USA is staying in Iraq and its corporations profitting

[Egeides]

1- The point is not to assume but to say everything is always this side.

2- I believe it is not correct, in the exercise of your function, to get money so close to your own position. There are rules against that everywhere in the world and it is called IMPARTIALITY.

Here again, why are corporations giving money to politics?... ::)

[number6]

1- The point is not to assume but to say everything is always this side.

2- I believe it is not correct, in the exercise of your function, to get money so close to your own position. There are rules against that everywhere in the world and it is called IMPARTIALITY.

Here again, why are corporations giving money to politics?... ::)

I have no idea what you are trying to say in point one above.

So with number 2 you are saying that Cheney would have to give up all of his worldly posessions to serve as Vice President? That is not what the US is about. There have already been investigations into Cheney over these very issues and nothing has come of it. If you really want to look at shady business practices and politicians you should look back to the Clinton's. People dieing mysteriously connected to investigations and people refusing to cooperate with investigators sounds more sinister to me.

Like it or not US politics needs donations from companies to run a successful campaign. Both sides accept these type of donations so I really don't see your point.

[Acriku]

My point is, it's an awfully suspicious coincidence they chose Halliburten... ::)

It isn't a big coincidence, Halliburten has been called upon to do numerous government operations, since 1945 in fact, and will continue to be called upon.

Competitors in the Oil Patch already have been grumbling about contracts going to Cheney's old company.

"Are we surprised?" said one competitor who asked not to be named.

But Halliburton officials point out that their firm had been a major contractor for the military for more than half a century before Cheney arrived on the scene in 1995.

"We have a long history of government contracting starting back in 1942," Halliburton spokesman Wendy Hall said. The company turned out Navy warships during World War II, built the Phan Rang Air Base in Vietnam and provided logistics services during the war in the Balkans.

After the Persian Gulf War, Halliburton oversaw firefighting crews that brought 320 well fires under control and provided emergency repair work to government buildings and the electrical system in Kuwait City.

From ... http://www.oilandgasreporter.com/stories/040103/ind_20030401006.shtml

[SurlyPIG]

Checkmate Acriku

number6 - it's called propaganda...It'd difficult to argue against someone who doesn't care at all for the truth.

[Gobalopper]

Cheney owns a lot of stock in Halliburten.

Cheney does not own stock in Halliburton. He does receive a set fee from them based on a pension or something like that which was settled before the elections. The amount does not go up or down depending on how well the company does either.

[Egeides]

number6: Both sides may accept donations, but some have more than others. The thing here is that you see only TWO sides because of this! Two sides that are both ideologically very close.

Cheney: Well I think when someone is in conflict of interest, he should simply not profit from the specific contracts linked to his function. There are alot of contracts, but these ones puts the politician in a problematic situation.

My point one meant that I didn't wanted to suppose there was something fishy but simply to put in front of your eyes that there is something to look at, a serious possibility of problems...

And what's this thing about Clinton? I never heard about it but I'd like to... About W.Bush, maybe you should get a look at Patriotic Act and how wide it is.

Exemple: How many Muslims were deported and emprisoned? They refused to answer. Why not answering to population???

[Acriku]

How does Cheney profit from this exactly?

[number6]

Egeides,

About the patriot act provide links to your info.

Two sides that are both ideologically very close.

I doubt either side would agree with your statement. Sure there are middle of the fence individuals in each party, but the majority on each side leans to their side not the middle.

Well I think you did more than try and bring information to peoples attention and information from a biased source is not very valuable or worth consideration. If there is news the real news people will gather it. Not some non-profit special interest web site trying to justify its existence.

[Egeides]

From what I know, you didn't show it was biased, you just said it. And your article ALSO. There's no arguments in your article except "it's leftish". So it is supposing that being leftish is false, simply. And I don't believe a rightish newspaper will use left sources often...

Acriku: Look at the articles. Cheney has actions in some of the companies.

[number6]

I read the articles you posted and they are one sided. I said that BusinessWeek proves that the site is lefist and that BusinessWeek is a respectable publication. Just because BusinessWeek does not single out the articles you linked that does not mean that their statements from the previous article is less true. They said very plainly that the site is one sided and I agree with that assesment. If CorporateWatch was really concerned with the truth they would look at both sides of the issue and then draw conclusions. I can't help it that you only want to look at things from one perspective.

I went back to the article I linked and here is a quote that very plainly proves that CorporateWatch is biased:

Disturbingly, its Enron Fact File highlighted Enron-related political donations only to Republican candidates and interests, leaving out the widely publicized donations to Democrats. From there, CorpWatch.org calls the company to task for its alleged environmental transgressions and its supposed mistreatment of Native American interests. It wasn't the scintillating accounting scandal recap I expected and broke little if any new ground that mattered.

I guess you did not read the article, because they very plainly give examples of leftist biased perspective without any perspective for the real problem of the Enron case which was accounting misconduct. Sure sounds leftist to me. Maybe you should read linked articles in their enitireity before making statements about them.