I posted an article last night, noting that I had predicted on August 5, 2004, the possibility that the White House might want to invoke “terrorism” to ensure the United States did not have regular elections — something which, at the time, seemed outrageous in that the United States has never put off a regular national election; not for war, not for natural disaster.
Frankly, I was concerned about sounding like a fruit loop…
Since no one can really predict the future and since it seemed so “out there” (and because I think — for reasons which have nothing to do with reality and which I’ll give another time — that Bush will be re-elected for another term before this happens), I watered things down a bit by “predicting” it won’t happen until after his second term: “[H]e would declare that elections could not be held because the crisis facing our country was too severe.” I felt safe giving that as the reason even after a second Bush term because, of course, terrorism is here to stay. Our actions in Iraq have virtually guaranteed that. At this point, even “nuking” the entire Middle East won’t change that fact; Muslims around the world would (rightly, if we tried such a thing, I might add) take up the cause.
At any rate, no one called me a fruit loop.
But now, of course, the front page of CNN (online) for the last few days has been carrying a story about the possibility of putting off this year’s national election. So I’m not so fruit-loopy after all.
Frankly, this is the sort of story that would have our Founding Fathers literally up in arms. It’s the stuff for which the Second Amendment was written. Don’t get me wrong: I neither own nor want to own a gun. And I would not be advocating anyone overthrow the U.S. government, either. There are — for the time being anyway — other ways to deal with a potential rogue government, should it come to that. I’m just pointing out that for over 200 years, not even the Civil War and two World Wars have disrupted the right of the people to elect the President of their choice.
Until now….
And how can that happen? Because the Republican leadership — not the entire party (I hope), but the leadership — is corrupt through and through.
And that brings me to a question yesterday’s post brought to me via email.
The question was “Is this true?”
The answer is that, yes, the French government, according to Le Figaro, is investigating Halliburton and there is a possibility that Vice-President Cheney will be indicted by the French government. What’s not clear to me yet is whether it’s true that Cheney’s response to questions about Halliburton posed by Senator Leahy was “f*ck off.” I’m also not sure if it’s true, as the story Bob pointed out notes, that Bush said, “F*ck ’em all.” I suppose it’s possible, since he’s already beaten “Bring it on” to death — and rumor has it he isn’t enjoying the fact that his exit plan (oh…wait…) isn’t working well in Iraq because the insurgents continue to “bring it on.”
The United States press has not been completely silent on this issue, either. The liberal websphere sites have, of course, carried the story. And although it’s nearly impossible to find anything in the mainstream press nowadays — the story wasn’t interesting enough to the Republican Party, so it’s been somewhat stifled — the Boston Phoenix reports,
The Nigerian affair [which is what the French investigation is apparently about] hasn’t exactly been a secret. You won’t be reading about it in Project Censored’s annual round-up of “the news that didn’t make the news.” It has, after all, been reported in some detail on the front page of the Wall Street Journal, on Newsweek’s Web site, and on NPR’s All Things Considered. Dan Rather even gave it a quick, context-free mention recently on The CBS Evening News.
The February 10, 2004 Washington Post story — very difficult to find, but reproduced here — notes that at some point, our own Justice Department was conducting a similar investigation. Then, apparently, someone reminded them for whom they work.
Some of you might recall that Dick Cheney was implicated in the once-interesting story — now similarly relegated to the dustbin — regarding the “outing” of CIA Agent Valerie Plame. What you might not know is that this isn’t the only state secret that Cheney unveiled. After “someone” leaked a story about the much-rumored and much-debunked connection between Saddam Hussein and al Queda and after the Pentagon tried to discredit the story, Cheney confirmed the story.
Some of Cheney’s opponents, such as a group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, say he violated the law by confirming the validity of leaked classified information. Cheney’s defenders say the Pentagon essentially confirmed the leak in its statement and point out that Cheney may have been cleared to confirm the classified information.
The Pentagon had said, “the leak of raw intelligence data does serious harm to national security.” But what do they know? After all, do they have as much experience leaking national security information as Dick Cheney?
If you think this is interesting, the best part (to me) is the way our lack of knowledge about it dovetails with numerous articles I’ve written before about the corporate control of the American press.
No, if you want to find out what’s happening, you pretty much have to go to the foreign press. Vive Le Canada, for example, has this story, which notes,
Cheney is currently in trouble with the French because of Halliburton’s actions during Cheney’s reign over the company. Halliburton, in partnership with the French company Technip, was commissioned by Shell to build a $6 billion gas liquification factory in Nigeria. To do so it appears that Halliburton and Technip set up a company called Tristar registered in Madeira. It appears that Tristar spent $180 million bribing Nigerian officials. French judge Renaud van Ruymbeke has been looking into corporate corruption and investigating the actions of Technip in Nigeria. Shortly before Christmas, Judge van Ruymbeke sent notice to the justice department that Cheney might be indicted in the case.
The story notes that the Journal du Dimanche has questioned whether that money ended up funding Republicans. (You can read about that in this story here or here.)
Not that any of this matters. The only thing it will mean is that the United States will, after November, more than likely join the list of other nations with either Presidents or Vice-Presidents who are convicted criminals. It’s just that, usually, those have either been Third-World countries, or the convicts resigned.
2 responses so far ↓
1 John Watt // Feb 3, 2005 at 2:24 am
DICK CHENEY : IS HE CORRUPT?
Is Dick Cheney the Vice President and the former CEO of
Halliburton Co. corrupt ?
FACTS
Halliburton have had a monopoly on all oil contracts in Iraq awarded under the U.S occupation.
These contracts have all been awarded without competition and give the company the power to run all phases of Iraq’s oil industry including the ‘operation’ of Iraqi oil fields and ‘distribution’ of Iraqi oil.
For running this monopoly they have not only recieved enormas fees from the U.S Government (over Seven billion dollars in 2003 alone) they are allowed to charge a levy of over $6 dollars on every barrel of Oil that is exported from Iraq.
In September 2003, when asked by Tim Hussert whether he was “involved in any way in the awarding of [Iraq] contracts” to Halliburton, Cheney replied “Of course not, Tim. . . . And as Vice President, I have absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of in any way, shape or form of contracts led by the [Army] Corps of Engineers or anybody else in the Federal Government.” In Fact internal Pentagon documents reveal that the awarding of the Halliburton contracts “has been coordinate [with] VP’s office.” An internal Pentagon email reveals that the award of no-bid Halliburton contracts “has been coordinated with the VP’s office.” (Burger & Zagorin, Time Magazine 05.30.04, CAP Daily Report 06.01.04 and 06.15.04).
HALIBURTON AND SADDAM
Cheney claimed that while at Halliburton he imposed a “firm policy” against trading with Iraq. “[W]e’ve not done any business in Iraq since the sanctions [were] imposed, and I had a standing policy that I wouldn’t do that.” In fact senior Halliburton executives claim there was no such policy. Halliburton’s affiliates signed contracts with Iraq to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment during Cheney’s tenure, helping Iraq increase crude exports by 450% between 1997 and 2000. Senior Halliburton executives were certain Cheney was aware of this business. Cheney also defended circumvention of a Clinton executive order banning US trade and investment in Iran. (Financial Times 10.05.00, Washington Post 06.23.01)
NIGERIA
Cheney is currently also in trouble with the French Courts because of Halliburton’s actions during Cheney’s reign over the company. Halliburton, in partnership with the French company Technip, was commissioned by Shell to build a $6 billion gas liquification factory in Nigeria. To do so it appears that Halliburton and Technip set up a company called Tristar registered in Madeira. It appears that Tristar spent $180 million bribing Nigerian officials. French judge Renaud van Ruymbeke has been looking into corporate corruption and investigating the actions of Technip in Nigeria. Shortly before Christmas, Judge van Ruymbeke sent notice to the justice department that Cheney might well be indicted in the case.
IMPEACHMENT
Given the well documented acts of overt corrupt activity by Haliburton (by both the U.S Army Corps of Engineers and Pentagon Inspector General see http://expage.com/notowar20b & many others such as the Australian company Morris Corporation see http://expage.com/haliburtoncoruption ) & grave doubts over the probity of Vice Presidents Dick Cheneys links with his old company since he has been in office we believe that they should be banned from any further contracts from the U.S government and removed from Iraq and that Dick Cheney should at the very least be facing dismisal from office and possible prosecution for aiding and abetting corrupt activity.
As such we call on the U.S Congress to face up to this odious corruption and war profiteering by Haliburton (both for the sake of U.S national prestige and Common Justice) and immediately begin impeachment proceedings against the Vice President. To allow Cheney to remain in office unchecked in these circumstances (in what after all is the second most important political office in the U.S) would not only be a absolute disgrace but would constitute a very grave danger to the very foundations of democracy in the U.S.
Those in Congress who believe that there is not sufficient evidence to get rid of this shameful (and sinful man) should take heed of the advice of Howard Dean (the former counsel to President Richard Nixon) who said “The evidence is overwhelming, certainly sufficient for a prima facie case, that George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney have engaged in deceit and deception over going to war in Iraq. This is an impeachable offense.” (Worse Than Watergate, Little, Brown 2004) . . .
2 Someone Ashamed To Post His Name // Mar 2, 2006 at 1:52 am
You’re so blind, you can’t see it. Go on approve me. At least I can spell. Where were you edgeecaited?
Leave a Comment