Tonight you will be treated to the long-awaited high-noon showdown. Cheney and Edwards will go at each other like Mary Kate and Ashley fighting over the last remaining seconds of their 15 minutes of fame. Sorry for the obscure pop-culture reference, but I just felt "hip" all of a sudden.
Edwards will accuse Cheney of being a "corporate greedo" who uses $100 bills for toilet paper.
Cheney will laugh at this accusation, because Edwards is one of the most successful class-action tort-mongers (re: mega millionaires) in the history of our flawless legal system.
The big topic of discussion for the evening? My sources say "Halliburton." I can't tell you too much about Halliburton, but I know that they did a helluva great job feeding me, protecting me, and logistically sustaining me while I was in Iraq, and they're doing a swell job for me right now in Kuwait as well. As a soldier, that's all I care about. Let's not forget that many of their brave employees died while supporting our nation's sons and daughters.
Like most of you, I've heard the charges: Dick Cheney used his "Halliburton connection" to orchestrate an unethical, ill-advised no-bid contract which gave Halliburton the nod to rebuild Iraq's oil facilities while feeding and sustaining our great soldiers. Depending on how far left you are, you might even believe that Cheney coordinated with bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks and/or "sexed-up" the entire world's Iraq intelligence in order to secure profits for the company that he no longer works for. Furthermore, Halliburton has more ongoing investigations than <insert witty/funny analogy- sorry, I'm fresh out>.
The truth as I know it is that Cheney's only involvement with Halliburton since leaving the company are the pre-agreed pay installments that he received over the last few years- which he gave to charity. That's it- not even so much as a phone call since he left the company.
Here's the part that gets me- if Halliburton's no-bid contract was so disgraceful, where is the evidence? All I need to see is one example of a company that would have been better suited for the task at hand. If Edwards says, "I can prove that the contract was unethical because Company A or Company B would have been a better deal for our soldiers and our government," then I'll start listening. It'll never happen. The fact is, Halliburton was the best company for the job and it was a wartime requirement, which means the needs of our soldiers come first. They attract more legal scrutiny than Martha Stewart on the floor of the NYSE (okay, so I had one more), because Dick Cheney used to be the boss. If you still have any questions about this, please go to factcheck.org or freespeech.com to get a better rundown. I'm good, but not as good as I think I am.
If Cheney does his job tonight, Edwards will walk away from the podium as the guy who's more concerned about fair business practices than the needs of our combat-deployed troops.
If Edwards gets his way, Cheney will walk away from the podium with a disgusted look on his face and a roll of $100 bills hanging out of his pants.
Let the games begin!!!
1 comment:
2Slick-- Bcus here, forgive the rambling but here are my thoughts on swiftees, medals, and energy. Let me start with....You da man! Right on brother. Keep on truckin. I can't think of anymore cliche sayings to continue to encourage this forum, but it is all good. Here are my feelings on the swifty debate that you are going to talk about tomorrow. Any man that throws around that much hype about his war record is suspect, you know the deal, it just ain't cool to brag about your accomplishments, especially those in combat. Plus, why haven't I heard him using the same hype for the sailors on his boat. BLUF--assuming Kerry's statements about his combat actions are accurate, teamwork and other good sailors around him probably played alot bigger role than he is giving credit. He is definitely no Audie Murphy, as one liberal pundit described him, not even the same ballpark or even the same league. On the Swift Boat Vets side, I finished their book and the last half is much better than the first half. I don't have much time for people debating over medals that should or shouldn't have been awarded. I am glad that part is over. I do have time to get pissed for someone that couldn't think of a more constructive way to protest the war than to join hands with the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) and other radicals like Jane Fonda. Now that most agree he was a little extreme in his methods and statements, he refuses to apologize or explain his actions. BLUF - I too am a little biased and have to give the nod to Bush, Kerry has been too consistent in jumping on the bandwagon and not thinking for himself, no matter what the scenario. At least Bush is a straight shooter. Although I would like him to take stronger stands on abortion and renewable fuels like ethanol. Being from a state with an economy based on agriculture, I am baffled why we pay farmers through various ag programs not to produce. Drive through the midwest and notice that the gas stations have 10% ethanol blends. They have been doing it for at least a decade and you get cleaner, higher octane fuel that is also cheaper. We have only begun to see the benifits of ethanol. And to the ney-sayers, you get the same or better mileage as well, not worse as some claim. Think if we built up our ethanol production capabilities and reduced America's gasoline consumption by 10%. Lower budgets for the ag programs and better markets for grain would be a huge boost for the economy. Lots of economists would agree that even today, a lot of our economic prosperity depends on agriculture. That brings up the last point, Tom Dashchel needs to lose his job this election. What good is a liberal senator from a conservative agricultural state that can't even use liberal platforms (i.e. environment / renewable energy) to support the ethanol bandwagon? Feel free to edit this my brother. Take care, see you on the flip side. Bcus, Jen and baby to be.
Post a Comment