Liz Cheney rushes to defend Halliburton, ignores gov't fraud allegations
On ABC's This Week, Liz Cheney ridiculed Arianna Huffington for her statement that Halliburton defrauded the government out of hundreds of millions of dollars. In fact, federal agencies have repeatedly accused Halliburton and its former subsidiary, KBR, of fraud with regard to its work in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Cheney: The "assertion that Halliburton defrauded the U.S. Government" has "no relationship to the facts"
From the June 6 edition of ABC's This Week:
ARIANNA HUFFINGTON: Right here we have the poster child of Bush-Cheney crony capitalism -- Halliburton -- involved in this, and you haven't said about that. They, after all, were responsible for cementing the well. Here's Halliburton, after it defrauded the American taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars--
LIZ CHENEY: Arianna, I don't know what planet you live on --
HUFFINGTON: -- it's involved again.
CHENEY: -- but it's not -- it's not facts.
HUFFINGTON: I'm living on this planet, you're living in a planet that is --
CHENEY: Arianna, what you're saying has no relationship --
HUFFINGTON: -- continuing --
CHENEY: -- to the truth. No relationship to the facts.
HUFFINGTON: It is completely -- Halliburton was involved in this. How can you say --[crosstalk]
JAKE TAPPER [host]: Halliburton was cementing the pipe.
HUFFINGTON: How can you say there's no relationship?
CHENEY: Her assertion that Halliburton defrauded the U.S. government --
HUFFINGTON: It did.
CHENEY: -- that there was Bush-Cheney cronyism. These are the left's talking points.
HUFFINGTON: Hundreds of millions of dollars in Iraq --
CHENEY: Arianna, it's absolutely not true. It is absolutely not true.
HUFFINGTON: OK, I'm so glad PolitiFact is going to be covering this.
CHENEY: Good.
HUFFINGTON: I'm so glad.
DOD auditor referred dozens of cases of suspected fraud, irregular conduct by Halliburton subsidiary, suspended or disapproved hundred of millions in billings
DOD audits of Halliburton's Iraq and Afghanistan contract found at least $1.4 billion in questioned and $441 million in unsupported costs. In December 2001, the federal government awarded the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) III contract to Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR). Under that contract, KBR provided support for government personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan. On April 5, 2007, Halliburton announced it had separated from KBR. At a May 4, 2009 hearing of the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) - a Department of Defense agency that audits Pentagon contracts -- presented data on its audits of KBR's LOGCAP III contract. According to the data, DCAA audits completed* prior to Halliburton's separation from KBR found more than $1.4 billion in questioned costs and $441 million in unsupported costs. According to the DCAA, questioned costs are "costs proposed or claimed by the contractor which DCAA considers to be unallowable in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulations or contract terms and conditions," and unsupported costs are "costs for which the contractor has not provided sufficient rationale for their estimates."
DOD audits led to $452M in suspended or disapproved costs. According to the DCAA document, when an audit finds a questioned or unsupported document, "if the contractor does not voluntarily remove the costs from billings" the "DCAA issues a Form 1, Notice of Contract Costs Suspended and/or Disapproved, to suspend or disapprove costs." DCAA suspended or disapproved over $452 million in costs claimed by KBR through the LOGCAP III contract that were completed* before Halliburton separated from KBR.
Examples of suspended or disapproved costs include "KBR charg[ing] the government for significantly more meals than were actually served." As an example of an exception produced by the audits, DCAA director April Stephenson stated:
For instance, the Army's Statement of Work required KBR to provide up to a specified number of meals per month to be served at a particular camp. Our audit determined KBR's subcontractors served significantly fewer meals. DCAA took exception to the costs of the excess meals and issued over 90 "DCAA Forms 1" suspending or disapproving over $130 million.
DOD audits noted 32 examples of suspected "fraud or other suspected irregular conduct" by Iraq and Afghanistan contractors, the "vast majority" of which were from KBR. According to the DCAA's data, the agency referred to investigative agencies 32 cases of suspected fraud or other irregular conduct with regard to Iraq and Afghanistan contractors. Of those 32, 21 were referred prior to the date Halliburton severed ties with KBR. At the May 4, 2009, hearing, Stephenson testified that the "vast majority" of those 32 referrals were related to KBR's contract. She added: "That is unprecedented, and any program that we have had in the past to have that many referrals, it absolutely concerns us," adding that "in the history of DCAA I do not think we are aware of a program, a contract or a contractor that has had this number of suspensions or referrals."
DOJ suing KBR for "improper charges to the United States"
DOJ has announced a lawsuit against KBR for charging "improper costs" in Iraq from 2003 to 2006. On April 1, the Justice Department announced it had filed a lawsuit against KBR, alleging violations of the False Claims Act committed from 2003 to 2006 -- while KBR was owned by Halliburton. The suit "alleges that KBR knowingly included impermissible costs for private armed security in billings to the Army under the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) III contract."
KBR employees found guilty of defrauding the US Government
Three employees guilty of conspiracy in Afghanistan airfield fraud scheme. Former KBR employees James Sellman and Wallace Ward were charged in 2007 with conspiracy in a fraud scheme involving falsifying documents in exchange for payment at an Afghanistan airfield. According to the Justice Department:
James N. Sellman, 31, of Raeford, N.C., and Wallace A. Ward, 25, Columbus, Ga., were charged yesterday in a seven-count indictment with conspiracy, making a false writing, bribery, and making a false claim to the Department of Defense. The indictment alleges that between May and September 2006, while assigned to oversee fuel deliveries to Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan, Sellman and Ward conspired to accept bribes from Afghan truck drivers in return for falsifying government documents indicating receipt of the fuel and then diverting over 80 truckloads of fuel for sale outside the airfield. According to the indictment, the conspiracy involved over 784,000 gallons of fuel valued at more than $2.1 million.
Justice Department records show Sellman was sentenced in 2008 to 26 months in prison, three years of supervised release, and ordered to pay $675,000 in restitution; Ward was sentenced in 2008 to 26 months in prison and ordered to pay $216,000 in restitution. A third former employee, Raschad L. "Sean" Lewis, was found guilty in 2009 "of conspiracy, false writing, bribery of a public official, and false claims" for his part in the scheme.
Halliburton worker pleaded guilty to taking kickbacks on Iraqi subcontracts. According to an August 23, 2005, Washington Post article, Glenn Allen Powell, a KBR employee in Iraq from October 2003 to January 2005, "admitted to taking 20 percent off the top of a subcontract, or more than $110,000." The Post also noted: "While the scheme was ongoing, KBR had been unwittingly billing the U.S. government an inflated amount for reimbursement because of the 20 percent kickback. The difference has since been refunded."
KBR employee pleaded guilty to participating in kickback scheme with a Kuwaiti contractor. In July 2007, the Houston Chronicle reported that former KBR employee Anthony Martin "pleaded guilty to participating in a kickback scheme related to the award of a $4.7 million contract in 2003 to a Kuwaiti firm, the Department of Justice said." The Chronicle reported that Martin told a federal jury that in 2003, "he worked with the manager of the Kuwaiti firm to hide more than $50,000 in kickbacks within a subcontract for heavy trucks and refrigerator trailers."
*These costs do not include audits that were completed after April 5, 2007, but covered the time period in which Halliburton owned KBR.
















it's not "Air Time", it's "Hang Time"
Mr. News
But i've yet to see One Report on Haliburton's Stunts.
Soldiers Electrocuted, The Golf of Mexico slowly turning into the Black Sea?
Where's Dick Cheney? Can anyone Direct me to his Front Yard? "The Poet" needs to Pee.
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
They think we're so obsessed over gender, sexuality and race that we wouldn't criticise someone who a member of a minority group, even if they're just parroting the same RW nonsense. Too bad (for them) that liberals actually THINK about the issues rather than getting overly obsessed about the race or sexuality of the speaker, like they think we do. That's what happened when you start believe your own parody of the opposition.
You know what? I support gay marriage 100% except for Liz Cheney and any other homosexual who votes for the party that suppresses their rights. I'm pretty much fine with businesses discriminating against black republicans as well. Screw 'em. If these fools are stupid enough to vote against their civil liberties they DESERVE to lose them. And that's not RACIAL or SEXUALITY-based bigotry, that just being prejudiced against STUPIDITY.
--------------------------------------------
IMHO
So, how does that hypocrisy fit into your liberal claims of "progressiveness"? I thought you liberals want freedom for all? Now, it's just those that agree with you? How progressive ... better yet, how hypocritical! Good job, eddie
easy one, right down the middle...
Swing and a miss! ANOTHER strilkeout for Reynolds...
no, wait... I'm sorry...
That was just FLOYD, completely MISSING THE F---ING POINT! AGAIN!
It was a satirical point, nimrod, meant to express my frustration at the preponderance of people out there who are stupid enough to be duped into voting against their social and economic interests. And while I shouldn't have to spell it out for you, pee-brain, while I DO NOT support making these kinds of things into LAW, I have very little sympathy for THOSE particular people, since they play a direct hand in bringing about the ROYAL SCREWING they recieve.
---------------------------------------------------------
Now go away. I've dealt with enough of your stupidity to last a million years.
Really???
That's the BEST you can do?
Were you BORN this pathetic, or did you have to WORK AT IT?
You're like a mirror-image, conservative version, of Mike Stivik. To then borrow a page from Archie: YOU'RE A MEAT-HEAD! DEAD, FROM THE NECK UP!
--------------------------------------------
Enthusiasm is no replacement for talent, my friend.
Yeah, your enthusiam is certainly better than your talent.
BTW... You missed the point AGAIN! (Are you being stupid on purpose or were your just born that way?) I'm not "for denying their rights" simply becasue they disagree with me, fool. To the extent that I'd be for denying their rights it would be becuase they VOTED for their RIGHTS TO BE DENIED!
There's a difference. And as a matter of principle, I STILL support gays rights, even though they'd benefit a dipstick like Liz Cheney, who disagrees with me. That's what being principled means!
And while this will probably be lost of you, there is no hypocrisy in wishing that someone get exactly what they've been asking for!
---------------------------------
But keep trying to sound clever. It makes good comedy for everyone who can tell the difference.
I say unfortunately because Liz Cheney is an active breeder, and has spawned another generation of Cheneys.
@achrispage: Give a guy a chance, huh? LOL This isn't my ONLY past-time you know! :)
Regarding how Floyd and I were going at it just now... if you look at the nature of Floyd's [baseless personal insult] disagreement with me - alleged hypocrisy over gay-rights - I can still stand by almost all of what followed.
OK, so it obviously it doesn't apply to Liz Cheney, and I'll have to admit that I have no idea how Mary Cheney votes, so posibly not to her either... BUT: I DO stand 100% behind gay rights / equality / etc... and in doing so I still say I'm entitled to vent a little at any gay republicans (and I know a couple personally, so [whoever] Cheney would hardly have been the only one) without being called a hypocrite by the likes of Floyd.
I do think you go a bit far to call it "IGNORANCE." It was a MISTAKE. It happens. [sarcasm] I know y'all think I'm perfect, but I'm not. ;) [/sarcasm] But most of that wasn't about Liz/Mary Cheney specifically, and I don't see any shortage of examples in the world that validate the general point I was arguing.
--------------------------------------
I've learned that women like a man who can admit when he's wrong... and it turns out I'm wrong a LOT! LOL
Who do you want to be called a hypocrite by? Eddie you fail to realize YOU made the statement, then YOU backed away from it after YOU were told of YOUR hypocrisy. There was no "point" of voting for gay rights. You didn't even mention "gay rights". Everyone can see what you wrote.
eddie-- Regarding how Floyd and I were going at it just now... if you look at the nature of Floyd's [baseless personal insult] disagreement with me - alleged hypocrisy over gay-rights - I can still stand by almost all of what followed.
Hey eddie. When you make wild claims like that it would be wise to actually read what was said. The only name I called you was "liberal" and "hypocrite". If you check your first post you called people you don't even know "stupid fools". Yet, somehow you equate being called liberal and hypocrite to being a "baseless personal insult".
You know a funny thing about this is that YOU took this thread off topic, yet I get blamed for doing it.
So, the moral of the story is; if you don't want to be called a hypocrite ... stop being one!
Second moral; if you're going to be a hypocrite expect to be called one and don't whine when it happens.
@Everyone:
1) Floyd did not take this thread OT, OK? I did in response to Irony's question. And I did so mistakenly because I got Liz and Mary Cheney mixed up. (Sue me.)
There. Are you happy now, Floyd?
@Floyd:
2) Other than "Liberbal" (admitted, with pride) and "Hypocrite" (see below) you also called me a "sheeple." Which is both poor grammar (plural, where I'm singular) and a term inherently descriptive of philisophical conservatism, and inherently contrary to philisophical liberalism.
3) You apparently don't know the meaning of the word "hypocrisy." Hypocrisy is the act of condemning something that you engage in. (See Reverend Haggard, or Larry Craig, for examples.) It's judging another for a vice you possess. Where I do this? Clearly I didn't. I didn't condemn anyone exepct STUPID PEOPLE who vote against their own social and economic interests. If you can show me doing that (voting agianst my own interests)? If you can PROVE that I've done that? (Not just go with the lame-@$$, "Well, you voted for a democrat" nonsense) Then fine: I'm a hypocrite. Good luck.
3) As for "who I'd like to be called a hypocrite by?" Well, no one, obviously. To me there's no worse sin than hypocrisy. But I only really accept criticism from people I RESPECT. And there are many conservative (as well as liberal) posters here who's words and ideas and criticisms I take VERY SERIOUSLY. You are not even close to being one of them. How about this, for a start: I'll accept being called a hyopcrite by someone who knows the meaning of the word!
4) As for me "backing away" from what I wrote? How's that exactly? I clearly said "I stand by it" and I still do! And you've done little, other than to launch misguided attacks and say "I disagree with you" in an increasingly colorful manner, to show any inconsistency in what I've said.
Like you said: It's all there, for all to see - including my admission of mistaking Liz for Mary Cheney, and even assuming responsibility for taking the thread off topic. I'm fine with all that. If anyone would like to point out any substantive inconsistencies in the rest of it, I'd love to here them. (Other than the fact that we're both wasting everyone's time with this pointless verbal brawl, of course!) ;)
--------------------------------------------
Now... Did you have a POINT?
You mean only eddie. He isn't the brightest bulb in the box, but I never said Liz was gay. I merely pointed out eddie's hypocrisy of "supporting all gays 100% except the ones who don't vote the way he wants them to".
mes-- Liz Cheney is an active breeder, and has spawned another generation of Cheneys.
Yeah, frightening another round of Cheneys will be here for all of you to blame everything on. Maybe one of these will end up president and we'll be able to have some real cover-ups happening. Maybe a couple more oil leaks and maybe throw in some torture.
The idiocy of this statement is self-apparent. For the umpteenth time, I don't care how someone votes, or feels about an issue! To the extent that I wouldn't extend someone their rights (and I WOULD anyway, putz) it is becuase they themselves VOTED AGAINST them getting those very rights! It not about what I want, fool. It's about giving THEM what THEY THEMSELVES ASKED FOR! Duh!
But whatever. If you want to go one attcking me, despite the fact that YOU GOT NOTHIN'. Go right ahead. This aregument was beneath me at least three posts ago. I'm done and won't bother replying anymore.
--------------------------------------
Have fun grandstanding.
One more thing though: Even if I were serious about that, it's STILL wouldn't be "hypocrisy."
---------------------------------
Jackass
How do YOU feel about Helen Thomas, eddie? Have you always considered her a fool or idiot or whatever equates your feelings about Beck? If you consider her current actions condemnable, but consider her past actions ok, would that be another example of hypocrisy?
To everyone else... How do you all feel about Helen Thomas? Is she as bad as you have judged Beck to be, since she IS an anti-semite? Does her past and continued hatred of Jews convince you she is a vile person, like you do Beck?
One last thing. Eddie, I'm really not concerned whether you respect me or not. But, I do appreciate your clarification of those points. Obviously, I'm not commenting on this site to gain respect. I do find great joy in pointing out continued miss-information brought by this site and the hypocrisy of it.
I'd say the hypocrisyis on the part of all her critics who constantly whine about the "jews in hollywood" the "jews on wall street" the "jews on the supreme court" the "jews in the ACLU" the "jews who vote democrat" (etc...) but then turn around and crucify someone for making a few remarks about ISRAEL. I'd say the hypcrisy lies with all these conservtaives who seem to love Isreal but hate Jews!
------------------------------------
IMHO
----------------------------------------
...You stupid f---nut!
You wouldn't know the "liberal theology" if it beat you death and dragged you to hell.
Because... there IS no such thing. "Theology" can only describe conservtaism. "Dogma" is an inherently conservtaive concept. "Sheeple" therefore, can only be conservative. It is inherent to conservtaism to be dogmatic, to defend the status quo. To accept what you're told and act accordingly. It is iherent to liberals to question and dissent. That's why the Republicans have party unity (and little else) working for them, while the Democrats can't seem to organize a barbecue even when eveeyone wants Hamburgers, medium-well.
There ARE no liberal sheep, SFB, because to BE liberal, you have to question things. You have to SEEK OUT EVIDENCE and go where the EVIDENCE TAKES YOU. And as soon as you START questioning the established dogma, you have left the path of CONSERVATISM... Though you've joined the path of WISDOM, liberally-biassed though it may be.
And seeing as how YOU would deny marriage rights to ALL gays, while I'd only (in own basest day-dreaming vice) deny them to the gays that VOTED FOR THE PARTY THAT WANTED TO DENY THEM THOSE RIGHTS, where the hell do you get off criticizing me? The only part of the gay community who wouldn't agree with my point are those very people whom I'm criticizing! (And in disagreeing with me on that point, they would become the only hypocrties in this situation!)
The only sheep here is YOU. You are blinded by your adherence to what the RIGHT says is right and what the RIGHT says is "liberal," indefensible as both of those beliefs may be. My support of gay and minority rights is well established enough that I've EARNED the rigth to crack a joke from time to time about it. YOU and YOUR ILK have too long a history of bigoted remarks and regressive policies to warrant being given the benefit of the doubt.
But these points are always lost of you people. You're wasting my time. The liberals know what I'm talking about and have heard it all before, while I could throw you into the sun and you'd still fail to see the light.
--------------------------------------------------
Still... it is mildly amusing to see how much abuse you'll take and keep coming back for more. If you'd prefer and objective debate, try making a point.
It makes them feel like they are doing something other that picking their butts!
That shouldn't be hard to do. At least they pick their own butts.
-----------------------------
LOL
And just as it wasn't YOU who took the thread of-topic, it wasn't ME who "whined" about the "personal attacks." I'd NEVER do that, I'm having WAAAY too much fun with them!
(You see... THAT would be hypocrisy. And once again I don't qualify!)
Glad to know that "pick their own butts" was INTENTIONAL humor. Glad we could clear that up. I'll leave the verdict on that flourish of wit to the court of public opiinion.
I'm done with you.
-----------------------------------
I would shake your hand for a match well-played, but... not after you've "picked your own butt!"
Ewwwwwwwwwwww!!
You forgot the little winkie thingie. ;-)
(Also... there's probably a "little winkie" joke in there somewhere, but I'll let Floyd take that one.)
---------------------------------------------
LOL
--------------------------------------
LOL
DOD audit finds KBR/Halliburton defrauded government.
More Iraq fraud by KBR and Halliburton.
Hey, and that's just a sampling of KBR and Halliburton's wrongdoing. That's not even counting the American servicemen who were electrocuted by shoddy contractor work performed by KBR and Halliburton. That's not even to mention the billions that went missing in Iraq. So, you're absolutely wrong, poproxx77. Liz Cheney is also wrong, but this is hardly surprising. She lies just as well as her dad does. She should hug him while she can, because he is a war criminal who tortured people to death, and deserves federal prison time at the very least. By the way, do you suppose she knows she only exists so her daddy didn't have to go off to war?
And of course, you have proof of that? Silly me, I should know better than to ask a liberal for proof. The usual procedure is that one of you post a flat out lie, then a conservative has to bring proof that it isn't a lie. Do you have proof of even one person he "tortured to death" or do you have proof of all the "people" he "tortured to death".
Cat brings another typical liberal post; lies, no facts, no proof and blaming others.
Guess what, Floyd. I'm right. You're wrong. Again.
I never claimed any wrongdoing EVER by Haliburton. you have this nasty habit of putting words into other peoples mouths. Nasty.
And, putting words into other people's mouths, or pretending to know what other people really meant regardless of what they actually say comes from the Faux Con bag of tricks, which consist primarily of logical fallacies. Floyd is practically a case study in this.
You are so delusional it makes me sick. You make up thing where and when you want to fulfill your own little fantasies.
Got two words for you, poproxx77: John Yoo.
Hey, Dick Cheney? You are a cowardly bed wetting little girl. Continue to hide out in your 'undisclosed location'.
And, nothing was said about the people who died while Obama and Biden tortured them. Are you saying liberal torture is acceptable, but republican torture is not? I suspect you will ignore those deaths as they aren't qualified as "tortured deaths" since Cheney wasn't involved, right?
The other 2, well i'm not going to read 200+ pages trying to find what you are pointing to. Please tell me the page number/s.
I doubt he'll ever go to jail,but he should
hmmmmm. ya know i just had a thought........here is a well known case of a woman being gang raped and it being covered up and republicans and everyone on the right rushs to defend haliburton, and not the victum......hmmm. hypocracy......its so sweet in the morning
Hey, jedi, time for you to back up your wild claims with some facts! Got any?
And suddenly you care about the death count when "conservatives" screamed about the media even mentioning the war in a negative manner.
Yes. I'm curious about the hypocrisy of the left-wing media (and left-wingers in general) who had so many faux tears for those dying in Iraq, but now they seemed to have stopped crying ... even thought the deaths continue. If they weren't faux tears, then the publicized count would continue.
Halliburton has, as one of its headquarters, Balikpapan, Borneo.
During WW2, in Project Oboe, that was a target because of its oil.
American servicemen died to obtain that objective.
Is that called blood money?
Clifford Spencer
Either that or I need my eyeglass prescription updated...
That is certainly true for mmfa and the anti-conservative articles they keep coming out with. The liberal posters, on this site, sure fall for that tactic. Just like a bunch of sheeple would. Oh, wait, you are sheeple.
What has Obama done to un-cover, the alleged crime? Or do you support his continued covering up of that alleged crime?
are you taking the "she was asking for it" tack? or the "it was her fault for dressing like she did" tack?
wanna blame the victim some more?
oh so now your wanting to follow the innocent until proven guilty line. so you want that due process when it applies to corporations. but when it appiles to anyone else. forget them. they are guilty no matter what.
nice hypocracy
No, I am asking if there was a conviction? Was there? Can I now refer to ALL who are accused of a crime as being guilty of a crime? I'm simply asking a question about a charge of a conspiracy that you think is happening at the hands of a government and private company. And, since the article blames the US government as being a part of this alleged cover-up, then the current US president must be a part of it. If not, then the current POTUS should bring all the correct information to light. Has that been done?
"When she awoke the next morning still affected by the drug, she found her body naked and severely bruised, with lacerations to her vagina and anus, blood running down her leg, her breast implants ruptured, and her pectoral muscles torn – which would later require reconstructive surgery. Upon walking to the rest room, she passed out again." Jones' account was confirmed by U.S. Army physician Jodi Schultz. Schultz gave the rape kit she used to gather evidence from Jones to KBR/Halliburton security forces, after which the rape kit disappeared. It was recovered two years later, but missing crucial photographs and notes.
And you think this is okay?!?! You think that this amounts to a 'well, no convictions so no crime was committed." What kind of sick twisted screwheaded bastard are you?!
You're beyond despicable. There aren't any words to describe sick people like you. You're even willing to try and politicize this woman's gang-rape and subsequent cover-up and blame it on Obama. How dare you have such a lack of humanity and empathy, and how dare you try to equate what was done (or not done) under the past administration with this poor woman to the current administration.
and if you wanna blame the current president for this one....well how about this.....why not blame the last one as well. or the last vice president who was the head of KBR's parent company. are you gonna call for them to be held to acct too?
i didn't bring the government into this part....you did. i only mentioned haliburton and KBR. no one else. not the current president or the previous one. if you want obama brought in on this so bad. why aren't you screaming for dick cheney's head. why not bush. because they were the ones at the wheel at the time. so you should be wanting to go after them first and foremost.
but like all good trolls you wont. they are sacrosanct to you. so either man up and call for their questioning first or shut up.
Yes, all should be held accountable. Does that surprise you? If YOU are going to claim a massive cover-up, bring it. Don't forget to have ALL accountable to be questioned. Where is the current investigation into this 'alleged' cover-up? None going on? Hmmm.
1. you go to haliburton and KBR and demand the evidence they have hidden.
2. go after president bush and vice pres cheney.
3. then, and only then, should president obama be held accountable if anything.
but as well all know. you will skip right to go after president obama. and only obama. obama should be held to account if at all, last. so until i see a news story saying that HAliburton and KBR are brought up on criminal charges and bush and dick are held responsible first, you will have not a leg to stand on.
Or both?
Either one seems appropriate to me.
OMG!! This simply makes no sense.
and i challenged you to go after them, since you are so for the justice of a woman over a corporation. oh wait your not.
womanizer = : to pursue casual sexual relationships with multiple women
rape: : unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent
Sounds fairly similar to me. Both include sex, but consent isn't necessary---Floyd
This is what this kook posted to me in response to me calling him on equating womanizing to rape.
BTW, you might as well use all the other names you liberals have for conservatives, since name-calling is your only hope. You certainly don't know what facts are, or you'd bring some. Keep on name-calling ... it's all you got.
Kook: <n> one whose ideas or actions are eccentric,fantastic,or insane: screwball
womanizing=rape-----Floyd
'Nuff' said.
Actually, you never said republicans either. Are you trying to climb out of a hole or something, by trying to make excuses?
If you want to find out how you ended up being blamed for saying the government was involved, you can go back to your initial statement where you asked if I was ok with haliburton covering up a gang-rape.
I didn't know what you were talking about so I googled it and found several aritcles about it. I linked the ABC article, because it was the most "acceptable" site (for you liberals). In that article (the very first sentence) Haliburton and the US Government are blamed for a cover-up of an alleged gang-rape. I asked you if this was the story you were referring to and you did not say 'no, there is a different story'. So, naturally I thought you meant that story. Is there another one I should be googling, so I get my facts straight?
Anyhow, you went back and forth about who you wanted to blame and who not to, but you NEVER said either republicans or any of the government. But, since that what was the article was about, the inference was there.
Now, you claim you DID say republicans, I was wondering if you could point out where you said that. Otherwise, simply admit you've painted yourself into a corner and you can't figure out how to escape, so you fall back onto the normal liberal practice of calling me names.
Point out where I lied! If you can't, then you are simply another hypocritical liberal who does what they are told when they are told to do it. In which case I would expect nothing less from you.
and the president had nothing to do with it by the way. kbr and haliburton covered up the crime and they should be the ones being focused on not the president. nice try jackass.
Jones argued that the alleged gang rape was not related to her employment and thus, wasn’t covered by the arbitration agreement. Finally, two years later, a federal court has sensibly agreed with her. Tuesday, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2 to 1 ruling, found her alleged injuries were not, in fact, in any way related to her employment and thus, not covered by the contract.
One of the judges who ruled in her favor, Rhesa Hawkins Barksdale, is a West Point grad, Vietnam vet, and one of the court’s most conservative members, a sign, perhaps, of just how bad the facts are in this case. It’s a big victory, but a bitter one that shows just how insidious mandatory arbitration is. It’s taken Jones three years of litigation just to get to the point where she can finally sue the people who allegedly wronged her. It will be many more years before she has a shot at any real justice.
“We do not hold that, as a matter of law, sexual-assault allegations can never ‘relate to’ someone’s employment,” wrote the court. “For this action, however, Jones’ allegations do not ‘touch matters’ related to her employment, let alone have a ’significant relationship’ to her employment contract.
Don't ever post here again Floyd. Never. Unreal that you would claim that there weren't any convictions when the legal chicanery used by KBR reached unparalleled levels to prevent convictions. And in case you were wondering, yes, she can now sue KBR thanks to the court ruling. All on public record too, unlike the arbitration was. Unreal that you would stand up for a company that covered up a gang-rape of one of its employees. What kind of a monster are you?!?
Of course, KBR has recently (on January 19th) requested that the United States Supreme Court deny her ability to sue her rapists and the company for covering it up. Normally I nicely suggest to people that are uninformed that they educate themselves further about a subject. You I sincerely hope get your ass kicked repeatedly for daring to argue that legal trickery and lobbying equates with 'no criminal charges being brought by the DoJ' (which has been called before Congress to account for their inaction on this open and shut case with mounds of evidence supporting the victim).
I also sincerely hope that you are banned from posting again on this site. Your 'opinion' is anything but. You're ignorant, uninformed, willing to say things that are demonstrably false and then attempt to defend those errors, and you seem to be a genuinely evil person for supporting KBR in this case (or you're astoundingly ignorant and evil for not caring enough to bother looking up what the facts are in the case in question and yet still willing to defend KBR). What you do isn't 'freedom of speech', it's something totally different; it's a more insidious form of propaganda that seeks to defend the proponents of a certain point of view, rather than defending the truth. YOU and those like you are major reasons why rape victims don't come forward more in society: because they're put through a whole other round of being victimized by bastards like you.
I guess the kind that doesn't fall for the bunk you do. Let her sue, I hope she wins tons of cash. That doesn't prove the giant conspiracy jedi is claiming there is. If the government is part of that conspiracy, then Obama is the leader of that government and HE can un-conspire it. Has he even attempted? No? Well, there you have it ... he must be part of the giant government conspiracy.
What a bunch of whiney little girls you are. Claim conspiracy then run away when your leader could be part of it. Hypocrites
I hope AG Holder brings Halliburton and all connected into the criminal action. Maybe if this happens we will finally find out the truth behind Cheney's secret meeting with the oil companies while he was "Vice President."
Liz is right, what planet does Huffington live on? Huffington is simply a hater, like most of her kind are.
rush limbaugh got married this past weekend. and for the entertainment he paid elton john 1 million dollars. so therefore rush must be ok with john's lifestyle and thus promoting homosexuality
Umm, Yeah, they would be, assuming HBO did that.
To get you to think rationally about this matter, try to imagine if all these charges were being lobbed at ACORN. Try to imagine that the govt found that ACORN had overcharged the government $452M dollars. Try to imagine that ACORN employees had pleaded to taking kickbacks. Imagine if DOD audits of ACORN had discovered 30-odd instances of fraud. Imagine if ACORN had allegedly tried to cover up a gang rape by its employees.
What would your reaction to all this? Do you see why people are kind of upset?
What lies? Bring proof of your accusations, if you have any. BTW, opinion doesn't count as proof (unless you're a liberal, then opinion is more sound than fact).
No. i'm really tired of your sanctimonious pedancy. If a child finds a porno mag or flips channels and finds playboy, how is this the parents fault? its not like they are leaving drain cleaner in the floor.
What would be the difference? You mess up his mind or you mess up his body. You act as though the parent has NO control over the child. Well, I guess if the child had liberal parents then you would be correct. Since liberals don't believe in 'personal responsibility', their children would become uncontrollable.
joh-- i'm really tired of your sanctimonious pedancy.
Here's a quarter
Trying to interact with someone who clearly is NOT interested in participating in a reasoned and fair debate is simply giving HIM the negative attention HE wants.
That means that Floyd wins, NOT all the folks who think they're winning by mocking him repeatedly!
Yes you should floyd.