real scandal of the Oil for Food program, for which Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponek resigned, is this:
Interview with Denis Halliday, 2002.
Cheney quickly forgot his goal of putting in place an economic embargo and instead started personally profiting from trading with Iraq.
Jes, you need to explain how Cheney personally profited.
BTW, the Admin during the 96 to 00 period was?
TtWD, did you not notice that Jesurgislac didn’t write the article in question?
EDG, I never expect Timmy to notice stuff like that: he’s just a puppy.
EDG, well yes I did but then again Jes talks about Cheney’s close connections with Iraq, “close connections” and “personally profited” was sufficient for me given the underlying scandal of the UN Oil for Food Program.
Ouch. Okay: before Moe can point it out, I admit that was probably agin the posting rules, and accept scolding with appropriate meekness.
Yike, apparently Jes has nothing to say, as another Jes segue bites the dust.
Actually, you’re both regulars and Timmy’s usually capable of taking care of himself: he also likes in-your-face. Just don’t pull out the knives, that’s all I ask.
“he also likes in-your-face.”
As Timmy is now demonstrating. That ‘no knives’ rule goes for him too, mind.
Timmy, you want to know about Cheney’s financial links with Halliburton? You don’t know that he was Halliburton’s CEO from 1995 to 2000, and that you apparently also don’t know that he’s still receiving payments from them.
And – evidently – you’re not in the least bit interested that KBR, Halliburton’s subsidiary, is screwing the troops. Because you feel it’s way more important to defend Dick Cheney that it is to defend the troops?
given the underlying scandal of the UN Oil for Food Program
Oh, you remember the real scandal when it broke in 2001, too? Good for you!
The ol Cheney meme, Dick has a deferred compensation package which means if Haliburton goes bankrupt Dick doesn’t get paid. Other than that event Dick has no current relationship with Haliburton. Jes, I’m well aware of Cheney’s stewartship of Haliburton. I covered Haliburton when they made the Dresser acquisition. Notwithstanding, I’m still waiting for the Cheney-Saddam meme, rhetorically speaking that is.
Back to the point of interest, the text that Edward ran (pertaining to the Iraqi Civil War) has been released in full (except for redacted sections). The newly released sections make an observation about the UN:
eh Moe maybe you could post this over at Tac’s in order to spread the news.
Now we just need a dedicated site to cover the M.E. weaponss bazaar.
I’d heard that Cheney gets paid even if they go bankrupt. But of course, no cite.
Oh. Here‘s one.
Well Slarti the only way the Cheney is guaranteed his deferred payment in a Haliburton bankrupcy if a third party guarnty is in place. I remember someone asking Cheney about this and he noted that he carried Haliburton risk on the compensation but had already donated the options to charity.
Not that this really matters in the long run.
Timmy, it does matter in the long run, even setting aside the ethical situation; it may even cost Bush the election this November. Consider it this way: if Cheney maintains his connection to Halliburton, and if Halliburton is in control of a company (KBR) that is, as Jesurgislac put it, screwing the troops, how likely do you think those troops – and the citizens supporting them – are going to be to vote for an administration that’s tacitly endorsing their being screwed?
as Jesurgislac put it, screwing the troops
They’re hookers?
how likely do you think those troops – and the citizens supporting them – are going to be to vote for an administration that’s tacitly endorsing their being screwed?
I forget which variety of logical fallacy is contained here, and I’m far too lazy to look it up. Let’s just say that, lopping off the foregone conclusion, that what I’ve heard from the troops is relief that they finally have a CIC they can respect. I think you’re going to have to wait until November for the real answer.
Timmy:
Well Slarti the only way the Cheney is guaranteed his deferred payment in a Haliburton bankrupcy if a third party guarnty is in place.
Looks as if that’s the case.
Slartibartfast, I’m going to have to ask you to look the logical fallacy up anyway if you want to make that assertion, since I don’t see it; as far as I can tell, you’re just blowing me off.
I’ll put it a different way: if a company were involved in actions that caused significant problems to me and my ability to do my job, and if I were aware that a high-ranking elected official had chaired that company in the past and was still receiving payments from that company, absent other factors in that official’s favor, I would be unlikely to vote for him in an upcoming election. I feel that that is a rational position to take. Maybe I’m projecting, but I don’t see any reason to believe that other rational people feel any differently.
You’re right. I was blowing you off. I just figured that, assuming that the end of the world is nigh, I didn’t need to actually give a thoughtful response.
EDG, as Slarti points out (and if he is correct in his assertion), Cheney has no relationship with Haliburton.
Slarti, I missed the cite, thanks for the information. EDG the money line is Slarti’s cite is this:
The aide said the payment was even insured so that it would not be affected even if Halliburton went bankrupt, to ensure there was no conflict of interest.
Well EDG (and Jes you too) there you have it, Cheney has no relationship with Haliburton what so ever.
Thanks again Slarti.
Timmy, when Cheney stops receiving $100,000-$1,000,000 a year from them, I’ll concede that there’s no connection, although perhaps not a substantial enough one to warrant alarm. Until then, I’ll concede that there’s no actual control in either direction (and the fact that the payment is insured so that even if Halliburton goes bankrupt, Cheney receives payment, goes a long way toward avoiding conflict of interest), which I suspect is your point.
Cheney has no relationship with Haliburton what so ever.
you gonna stick with that then, Timmy?
No problem. Given that I’m right, we shouldn’t hear any further argument at all from EDG or Jesurgislac.
Am I pushing the envelope on irony too far? You be the judge.
you gonna stick with that then, Timmy?
Not answering for him, but…answering for me:
Cheney stands to neither lose nor gain from any business dealings that Halliburton indulges in. Still, “no connection” isn’t strictly true. Cheney could hand out fat contracts to Halliburton and its subsidiaries right and left and never see an extra penny. Alternatively, he could hawk gooey, green phlegm into the collective faces of the Halliburton BOD and never lose a cent. No connection? No. But neither is there an issue with conflict of interest.
What I’m wondering is, just how many times we’ve got to thrash through the same old tired arguments before understanding begins to set in. Probably quite a few more, if today’s any sort of example.
Okay, that was a little roundabout, so I’ll clarify.
Cheney is still receiving between $100,000 and $1,000,000 a year from Halliburton, as payment of (unspecified) money which the company owes him (according to one of Cheney’s aides), and will continue to do so until 2005 at the earliest. This is a financial relationship: one party is receiving money from another.
The fact that this money is insured, so that even if Halliburton doesn’t succeed absent Cheney’s input he will receive his payments, does mollify concerns about conflict of interest, and also lessens the extent of the financial relationship. Neither the concern nor the relationship is diminished entirely, however.
On the other hand, there is little potential direct control exerted in either direction, and no actual direct control. Since the money is insured, Halliburton can’t exert sway over the Vice President by manipulating the amount paid; since Cheney’s only current tie to Halliburton appears to be this payment, he has only one way to exert direct control over the company: by refusing to accept the payments, which he is not currently doing. Otherwise, Cheney has about as much direct control over Halliburton as does any other citizen not currently employed by the company.
Timmy, I suspect your point is that no control is being exerted, and I will grant you that. My point is that there is a connection; Cheney is accepting money from a company whose subsidiaries are, at least according to certain claims, giving the (metaphorical, thank you, Slartibartfast) shaft to United States troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, which may be a factor in the voting tendencies of those troops.
Cheney is accepting money from a company whose subsidiaries are, at least according to certain claims, giving the (metaphorical, thank you, Slartibartfast) shaft to United States troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, which may be a factor in the voting tendencies of those troops.
1) What claims? Cites? Warning: links to anything written by Ted Rall will be greeted by mirabhasa laughter.
2) Do you have any evidence whatever that said claims are being taken seriously by the troops?
Slartibartfast, read up. I’ve heard numerous claims in the last few months; Jesurgislac‘s cite is one of many.
As for 2), that’s in one of my earlier comments.
My point is that there is a connection; Cheney is accepting money from a company whose subsidiaries are, at least according to certain claims,
No he isn’t, the money is coming from the entity who insured the Haliburton commitment.
Cheney no longer has a conncetion with Haliburton, the money is coming from the third party (that is how bankrupcy protection works, the third party is the director payor to Cheney or Cheney would still be subject to Haliburton risk via a bankruptcy clawback, a 90 day exposure).
As for the balance of my comment, like Slarti.
direct payor not director payor (one too many ors).
Timmy, as far as I’m concerned, at this point you’re nitpicking to the point of absurdity. I’m out of this discussion.
Eddie, the answer to your post, is yes.
EDG oh be that way, just explaining how a bankrupcy remote guaranty works, too bad it doesn’t fit into your preconcieved idea but thems the breaks.
Re: the negative Halliburton cite:
Anyone else notice that that’s pretty much the last time we heard anything about that particular issue? Over a month ago? Gee, I wonder what that means.