Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Eamonn

"Duck It's Dick"

Recommended Posts

I can't add much to what LongHaul, SA, and Trevorum have written, I agree. This is simply a tragic mistake that is, in fact as of yesterday, life-threatening. And Cheney has taken responsibility, as he should. Now I just hope the victim is able to recover his health.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But would you be willing to take the responsibility of taking a Boy Scout hunting party?

Eamonn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shooting a .22 or a shotgun on a fixed range built for the purpose is one thing. I would never consider taking responsibility for a Boy Scout hunting party, if ever there were such a thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the G2SS, Unauthorized and Restricted Activities

 

Hunting is not an authorized Cub Scout or Boy Scout activity, although hunting safety is part of the program curriculum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BrentAllen

You are of course right on the money.

However it seems that a Hunting Merit Badge is now being field tested.

Let's hope a long way from where Mr Cheney is doing his hunting.

Back in 2003 he was at the Rolling Rock Club in Ligonier, shooting pheasants and ducks. I know the Chef fairly well and he makes a very good game consume, he tops it with a very light puff pasrty crust. Who knows if the VP didn't take all the birds home with him, he may well have shot the bird that ended up in my soup?

Eamonn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, nope. I don't even like to think about any subgroup of the most mature boys in this unit in the woods on a scout outing with guns in their hands. I'll leave this one for someone else's conscience, mine won't allow it.

 

Trev, I beg to differ about Gore's book. From this scientist's perspective (and I did vote for him), the book was a mass of nearly incomprehensible gobbledygook (technical term there, sorry). :) Unscientific and unrigorous to a (thankfully forgettable) fault. I'm being kind. But at least he could conceive of and write a book, unlike the other guy who can barely put two words together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh, the specialist's perspective! I said it was 'thoughtful', not 'scientific'. (OK, maybe 'rigorous' was hyperbole.) My point was that he was a scholar-politician who was using his influence to stimulate debate without short term political gain (unlike, say, throwing contracts to Halliburton ;))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Trev, sorry. I was probably too harsh but at least you got a taste of my reviews when papers get sent to me. Oh well, at least I'm nice to the boys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to remember the Clinton administration giving more than a few contracts to Haliburton for Bosnia, they are no bid contracts as well and no one commented much other than to say that Haliburotn was the only choice, is there a competitor to Haliburotn now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference OGE is that Cheney was CEO of Halliburton and is still finacially connected, albiet in a blind trust. The appearance of favoritism is hard to avoid. As for a competitor to them, government contracts are written to narrow down the list of potential bidders to the few who are well connected to the government. Its not like you can hang your shingle out "Joe's Nation Re-builders" and expect to get through the gauntlet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gern,

You are incorrect.

Cheney is not connected to Halliburton through any blind trust. His only connections are a deferred salary, which is not connected to any profits of the company, and stock options. Cheney has taken out an insurance policy to pay his deferred salary in case the company goes bankrupt. As for the stock options, he and his wife have assigned any profits from them to charity, through a Gift Trust Agreement. The financial performance of the company does not have any bearing on Cheney's income or portfolio value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the real quesiton is what other company besides Haliburotn would have been able to handle such a contract? We dont do anything because the Veep has ties, real or imagained to the best option going? Is that the point, lets not go with the best because of appearances? I mean if they were good enough for Clinton, then well they should be good enough for Bush

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brent,

 

Pleasewhy allow facts to get in the way? Dont be such a wet blanket! Next youll be telling us that the broadcast and print media is guilty of biased reporting, if not to justify their political posturing, then to pander to the hopeless ideologues who subsidize them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rooster, your thoughtful, insightful post has added much to the discussion.

 

Brent, I don't think it's necessary to have a financial stake in order for favoratism to still occur. Does Cheney NOT still have friends/colleagues who DO have a financial stake in the success of Halliburton? Does he not have any sense of loyalty to a company that he was the CEO of? (Or is his having been the CEO also incorrect?)

 

OGE, if Halliburton IS the best thing going, then they should be able to win the contract in a competitive bid. I think the objection is not that they are awarded the contract, but that it was given as a no-bid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×