http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2006 by the authors Tue, 1 Apr 2003 09:44:51 EST http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/03/28/202933.php#comment-6635 There is an issue if Cheney is still acting with favoritism toward his corporate alma mater. He was the big wig, you know, not some file clerk. He had and likely still retains strong ties to that organization. I don't know that the Halliburton contract was awarded in an illegitimate fashion or not, but I do think if Cheney, et al, had any sense at all, they would not award anything to Halliburton to avoid the appearance of indiscretion. Is that particularly fair to Halliburton? Perhaps not, but you'd think that Halliburton wouldn't want to be associated with anything that might be perceived as under the table, either. 6635@blogcritics.org Tue, 1 Apr 2003 09:44:51 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/03/28/202933.php#comment-6552 Yes, excellent job. The biggest problem with Halliburton is how it looks, an issue for which the administration seems to have a real tin ear. 6552@blogcritics.org Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:29:59 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/03/28/202933.php#comment-6551 Here's a comment: I'm not sure why this even matters? I mean, Cheney hasn't been with Halliburton in a while now. I drive past the Halliburton office on Belt Line Road in Addison/N Dallas every now and then, and I don't see waves of pure evil flowing off of the place, but perhaps I'm simply not attenuated enough to it. I guess I just don't see why people (not you, Timothy Jarrett, the people you are preemptively refuting) care about Halliburton any more. I'm trying to think of analogues from the Clinton years, as that seems to be a favorite pasttime of late. As I remember it, the "whitewater" stuff was of interest only in the sense that Mrs. Clinton might have acted improperly at the time, and certain did by destroying and obscuring evidence. I don't recall any ongoing discussion of the firm in question (whose name I cannot recall right now, maybe "Rose" something?) after she no longer worked there. Guilt by association is tenuous enough. Guilt by former association is mind-boggling. What am I missing? (There, that ought to stir up some discussion...) 6551@blogcritics.org Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:24:53 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/03/28/202933.php#comment-6432 What's the deal here? This guy seems to know what he's talking about, has taken the time do some real research and he gets NO comments. A little feedback, please, even on posts that you can't refute with the single term "anti-American". 6432@blogcritics.org Sat, 29 Mar 2003 11:37:09 EST