124 Reasons

[BabyGeniuses]

Here we g0 wit #3 proved
http://www.aegis.com/news/ips/2003/IP030911.html

[BabyGeniuses]

Herez #4
http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/01...umns/052201.htm

[BabyGeniuses]

5 here
http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/11.2...Tax.Repeal.htm

[BabyGeniuses]

I think dis 1 is 6
http://www.command-post.org/2004/2_archives/009268.html

[BabyGeniuses]

Dis is 7
http://www.detnews.com/2003/schools/.../a01-61756.htm

[j2k4]

Originally posted by BabyGeniuses@14 January 2004 - 18:42
I think dis 1 is 6
http://www.command-post.org/2004/2_archives/009268.html

I thank you for leaving this in, BG:

I noticed a pattern in NPR reports, one that struck my ear and once realized, one that I listened for. Recently, Halliburton has been catching hell in the media about overcharging for gasoline delivered in Iraq, though in fact it seems to be a subsiduary that's involved. Each time that Halliburton's name was mentioned, the announcer was very careful to say, "- formerly headed by Vice President Dick Cheney". If any bad news about Haliburton was brought up, the announcer was careful to link Cheney's name with it, and Haliburton, though Cheney is no longer a director of the company's affairs, and the events being covered did not happen on his watch.

But, when a report on this subject came out that stated that the price was set not by the company, but by the Pentagon, and the company was not guilty of price gouging, but merely obeying the Pentagon's directives, why, that was the one time the anouncer did not link Cheney's name with Halliburton. Because, you see, this was good news, or at least, could not be made out to be politically damaging to the administration.

And then, very quietly, the subject dropped out of the media's coverage.


My apologies if 'Halliburton" is not spelled correctly - I took the spelling out of your text.

Posted by: Jrm at December 29, 2003 04:51 PM

[j2k4]

Originally posted by BabyGeniuses@14 January 2004 - 18:44
Dis is 7
http://www.detnews.com/2003/schools/.../a01-61756.htm

No, it's not seven.

He changed his mind.

[j2k4]

BG-

I hereby invoke the license 1234 uses to label your sourcing uniformly liberal and agenda-driven.

Oh, sorry-

With the exception of the Detroit News, but then it is doesn't hew to either line, and, in any case, didn't end up being correct, anyway.

[Alex H]

WHAT HAPPENED??? I go away on holidays and come back to find j2k4 being SLAMMED! How did this happen? Where did this 1234 kid come from?

Personally I don't think Bush knows what he is doing, literally and figurativly (yes I am a bad speller too&#33 I get the feeling he says something like "I wish the health care system didn't cost so much", and some staffer gets on the phone the the Secretary for Health and says "Guess what? The Boss just cut your budget by $500 million!"

I think he really has no idea how stuff happens. He just talks and wonders why things happen like they do.

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@14 January 2004 - 21:18


I noticed a pattern in NPR reports, one that struck my ear and once realized, one that I listened for. Recently, Halliburton has been catching hell in the media about overcharging for gasoline delivered in Iraq, though in fact it seems to be a subsiduary that's involved. Each time that Halliburton's name was mentioned, the announcer was very careful to say, "- formerly headed by Vice President Dick Cheney". If any bad news about Haliburton was brought up, the announcer was careful to link Cheney's name with it, and Haliburton, though Cheney is no longer a director of the company's affairs, and the events being covered did not happen on his watch.

But, when a report on this subject came out that stated that the price was set not by the company, but by the Pentagon, and the company was not guilty of price gouging, but merely obeying the Pentagon's directives, why, that was the one time the anouncer did not link Cheney's name with Halliburton. Because, you see, this was good news, or at least, could not be made out to be politically damaging to the administration.

I don't listen to NPR on a regular basis, but I don't doubt that your observation is valid.
Why do you think this is, J2?

Personally, I think that Bush/Cheney get treated this way because their incredible arrogance and sense of self-entitlement has lead them to completely disregard the appearance of impropriety.

How insensitive must one be to not realize that awarding Halliburton huge contracts without competitive bidding was, at the very least, going to look/smell fishy?

The public relations disaster that has lead to the common perception that the current administration sucks up to corporate interests and is lead by big money agendas is entirely due to the fact that Bush/Cheney don't seem to give a flying f**k about dispelling that image.
A perfect example is the continued efforts of the administration to withhold information about Cheney's energy policy talks...conferences that seemed to overly populated with cronies from Big Oil and, surprise, surprise!, have lead to administration efforts to pave the way for these selfsame buddies to profit enormously from new government policies.

Whether these consultations were above board or not is irrelevant...what matters is that they sure do look bad, and instead of adopting a policy of transparency, Bush has decided to completely stonewall the questions, going so far as to ignore court orders to turn over documents related to the discussions.

Having already raised over $200 million for his reelection, Bush/Cheney seem to feel quite comfortable flipping the bird to the world...after all, the next election has pretty much already been bought, why bother with the niceties?


Edit:

Where did this 1234 kid come from?

What leads you to suspect that 1234 is a "kid"?