dabe dabe

Something Cheney would prefer we do not know......

▼

Something Cheney would prefer we do not know......

...... but we know it now!

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1012-33.htm
from JoeUser Forums
The level of hypocrisy exhibited by the Bush/Cheney regime is sickening. The fact that Cheney and Halliburton provided assistance to Saddam to sidestep and abuse the oil for food program is something they really don't want us to know.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1012-33.htm

The Bush/Cheney regime and the republican camp sickens me. Their hypocrisy is endless.
politics
17,032 views 55 replies
Reply #51 from JoeUser Forums Top
No, "oil peak" is no secret -- but at the time of those meetings it wasn't quite the issue it's becoming. In all fairness, I can understand Cheney's reluctance to disclose what was discussed at those meetings -- energy policy is probably the greatest national security matter there is. But it's one thing to read about it in magazines and on the net, and quite another to have it openly and frankly discussed in policy meetings. And it's no surprise that environmental groups weren't invited, because the cold, hard fact of the matter is that the environmentalist agenda does very little to advance our petrochemical based economy.

Furthur speculation -- and I emphasize that word "speculation" -- is that the publicly stated estimates of world oil reserves might very well be inflated. This could also have been discussed at the meeting. Publishing that sort of admission would send a shockwave of panic through the market. Other factors might be that US policy in the coming decades (no matter if Republican or Democrat) is most likely going to be a "fight to the last drop of oil and for the last drop of oil." This is a harsh reality, and one that any administration (again, of either party) would rather not spring on the public all at once. Cheney's #1 concern is going to be keeping the market as high as it can be, and I think there are things in those reports that would be damaging to our economy if they were common knowledge and acknowledged by the government.
Reply #52 from JoeUser Forums Top
You are absolutely right that the environmentalist agenda does very little to advance our petrochemical based economy. But, what they could bring to the table, if invited, would be ways to accomplish an energy agenda without trashing our environment. That would, of course, emphasize a shift from the petrochemical economy to a more sustainable energy economy, something that people who are heavily invested in petrochemicals do not want to debate. But, given that our future will depend on our ability to shift away from petrochemicals, it seems to me that putting off the inevitable is merely a greedy, self-serving enterprise that will accomplish little but make a very few very rich, and result in devastating wars. Iraq is just the beginning.

Needless to say, given that our present administration is steeped in oil money, Saudi Arabian business enterprises, and crooked CEO's (Ken Lay comes to mind), it's no wonder I and many, many others have a deepseated distrust of where the Bush/Cheney regime is taking this country. I think you give Cheney way too much credit.
Galactic Civilizations III
Reply #53 from JoeUser Forums Top
*grin*

I'm undecided on Cheney. When I compare him to Edwards, I think, "Well, they're both money-grubbing whores, but at least Cheney's honest about it." Sometimes I find myself really respecting the guy, other times he strikes me as a cross between Darth Vader and Gollum.
Reply #54 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Just because Edwards is a trial lawyer does not make him a money grubbing whore. Trial lawyers are necessary in order to hold industry, medicine, etc. accountable for errors, greed and resulting personal injury. However, I do concede that many trial lawyers are ambulance chasers. I don't put Edwards in that category. From what I understand, he will be, and has been in the past, instrumental in attempting to bring lawsuits into check. I applaud him for that.

As far as Cheney being honest about being a money-grubbing whore, I again think you give him way too much credit. What comes to mind for me is that when he was Secretary of Defence, he lobbied hard, and succeeded in outsourcing lots of military spending to the private sector. Then, after his term, lo and behold, he became CEO of Halliburton, the corporation that stood to make windfall profits from this governmental decision. Now, as VP, he was instrumental in pushing this country into a dubious war, thereby locking in $$billions for Halliburton. Maybe he's only receiving deferred payments now, but I'll bet dollars to donuts that when his term is over he will reap tons of money again from Halliburton. Cheney is not honest. He's a snake. He's a dangerous neocon. He sickens me, along with his stupid boss. Darth Vader and Gollum are fantasy characters. Cheney is cold, hard, dishonest reality.

I'm still looking forward to your article.

Cheers back at ya, Myrrander.
Reply #55 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think it highly unlikely that Cheney will come anywhere near Halliburton after leaving office.

I don't mean to be picking at a wound here, dabe, but I know Edwards has given lip service to reigning in frivolous law suits. What concrete actions has he taken to do that, though?

An argument can be made that he is shrewd - he sized up the opportunities in medical malpractice and like any good bank robber, he went where the money is, in easy-to-win cases involving unfortunate infants & children where the sympathy factor was going to play well to a jury.

I can tell you those are the easiest cases to win and generate the biggest awards, meaning the biggest paychecks for the lawyer. There was a fairly notorious case in Phoenix back in the 1980's where a jury awarded something like $18 million dollars against a neonatologist who had ordered a transfusion for a premie who later developed AIDS. There was no way for screening blood for HIV then and the transfusion was well within the standard of care, possibly saving the infant's life at the time, but the trial occurred years later when our understanding of HIV and how it can be transmitted was better developed and the judge actually allowed that to be used against him. The doctor truly did nothing wrong, but it was his insurance company that had to pay the award and he was so discouraged by the application of a standard retro-actively that he later left practice. He was one of the premiere neonatologists in the southwest at the time. This is what doctors who treat pregnant women and infants, in particular, must contend with - not only must they adhere to the current standard of care, which is risky enough, they must possess a crystal ball and be able to predict future diseases.

It's a good thing he ran for President & Kerry made him his VP pick, at least from Edwards's perspective, as I understand he had almost no chance of being re-elected to the Senate.

Cheers,
Daiwa