NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay folks, whether Cheney has Halliburton stock or not, has been bandied about quite off tonight. If he does have stock, even at arms length, do you consider this a conflict of interest, considering that Halliburton has been given no-bid contracts in Iraq? If so, should this be allowed?

I have come across the following information. If you have more, please post. Thanks.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/09/25/news/companies/cheney/?cnn=yes

The report says that the deferred compensation that Cheney receives from Halliburton as well as the more than 433,000 stock options he possesses "is considered among the 'ties' retained in or 'linkages to former employers' that may 'represent a continuing financial interest' in those employers which makes them potential conflicts of interest."

"As this C.R.S. report shows," Lautenberg said, "The ethics standards for financial disclosure is clear. Vice President Cheney has a financial interest in Halliburton."

Next:

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/12/campaign.cheney.halliburton.reut/

The filing showed Cheney still holds options on 500,000 shares that have exercise prices ranging from $28.13 to $54.50 a share. The options expire each December in the years 2007, 2008 and 2009.

In addition, he directly holds 189,800 shares.


Other sites:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/BUSINESS/04/09/sprj.irq.halliburton/

http://www.enn.com/news/2003-09-17/s_8503.asp

There is many, many more. What is your take on this matter?

Clear conflict of interests. I posted this data on the old boards for some argument that got me yelled at quite severely. He's got stock. He's making policy and decisions that push that stock up. Where's the question in that? Conflict of interests and, if people are so quick to demand that Kerry step down from the Senate, they better also demand that Cheney either step down as VP or sell off all his remaining shares immediately.

Clear conflict of interests. I posted this data on the old boards for some argument that got me yelled at quite severely. He's got stock. He's making policy and decisions that push that stock up. Where's the question in that? Conflict of interests and, if people are so quick to demand that Kerry step down from the Senate, they better also demand that Cheney either step down as VP or sell off all his remaining shares immediately.
That was my take on all of this as well, except I can't understand the Kerry inclusion?. Why can't other individuals see this for what it is?

What is your take on this matter?Edwards is a much, much better man/politician/vice pres.

Clear conflict of interests. I posted this data on the old boards for some argument that got me yelled at quite severely. He's got stock. He's making policy and decisions that push that stock up. Where's the question in that? Conflict of interests and, if people are so quick to demand that Kerry step down from the Senate, they better also demand that Cheney either step down as VP or sell off all his remaining shares immediately.

Cheney is following precedents most recently reinforced by all three Clintons, Kerry and his wife among others. Statistically, in every corporation composed of more than two people, one will be republican, one will be democrat and one will be smart enough to keep their mouth shut. The exemption is PBS, NEA and other "goverment corporations". (insert a damn turtle here)

Edwards is a much, much better man/politician/vice pres.
I think you are correct there.

My take is it's a clear conflict of interest. Which there appears to at this point be only two solutions. Either Chenney steps down as VP or Halliburton's contracts are deemed null and void. There are other companies in the world that can do the same things Halliburton does. So.. those are the choices from my perspective.

Cheney is following precedents most recently reinforced by all three Clintons, Kerry and his wife among others. Statistically, in every corporation composed of more than two people, one will be republican, one will be democrat and one will be smart enough to keep their mouth shut. The exemption is PBS, NEA and other "goverment corporations". (insert a damn turtle here)

Care to elaborate? I'm not aware of Clinton starting a war and then giving no-bid contracts to a corporation he held major stock interests in.

My take is it's a clear conflict of interest. Which there appears to at this point be only two solutions. Either Chenney steps down as VP or Halliburton's contracts are deemed null and void. There are other companies in the world that can do the same things Halliburton does. So.. those are the choices from my perspective.

Name them. Exclude any that are not paying US taxes (it is our money) and do not employ republicans in any position. (again the turtle)

Cheney is following precedents most recently reinforced by all three Clintons, Kerry and his wife among others. Statistically, in every corporation composed of more than two people, one will be republican, one will be democrat and one will be smart enough to keep their mouth shut. The exemption is PBS, NEA and other "goverment corporations". (insert a damn turtle here} http://www.boxturtlesite.org/turte1.jpg
DONE!!

My take is it's a clear conflict of interest. Which there appears to at this point be only two solutions. Either Chenney steps down as VP or Halliburton's contracts are deemed null and void. There are other companies in the world that can do the same things Halliburton does. So.. those are the choices from my perspective.
Well Cheney WILL be stepping down in November :)

Should he be prosecuted afterwards?

There is no conflict of interest.

Halliburton has been getting no bid contracts since 1995. You people are fucking idiots..why do I bother?

Name them. Exclude any that are not paying US taxes (it is our money) and do not employ republicans in any position. (again the turtle)

Oh, I thought the USA had so much support from the so many other countries in Iraq that surely one of those fine Iraq war supporters have companies that could do the same job? Certainly they were promised contracts for their support of the war as we all know. Or, is it that the support with the exception of the UK was largely made up of poor countries and or 3rd world countries who supported the war for a hand out? It's all very confusing.. or is it?

Lets see, lot's of 1 st world nations are helping you fight your battles in Afghanistan.. perhaps one of those countries.. I mean my tax dollars are being spent to send our boys over to Afghanistan to fight a war that has nothing to do with us. A little give and take, no? Well if you truly feel that way, I suppose you've answered the question, Chenney should step down if only Halliburton is up for the job.

There is no conflict of interest.

Halliburton has been getting no bid contracts since 1995. You people are fucking idiots..why do I bother?

Good question. Better question is why are you willing to allow Cheney to hold stock in a company that he's instrumental in getting no-bid governmental contracts for currently?

Care to elaborate? I'm not aware of Clinton starting a war and then giving no-bid contracts to a corporation he held major stock interests in.

Whitewater, the thing we spent 65 million dollars on before it involved a blue dress. Running up legal bills which they "could not pay and sought relief from" while buying their mansion and building a presidential library, both of which awarded contracts to supporters without competitive bidding or public oversight. I'm not sure if you have been reading the New York times, Washington Post, Federal Register et al, but Halliburton's affairs have been scrutinized even before Bush was elected. Politicians are slime no matter what party. Remember they get elected to tell you what you want to hear.

There is no conflict of interest.

Halliburton has been getting no bid contracts since 1995. You people are fucking idiots..why do I bother?
IF Cheney holds stock in the company, then there is a conflict of interest?

There is no conflict of interest.

Halliburton has been getting no bid contracts since 1995. You people are fucking idiots..why do I bother?

Knock off the flaming.. that just earned you a warning. Attack the argument, not the posters.

Stephanie
Game Moderator

DONE!!

Thank you!! You are so nice. (smiling turtle)

Whitewater, the thing we spent 65 million dollars on before it involved a blue dress. Running up legal bills which they "could not pay and sought relief from" while buying their mansion and building a presidential library, both of which awarded contracts to supporters without competitive bidding or public oversight. I'm not sure if you have been reading the New York times, Washington Post, Federal Register et al, but Halliburton's affairs have been scrutinized even before Bush was elected. Politicians are slime no matter what party. Remember they get elected to tell you what you want to hear.
Should conflict of interest laws, guidelines or rules be dismantled or re-written then?

My take is it's a clear conflict of interest. Which there appears to at this point be only two solutions. Either Chenney steps down as VP or Halliburton's contracts are deemed null and void. There are other companies in the world that can do the same things Halliburton does. So.. those are the choices from my perspective.
And if Kerry wins Teresa sells all her stock in Heinz right?

Politicians are slime no matter what party. Remember they get elected to tell you what you want to hear.

Well, we can agree on that much, at least. :)

Knock off the flaming.. that just earned you a warning. Attack the argument, not the posters.

Stephanie
Game Moderator


Why because you don't agree with me? I said 'idiots' meaning plural.

Amazing how you let these liberals spread lies and half truths and degrade people trying to do what's right (whether you agree with their stances or not) you don't warn them, yet I call them on it and I get warned. Sweet.

A warning doesn't mean shit to me, and niether does this overtly liberal board.

And if Kerry wins Teresa sells all her stock in Heinz right?
How would that be a conflict of interest, unless of course the government was going to buy tons of Heinz products?

Whitewater.

The Clintons were investigated and completely cleared. However, I agree what is good for the goose is good for the gander, when is that special prosecutor being appointed to investigate Chenney and Halliburton?

Knock off the flaming.. that just earned you a warning. Attack the argument, not the posters.

Stephanie
Game Moderator

Oh, one other thing. If I see you let one more person spout hate (IE. Against anyones religion) without 'warning' them. Then I'll report you for bias.

How would that be a conflict of interest, unless of course the government was going to buy tons of Heinz products?
If a gives a tax break to a corporation, it obviously is trying to raise Heinz's stock. What ketchup do you think is in Congress's cafeterias? When you're an idiot, everything is a conflict of interest.

Oh, one other thing. If I see you let one more person spout hate (IE. Against anyones religion) without 'warning' them. Then I'll report you for bias.

Heh, good luck with that.

Oh, I thought the USA had so much support from the so many other countries in Iraq that surely one of those fine Iraq war supporters have companies that could do the same job? Certainly they were promised contracts for their support of the war as we all know. Or, is it that the support with the exception of the UK was largely made up of poor countries and or 3rd world countries who supported the war for a hand out? It's all very confusing.. or is it?

Lets see, lot's of 1 st world nations are helping you fight your battles in Afghanistan.. perhaps one of those countries.. I mean my tax dollars are being spent to send our boys over to Afghanistan to fight a war that has nothing to do with us. A little give and take, no? Well if you truly feel that way, I suppose you've answered the question, Chenney should step down if only Halliburton is up for the job.

You haven't answered the question. The only other two countries that have resources and companies that could do the job in Iraq are Russia and China. But they both rely on Halliburton and other US based consultants. (turtle)

Why because you don't agree with me? I said 'idiots' meaning plural.

Amazing how you let these liberals spread lies and half truths and degrade people trying to do what's right (whether you agree with their stances or not) you don't warn them, yet I call them on it and I get warned. Sweet.

A warning doesn't mean shit to me, and niether does this overtly liberal board.
Disprove the so called lies and half truths if you can? Debate can be civilized?

I think you were called for questioning peoples reasoning ability and then tossing in descriptive adjectives which are expletive deletives?

And if Kerry wins Teresa sells all her stock in Heinz right?

I hear their is much government contract work for people who make Ketchup.. :rolleyes:

Heh, good luck with that.
Stephistan warn a liberal? That'll happen.

The Clintons were investigated and completely cleared. However, I agree what is good for the goose is good for the gander, when is that special prosecutor being appointed to investigate Chenney and Halliburton?
YES....bring it on!!!!

I hear their is much government contract work for people who make Ketchup.. :rolleyes:

Scoff if you will, but the dreaded spectre of Ketchup War looms over us all. As supplies of naturally occuring ketchup begin to grow more and more sparse, a world unhappy with dry french fries shall rise up against the Heintz conglomerate and throw down their ketchup empire. The streets will run red. Red, I tells you!

Oh, one other thing. If I see you let one more person spout hate (IE. Against anyones religion) without 'warning' them. Then I'll report you for bias.

You don't seem to understand how it works, you could of called Kerry or Bush or the Pope or Chenney a "fucking idiot" what you can't do is call the members of Nationstates "fucking idiots" If you wish to report me, Knock yourself out! (admin@nationstates.net)

Stephistan warn a liberal? That'll happen.

Actually, Steph's warned as many liberals as she has conservatives. If you step outside the rules, you get warned, personal views aside. Fact is, she's been accused of bias by better, but it's never stuck because it's not there.

Scoff if you will, but the dreaded spectre of Ketchup War looms over us all. As supplies of natuarlly occuring ketchup begin to grow more and more sparse, a world unhappy with dry french fries shall rise up against the Heintz conglomerate and throw down their ketchup empire. The streets will run red. Red, I tells you!
Aye, and we will bankrupt all other brands of ketchup if we vote Kerry. For this reason alone must we all make the decision to reelect Bush in November!

Ketchup is clearly more important than oil contracts in Iraq.

Should conflict of interest laws, guidelines or rules be dismantled or re-written then?


Nah!!! Not at all, just remember who wrote the laws in the first place. Sooner or later they screw up and pass something to the effect it is illegal to have sex with underage children. They forgot to exempt congressional pages and interns. A couple politicians bit that one. Some have even been nailed by child porn and other moral crimes they impose on us. This is off thread. Halliburton has as deep ties to the democrats as the republicans. Fact of life.

Aye, and we will bankrupt all other brands of ketchup if we vote Kerry. For this reason alone must we all make the decision to reelect Bush in November!

Ketchup is clearly more important than oil contracts in Iraq.
It was an example to show the absurdity. Who besides Halliburton would you use to rebuild a country?

You don't seem to understand how it works, you could of called Kerry or Bush or the Pope or Chenney a "fucking idiot" what you can't do is call the members of Nationstates "fucking idiots" If you wish to report me, Knock yourself out! (admin@nationstates.net)
Thanks for the link, I have reported you..... :)

Aye, and we will bankrupt all other brands of ketchup if we vote Kerry. For this reason alone must we all make the decision to reelect Bush in November!

Ketchup is clearly more important than oil contracts in Iraq.

Indeed! The emergence of Queen Ketchup as a world power figure is foretold in Revelation! That's not blood that the moon's turning the color of...IT'S KETCHUP!!!!

Now, if that Kerry would have only married the heiress of the Catsup fortune, then we could have averted all this.

Nah!!! Not at all, just remember who wrote the laws in the first place. Sooner or later they screw up and pass something to the effect it is illegal to have sex with underage children. They forgot to exempt congressional pages and interns. A couple politicians bit that one. Some have even been nailed by child porn and other moral crimes they impose on us. This is off thread. Halliburton has as deep ties to the democrats as the republicans. Fact of life.
But the Vice President? Geeezz!!

It was an example to show the absurdity. Who besides Halliburton would you use to rebuild a country?
There's a difference between the company winning the contract from an impartial administration and someone holding stock in it giving them a no-bid contract with no other options.

Indeed! The emergence of Queen Ketchup as a world power figure is foretold in Revelation! That's not blood that the moon's turning the color of...IT'S KETCHUP!!!!

Now, if that Kerry would have only married the heiress of the Catsup fortune, then we could have averted all this.
It's all just money. Who cares if it's made from oil or tomato sauce?

It was an example to show the absurdity. Who besides Halliburton would you use to rebuild a country?

Well, how convenient that we now have a country that needs rebuilding.

Indeed! The emergence of Queen Ketchup as a world power figure is foretold in Revelation! That's not blood that the moon's turning the color of...IT'S KETCHUP!!!!

Now, if that Kerry would have only married the heiress of the Catsup fortune, then we could have averted all this.
This is a conflict of interest thread ya know.....not a conflict of catsup thread!! :cool:

Indeed! The emergence of Queen Ketchup as a world power figure is foretold in Revelation! That's not blood that the moon's turning the color of...IT'S KETCHUP!!!!

Now, if that Kerry would have only married the heiress of the Catsup fortune, then we could have averted all this.
The Iraqis bled ketchup and Halliburton is actually fighting the ketchup devils. We must help them in their noble cause!!!

You don't seem to understand how it works, you could of called Kerry or Bush or the Pope or Chenney a "fucking idiot" what you can't do is call the members of Nationstates "fucking idiots" If you wish to report me, Knock yourself out! (admin@nationstates.net)


When the members of any group (nationstates being just one of them) just repeat what someone tells them to...then they are idiots. No way around it.

Cheney doesn't have a conflict of interest for numerous reasons. The first being that the VP office doesn't hold the power to give contracts out to anyone.

That said, since Halliburton has been getting no bid contracts since atleast 1995 (when Clinton was President), why would they all of a sudden stop giving them now when Cheney is VP? And if you doubt the validity of my statement...ask anyone who's been in Bosnia circa 1995 if they had Halliburton chow halls (Brown and Root).

Well, at least if Kerry is elected the middle east can take a sigh of relief.. Kerry will wage wars against tomato growers. Tomato growers of the world must unite against the evil Ketchup empire! LOL :D

Cheney doesn't have a conflict of interest for numerous reasons. The first being that the VP office doesn't hold the power to give contracts out to anyone.
Yeah, and no one in the administration is at all influenced by Cheney.

Oh and, good racism on your part Steph. Allowing people to put down whole religions...must make you feel all warm and fuzzy.

Good question. Better question is why are you willing to allow Cheney to hold stock in a company that he's instrumental in getting no-bid governmental contracts for currently?

Because in the US it is not a requirement to divest onself of any or all worldly goods for public service. However there is a requirment to notify the public beforehand of any potential conflict by both the public servant and the company or organization. The US is the only country that not only requires disclosure but enforces it. That's why Teresa has a problem.

It's all just money. Who cares if it's made from oil or tomato sauce?

Infidel!

Heathen!

Mayonaise lover!

Seriously, that's just it. To compare a governmental no-bid contract situation like Halliburton with the fact that Cheney still retains a vested financial interest in the company to Queen Ketchup is silly. Halliburton's contracts with the Pentagon went from $483 million in 2002 to $3.9 billion in 2003. Show me where Kerry being in office would give Heintz ketchup a similar spike in no-bid, no-contest, fiated contracts and profits?

Oh and, good racism on your part Steph. Allowing people to put down whole religions...must make you feel all warm and fuzzy.
What's your deal, this isn't a thread about religion...

When the members of any group (nationstates being just one of them) just repeat what someone tells them to...then they are idiots. No way around it.

Cheney doesn't have a conflict of interest for numerous reasons. The first being that the VP office doesn't hold the power to give contracts out to anyone.

That said, since Halliburton has been getting no bid contracts since atleast 1995 (when Clinton was President), why would they all of a sudden stop giving them now when Cheney is VP? And if you doubt the validity of my statement...ask anyone who's been in Bosnia circa 1995 if they had Halliburton chow halls (Brown and Root).
Perhaps before awarding this generous Iraqi contract that will certainly have huge financial rewards for Cheney, he could have been politely asked to sell his shares or be given the option of resigning his post?

Because in the US it is not a requirement to divest onself of any or all worldly goods for public service. However there is a requirment to notify the public beforehand of any potential conflict by both the public servant and the company or organization. The US is the only country that not only requires disclosure but enforces it. That's why Teresa has a problem.
So where is Teresa's potential conflict again? Kerry is going to wage war against the anti trust laws for Heinz Ketchup's sake? Somehow I think you've lost me here.

Because in the US it is not a requirement to divest onself of any or all worldly goods for public service. However there is a requirment to notify the public beforehand of any potential conflict by both the public servant and the company or organization. The US is the only country that not only requires disclosure but enforces it. That's why Teresa has a problem.

Seeing as how everyone in the entire country now knows that Teresa is Queen Ketchup and her financial specifics are plastered across the news media, I'm not exactly sure how much more she has to disclose. The same isn't true of Cheney who actually didn't disclose his continuing stock shares in Halliburton either before or after his appointment to the VP slot.

What's your deal, this isn't a thread about religion...


It has to do with many other threads in which people are degraded because of their religion but nothing happens, yet when I say people are idiots for just toting the party line I get a warning.

What's your deal, this isn't a thread about religion...

I can't see where someone's been putting down a whole religion either

Oh and, good racism on your part Steph. Allowing people to put down whole religions...must make you feel all warm and fuzzy.
You could stick to the topic of the thread? Last I saw it was about conflict of interest regarding Dick Cheney.

Why because you don't agree with me? I said 'idiots' meaning plural.

Amazing how you let these liberals spread lies and half truths and degrade people trying to do what's right (whether you agree with their stances or not) you don't warn them, yet I call them on it and I get warned. Sweet.

A warning doesn't mean shit to me, and niether does this overtly liberal board.

You said fucking idiots, idiot. (turtle doing a jig)

You could stick to the topic of the thread? Last I saw it was about conflict of interest regarding Dick Cheney.

I was talking to Steph not you. So...shut the fuck up and read my posts regarding that topic.

Oh and, good racism on your part Steph. Allowing people to put down whole religions...must make you feel all warm and fuzzy.

racism/religion.. I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing a connection. In case you haven't been around here very long, we have many anti-atheist threads too. Feel free to vent in them as well. Just don't flame any member of nationstates. We don't care what you say about any one who is not a member. Groups are fair game. I don't make the rules, I only enforce them. You have a problem with the rules, take it up with the owner of the site. Although I will warn you, his email is usually pretty backed up and is not likely to change the rules for YOU.

Now, this subject is closed. You want to keep it up, take it to moderation.

Stephanie
Game Moderator

I was talking to Steph not you. So...shut the fuck up and read my posts regarding that topic.

Ah, see ya guys, this isn't a debate at all, someone's out to make some sort of statement.

I was talking to Steph not you. So...shut the fuck up and read my posts regarding that topic.
How about you reply to our replies to your posts regarding the topic? Last on topic posts here were us asking you why Teresa has a problem.

I was talking to Steph not you. So...shut the fuck up and read my posts regarding that topic.

All right, that's enough, report me if you wish. You just earned yourself a deletion.

Have a nice day!

Stephanie
Game Moderator

How about you reply to our replies to your posts regarding the topic? Last on topic posts here were us asking you why Teresa has a problem.

Personally, I can't equate Tereza Heinz having stock in a company that she has no control over whatsoever to Dick Cheney who owns stock in a company that he is in a position to boost business for and profit from. I think Tereza Heinz does not have a conflict of interest, however, I do believe that Dick Cheney does.

Cheney doesn't have a conflict of interest for numerous reasons. The first being that the VP office doesn't hold the power to give contracts out to anyone.

On 8/27/00, Cheney said the following: “I'll do whatever I have to do to, Sam, to avoid a conflict of interest. I will eliminate the conflict. I can assure you, I've said repeatedly, I will not tolerate or be party to a conflict of interests while I'm vice president. I'll do whatever I have to do to resolve that conflict.”

On 9/14/03, Cheney said the following: "Since I left Halliburton to become George Bush's vice president, I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had, now, for over three years."

On 9/25/03, CNN reported that a congressional report by the Congressional Research Service showed that the 433,000 in stock options he still possesses as well as the deferred compensation "is considered among the 'ties' retained in or 'linkages to former employers' that may 'represent a continuing financial interest' in those employers which makes them potential conflicts of interest."

Regardless of any direct affect Cheney may or may not have on the awarding of no-bid government contracts, the fact is that he is serving in an administration that has chosen to go to war and rebuild a country and is making a bundle off of it. Not to mention he's a flat out liar.

The Clintons were investigated and completely cleared. However, I agree what is good for the goose is good for the gander, when is that special prosecutor being appointed to investigate Chenney and Halliburton?

The Clinton special prosecutor was appointed, directed and controlled by the Clinton appointed Attorny General.Of course he was cleared, so was the ATF at Waco. So was the FBI at Ruby Ridge (the prosecution was on Reno's watch). So was the Foster investigation, the stock purchases of Hillary, the placement of Chelsea in a prestigous university she would not otherwise qualify for. Yeah, right she was national merit. Name a presidential kid that isn't.

On 8/27/00, Cheney said the following: “I'll do whatever I have to do to, Sam, to avoid a conflict of interest. I will eliminate the conflict. I can assure you, I've said repeatedly, I will not tolerate or be party to a conflict of interests while I'm vice president. I'll do whatever I have to do to resolve that conflict.”

On 9/14/03, Cheney said the following: "Since I left Halliburton to become George Bush's vice president, I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had, now, for over three years."

On 9/25/03, CNN reported that a congressional report by the Congressional Research Service showed that the 433,000 in stock options he still possesses as well as the deferred compensation "is considered among the 'ties' retained in or 'linkages to former employers' that may 'represent a continuing financial interest' in those employers which makes them potential conflicts of interest."

Regardless of any direct affect Cheney may or may not have on the awarding of no-bid government contracts, the fact is that he is serving in an administration that has chosen to go to war and rebuild a country and is making a bundle off of it. Not to mention he's a flat out liar.

Exactly, and to add on to that, I think that Kerry has already took positions on issues that wouldn't be too great for Heinz. As you know Heinz operates a lot of their business overseas and Kerry has already come out against providing tax breaks to companies who take jobs out of the country. I just don't see how Kerry has made it any point whatsoever to help out Heinz because of any connection to them.

Personally, I can't equate Tereza Heinz having stock in a company that she has no control over whatsoever to Dick Cheney who owns stock in a company that he is in a position to boost business for and profit from. I think Tereza Heinz does not have a conflict of interest, however, I do believe that Dick Cheney does.
From what I understand, Cheney's stock options and stocks are being held at arms length, but given the contracts that have been awarded, surely the stock price will appreciate over time, therefore benefitting Cheney at a future date?

Poor Chelsea. Stick your tounge out at reporters and go on lewd and drunken binges and everyone says, "Well, kids will be kids." Get into Oxford and Daddy must have put you there.

Yeah, right she was national merit. Name a presidential kid that isn't.
Now, let's not attack Chelsea. She's a really smart girl. Besides, it's not that hard to get national merit and head off to England, if I can do it.

The Clinton special prosecutor was appointed, directed and controlled by the Clinton appointed Attorny General.Of course he was cleared, so was the ATF at Waco. So was the FBI at Ruby Ridge (the prosecution was on Reno's watch). So was the Foster investigation, the stock purchases of Hillary, the placement of Chelsea in a prestigous university she would not otherwise qualify for. Yeah, right she was national merit. Name a presidential kid that isn't.

I'm shaking on this one, but I'm pretty sure he was an independent special prosecutor that had nothing to do with the Clintons other then Clinton agreed to it. I doubt Clinton would of personally appointed Ken Starr himself. I can't really recall how that works exactly, would have to look it up.

I'm shaking on this one, but I'm pretty sure he was an independent special prosecutor that had nothing to do with the Clintons other then Clinton agreed to it. I doubt Clinton would of personally appointed Ken Starr himself. I can't really recall how that works exactly, would have to look it up.

Yeah, it was Kenneth Star who was an independent counsel that actually oversaw the investigation of the Clintons. Personally, after that mess I don't know if I'd trust an independent counsel, but I do think that Cheney's ties to Halliburton should definately be looked at a little bit closer. I mean the guy stands to make a huge amount of money and it'd be a shame to discover that American soldiers are dying overseas and that Dick Cheney will profit from it. That to me is the conflict of interest. If he does, in fact, have stock, he should be forced to sell.

I hear their is much government contract work for people who make Ketchup.. :rolleyes:

Funny, I remember when a democratic appointed functionary declared catsup a vegetable in school lunches during Reagons first term and Senator Heinz was still a political force. School lunches, prison meals, hospital meals, military meals, refugee meals, government meals, disaster relief. There is a regulated difference between catsup and ketchup very influential to Heinz bottom line. Along with other condiments.(turtle)

I just did a calculation regarding Cheney's supposed stock options as to what they would be worth at the present time. Are you ready for this....

$18,237,490.62

I just did a calculation regarding Cheney's supposed stock options as to what they would be worth at the present time. Are you ready for this....

$18,237,490.62

Well yeah but why sell there when you can sell in 5 years and have ten times that much.

(turtle)
What does the turtle mean here? Is it just your "thing"? Because I'm not getting it. :p

Funny, I remember when a democratic appointed functionary declared catsup a vegetable in school lunches during Reagons first term and Senator Heinz was still a political force. School lunches, prison meals, hospital meals, military meals, refugee meals, government meals, disaster relief. There is a regulated difference between catsup and ketchup very influential to Heinz bottom line. Along with other condiments.(turtle)

Well good thing that neither Kerry or his wife have ever had any business in running the company then huh. Also, Kerry has no connection to Heinz at all. Teresa either other then she heads up one of the largest charities in the USA. I believe last time it was checked she did own a whopping 4% of Heinz stock, of course that doesn't help Kerry out too much given they have a prenup agreement.

Well yeah but why sell there when you can sell in 5 years and have ten times that much.
EXACTLY my point!!!! Future conflict of interest. Thank you USA. God Bless America and leaky oil wells in Iraq?

You've been posting liberal party line all night and when someone calls them out, it's ban time!
Yeah, 'cause every other conservative on this board has been "silenced"... right.

I believe last time it was checked she did own a whopping 4% of Heinz stock, of course that doesn't help Kerry out too much given they have a prenup agreement.
Exactly, Teresa's money is not Kerry's. Hence his quest to remove all mention of any other brands is not a conflict of interest.

Oh wait, he's not doing anything of the sort...

Well good thing that neither Kerry or his wife have ever had any business in running the company then huh. Also, Kerry has no connection to Heinz at all. Teresa either other then she heads up one of the largest charities in the USA. I believe last time it was checked she did own a whopping 4% of Heinz stock, of course that doesn't help Kerry out too much given they have a prenup agreement.
Oh yeah, I forgot about that prenuptual agreement. So Kerry probably stands to gain nada from the Heinz fortune? That is just a guess?

Well also lets not forget, Kerry's wife is not being elected to any position. The first lady has no conflict of interest, how can she? No it's a non-starter any way and the prenup seals the deal of Kerry having any conflict. Heck, he doesn't even own stock in Heinz.

Exactly, Teresa's money is not Kerry's. Hence his quest to remove all mention of any other brands is not a conflict of interest.

Oh wait, he's not doing anything of the sort...

Which is why we should elect Bush, because Kerry is obviously weak on Ketchup concerns. Bush will preserve our way of Ketchup life with a stern yet not-overly-seasoned hand, ensuring continued freedom of condiment choice (so long as it's Ketchup) for all.

I TELLS YOU, IT'S ALL IN REVELATION!!!!

Now your deleting my messages. Whoohoo, you're awesome! How about you just reply?

Seeing as how everyone in the entire country now knows that Teresa is Queen Ketchup and her financial specifics are plastered across the news media, I'm not exactly sure how much more she has to disclose. The same isn't true of Cheney who actually didn't disclose his continuing stock shares in Halliburton either before or after his appointment to the VP slot.

Cheney has relaeased his financials, Teresa has not. Sorry but you must have been talking to a politician. Reference the public record. By law, Cheney releases all his financials wheter or not he wants to. Teresa has not, despite the precedence and law required of previos first ladys. Why do you think whitewater and beef futures are an issue?

Okay folks, whether Cheney has Halliburton stock or not, has been bandied about quite off tonight. If he does have stock, even at arms length, do you consider this a conflict of interest, considering that Halliburton has been given no-bid contracts in Iraq? If so, should this be allowed?


No more of a conflict-in-interest than John Kerry lying about the troops in vietnam and admiting to war crimes and belonging to a group that discussed assassinating American leaders and now wanting to be my commander-in-chief.

Now your deleting my messages. Whoohoo, you're awesome! How about you just reply?

There are these things on Nationstates we call "telegrams" try that. Now please stop trying to hijack the thread.

Thank You.

Cheney has relaeased his financials, Teresa has not. Sorry but you must have been talking to a politician. Reference the public record. By law, Cheney releases all his financials wheter or not he wants to. Teresa has not, despite the precedence and law required of previos first ladys. Why do you think whitewater and beef futures are an issue?
Teresa is not first lady now either. And may not even be so.

No more of a conflict-in-interest than John Kerry lying about the troops in vietnam and admiting to war crimes and belonging to a group that discussed assassinating American leaders and now wanting to be my commander-in-chief.

You don't know he lied. Further more it's off topic. Please stay on topic.

Thank You.

I TELLS YOU, IT'S ALL IN REVELATION!!!!

Can we get a ban here for Berkylvania flaming Christians?

You say it's okay because he is flaming a group, but who makes up that group? People do...

Go to a local church (don't remember if I put this in the deleted post or not) and walk up to the priest, pastor, or minister and tell them just what people are posting and take a look at his face...because we all know if it's about religion then it's just fine...right?

Funny, I remember when a democratic appointed functionary declared catsup a vegetable in school lunches during Reagons first term and Senator Heinz was still a political force. School lunches, prison meals, hospital meals, military meals, refugee meals, government meals, disaster relief. There is a regulated difference between catsup and ketchup very influential to Heinz bottom line. Along with other condiments.(turtle)

Of course Senator Heinz was a republican, and no republicans seemed to see a conflict of interest way back then.

It's simple:

Cheney, former CEO. Said he severed fiancial connections. Didn't. A pre-emptive war requiring the services of Halliburton was started with very suspect reasoning behind it while he was VP. Halliburton and Cheney figure to see a monstrous payday when all this plays out. The Republican economic policy has seen CEO's and other corporate officer's average paychecks go way up, while other job's averages go down.

Theresa Heinz isn't running for public office herself. She never has and continues not to have any connection to the running of the Heinz corp. Kerry and her have a pre-nup that keeps their interests seperate. There has never been any cases of Heinz Corp having any sort of no-bid contracts with the US government. Kerry's economic plan includes closing corporate tax loopholes, discouraging outsourcing and raising the minimum wage.

Yeah, Kerry's group seems to be all about corporate cronyism, while Bush's group is sparkly clean (sarcasm.)

Cheney has relaeased his financials, Teresa has not. Sorry but you must have been talking to a politician. Reference the public record. By law, Cheney releases all his financials wheter or not he wants to. Teresa has not, despite the precedence and law required of previos first ladys. Why do you think whitewater and beef futures are an issue?

Then why is he denying a continued relationship with Halliburton when there is clearly one there?

Can we get a ban here for Berkylvania flaming Christians?

You say it's okay because he is flaming a group, but who makes up that group? People do...

Go to a local church (don't remember if I put this in the deleted post or not) and walk up to the priest, pastor, or minister and tell them just what people are posting and take a look at his face...because we all know if it's about religion then it's just fine...right?

Probably not, since I am a Christian. But nice try.

You don't know he lied. Further more it's off topic. Please stay on topic.

Thank You.
Actually I do know he lied, and furthermore, it is on topic. It's is contrasting the supposed conflict of interest of one member of the American executive branch with the conflict-of-interest of another American leader attempting to lie his way into the executive branch.

No more of a conflict-in-interest than John Kerry lying about the troops in vietnam and admiting to war crimes and belonging to a group that discussed assassinating American leaders and now wanting to be my commander-in-chief.
Buh, that's not a conflict of interest, if true, it's just hypocrisy. It certainly has nothing to do with Halliburton.

Probably not, since I am a Christian. But nice try.


I don't really want you to get banned, Berk. Just trying to make a point that flaming goes both ways, not just the way the moderator agrees with it going.

And if she is going to ban/warn one side, she has to ban/warn the other side too.

Cheney has relaeased his financials, Teresa has not. Sorry but you must have been talking to a politician. Reference the public record. By law, Cheney releases all his financials wheter or not he wants to. Teresa has not, despite the precedence and law required of previos first ladys. Why do you think whitewater and beef futures are an issue?
Kerry is not in office yet, and when he does get elected, I am sure that he would not want any dangling conflict of interest charges?

Probably not, since I am a Christian. But nice try.
Heh, I'll trust you to have read Revelations then, I certainly remember there being something about voting Bush to stave off the apocolypse don't you?

Exactly, and to add on to that, I think that Kerry has already took positions on issues that wouldn't be too great for Heinz. As you know Heinz operates a lot of their business overseas and Kerry has already come out against providing tax breaks to companies who take jobs out of the country. I just don't see how Kerry has made it any point whatsoever to help out Heinz because of any connection to them.


Uh, Kerry has stuck to his word before?

I don't really want you to get banned, Berk. Just trying to make a point that flaming goes both ways, not just the way the moderator agrees with it going.
I have no respect for organized religion but that doesn't mean I need to flame religious people or insult them for being religious. I certainly think you have the right to believe whatever you want. Now really this thread isn't about religion...

except for the part where we must vote Bush or we'll all doomed.[/sarcasm]

Uh, Kerry has stuck to his word before?
No less than any other politician (cough Bush cough) wouldn't you say?

Heh, I'll trust you to have read Revelations then, I certainly remember there being something about voting Bush to stave off the apocolypse don't you?

I think that might have been expanded on in the Left Behind series.

http://www.tinyvital.com/BlogArchives/000799.html

Poor Chelsea. Stick your tounge out at reporters and go on lewd and drunken binges and everyone says, "Well, kids will be kids." Get into Oxford and Daddy must have put you there.


How did she get into Oxford without graduating from college in the first place? Oh, yeah, children of alumni are eligable for Oxford automatically.

Then why is he denying a continued relationship with Halliburton when there is clearly one there?
This is what gets me. This seems like the most deceitful practice imaginable, if in fact it is true. From what I read, it IS true. I think the choice should be clear......be Vice President OR a stock holder in Halliburton.......

with of course excellent insider info from Bush

I have no respect for organized religion but that doesn't mean I need to flame religious people or insult them for being religious. I certainly think you have the right to believe whatever you want. Now really this thread isn't about religion...

except for the part where we must vote Bush or we'll all doomed.[/sarcasm]

I also don't belong to any organized religion. And you're right, you don't need to flame them. Yet, everyday I find an extremely large number of flames directed at Christians because of their religion, and nothing is done.

I flame once against the liberals(a group, which she said was okay to flame in her response)...warned. I flame again against someone who butted their nose in...banned.

So which is it? Can we flame or not? Because just banning one side of the debate equates with Facism. Should we burn books now?

How did she get into Oxford without graduating from college in the first place? Oh, yeah, children of alumni are eligable for Oxford automatically.
...which has everything to do with the surmise that her father pulled strings as a result of his position in this country to get her in.

No - Chelsea's a good person in her own right. Anyway, Oxford is a college, you don't need a degree to get in. I was just there last month. Really.

What does the turtle mean here? Is it just your "thing"? Because I'm not getting it. :p

There used to be a turtle emoticon. I was indoctrinated into the turtle club and being on nation states I had to remember the principles of being aturtle and I try to post acordingly. Back to the fray...

I don't really want you to get banned, Berk. Just trying to make a point that flaming goes both ways, not just the way the moderator agrees with it going.

And if she is going to ban/warn one side, she has to ban/warn the other side too.

Well, thanks, I suppose. But the thing is there is a fundamental difference between satire (which I have to admit my chosen faith lends itself to) and blatant flaming. While I posted satiricly, I at no point called any member of this board a "fucking idiot." Even though I occasionally do use that term to describe certain posters who shall remain nameless, I never actually post it.

In the past, TRA (aka MKULTRA) has been banned for posting liberal rhetoric to a great exent, so make now doubt that there is indeed a parity. If you break the rules, then you're gone. Simple as that. Doesn't matter your gender, your party affiliation, your sexual orientation or even what you had for dinner last night. I've seen raving liberals shown the door as well as rabid conservatives.

How did she get into Oxford without graduating from college in the first place? Oh, yeah, children of alumni are eligable for Oxford automatically.

Apparently so do children of Yale alumns...

I flame once against the liberals(a group, which she said was okay to flame in her response)...warned. I flame again against someone who butted their nose in...banned.
You flamed the liberals posting in this thread, or at least that's how it felt to those of us who were debating you. You flamed again at someone else who posted to this public thread on a public board, and if you were banned you wouldn't still be here debating.

No flaming. Read the FAQ. It's pretty clear.

Well I have to announce a conflict of interest....


It is called work, and I have to be there in 6 hours.

Work wins.....have to leave the thread...nite all and thanks for your input!!

No more of a conflict-in-interest than John Kerry lying about the troops in vietnam and admiting to war crimes and belonging to a group that discussed assassinating American leaders and now wanting to be my commander-in-chief.

A. Kerry didn't lie. The fact that war attrocities were commited is part of the public record. Yet another reason why war is an absolute last resort.

B. He never belonged to a group that discussed assassinating the President. I read about that fun bit of propaganda. Kerry attended many many anti-war group meetings. He happened to go to one or two rally's for a group whose tactics he didn't approve of, so he never returned.

C. It's better to have a man (Kerry) who was brave enough to volunteer for dangerous war duty, and then was brave enough to call attention to how horrible and wrong the war was when he came back, than to have a man (Bush) who used connections to get him out of having to go to war, and who left no record behind that he actually performed the duties he was supposed to fulfill in the National Guard. This of course, after Bush said all his military record were released...oh wait, they're not all released...Oops, they were destroyed...No, here they are, and they still don't show that he fulfilled his duty.

It's funny how we can see the details of Bush's flip-flops, and yet he's "resolute," but when we find out the very sound reasoning of Kerry's supposed flip-flops, he's still labeled as wishy-washy.

There used to be a turtle emoticon. I was indoctrinated into the turtle club and being on nation states I had to remember the principles of being aturtle and I try to post acordingly. Back to the fray...
Heh, works for me. Turtles are pretty cool. http://xpenguins.seul.org/images/turtle.gif


Night Canuck!

I also don't belong to any organized religion. And you're right, you don't need to flame them. Yet, everyday I find an extremely large number of flames directed at Christians because of their religion, and nothing is done.

I flame once against the liberals(a group, which she said was okay to flame in her response)...warned. I flame again against someone who butted their nose in...banned.

So which is it? Can we flame or not? Because just banning one side of the debate equates with Facism. Should we burn books now?

Look, if you think you have a case, find your links and take it to moderation. Yeah, sometimes I think those religious threads get a little heated, but there seems to be just as much animosity coming from the theist side as there is coming from the atheist side. Besides, there's a qualitative difference between branding a group of people "fucking idiots" and Bottle (just for example) saying, "Well, I think it's idiotic to believe in sky leprauchons, but do whatever you want."

You don't know he lied. Further more it's off topic. Please stay on topic.

Thank You.

Without going into the UCMJ and false accusations, he lied otherwise, by his own admission he is a war criminal. At least that is what he said at the time. As any major corp. in the Us Heinz has many products and services many used by Halliburton.

A. Kerry didn't lie. The fact that war attrocities were commited is part of the public record. Yet another reason why war is an absolute last resort.

B. He never belonged to a group that discussed assassinating the President. I read about that fun bit of propaganda. Kerry attended many many anti-war group meetings. He happened to go to one or two rally's for a group whose tactics he didn't approve of, so he never returned.

C. It's better to have a man (Kerry) who was brave enough to volunteer for dangerous war duty, and then was brave enough to call attention to how horrible and wrong the war was when he came back, than to have a man (Bush) who used connections to get him out of having to go to war, and who left no record behind that he actually performed the duties he was supposed to fulfill in the National Guard. This of course, after Bush said all his military record were released...oh wait, they're not all released...Oops, they were destroyed...No, here they are, and they still don't show that he fulfilled his duty.

It's funny how we can see the details of Bush's flip-flops, and yet he's "resolute," but when we find out the very sound reasoning of Kerry's supposed flip-flops, he's still labeled as wishy-washy.

A. Yes, he did. http://www.tinyvital.com/BlogArchives/000799.html


B. Yes, he was. As a matter of fact, he was a founding memeber of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, which at a meeting in November, 1971, discussed assassination of American governement officials. (Edit: Added Link) http://home.earthlink.net/~proudcapmarine/proud-honorable-vietnam-veterans/id7.html

C. Is it better to have a man who has served honorably as President, who never participated in War Crimes, who never discussed assassinating U.S. Senators (Bush), or won who betrayed the U.S. repeatedly (Kerry)?

Of course Senator Heinz was a republican, and no republicans seemed to see a conflict of interest way back then.

It's simple:

Cheney, former CEO. Said he severed fiancial connections. Didn't. A pre-emptive war requiring the services of Halliburton was started with very suspect reasoning behind it while he was VP. Halliburton and Cheney figure to see a monstrous payday when all this plays out. The Republican economic policy has seen CEO's and other corporate officer's average paychecks go way up, while other job's averages go down.

Theresa Heinz isn't running for public office herself. She never has and continues not to have any connection to the running of the Heinz corp. Kerry and her have a pre-nup that keeps their interests seperate. There has never been any cases of Heinz Corp having any sort of no-bid contracts with the US government. Kerry's economic plan includes closing corporate tax loopholes, discouraging outsourcing and raising the minimum wage.

Yeah, Kerry's group seems to be all about corporate cronyism, while Bush's group is sparkly clean (sarcasm.)

And Unions are not corporations? No sarcasm, I'm a Teamster who wonders why the home office needed another union to step in for fair conditions and pay.

Is it better to have a man who has served honorably as President, who never participated in War Crimes, who never discussed assassinating U.S. Senators (Bush), or won who betrayed the U.S. repeatedly (Kerry)?
I dunno, seems to me I'd rather a president elected by the people who didn't drag us into a war more than half the population was against. That looks more like a betrayal than standing up against an unjust war to me anyday.

Without going into the UCMJ and false accusations, he lied otherwise, by his own admission he is a war criminal. At least that is what he said at the time. As any major corp. in the Us Heinz has many products and services many used by Halliburton.

Perhaps he is, so was Henry Kissinger and he was Secretary of State.. so I don't know. I just know that some webpage with no credentials on the web isn't exactly a very good source of information.

Kerry is not in office yet, and when he does get elected, I am sure that he would not want any dangling conflict of interest charges?

He gets elected, there will be no dangling issues of any type. The Patriot Act will still be law. That is what I'm afraid of, a liberal with that law.

I dunno, seems to me I'd rather a president elected by the people who didn't drag us into a war more than half the population was against. That looks more like a betrayal than standing up against an unjust war to me anyday.Pathetic.

He gets elected, there will be no dangling issues of any type. The Patriot Act will still be law. That is what I'm afraid of, a liberal with that law.

A liberal with the patriot act?

Ok I am curious where you are going with this.....

Buh, that's not a conflict of interest, if true, it's just hypocrisy. It certainly has nothing to do with Halliburton.

Dachau is hypocrasy. There are those of us who served who do not take lighty the orders of our superiors when they may be illegal, and if those orders came from someone who admitted to war crimes, all orders from him are suspect. Let the world court decide his guilt or innocence before the election. Sorry he will have to wait for Milosevic even though Kerry' alleged crimes occured decades before.

I dunno, seems to me I'd rather a president elected by the people who didn't drag us into a war more than half the population was against. That looks more like a betrayal than standing up against an unjust war to me anyday.


Bush was elected by the people...will you get over that?

And more way more than 50% of the American people supported the Iraq war. I'd have to look for the exact numbers but I believe it was around 80%.

Bush was elected by the people...will you get over that?

And more way more than 50% of the American people supported the Iraq war. I'd have to look for the exact numbers but I believe it was around 80%.

Not any more, the majority are now against it and believe it was a mistake and they were at best mislead and at worse outright lied to.

Bush was elected by the people...will you get over that?

And more way more than 50% of the American people supported the Iraq war. I'd have to look for the exact numbers but I believe it was around 80%.
Oh hoho!! The people, lmao. Riiiiiight, which is why Gore won the popular vote but the Supreme Court turned the presidency over to Bush? Yeah, ok, if you heard a different version of history let me know.

I firmly contest that eighty percent of the people here supported this war. Perhaps I live in an extrodinarily liberal city, but last March, everyone here was upset and angry.

Pathetic.
Thank you for the flame, you're looking quite lovely today yourself.

Oh hoho!! The people, lmao. Riiiiiight, which is why Gore won the popular vote but the Supreme Court turned the presidency over to Bush? Yeah, ok, if you heard a different version of history let me know.

I firmly contest that eighty percent of the people here supported this war. Perhaps I live in an extrodinarily liberal city, but last March, everyone here was upset and angry.

According to our constitution we did. Unless you go by another one.

Here is a link for our Brittish friends...56% of them supported the war.

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/USAToday/316154411.html?did=316154411&FMT=ABS&FMTS=FT&date=Mar+24%2C+2003&author=Marco+R.+della+Cava&desc=British+opinion+appears+to+shift+in+favor+of+war

And you're right, it wasn't 80%. It was 76% in favor of the war.

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/USAToday/312031271.html?did=312031271&FMT=ABS&FMTS=FT&date=Mar+21%2C+2003&author=Richard+Benedetto&desc=Poll%3A+War+support+continues+climb+to+76%25+approval

Wish I could get full text but I figure USA Today is a good moderate news source.

According to our constitution we did. Unless you go by another one.
A few miscast and lost electoral votes along with the supreme court elected him. Maybe it's just me, but that is not the people.

As far as the war goes, we were lied to. Bush changed his story. We made a freaking mess of it. And Bush is no war hero or peace president.

A few miscast and lost electoral votes along with the supreme court elected him. Maybe it's just me, but that is not the people.

As far as the war goes, we were lied to. Bush changed his story. We made a freaking mess of it. And Bush is no war hero or peace president.

First, find the definition of lie. If, after reading it, you can still say Bush lied, then you have either a reading comprehension issue or you are so brainwashed that you'll never see the truth.

First, find the definition of lie. If, after reading it, you can still say Bush lied, then you have either a reading comprehension issue or you are so brainwashed that you'll never see the truth.
lie2 Audio pronunciation of "lie" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (l)
n.

1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
Bush said we were going in because Saddam and his WMDs presented a clear and present danger to our country. He said he had ties to Al Qaeda and if "freedom and democracy" was mentioned at all, it wasn't at the forefront of anything.

So we invade Iraq, find no WMDs, but oh yeah it was all about Freedom and Democracy. Then our own Senate and a special commision very kindly inform us that Iraq had no ties to Al Qaeda and was not responsible for 9/11, and that the Bush administration knew that. If there's nothing deceptive or wrong about that, then I'm seeing things.

Oh, and cut the ad hominem - please. I'm no more 'brainwashed' than you are.

First, find the definition of lie.

I'll go one better.. he was dishonest. It seems to fit better.

Main Entry: dis·hon·est
Pronunciation: (")di-'sä-n&st also -'zä-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French deshoneste, from des- dis- + honeste honest
1 obsolete : SHAMEFUL, UNCHASTE
2 : characterized by lack of truth, honesty, or trustworthiness : UNFAIR, DECEPTIVE
- dis·hon·est·ly adverb
synonyms DISHONEST, DECEITFUL, MENDACIOUS, UNTRUTHFUL mean unworthy of trust or belief. DISHONEST implies a willful perversion of truth in order to deceive, cheat, or defraud <a swindle usually involves two dishonest people>. DECEITFUL usually implies an intent to mislead and commonly suggests a false appearance or double-dealing <the secret affairs of a deceitful spouse>. MENDACIOUS may suggest bland or even harmlessly mischievous deceit and when used of people often suggests a habit of telling untruths <mendacious tales of adventure>. UNTRUTHFUL stresses a discrepancy between what is said and fact or reality <an untruthful account of their actions>.

I think that pretty much sums it up!

And you're right, it wasn't 80%. It was 76% in favor of the war.

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/USAToday/312031271.html?did=312031271&FMT=ABS&FMTS=FT&date=Mar+21%2C+2003&author=Richard+Benedetto&desc=Poll%3A+War+support+continues+climb+to+76%25+approval

Wish I could get full text but I figure USA Today is a good moderate news source.
A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken Thursday night finds more than three of four, 76%, approve of President Bush's decision to attack even though the United Nations Security Council did not support the use of force.

In early February, just 34% approved of going without U.N. blessing. And as recently as last weekend, only 47% approved of striking if the U.N. said no.

Before the invasion, most US citizens were against the War. This comes from the same web site you listed.

I firmly contest that eighty percent of the people here supported this war. Perhaps I live in an extrodinarily liberal city, but last March, everyone here was upset and angry.
You are right. As of Feb. last year only 34% approved, by March that was 47%, and ONLY after the invasion did the total rise understandably to 76%.

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/USAToday/312031271.html?did=312031271&FMT=ABS&FMTS=FT&date=Mar+21%2C+2003&author=Richard+Benedetto&desc=Poll%3A+War+support+continues+climb+to+76%25+approval