"To be prescience is all fine and good, but excuse me, Politicians are not Jean Dixon. I find it totally ludicrous and duplicitous for anyone to find any degree of illegality, imoraliity or unethical behaviour in this story"

You see, that's why you and I have a hard time getting along. To go to that extreme isn't much different than what Col Gene does.

You can't believe for a half a second that they weren't planning to attack Iraq even BEFORE Bush was elected. Now, granted, I don't think there is anything wrong with that. We'd sat and tolerated Hussein attacking our aircraft and being a nuiscance for 8 years.

That doesn't mean that a conscientious politician wouldn't have seen how terrible a propaganda tool Cheney would be for the other side. The fix was in on Cheney and Rumsfeld long before Bush was elected. I like them both, frankly, but I see flaws in my closest friends, too.

That works for you, but Presidents should have the forsight to see such an obvious problem, unless they just thought we were too stupid to notice that Cheney's pals were getting the lion's share of contracts in Iraq. You simply refuse to acknoledge any mistakes or flaws, no matter how glaring. Halliburton is an anchor around this administrations neck, and I think 5-10% of Bush's lacking approval rating can be attributed specifically to that stigma.

After 6 years of this, you aren't the slightest bit bitter that Bush has given all this ammunition that you have to tolerate being fired at you every other day? Even if there isn't anything TECHNICALLY wrong with it, you can't dispute that he would have shown better judgement, especially in a time of war, to have headed it off at the pass.

You see, that's why you and I have a hard time getting along. To go to that extreme isn't much different than what Col Gene does.

Baker, I am wondering about you.  This is about Cheney's donations.  And now you are seeing ghosts behind every column.  Which is fine.  You can see that if you want to.  But try to stay on topic here.  You want to debate the whole Pnoc (or what ever the hell the latest conspiracy theory is)?  Go right ahead!  Write about it and debate it to your hearts content!  Gather all the other Conspiracy freaks like Col Gene, DU.org, Howard Dean, Hillary, Kerry and Kennedy!

Have a ball!  Have a frigging orgy!  I don't give a fucking damn!  But don't come onto my articles and turn them to your own agenda.  This is the 3rd or 4th time you have done it in the last month.  And I do not understand why.  But I am getting tired of you trying to turn my articles to your desires.  Really, I am not your clone or mouth piece.  You don't like these?  Write your own.

It has nothing to do with my agenda, Dr. Guy. It has to do with you trying to state that Cheney is doing this out of charitable emotion when the real reason is that if he hadn't he would have been in a world of trouble.

If you don't see the problem with a person in power profiting in the range of millions a year from a company that profits when our nation is at war, then you are being purposefully obtuse. Halliburton gets contract to clean up what we destroy. If Cheney's portfolio grew everytime we blew stuff up and rebuilt it you don't think that would be a problem?

What I have said isn't diverting from the subject, it IS the subject, just an aspect of it that you prefer to sweep under the table. The fact that you would lump me in with DU and Col Gene for pointing it out just shows that people either agree with you all the time or they are your enemy. Sad.

It's a sad fact that all we have to judge our leaders on is their public behaviour. And so far Cheney has done little to suggest he's a 'good' person, insofar as any polly can be a good person. When the main public information available about a man is a litany of involvement with scandals, corruption and apparently quite considerable reluctance to sell off a portfolio that as Baker states is a conflict of interest, is it really so surprising that lefties find it suspicious?

Sure he gave all the profits to charity, but the act of giving to charity has been cheapened over the years. It's not the magical whitewashing of a bad character it used to be, particularly when everyone knows that PR specialists advise charitable donations publically. The taint of what came before remains in Cheney's case.

It has nothing to do with my agenda, Dr. Guy. It has to do with you trying to state that Cheney is doing this out of charitable emotion when the real reason is that if he hadn't he would have been in a world of trouble. If you don't see the problem with a person in power profiting in the range of millions a year from a company that profits when our nation is at war, then you are being purposefully obtuse. Halliburton gets contract to clean up what we destroy. If Cheney's portfolio grew everytime we blew stuff up and rebuilt it you don't think that would be a problem? What I have said isn't diverting from the subject, it IS the subject, just an aspect of it that you prefer to sweep under the table. The fact that you would lump me in with DU and Col Gene for pointing it out just shows that people either agree with you all the time or they are your enemy. Sad.

I dont know whether to address Col Klink or Bakerstreet.  But I will try again.

1: Cheney did not profit.  He got no reward for Haliburton doing anything.  ANd that is not this article.

2: He could donate 2 cents or 2 million.  That would not make a difference for Haliburton.

3:  You have fallen into the liberal trap.  Haliburton.  Fine.

4: I will give you a clue.  You are clueless if you leave this drivel here.  YOu want to trash Cheney?  Go right ahead.  Col Klink has a lot of ammunition for you.  You will not find it here.  Just a lot of crow.

I am sorry you cannot understand the difference. And I am not sorry I cannot warp my view to understand yours.

It's a sad fact that all we have to judge our leaders on is their public behaviour. And so far Cheney has done little to suggest he's a 'good' person, insofar as any polly can be a good person. When the main public information available about a man is a litany of involvement with scandals, corruption and apparently quite considerable reluctance to sell off a portfolio that as Baker states is a conflict of interest, is it really so surprising that lefties find it suspicious? Sure he gave all the profits to charity, but the act of giving to charity has been cheapened over the years. It's not the magical whitewashing of a bad character it used to be, particularly when everyone knows that PR specialists advise charitable donations publically. The taint of what came before remains in Cheney's case.

Do not be fooled by Baker's tirade.  He vowed to do this before he was elected. so he had nothing to gain by helping them.  And he kept his promise, for that was all it was. A promise, not a law.  Much better than most politicians do.

And not all that he gave was his profit from Haliburton.  He gave far beyond that.  But that gets ignored by both Baker and the Liberals.

This is about a man giving 77% of his income to charity and getting trashed for it.  Now you want to stack your figures up to that and say "what a good boy am I"?

Fine, lay your cards on the table.

"I dont know whether to address Col Klink or Bakerstreet. But I will try again."

Of that I have no doubt. Either we're with ya, or we are ALL Col Gene. Sad perspective. Cheney's move to protect himself from conflict of interest problems was the right one, I don't disagree with you. If you are sitting here trying to claim that he'd have done it without those issues, you're nuts.

If you don't see the problem with a person in power profiting in the range of millions a year from a company that profits when our nation is at war, then you are being purposefully obtuse. Halliburton gets contract to clean up what we destroy. If Cheney's portfolio grew everytime we blew stuff up and rebuilt it you don't think that would be a problem?

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Cheney himself has made no profit! He has turned ALL profits over to charity! So just how is that making his portfolio bigger?

KFC said: "and.....? so? Do you have a problem with another's fortune? Would it be better for you if he lost money?

Our stock went up as well. He invested wisely. That tells me he's got a good head on his shoulders. GOOD FOR HIM."


Livin' and learnin' at joeuser............ I didn't realize that war profiteering is considered a good thing.
But, I guess if you love the war, you love the profits. Conflicts of interest don't exist in the joeuser universe, I guess.

KFC said: "and.....? so? Do you have a problem with another's fortune? Would it be better for you if he lost money? Our stock went up as well. He invested wisely. That tells me he's got a good head on his shoulders. GOOD FOR HIM." Livin' and learnin' at joeuser............ I didn't realize that war profiteering is considered a good thing. But, I guess if you love the war, you love the profits. Conflicts of interest don't exist in the joeuser universe, I guess.

Why is everyone jumping on this erroneous bandwagon? When are people going to realize that to start with VP Cheney INVESTED IN NOTHING! Investment in a stock would mean he took money from his own pocket and bought stock options. HE DID NOT DO THIS! The stock he had was "given" to him by the company as part of his "retirement". Which is the biggest reason they were NOT able to pin him down on conflict of intrest!!

No, they weren't able to pin him down on conflict of interest because he took the steps to prevent himself from profiting by accepting the deferred pre-scheduled payments and giving all his after-tax profits to charity. Kudos to him for doing it, but he would be in deep trouble if he hadn't. Therefore, lauding him for his charitable nature doesn't ring true.

If you are sitting here trying to claim that he'd have done it without those issues, you're nuts.

I think if you read the article, you will see he did anyway.  So where's the beef?  And this is not with you or against you.  I made the statement because you are getting one note, and for the life of me, I dont understand why.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Cheney himself has made no profit! He has turned ALL profits over to charity! So just how is that making his portfolio bigger?

I dont understand the pure hatred.  At worst, give Cheney a ho-hum!  at best, give him an attaboy!  But some people just dont seem to understand that.

Livin' and learnin' at joeuser............ I didn't realize that war profiteering is considered a good thing. But, I guess if you love the war, you love the profits. Conflicts of interest don't exist in the joeuser universe, I guess.

Next time you throw down a glove, back it up. Or you will be labeled a troll.

Now, do you want to back up the war profiteering?

Why is everyone jumping on this erroneous bandwagon? When are people going to realize that to start with VP Cheney INVESTED IN NOTHING! Investment in a stock would mean he took money from his own pocket and bought stock options. HE DID NOT DO THIS! The stock he had was "given" to him by the company as part of his "retirement". Which is the biggest reason they were NOT able to pin him down on conflict of intrest!!

When the winds dont blow, the rivers dont flow and the grass does not grow.  What is obvious to some of us (and as I said, at worst, a ho hum), is a scandal not only to the loons at DU.org, but some here as well.  And no, I dont understand it.  Probably never will.