For Those Of You That Contradicted And Critized Me

[NWA/AMT]

Halliburton stayed within those parameters while the French meanwhile did not.

[post="183061"][/post]​

The Iraqis then sold the oil, and often the equipment, to buy more weapons. But it's OK because they 'stayed within the parameters', right? To apply one standard to the French and another to Dick Cheney's Halliburton is yet another example of your patented double standard, Fred.

 

[FredF]

The Iraqis then sold the oil, and often the equipment, to buy more weapons. But it's OK because they 'stayed within the parameters', right? To apply one standard to the French and another to Dick Cheney's Halliburton is yet another example of your patented double standard, Fred.

[post="183132"][/post]​

So how many time do I have to say this before you will understand it.

IRAQ bought the Weapons from the FRENCH

There were new or nearly new weapons uncovered in the war in iraq that came from FRANCE not halliburton.

The UN allowed for companies to sell equipment to iraq for use in the oil for food program. Yes that program turned out to be almost as corrupt as the UN itself, but that was not Halliburton's doing. Halliburton did not sell iraq weapons, France did.

How hard of a concept is that to understand?


Just one more little point related to this here, that is the main reason that France did not want us going in there in the first place.

 

[NWA/AMT]

Then why did Cheney feel compelled to lie about it during the 2000 campaign?

"I had a firm policy that we wouldn't do anything in Iraq, even arrangements that were supposedly legal," Cheney said on the ABC-TV news program "This Week" on July 30, 2000. "We've not done any business in Iraq since U.N. sanctions were imposed on Iraq in 1990, and I had a standing policy that I wouldn't do that."

http://www.counterpunch.org/leopold03202003.html

http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?f...d%20Halliburton

It took him three weeks, after it had been clearly shown that he had lied, to correct himself. He then claimed to have no knowledge of those deals, yet the UN records of those deals clearly show otherwise.

I wonder why he felt he needed to hide them?

"How hard of a concept is that to understand?"

 

[FredF]

You and I are apparently arguing different concepts here it would seem. Your contention, I believe, regards Dick Cheny and his actions whereas my contention resolved around legal vs illegal activities of different countries.


"We inherited two joint ventures with Ingersoll-Rand that were selling some parts into Iraq, but we divested ourselves of those interests."


I don't know why he said what he said or what he actually knew or didn't know. I cannot speak to that at all. There is a lot of speculation flowing around it from both sides and I imagine, as it usually is the truth is somewhere in there but where I do not know.

The timeline is very murky and it is possable that what was said when it was said was not incorrect. They did acquire another company that was taking part in a joint venture that was "legally" selling parts into iraq. Was his statement made before that acquisition? The article says that it took over a year for haliburton to divest itself of these companines and the joint venture. What was the climate at the time and was that a reasonable length of time to get rid of them given the potential for someone else to buy them?

These are all questions that should been answered 4 years ago.

I would question why this is being brought up 4 years later when this matter should have been dealt with in the previous election.

 

[NWA/AMT]

"We inherited two joint ventures with Ingersoll-Rand that were selling some parts into Iraq, but we divested ourselves of those interests."

[post="183469"][/post]​

Yet during the time it took to slowly divest, Dick Cheney's Halliburton signed over 30 contracts with Saddams government.

These are all questions that should been answered 4 years ago.

Yes, they should have been but, after correcting himself three weeks later, Dick Cheney has steadfastly refused to answer questions on the subject. Much like the myriad questions regarding his Energy Commission.

I would question why this is being brought up 4 years later when this matter should have been dealt with in the previous election.

Because the honesty of the man who holds the number two office in the land is more important than the alleged dishonesty of the French or their government.

On that subject, I have heard repeatedly about the alleged French sales of weapons systems to Iraq, yet, after talking to my sons who both served in Iraq for over a year, they say that all the weapons they saw were Soviet-era, Russian made, not French. Even well into 2001, Russian technicians were working on Saddam's weapons up to and including ballistic missiles, yet we never hear such allegations of Russian perfidy. Nor of Pakistan's role in nuclear proliferation. Why is that?

Our 'allies' as frightening as our enemies.

 

[MrAeroMan]

I am qualified to teach Constitutional Law in law schools, so your chidings about not understanding the election system are way off the mark.

Bush was anointed by a Supreme Court split along partisan lines. The decision holding that there was insufficient time to complete a manual recount (in part because the court itself halted that recount pending its decision) was one of the most poorly legally supported and weakest reasoned court opinions in the history of the republic.

Just because four years have passed since Al Gore conceded the election to prevent a constitutional crisis does not legitimize its outcome. If Bush & Co. had a scintilla of common sense, he would have governed from the center, to achieve a national consensus after a disputed election, instead of making a hard turn to the extreme right wing fringe.

[post="182209"][/post]​

Did you forget that all the major media companies sent accounting firms to Florida to conduct a recount and did it slip your mind what their findings were?? Let me help you out. Bush got more votes in Florida than Gore and that's why he won the state. Even if your precious recount had taken place he STILL would've won so what exactly are you qualified to teach??

 

[KCFlyer]

Did you forget that all the major media companies sent accounting firms to Florida to conduct a recount and did it slip your mind what their findings were?? Let me help you out. Bush got more votes in Florida than Gore and that's why he won the state. Even if your precious recount had taken place he STILL would've won so what exactly are you qualified to teach??

[post="185633"][/post]​

Even if the recounts did show Bush won the election, when did the Supreme Court have the power to override the ruling of a State Supreme Courts decision to commence a recount and order that the recount be halted...then claim that the decision must be made because of some obscure date in December would mean that a recount could not be completed in time?

Why not let your boy win "fair and square" and not depend on rulings made by several Justices who happended to be appointed on his daddy's watch?

The law deals with "precedents" and none of the precedents cited by the supreme court were anywhere near the issue that faced them in the 2000 election. Now they have set a precedent that recounts in close states can be governed by the supreme court of the United States...completly negating any kind of role of the state courts.

All W needed to do was let the recounts proceed and request that the Supreme Court dismiss the case that HE filed. YOu gotta wonder why he didn't do that, unless he was uncertain that he could have won "Fair and square". Whoever is elected next, I'd like to see them push to abolish the electoral college competely. Let the popular vote...the voice of the people...determine who should run their country. Had that been the case, even if Bush did "win" Florida, there were 5 million other reasons why he shouldn't have been President in 2000....that's the difference in the popular vote.

 

[FredF]

The Supreme Court decided that for re-counts, the same standard had to be applied to ALL ballots re-counted. They also said that the re-count had to cover the entire state.

Then they said that the LAW in Florida stating that the Secretary of State was required to certify the election results could not be set aside.

If the Gore team could have gotten the Entire state re-counted by the date set forth by State Law, the Supreme Court said that was just fine.

The Gore team could not make the date and so the re-counting was halted and Bush certified the winner by the Secreatary of State as the Law directed.

 

[MrAeroMan]

Even if the recounts did show Bush won the election, when did the Supreme Court have the power to override the ruling of a State Supreme Courts decision to commence a recount and order that the recount be halted...then claim that the decision must be made because of some obscure date in December would mean that a recount could not be completed in time?

Why not let your boy win "fair and square" and not depend on rulings made by several Justices who happended to be appointed on his daddy's watch?

The law deals with "precedents" and none of the precedents cited by the supreme court were anywhere near the issue that faced them in the 2000 election. Now they have set a precedent that recounts in close states can be governed by the supreme court of the United States...completly negating any kind of role of the state courts.

All W needed to do was let the recounts proceed and request that the Supreme Court dismiss the case that HE filed. YOu gotta wonder why he didn't do that, unless he was uncertain that he could have won "Fair and square". Whoever is elected next, I'd like to see them push to abolish the electoral college competely. Let the popular vote...the voice of the people...determine who should run their country. Had that been the case, even if Bush did "win" Florida, there were 5 million other reasons why he shouldn't have been President in 2000....that's the difference in the popular vote.

[post="185651"][/post]​

As Fred has said the Gore people couldn't get the votes counted in time and that's why the election was certified. The fact is Bush won Florida. All the accounting firms hired by the media came to the same conclusion and if he hadn't it'd still be the leading story on all the nightly newscasts as well as front page fodder for all the left wing newspapers that dot our nation.
The forefathers set the electoral college for a reason and so far they have been right on the mark at every turn. Here's a link that explains their reasoning. See the process here.
The only reason democrats want to abolish the electoral college is because it worked like it was supposed to and eliminated the political manipulation that would've occurred had it not been in place. It would give additional power to large populous states and less power to the smaller and less populous states. The voice of the people do elect the President and it's a dangerous move to have the electoral college abolished just because your candidate didn't win.

 

[KCFlyer]

As Fred has said the Gore people couldn't get the votes counted in time and that's why the election was certified. The fact is Bush won Florida. All the accounting firms hired by the media came to the same conclusion and if he hadn't it'd still be the leading story on all the nightly newscasts as well as front page fodder for all the left wing newspapers that dot our nation.
The forefathers set the electoral college for a reason and so far they have been right on the mark at every turn. Here's a link that explains their reasoning. See the process here.
The only reason democrats want to abolish the electoral college is because it worked like it was supposed to and eliminated the political manipulation that would've occurred had it not been in place. It would give additional power to large populous states and less power to the smaller and less populous states. The voice of the people do elect the President and it's a dangerous move to have the electoral college abolished just because your candidate didn't win.

[post="185801"][/post]​

A couple of things....there is no legally binding reason why a specific date must be met. Not until well into January is there any "real" deadline. Secondly, the recounts were progressing just fine. They would have had that county recounted within about 2 more days. Then the supreme court ruled that the recounts must stop...nevermind that in the ensuing two weeks, a recount of the entire state could have easily been accomplished, had the court not ordered the recounting to end.

And are you saying that if this next election boils down to verysimilar circumstances...lets say Florida is just fine, but New York is the neck and neck race with less than 500 votes separating the two candidates, but lets say Bush led in the popular vote by 5,000,000. Then the New York Supreme court, citing the precedent set by the United States supreme court in Bush v Gore, stopped the recounts and the New York Secretary of State certified Kerry as the winner, that you guys would sit there and say "Gosh...isn't democracy a wonderful thing...the process is safe and the voice of the people have been heard, despite the fact that our candidate had several million more votes in the popular vote".

 

[FredF]

KC, you cannot complain about people ignoring the rule of law and then say that there was no leagally binding reason why a date had to be met. It was and I believe remains the Law in Florida.

The supreme court did NOT stop the re-count the Gore team did. The Supreme Court said that there had to be ONE standard applied to every ballot something the Gore team did not want.

The Supreme Court said that Florida Law had to be complied with.

You also seem to be ignoring the fact that this was not the first or even the second re-count that had taken place. First again Florida Law said that any election contested within a certain percentage or number of votes, I don't remember the exact thing here, HAD to be re-counted. It was.

Next, the Gore team challenged those results and there was another re-count. Then the Gore team challenged those results and tried to apply different standards to different areas of the state.

The Supreme court said that One standard had to apply and that Florida Law had to be complied with and the latest re-count results used to certify the election on or before the date specified by Florida Law.

If they could have copleted yet the latest re-count that they were trying to do and get it done by the deadline, the Supreme Court said fine.

They could not and as a result lost the state.

Exactly what part of the democratic process was circumvented here when there were two re-counts that were completed and the latest of those was used to certify the election?

 

[KCFlyer]

KC, you cannot complain about people ignoring the rule of law and then say that there was no leagally binding reason why a date had to be met. It was and I believe remains the Law in Florida.

The supreme court did NOT stop the re-count the Gore team did. The Supreme Court said that there had to be ONE standard applied to every ballot something the Gore team did not want.

The Supreme Court said that Florida Law had to be complied with.

You also seem to be ignoring the fact that this was not the first or even the second re-count that had taken place. First again Florida Law said that any election contested within a certain percentage or number of votes, I don't remember the exact thing here, HAD to be re-counted. It was.

Next, the Gore team challenged those results and there was another re-count. Then the Gore team challenged those results and tried to apply different standards to different areas of the state.

The Supreme court said that One standard had to apply and that Florida Law had to be complied with and the latest re-count results used to certify the election on or before the date specified by Florida Law.

If they could have copleted yet the latest re-count that they were trying to do and get it done by the deadline, the Supreme Court said fine.

They could not and as a result lost the state.

Exactly what part of the democratic process was circumvented here when there were two re-counts that were completed and the latest of those was used to certify the election?

[post="185824"][/post]​

A quick read for you Fred "The betrayal of America : how the Supreme Court undermined the Constitution and chose our President" by Vincent Bugliosi. It's a short book.

Also, take a look at the first paragraph of the Supreme Court ruling in Bush v Gore (a simple google search for "Bush v Gore" will take you right to it):

On December 8, 2000, the Supreme Court of Florida ordered that the Circuit Court of Leon County tabulate by hand 9,000 ballots in Miami-Dade County. It also ordered the inclusion in the certified vote totals of 215 votes identified in Palm Beach County and 168 votes identified in Miami-Dade County for Vice President Albert Gore, Jr., and Senator Joseph Lieberman, Democratic Candidates for President and Vice President. The Supreme Court noted that petitioner, Governor George W. Bush asserted that the net gain for Vice President Gore in Palm Beach County was 176 votes, and directed the Circuit Court to resolve that dispute on remand. ___ So. 2d, at ___ (slip op., at 4, n. 6). The court further held that relief would require manual recounts in all Florida counties where so-called “undervotesâ€￾ had not been subject to manual tabulation. The court ordered all manual recounts to begin at once. Governor Bush and Richard Cheney, Republican Candidates for the Presidency and Vice Presidency, filed an emergency application for a stay of this mandate. On December 9, we granted the application, treated the application as a petition for a writ of certiorari, and granted certiorari. Post, p. ___.

Question...why would Bush, who petitioned the Supreme Court to intervene, file an emergency application for the court to stay the recounts they had just ordered? WHat persuasve argument did Bush/Cheney make that would cause the court to grant that stay?

 

[FredF]

A quick read for you Fred "The betrayal of America : how the Supreme Court undermined the Constitution and chose our President" by Vincent Bugliosi. It's a short book.

Also, take a look at the first paragraph of the Supreme Court ruling in Bush v Gore (a simple google search for "Bush v Gore" will take you right to it):
Question...why would Bush, who petitioned the Supreme Court to intervene, file an emergency application for the court to stay the recounts they had just ordered? WHat persuasve argument did Bush/Cheney make that would cause the court to grant that stay?

[post="185845"][/post]​

Very Simply here:
The petition presents the following questions: whether the Florida Supreme Court established new standards for resolving Presidential election contests, thereby violating Art. II, §1, cl. 2, of the United States Constitution and failing to comply with 3 U.S.C. § 5 and whether the use of standardless manual recounts violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. With respect to the equal protection question, we find a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

But then there is also this:

The recount process, in its features here described, is inconsistent with the minimum procedures necessary to protect the fundamental right of each voter in the special instance of a statewide recount under the authority of a single state judicial officer. Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.

Oh, and as for the 5-4 myth.

Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a remedy.

 

[KCFlyer]

Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a remedy.

[post="185859"][/post]​

And the court ordered a recount to begin immediately. Then Bush and Cheny petitioned them to halt the recount ONE DAY LATER. Why?

 

[MrAeroMan]

A couple of things....there is no legally binding reason why a specific date must be met. Not until well into January is there any "real" deadline. Secondly, the recounts were progressing just fine. They would have had that county recounted within about 2 more days. Then the supreme court ruled that the recounts must stop...nevermind that in the ensuing two weeks, a recount of the entire state could have easily been accomplished, had the court not ordered the recounting to end.

And are you saying that if this next election boils down to verysimilar circumstances...lets say Florida is just fine, but New York is the neck and neck race with less than 500 votes separating the two candidates, but lets say Bush led in the popular vote by 5,000,000. Then the New York Supreme court, citing the precedent set by the United States supreme court in Bush v Gore, stopped the recounts and the New York Secretary of State certified Kerry as the winner, that you guys would sit there and say "Gosh...isn't democracy a wonderful thing...the process is safe and the voice of the people have been heard, despite the fact that our candidate had several million more votes in the popular vote".

[post="185816"][/post]​

That's exactly what I'm saying. If the shoe is on the other foot it has to be laced just as tightly as the first shoe. I fully understand what you're saying but I don't agree that just because my candidate lost the electoral vote despite winning the majority of the popular vote that the electoral college should be abolished. If that happens then what is there to protect the Bill of Rights from those that disagree with some of them? You're opening a whole can of worms here that could have disasterous effects on this country and it's very foundation.