Halliburton=Cheney=benefiting from war/terrorism
Posted By: Observer on 2005-06-18
In Reply to: So...sm - MT
Check it out, lots and lots and lots written about it. Draw your own conclusions.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Terrorism?
Terrorism? Me? Protests, you bet..American grew up on protests and I wil defend protests until the day I die..Terrorism, however, is a Bush creation..and Bush is the number one terrorist, IMHO..
War on terrorism.
We have been snubbed by other countries in our war on terrorism. The French turn their noises up at us, yet it was the United States who "butted in" and came to their aid....without which they would probably be speaking German instead of French. Terrorism isn't just a problem that the United States has to deal with. Every country is at risk of terrorist acts because we are infidels. Anyone who doesn't believe the way the terrorists do are infidels and should be put to death, according to them. So why are other countries to quick to judge us in our war on terrorism. Don't they realize that the terrorists could just as easily be blowing up their buildings and may move onto them in the future and then who will they ask to stand up with them......the United States of course.
SP's war on terrorism crash course
Unbelievable that someone who aspires to US VP displays such "kitchen table" understanding of the war on terror. Islamic terrorists do not attack the US because "they don't like" our democracy and freedom. Bin Laden was very clear on his reason for 911 attack/act of war in his letter to the US. Agree or not, in his view and that of his followers, these are his expressed reasons attacking US:
1. You attacked us.
2. You attacked us in Palestine.
3. The occupation of Palestine.
4. America's support of Israel.
5. The creation if Israel is a crime.
6. You believe the Jews have a Biblical right to Palestine.
7. His eye for eye perception of revenge for Palestine.
8. You attacked us in Somalia.
9. You supported Russians in Chechnya.
10. You supported India's aggression in Kashmir.
11. You attack us on a daily basis and war against Sharia law.
12. Governments of our countries act as your agents. They steal the Muslim community's wealth and sell it to you for paltry price. They support Israel.
13. Your military forces occupy our countries. They corrupt ouf lands and pillage our treasures.
14. You kill the children of Iraq.
15. You support the Jews in their efforts to establish capitol in Jerusalem. The would destroy Islam's most sacred Al-Aqsa Mosque.
16. Your oppression is aggressive.
17. You kill civilians and charge them with crimes they did not commit.
18. Your claims that American is the land of freedom are hypocrisy.
19. American people support US policies in Palestine.
20. American people's taxes fund planes that bomb Afghanistan.
21. Americans do not understand the language of manners and principles. They understand war, so we address them in these terms.
What are his demands?
1. We call you to know the meaning of Islam.
2. We call you to stop your oppression.
3. He goes on to list the ways America's government is not in compliance with Islam and with Sharia law.
4. Your law is the law of the rich and wealthy.
5. Your freedoms and democracy are for yourselves only and only for whites.
6. You do not respect international law.
7. You create a court for war criminals and then declare yourselves immune.
8. You torture at Guantanamo.
9. Abandon support for Israel.
Halliburton had 8 years of
free reign with taxpayer money and you are focused on a celebration of a historic event? Priorities people.
Definition of terrorism.
Perhaps I can speak to this as someone who is both trained and educated in the subject.
The FBI, State Department, DHS, United Nations and numerous other agencies and experts have defined terrorism in somewhat different ways, but most definitions agree on some common elements with respect to terrorism:
1. Instilling fear...
2. ...in a civilian population...
3. ...by violence or threat of violence...
4. ...to advance social, political or religious objectives...
5. ...outside the context of lawful means of change or the conduct of war.
Although it is frequently said (usually in the popular press) that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", implying that the term is entirely subjective, this is only true when one of the "men" in question is intellectually dishonest. Terrorism has been defined with sufficient clarity that we can say with a high degree of specificity what is, and what is not, terrorism and who are, and who are not, terrorists.
When people seek to strike a moral equivalency between actions that are fundamentally terrorist and those that merely share certain common elements (for instance, both terrorists and nations at war use bombs), they are confusing superficial similarity with equivalency. This inevitably leads them into errors in thinking and the consequences of such errors - bad judgments, bad decisions, and wrong actions.
You might find a mouse in your cookie jar, but that doesn't make it a cookie.
Do you have a problem with fighting terrorism?
You only care that Bush possibly lied in regards to intelligence gathering. You seem to have no clue that good intelligence means you don't spout all your secrets to the American public and sometimes *gasp* to the congress. The congress does not specialize in intelligence gathering much less what to do with it once they have it. There are reasons there are different levels of access within the CIA and FBI. There is a need for covert operations. Read some John Grisham novels or better than fiction based on real events read some books about what the CIA actually does. You might be shocked to find out that they keep things top secret and may lie to people at times for the good of this country.
Just wait till Halliburton gets the
Dubai Ports contract that they now say they are going to hire Americans to run.
Talk about thumbing his nose to America!
Economy 1st issue, Terrorism last sm
What is wrong with this country? What good will money do us when our country is attacked? There is nothing like one who has walked the walk to guide us. I am thinking of my family first, it won't matter how well off we are if we are not a "free" nation. McCain knows what evil is, he lived it.
Obama stance on terrorism....
This latest quote of his just says to me he doesn't get it, especially where Muslim extremists are concerned:
At a fundraising luncheon, he said he told Gilani "the only way we're going to be successful in the long term in defeating extremists ... is if we are giving people opportunities. If people have a chance for a better life, then they are not as likely to turn to the ideologies of violence and despair."
What kind of opportunities is he talking about giving them? And it does not matter what you give them...it is not about despair. I guess he did not see the poll done recently of Muslim students in London...way over half polled said it was okay to kill in the name of Islam, in fact it should be done; and way more than half thought Sharia law should be part of English law and supercede it in most cases. These Muslims are not in despair. Obama does not get it, he does not understand it, and that makes him plenty dangerous. Just like he says we cannot drill our way out of the energy crunch (and I disagree with that...might not drill our way out completely but certainly could take a bite out of our foreign oil dependance while working on those alternative forms of energy, which I do support...but there are no immediate answers there either)...we cannot talk Muslim "extremists" out of their extremism. And to think we can is naive at best and that is the nicest way I can put it.
Actually, even though Ayers' terrorism was that long
ago, he was quoted on 9/11/01 in the NYT as saying he feels "we didn't do enough."
See link below for the article.
Let bygones be bygones? NOT. He is only out free because of a legal technicality.
Christian Fundamentalist Terrorism
It's shocking to write. But it's time to start calling it what it is.
When Jim D. Adkisson walked into the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church with 76 rounds and a shot-gun, he killed 2 people and was charged with murder. His motive was "he hated the liberal movement" and was upset with "liberals in general as well as gays." He should have been charged with terrorism.
Sunday George Tiller, a Wichita doctor, was killed INSIDE the lobby of his Wichita church. Reformation Lutheran Church became a crime scene; fundamentalist terrorism.
The right wing media hacks make targets of the left. The fundamentalist reverends blather their intolerance of other Americans. Their marriages are in jeopardy if the GLBT community can walk down an aisle. Their children are going to be molested if you have to rent to a same sex couple. Fear...fear...fear the queer.
Bill O'Reilly's hit piece on Dr. Tiller is a training tape for Christian Fundamentalist Terrorists. Never did he ask the woman interviewed how she, as a 13 year old, got pregnant, who was the father, or where her parents were when she underwent an abortion at Dr. Tiller's clinic. I'm sure O'Reilly's drivel will insist on personal accountability for the murderer. I'm sure he won't be in line for any "accountability" for calling the doctor "Tiller the baby-killer" or his clinic a "death mill."
Are anti-choice groups celebrating today? An abortion doctor is dead so women won't have unwanted pregnancies!
The "war on terror" needs to include domestic religious, fundamentalist terrorists.
Halliburton will build new prison on Guantanamo
Halliburton subsidiary gets $30 million to build new Guantanamo prison
ASSOCIATED PRESS
11:28 a.m. June 17, 2005
WASHINGTON – A subsidiary of Houston-based Halliburton has been awarded a $30 million contract to build an improved 220-bed prison for terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the Pentagon announced.
Kellogg Brown and Root Services Inc. of Arlington, Va., is to build a two-story prison that includes day rooms, exercise areas, medical bays, air conditioning and a security control room, according to the Pentagon. It is to be completed by July 2006.
Congress previously approved the funding for the construction job. Some members, along with human rights groups, are now calling for Guantanamo to close because of reports of prisoner abuses there and because the foreign detainees are being held indefinitely with no charges filed.
KBR beat out two other bids for the job, the Pentagon said.
"The future detention facility will be based on prison models in the U.S. and is designed to be safer for the long-term detention of detainees and the guards," according to a statement provided by a Pentagon spokesman. "It is also expected to require less manpower to operate."
The new prison building, called Detention Camp {PI:EF}6, will replace some of the older facilities at the Navy base, which officials say are not adequate for holding prisoners for the long term.
The total contract could be worth up to $500 million through 2010, the Pentagon said. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Atlantic, in Norfolk, Va., is the contracting agency.
About 520 prisoners from the Bush administration's war on terrorism are held at Guantanamo. Already, $110 million has been spent on construction there, and the prison costs about $95 million a year to operate.
White House officials have said there are no plans to close the facility because the detainees being held there are too dangerous to release while the war on terror continues.
Dyncorp & Halliburton Sex Slave Scandal
Dyncorp and Halliburton Sex Slave Scandal Won't Go Away
Halliburton, Dyncorp lobbyists stall law banning human trafficking and sex slavery
Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones | January 1 2006
Almost a year after Representative Cynthia McKinney was told by Donald Rumsfeld that it was not the policy of the Bush administration to reward companies that engage in human trafficking with government contracts, the scandal continues to sweep up innocent children who are sold into a life of slavery at the behest of Halliburton subsidiaries , Dyncorp and other transnational corporations with close ties to the establishment elite.
On March 11th 2005, McKinney grilled Secretary Rumsfeld and General Myers on the Dyncorp scandal.
Mr. Secretary, I watched President Bush deliver a moving speech at the United Nations in September 2003, in which he mentioned the crisis of the sex trade. The President called for the punishment of those involved in this horrible business. But at the very moment of that speech, DynCorp was exposed for having been involved in the buying and selling of young women and children. While all of this was going on, DynCorp kept the Pentagon contract to administer the smallpox and anthrax vaccines, and is now working on a plague vaccine through the Joint Vaccine Acquisition Program. Mr. Secretary, is it [the] policy of the U.S. Government to reward companies that traffic in women and little girls?
The response and McKinney's comeback was as follows.
Rumsfeld: Thank you, Representative. First, the answer to your first question is, is, no, absolutely not, the policy of the United States Government is clear, unambiguous, and opposed to the activities that you described. The second question.
McKinney: Well how do you explain the fact that DynCorp and its successor companies have received and continue to receive government contracts?
Rumsfeld: I would have to go and find the facts, but there are laws and rules and regulations with respect to government contracts, and there are times that corporations do things they should not do, in which case they tend to be suspended for some period; there are times then that the - under the laws and the rules and regulations for the - passed by the Congress and implemented by the Executive branch - that corporations can get off of - out of the penalty box if you will, and be permitted to engage in contracts with the government. They're generally not barred in perpetuity.
McKinney: This contract - this company - was never in the penalty box.
Rumsfeld: I'm advised by DR. Chu that it was not the corporation that was engaged in the activities you characterized but I'm told it was an employee of the corporation, and it was some years ago in the Balkans that that took place.
Watch the video here.
Rumsfeld's effort to shift the blame away from the hierarchy at Dyncorp and onto the Dyncorp employees was a blatant attempt to hide the fact that human trafficking and sex slavery is a practice condoned by companies like Dyncorp and Halliburton subsidiaries like KBR.
What else are we to assume in light of recent revelations cited in the Chicago Tribune that Halliburton subsidiary KBR and Dyncorp lobbyists are working in tandem with the Pentagon to stall legislation that would specifically ban trafficking in humans for forced labor and prostitution by U.S. contractors?
Three years has now elapsed since President Bush's promise to bring an end to this disgrace and the Pentagon is still yet to actually bar the practice.
And the employees themselves that are burned for blowing the whistle, like Kathryn Bolkovac who was sacked for reporting on Dyncorp officials who were involved in the Bosnian sex trade.
Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich is one of very few representatives in high office aside from Cynthia McKinney to demand answers on this issue.
We applaud Blagojevich's eforts. The iron curtain of official denial and soft-peddling is falling down.
What has happened to the children who were sold into slavery and forced to satisfy the demands of sick pedophiles working on behalf of the US government?
Where were the investigations and convictions in other cases of establishment orchestrated child slavery and prostitution? Like the NATO officials responsible for the mushrooming of child prostitution in Kosovo?
What happened to UN officials identified as using a ship charted for 'peacekeepers' to bring young girls from Thailand to East Timor as prostitutes?
In addition, we received an E mail from a person claiming to be a Dyncorp employee stating that a high level Dyncorp official is breaking the law by accepting payment from the US government and in turn the American taxpayer by falsifying timesheets and claiming pay for hours not worked.
The contact states that this was repeatedly brought to the attention of DynCorp program managers by Dyncorp employees but they were told it was none of their business.
It is important to stress that at the moment these are allegations and we have no proof of this other than the validity of the e mail.
The e mail is a reminder that we should always consider the fact that the vast majority of Dyncorp employees are just doing their jobs and have nothing to do with this scandal. It is a small faction at the head of the hydra that have authorized and engaged in these horrors.
We have a government that says it doesn't advocate torture and yet tries to block a law that would end torture. We have a government that repeatedly burns lower level minions to wash its hands of every major scandal that encompasses policies directly administered by the government itself, as in the case of Abu Ghraib and the Dyncorp sex scandal.
A government that covers-up for those who force children into prostitution and slavery is a clear danger to our very way of life.
We must demand answers and finally put an end to a process that exploits and wreaks terror on the lives of the most innocent and vulnerable members of society, whether they be in the Balkans, East Timor or here at home.
Our own children.
FYI, Halliburton and KBR are headquartered in Houston Texas
the "ties" between the Bush Family and Halliburton and KBR are legendary down in the Lone Star and go back generations. W's Uncle Prescott was director at Dresser Industries, which is now part of Halliburton. HW Bush worked there as well 1948-1951. KBR was embroiled in the W administration controversy surrounding the cimcumvention of normal contractor hiring protocol for Iraq. You must have a really short attention span.
Gee, maybe we can recoup it from Halliburton and the irresponsible money sm
flushed down the toilet in the so-called War on Terror. I know - how about we get it from Exxon and the corporate crooks who've had years of screwing the American public under the aegis of the Republican party?
Halliburton Didn't Protect Soldiers' Water
(I wonder what else they won't protect if/when they're put in charge after the Dubai deal goes through. And I believe Bush will find a way to push it through right under Americans' noses, since I believe his loyalty lies clearly with rich Arabs and not with the safety of Americans.)
Updated:2006-03-16 07:52:03
Halliburton Didn't Protect Soldiers' Water
Internal Memo Warns of 'Mass Sickness or Death'
ap
WASHINGTON (March 16) - Halliburton Co. failed to protect the water supply it is paid to purify for U.S. soldiers throughout Iraq, in one instance missing contamination that could have caused mass sickness or death, an internal company report concluded.
The report, obtained by The Associated Press, said the company failed to assemble and use its own water purification equipment, allowing contaminated water directly from the Euphrates River to be used for washing and laundry at Camp Ar Ramadi in Ramadi, Iraq.
The problems discovered last year at that site - poor training, miscommunication and lax record keeping - occurred at Halliburton's other operations throughout Iraq, the report said.
Countrywide, all camps suffer to some extent from all or some of the deficiencies noted, Wil Granger, Theatre Water Quality Manager in the war zone for Halliburton's KBR subsidiary, wrote in his May 2005 report.
AP reported earlier this year allegations from whistleblowers about the Camp Ar Ramadi incident, but Halliburton never made public Granger's internal report alleging wider problems.
The water quality expert warned Halliburton the problems will have to be dealt with at a very elevated level of management to protect health and safety of U.S. personnel.
Halliburton said Wednesday it conducted a second review last year that found no evidence of any illnesses in Iraq from water and it believes some of its earlier conclusions were incomplete and inaccurate. The company declined to release the second report.
The company said it has worked closely with the Army to develop standards and take action to ensure that the water provided in Iraq is safe and of the highest quality possible.
Halliburton was headed by Vice President Dick Cheney for several years before he ran for vice president. Its KBR subsidiary, also known as Kellogg Brown & Root, works under contract to provide a number of services to the U.S. military in Iraq, including providing water and purifying it.
The contaminated, non-chlorinated water at Ar Ramadi was discovered in March 2005 in a commode by Ben Carter, a KBR water expert at the base. In an interview, Carter said he resigned after KBR barred him from notifying the military and senior company officials about the untreated water.
A supervisor at Ar Ramadi told me to stop e-mailing company officials outside the base and warned that informing the military was none of my concern, Carter said. He said he threatened to sue if company officials didn't let him be examined to determine whether he suffered medical problems from exposure to the contaminated water.
Granger's report cited several countrywide problems:
A lack of training for key personnel. Theatre wide there is no formalized training for anyone at any level in concerns to water operations.
Confusion between KBR and military officials over their respective roles. For instance, each assumed the other would chlorinate the water at Ar Ramadi for any uses that would require the treatment.
Inadequate or nonexistent records that could have caught problems in advance. Little or no documentation was kept on water inventories, safety stand-downs, audits of water quality, deliveries, inspections and logs showing alterations or modifications to water systems.
Relying on employees the company identified as semiskilled labor, and paid as unskilled workers in the pay structure.
The report said the event at Ar Ramadi could have been prevented if KBR's Reverse Osmosis Units on the site had been assembled, instead of relying on the military's water production facilities.
This event should be considered a 'near miss' as the consequences of these actions could have been very severe resulting in mass sickness or death, Granger wrote.
The report said that KBR officials at Ar Ramadi tried to keep the contamination from senior company officials.
The event that was submitted in a report to local camp management should have been classified as a recordable occurrence and communicated to senior management in a timely manner, Granger wrote. The primary awareness to this event came through threat of domestic litigation.
Beginning last May, Halliburton said it began using its equipment to remove contaminants, bacteria, and viruses in Ar Ramadi, and disinfect the water with chlorine. The company said KBR has worked closely with the Army to develop safe water standards.
It said its subsequent review in August-September 2005 found nonpotable water used for washing was effectively filtered to remove at least 99 percent of the parasite giardia and 90 percent of viruses. The Ar Ramadi water also tested negative for bacteria, Halliburton added.
Halliburton to wounded employee: You'll get a medal - if you don't sue.
Halliburton to Wounded Employee: You'll Get a Medal -- If You Don't Sue
By Justin Rood - September 18, 2006, 2:10 PM
Halliburton will help its combat-zone employees get the honors and recognition they deserve -- if they promise not to sue the company. That's according to new documents released today by Senate Democrats.
Ray Stannard was a truck driver in Iraq for Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root. In 2003, he was part of a fuel convoy that was ambushed by insurgents. Seven Americans died in the attack and 26 were injured, including Stanner. He is suing the company.
His company knew the convoy's route was dangerous and unprotected, he says, but sent the convoy through anyway. What they did was murder, Stannard told CBS News recently. And I stick by that.
The circumstances of his injuries qualified Stanner for the U.S. Defense of Freedom medal, the civilian equivalent to a soldier's Purple Heart. In offering to forward Stanner's medical records to the Department of Defense so they could confirm and appove his award, KBR required him to sign a release form. (You can see the document here.)
The document, sent to Stannard in November 2004, appears to be boilerplate -- but for one curious paragraph that appears to indemnify KBR from any wrongdoing that may have led to Stanner's injuries:
. . . I agree that in consideration for the application for a Defense of Freedom Medal on my behalf that. . . I hereby release, aquit and discharge KBR, all KBR employees, the military, and any of their representatives. . . with respect to and from any and all claims and any and all causes of action, of any kind or character, whether now known or unknown, I may have against any of them which exist as of the date of this authorization. . . . This release also applies to any claims brought by any person or agency or class action under which I may have a right or benefit.
Stannard didn't sign the form. He received the medal. And he filed suit against the company the following May.
Senate Armed Services defies Bush; Passes its own terrorism tribunal bill.
Bush should be grateful for this (even though he will probably ignore it, as usual), as the day may come when HE faces charges as a war criminal, and he would demand and be entitled to the same due process under the law.
Senate Armed Services Committee defies Bush; Passes its own terrorism tribunal bill
09/14/2006 @ 3:41 pm
Filed by RAW STORY
The Senate Armed Services Committee defied President Bush today by passing its own terrorism tribunal bill to protect the rights of terror detainees.
Four of the 13 Republicans on the panel joined the 11 Democrats to pass their version of the measure, rejecting Bush's proposal to bar defendants from seeing classified evidence prosecutors may want to use in court, reports Bloomberg News.
The four Republicans acted against the White House today only a few hours after the president paid a rare visit to Capitol Hill in order to personally lobby House members to support his plan.
President Bush visited Capitol Hill Thursday where he conferred behind closed doors with House Republicans on legislation to give the government more power to spy on, imprison and interrogate terrorism suspects, reported the Associated Press earlier today.
Bush told reporters later at the White House that he would resist any bill that does not enable this program to go forward with legal clarity.
The bill passed by the Senate panel had been drafted by Republican Senators John McCain, Lindsey O. Graham, and Chairman John Warner. Senator Susan M. Collins was the fourth Republican to vote for the bill.
Voting 15-9, the Senate Armed Services Committee approved the bill they said would provide suspects more legal rights than Bush wanted and resisted his attempt to more narrowly define the Geneva Conventions' standards for humane treatment of prisoners, reports Reuters.
Earlier today, former Secretary of State Colin Powell wrote a letter to Republican Senator John McCain (video link), supporting his opposition to the president's plan which would redefine the legal definitions in Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.
The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism, Powell wrote McCain. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.
REPUBLICANS
John Warner (Virginia) Chairman
John McCain (Arizona) James M. Inhofe (Oklahoma) Pat Roberts (Kansas) Jeff Sessions (Alabama) Susan M. Collins (Maine) John Ensign (Nevada) James M. Talent (Missouri) Saxby Chambliss (Georgia) Lindsey O. Graham (South Carolina) Elizabeth Dole (North Carolina) John Cornyn (Texas) John Thune (South Dakota)
DEMOCRATS
Carl Levin (Michigan) Ranking Member
Edward M. Kennedy (Massachusetts) Robert C. Byrd (West Virginia) Joseph I. Lieberman (Connecticut) Jack Reed (Rhode Island) Daniel K. Akaka (Hawaii) Bill Nelson (Florida) E. Benjamin Nelson (Nebraska) Mark Dayton (Minnesota) Evan Bayh (Indiana) Hillary Rodham Clinton (New York)
Halliburton and troops: Dirty water, dirty tricks
 MSNBC.com |
Report: Untreated water at U.S. base in Iraq
Halliburton denies contamination of supply to American soliders, civilians
The Associated Press
Updated: 5:42 p.m. ET Jan. 22, 2006
WASHINGTON - Troops and civilians at a U.S. military base in Iraq were exposed to contaminated water last year and employees for the responsible contractor, Halliburton, couldn’t get their company to inform camp residents, according to interviews and internal company documents.
Halliburton, the company formerly headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, disputes the allegations about water problems at Camp Junction City, in Ramadi, even though they were made by its own employees and documented in company e-mails.
“We exposed a base camp population (military and civilian) to a water source that was not treated,” said a July 15, 2005, memo written by William Granger, the official for Halliburton’s KBR subsidiary who was in charge of water quality in Iraq and Kuwait.
“The level of contamination was roughly 2x the normal contamination of untreated water from the Euphrates River,” Granger wrote in one of several documents. The Associated Press obtained the documents from Senate Democrats who are holding a public inquiry into the allegations Monday.
Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., who will chair the session, held a number of similar inquiries last year on contracting abuses in Iraq. He said Democrats were acting on their own because they had not been able to persuade Republican committee chairmen to investigate.
The company’s former water treatment expert at Camp Junction City said that he discovered the problem last March, a statement confirmed by his e-mail the day after he tested the water.
Bottled water used only for drinking
While bottled water was available for drinking, the contaminated water was used for virtually everything else, including handwashing, laundry, bathing and making coffee, said water expert Ben Carter of Cedar City, Utah.
Another former Halliburton employee who worked at the base, Ken May of Louisville, said there were numerous instances of diarrhea and stomach cramps — problems he also suffered.
A spokeswoman for Halliburton said its own inspection found neither contaminated water nor medical evidence to substantiate reports of illnesses at the base. The company now operates its own water treatment plant there, spokeswoman Melissa Norcross said.
A military medical unit that visited Camp Ramadi in mid-April found nothing out of the ordinary in terms of water quality, said Marine Corps Maj. Tim Keefe, a military spokesman. Water-quality testing records from May 23 show the water within normal parameters, he said.
“The allegations appear not to have merit,” Keefe said.
Halliburton has contracts to provide a number of services to U.S. forces in Iraq and was responsible for the water quality at the base in Ramadi.
Year-long exposure?
Granger’s July 15 memo said the exposure had gone on for “possibly a year” and added, “I am not sure if any attempt to notify the exposed population was ever made.”
The first memo on the problem — written by Carter to Halliburton officials on March 24, 2005 — was an “incident report” from tests Carter performed the previous day.
“It is my opinion that the water source is without question contaminated with numerous micro-organisms, including Coliform bacteria,” Carter wrote. “There is little doubt that raw sewage is routinely dumped upstream of intake much less than the required 2 mile distance.
“Therefore, it is my conclusion that chlorination of our water tanks while certainly beneficial is not sufficient protection from parasitic exposure.”
Carter said he resigned in early April after Halliburton officials did not take any action to inform the camp population.
The water expert said he told company officials at the base that they would have to notify the military. “They told me it was none of my concern and to keep my mouth shut,” he said.
‘They brushed it under the carpet’
On at least one occasion, Carter said, he spoke to the chief military surgeon at the base, asking him whether he was aware of stomach problems afflicting people. He said the surgeon told him he would look into it.
“They brushed it under the carpet,” Carter said. “I told everyone, ‘Don’t take showers, use bottled water.”
A July 14, 2005, memo showed that Halliburton’s public relations department knew of the problem.
“I don’t want to turn it into a big issue right now,” staff member Jennifer Dellinger wrote in the memo, “but if we end up getting some media calls I want to make sure we have all the facts so we are ready to respond.”
Halliburton’s performance in Iraq has been criticized in a number of military audits, and congressional Democrats have contended that the Bush administration has favored the company with noncompetitive contracts.
© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
![src=http://c.msn.com/c.gif?NC=1255&NA=1154&PS=69725&PI=7329&DI=305&TP=http%3a%2f%2fmsnbc.msn.com%2fid%2f10977706%2f]()
![src=http://msnbcom.112.2o7.net/b/ss/msnbcom/1/G.9-Pd-R/s38773038690531?[AQB]&ndh=1&t=23/0/2006%2010%3A47%3A20%201%20300&pageName=Story%7CWorld%20News%7CConflict%20i%7C10977706%7CReport%3A%20Untreated%20water%20at%20U.S.%20base%20in%20Iraq%7C&g=http%3A//www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10977706/print/1/displaymode/1098/&ch=World%20News&c4=World%20News&c5=Conflict%20in%20Iraq&c7=handheld&c8=N&c15=10977706&c16=Story&c18=17&pid=Story%7CWorld%20News%7CConflict%20i%7C10977706%7CReport%3A%20Untreated%20water%20at%20U.S.%20base%20in%20Iraq%7C&pidt=1&oid=javascript%3AprintThis%28%2710977706%27%29&ot=A&oi=564&s=1024x768&c=32&j=1.3&v=Y&k=Y&bw=644&bh=484&ct=lan&hp=N&[AQE]]()
© 2006 MSNBC.com
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10977706/
The beef is the same beef that many people have with Halliburton receiving
all the OTHER contracts it received.
Somehow, their receiving this particular contract seems more heinous than all the other ones that they received, given the current controversy surrounding it.
We already have Cheney.
Cheney has the warmth and personality of a dead fish.
Cheney
Judge to review Cheney interview in CIA leak case
Libby told the FBI in 2003 that it was possible that Cheney ordered him to reveal Plame's identity to reporters. The prosecutor in that case, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, said in his closing remarks at Libby's trial that there was a "cloud" over Cheney's role in the case.
Fitzgerald told members of Congress who also sought the information that Cheney set no conditions about the use of his interview with investigators.
CREW argued that the public has a right to know the role that Cheney played in the leak and why he was not prosecuted.
A Cheney spokeswoman declined to comment on the case.
I hope Cehney will also be prosecuted about the Abu Ghraib torture case when Obama decides that the TIME IS RIGHT.
Cheney
Judge to review Cheney interview in CIA leak case
Libby told the FBI in 2003 that it was possible that Cheney ordered him to reveal Plame's identity to reporters. The prosecutor in that case, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, said in his closing remarks at Libby's trial that there was a "cloud" over Cheney's role in the case.
Fitzgerald told members of Congress who also sought the information that Cheney set no conditions about the use of his interview with investigators.
CREW argued that the public has a right to know the role that Cheney played in the leak and why he was not prosecuted.
A Cheney spokeswoman declined to comment on the case.
I hope Cehney will also be prosecuted about the Abu Ghraib torture case when Obama decides that the TIME IS RIGHT.
Cheney
Judge to review Cheney interview in CIA leak case
Libby told the FBI in 2003 that it was possible that Cheney ordered him to reveal Plame's identity to reporters. The prosecutor in that case, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, said in his closing remarks at Libby's trial that there was a "cloud" over Cheney's role in the case.
Fitzgerald told members of Congress who also sought the information that Cheney set no conditions about the use of his interview with investigators.
CREW argued that the public has a right to know the role that Cheney played in the leak and why he was not prosecuted.
A Cheney spokeswoman declined to comment on the case.
I hope Cheney will also be prosecuted about the Abu Ghraib torture case when Obama decides that the TIME IS RIGHT.
Cheney
Judge to review Cheney interview in CIA leak case
Libby told the FBI in 2003 that it was possible that Cheney ordered him to reveal Plame's identity to reporters. The prosecutor in that case, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, said in his closing remarks at Libby's trial that there was a "cloud" over Cheney's role in the case.
Fitzgerald told members of Congress who also sought the information that Cheney set no conditions about the use of his interview with investigators.
CREW argued that the public has a right to know the role that Cheney played in the leak and why he was not prosecuted.
A Cheney spokeswoman declined to comment on the case.
I hope Cheney will also be prosecuted about the Abu Ghraib torture case when Obama decides that the TIME IS RIGHT.
Hmmm, since Cheney is
perhaps Fitzgerald could use electrodes on Scooter (a grown man with that name should be a crime in itself..LOL), Rove and Cheney himself and see how he likes information extracted in this manner.
Agree 100%. Cheney is the
one of the masterminds of this adminstration. As I said, but screwed up the post, that if they impeach Bush, they better darn well take Cheney out with him. He is far more dangerous than Bush could ever hope to be, but will Cheney be called to task for his evildoings? How in the United States of America did torture become a topic of conversation? Why has not anyone been called out on these things they have done in the guise of national security? And what really gets me is that people are WILLING to give away their freedoms and rights to be safe. So who are the cowards? Also, and I have heard no one mention this, that after 9/11, Bush said we will not cower to the terrorists, not to change our way of life, our celebrations, to go about as we were, etc. Hmmm, so instead, our rights and freedoms have been violated. Now we have unauthorized NSA spies on our phone calls, emails, whatever else they want to peer into, and now the filthy Patriot Act is up, thank Goodness, but what's next? Scary.
Yes, I was joking about Cheney. sm
I agree the bill is nuts. I can get you a link to that. It actually passed.
Cheney on warpath again?
This is a long article written by Dan Froomkin of The Washington Post, Apr. 11, 2008.
It goes to Cheney's warmongering concerning Iran (if such be the case), the difference of opinion on Iran (Gates and Rice v Cheney), clarification on the "wipe Israel off the map" comment, Cheney's recent visit to Israel, and much more. Page 5 goes into other topics; one of special interest being torture approved from the WH basement by Bush aides and Cheney.
Excellent article that covers recent comments being made by Cheney about Iran (you may recall he and Rumsfeld did the same prior to the fantisized reasons to invade Iraq).
I bring it for edification and perhaps for discussion.
Cheney deja vu all over again nm
xx
Maybe Cheney is a closet dem
He knows many people hate him, including me. He could be trying to lose McC's election since McC spoke out against Bush and Cheney.
D@ck Cheney was the man in the wheelchair
and wow I don't think booing is appropriate, D@ck Cheney doesn't get a free pass just because he is in a wheelchair.
Had to edit because I can't use the VP's first name
and Cheney was the bestest!!!!!
@@
You must remember, Cheney ain't your VP hon.....
nm
Yes, he was Cheney's Puppet
.
...and Bush & Cheney were most definitely
N/M
Kind of like Cheney did...(sm)
Funny how he pops up all over the place now, but while in office all he could do was hide.
I am in NO way a fan of Bush or Cheney,
but at least they're not lying about what they did. If these congressmen would just come out and say that they knew what was going on and did nothing about it, sure it would make them look bad, but not as bad as lying about it does.
I guess it shouldn't surprise us, though, that there's no taking responsibility for actions in our government - that's one of the biggest problems in our country - it's always someone else's fault.
Take 'em all down, I say. Kick every last one of them out and start anew.
Furtherance of Cheney impeachment
House Judiciary Trio Calls for Impeach Cheney Hearings
by John Nichols
Three senior members of the House Judiciary Committee have called for the immediate opening of impeachment hearings for Vice President Richard Cheney.
Democrats Robert Wexler of Florida, Luis Gutierrez of Illinois and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin on Friday distributed a statement, “A Case for Hearings,” that declares, “The issues at hand are too serious to ignore, including credible allegations of abuse of power that if proven may well constitute high crimes and misdemeanors under our constitution. The charges against Vice President Cheney relate to his deceptive actions leading up to the Iraq war, the revelation of the identity of a covert agent for political retaliation, and the illegal wiretapping of American citizens.”
In particular, the Judiciary Committee members cite the recent revelation by former White House press secretary Scott McClellan that the Vice President and his staff purposefully gave him false information about the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson as a covert agent as part of a White House campaign to discredit her husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson. On the basis of McClellan’s statements, Wexler, Gutierrez and Baldwin say, “it is even more important for Congress to investigate what may have been an intentional obstruction of justice.” The three House members argue that, “Congress should call Mr. McClellan to testify about what he described as being asked to ‘unknowingly [pass] along false information.’”
Adding to the sense of urgency, the members note that “recent revelations have shown that the Administration including Vice President Cheney may have again manipulated and exaggerated evidence about weapons of mass destruction — this time about Iran’s nuclear capabilities.”
Although Wexler, Gutierrez and Baldwin are close to Judiciary Committee chair John Conyers, getting the Michigan Democrat to open hearings on impeachment will not necessarily be easy. Though Conyers was a leader in suggesting during the last Congress that both President Bush and Vice President Cheney had committed impeachable offenses, he has been under immense pressure from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, to keep Constitutional remedies for executive excesses “off the table” in this Congress.
It is notable, however, that Baldwin maintains warm relations with Pelosi and that Wexler, a veteran member of the Judiciary Committee has historically had an amiable and effective working relationship with Conyers. There is no question that Conyers, who voted to keep open the impeachment debate on November 7, has been looking for a way to explore the charges against Cheney. The move by three of his key allies on the committee may provide the chairman with the opening he seeks, although it is likely he will need to hear from more committee members before making any kind of break with Pelosi — or perhaps convincing her that holding hearings on Cheney’s high crimes and misdemeanors is different from putting a Bush impeachment move on the table.
The most important immediate development, however, is the assertion of an “ask” for supporters of impeachment. Pulled in many directions in recent months, campaigners for presidential and vice presidential accountability have focused their attention on supporting a House proposal by Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nod, to impeach Cheney. When Kucinich forced consideration of his resolution on November 7, Pelosi and her allies used procedural moves to get it sent to the Judiciary Committee for consideration. Pelosi’s hope was that the proposal would disappear into the committee’s files.
The call for hearings by Wexler, Gutierrez and Baldwin puts impeachment on the table, at least as far as activists are concerned, creating a pressure point that can serve as a reply when House Democrats who are critical of Bush but cautious about impeachment ask: “What do you want me to do?” The answer can now be: “Back the call for Judiciary Committee hearings on whether to impeach Cheney?”
“Some of us were in Congress during the impeachment hearings of President Clinton. We spent a year and a half listening to testimony about President Clinton’s personal relations. This must not be the model for impeachment inquires. A Democratic Congress can show that it takes its constitutional authority seriously and hold a sober investigation, which will stand in stark contrast to the kangaroo court convened by Republicans for President Clinton. In fact, the worst legacy of the Clinton impeachment - where the GOP pursued trumped up and insignificant allegations - would be that it discourages future Congresses from examining credible and significant allegations of a constitutional nature when they arise,” write Wexler, Gutierrez and Baldwin.
“The charges against Vice President Cheney are not personal,” the House members add. “They go to the core of the actions of this Administration, and deserve consideration in a way the Clinton scandal never did. The American people understand this, and a majority support hearings according to a November 13 poll by the American Research Group. In fact, 70 percent of voters say that Vice President Cheney has abused his powers and 43 percent say that he should be removed from office right now. The American people understand the magnitude of what has been done and what is at stake if we fail to act. It is time for Congress to catch up.”
Arguing that hearings need not distract Congress, Wexler, Gutierrez and Baldwin note that the focus is on Cheney for a reason: “These hearings involve the possible impeachment of the Vice President — not our commander in chief — and the resulting impact on the nation’s business and attention would be significantly less than the Clinton Presidential impeachment hearings.”
They also argue, correctly, that the hearings are necessary if Congress is to restore its position in the Constitutionally-defined system of checks and balances.
“Holding hearings would put the evidence on the table, and the evidence — not politics — should determine the outcome,” the Judiciary Committee members explain. “Even if the hearings do not lead to removal from office, putting these grievous abuses on the record is important for the sake of history. For an Administration that has consistently skirted the constitution and asserted that it is above the law, it is imperative for Congress to make clear that we do not accept this dangerous precedent. Our Founding Fathers provided Congress the power of impeachment for just this reason, and we must now at least consider using it.
Many Say War Not Worth It; Cheney: 'So?'
Did you see Cheney on the ABC News tonight? You should have seen his smirky grin when he told her "so." He doesn't care what the country thinks about the war.
"On the security front, I think there's a general consensus that we've made major progress, that the surge has worked. That's been a major success," Cheney told ABC News' Martha Raddatz.
When asked about how that jibes with recent polls that show about two-thirds of Americans say the fight in Iraq is not worth it, Cheney replied, "So?"
"You don't care what the American people think?" Raddatz asked the vice president.
Cheney has never been known as a "caring" person
Why should he care? He's leaving office soon and none of his family or friends were at risk over there. He and most of his cronies all were successful in shirking military service. And he won't be around to pay the bill for this war -- our children and grandchildren are the ones who will pay in the long run if it doesn't financially ruin this country before then.
I'm sure he thought he and a few others would benefit in $$$ from this invasion, and I'm sure some folks did (like Halliburton) but instead it has backfired. Recent news shows that the war has ultimately destabilized the flow of oil and our relations with the countries that provide our oil. Plus the Iraqi pipeline has never gotten back to even pre-war levels.
Cheney and Gonzales indicted? sm
Applauding this one. Link below.
http://www.krgv.com/2008/11/18/1001457/Guerra-Indicts
Bush/Cheney = EVILDOERS!!!
May their sorry a$$e$ rot in helll! What did Bush do in the first three weeks of office - clear brush in crawford? He holds the record for the most vacations.
That's what I said to my hubby When Bush and Cheney..
...decided that we should go to war in Iraq, even when AL Qaeda was in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Decided that there were WMDs in Iraq, despite being told by an impartial panel (United Nations) that there were no such things.
We knew right then and there that this country was in deep trouble. We had an arrogant excuse of a president, who was bound and determined to follow his own agenda (or daddy's)no matter what the American people wanted.
I know how you feel, but this problem is NOTHING compared to the mess that the last administration left us in!
Cheney spent SIX TIMES MORE on...
...entertainment than Bush????
Well, maybe that makes sense. He does seem like someone who is pretty difficult to entertain. 
Cheney spent SIX TIMES MORE on...
...entertainment than Bush????
Well, maybe that makes sense. As I remember his snarling face, he did seem like someone who is pretty difficult to entertain.
Well, did Cheney give you a boo boo face too?
nm
Obama is Cheney's puppet??! WOW!
x
Is Cheney your president? Why are you stuck
xx
Unlike the Cheney Tool that was our
.
All this said, I agree with you that Cheney, Rumsfeld
and Bush should be punished for what they did. Guards in Abu Ghraib who followed orders were put on trial and imprisoned.
Torture is never justified and brings often useless, coerced confessions and devastating revenge.
“Those subjected to physical torture usually conceive undying hatred for their torturers.” One must therefore also consider the greater likelihood that American civilians (here or especially abroad) and American troops overseas will be subject to torture (or terror) by aggrieved enemies.'
|
