[DP5Ups8o]

It doesn't seem possible, but some of you really think there is no dirty insider deals with the neocons. Amidst all of this Abramoff filthy dealings, I am in amazement that some of you really think Cheney's connection and profit to Halliburton and the Iraq war and Rumsfeld's connection and profit to Tamiflu are just innocent coincidences.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/12/15/123353/31

Rumsfeld -- as a stock holder and former CEO of Gilead Sciences Inc., the sole patent owner of Tamiflu, the antiviral drug now being stockpiled by the Defense Department and other agencies -- stands to make millions of dollars if legislation is passed that allocates additional federal money to stockpile the anti-viral medications.

Indeed, according to calculations by Roll Call, the secretary of Defense has already seen his personal portfolio in Gilead shares rise in value by 54 percent since the date that his holdings were last calculated for a financial disclosure form.

Since that date, Dec. 31, 2004, appreciation in the stock's price has meant that the value of Rumsfeld's personal holdings in Gilead has risen by between $2.8 million and $13.77 million. His total personal holdings in the company -- assuming he has made no transactions in calendar 2005, as he has indicated -- now range between $8.1 million and $39.3 million, according to Roll Call's calculations.

A colleague summed up the outrage of this situation in an email to me this morning:

One terrible consequence of this administration's and this Congress' record of corruption and misrepresentation is that it puts us in the position of not knowing what and who to believe. Avian Flu may or may not be the threat that is described. Now that we know the enormous personal stake Rumsfeld has in the issue, coupled with the (potentially similiar) record on Iraq and Halliburton, lead everyone to fear/suspect that this is another exaggerated risk and that its solution is advanced precisely because there will be a great financial advantage to administration insiders and associates. The Frist speech the other day was a redux version of W on Iraq, full of WMD/world-about-to-end equivalents.
You neocon apoligists really think it's reasonable to think a slew of dirty money isn't being made by the neocons operating in immoral, criminal manner to make profit?

Rumsfeld just so happened to own tons of stock in the company that the US governement is ready to hand 7 billion dollars to? He didn't have any insider information to own that stock, or anything, right? Lucky guess.

Cheney has seen his Halliburton stock value has grown by over 3000% since the Iraq war started. Coincidence, one and all.

And you rubes just never are a word for the wiser.

[lkastonidwedsrer]

Of course there are people this naive - I mean, look at how many people think the Democrats care about "the little guy"! Both ruling parties are based on the naivete of the majority of their supporters.

[wmtravelservice]

Every politician has dirty fingers.

[hexniks]

Every politician has dirty fingers.

Totally agree with you. In the modern political arena where campaigns are decided on the amount of fund-raising undertaken, you would be hard-pressed to find a politician who is not somehow dirty. I would also suggest that it would be virtually impossible to win any state-wide office, and most definitely a national office, without being corrupt at some level. It’s just not possible to attain power in a money-driven age of politics without it. Of course, as the public we have allowed and continue to allow this, so rather than point the finger at the pollies, we need to be much proactive as citizens.

[neonasafluni]

It doesn't seem possible, but some of you really think there is no dirty insider deals with the neocons. Amidst all of this Abramoff filthy dealings, I am in amazement that some of you really think Cheney's connection and profit to Halliburton and the Iraq war and Rumsfeld's connection and profit to Tamiflu are just innocent coincidences.



You neocon apoligists really think it's reasonable to think a slew of dirty money isn't being made by the neocons operating in immoral, criminal manner to make profit?

Rumsfeld just so happened to own tons of stock in the company that the US governement is ready to hand 7 billion dollars to? He didn't have any insider information to own that stock, or anything, right? Lucky guess.

Cheney has seen his Halliburton stock value has grown by over 3000% since the Iraq war started. Coincidence, one and all.

And you rubes just never are a word for the wiser.

I think you should do your homework on Cheney.

That still would leave the possibility that Cheney could profit from his Halliburton stock options if the company's stock rises in value. However, Cheney and his wife Lynne have assigned any future profits from their stock options in Halliburton and several other companies to charity. And we're not just taking the Cheney's word for this -- we asked for a copy of the legal agreement they signed, which we post here publicly for the first time.

The "Gift Trust Agreement" the Cheney's signed two days before he took office turns over power of attorney to a trust administrator to sell the options at some future time and to give the after-tax profits to three charities. The agreement specifies that 40% will go to the University of Wyoming (Cheney's home state), 40% will go to George Washington University's medical faculty to be used for tax-exempt charitable purposes, and 20% will go to Capital Partners for Education , a charity that provides financial aid for low-income students in Washington, DC to attend private and religious schools.

The agreement states that it is "irrevocable and may not be terminated, waived or amended," so the Cheney's can't take back their options later. http://www.factcheck.org/article261.html

[Xqjfxmfk]

Some info on Rumsfeld:

Rumsfeld recused himself from any decisions involving Gilead when he left Gilead and became Secretary of Defense in early 2001. And late last month, notes a senior Pentagon official, Rumsfeld went even further and had the Pentagon's general counsel issue additional instructions outlining what he could and could not be involved in if there were an avian flu pandemic and the Pentagon had to respond.

As the flu issue heated up early this year, according to the Pentagon official, Rumsfeld considered unloading his entire Gilead stake and sought the advice of the Department of Justice, the SEC and the federal Office of Government Ethics.

Those agencies didn't offer an opinion so Rumsfeld consulted a private securities lawyer, who advised him that it was safer to hold on to the stock and be quite public about his recusal rather than sell and run the risk of being accused of trading on insider information, something Rumsfeld doesn't believe he possesses. So he's keeping his shares for the time being. http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/31/news...tune_rumsfeld/

Considering that Rumsfeld didn't create the bird flu and Tamiflu is the best medication on the market for the flu, I don't see what the problem is.

[ValdisSeroff]

Maybe all people who think that the Rumsfeld and Cheney are responsible for the Bird Flu should boycott Tamiflu so that they can't profit from their diabolical plot.

[fuslkdhfma]

Maybe all people who think that the Rumsfeld and Cheney are responsible for the Bird Flu should boycott Tamiflu so that they can't profit from their diabolical plot.

Rumsfeld and Cheney are responsible for the Bird Flu? That's almost as ridiculous as believing that Rumsfeld and Cheney can protect us from the Bird Flu.

[UnduttRit]

Rumsfeld and Cheney are responsible for the Bird Flu? That's almost as ridiculous as believing that Rumsfeld and Cheney can protect us from the Bird Flu. Here Here :P

Anyway, whether a politician is "dirty" is a matter of perspective. Is fillibustering dirty? Is Gerrymandering dirty?

These two "tactics" could be considered dirty by some and acceptable by others. Saying that all politicians are dirty is probably a little bit rash. I would understand saying that all republicans and nazis are dirty (just kidding about the republicans, don't take it too hard )

[reiruviartugs]

Of course there are people this naive - I mean, look at how many people think the Democrats care about "the little guy"!

What is your basis for saying that they don't?

[Usendyduexy]

The less we respect our Politicians.

The less respectable our Politicians will be.


We're in a downward spiral.

Victims of our own success.


Does 2008 look promising? Who in their right mind will want that job?

Happiness and normalcy exists only in the private sector.

Please European Union, China, you need to take over as world police asap.


Of course then it will be our turn to cast stones.

Downward spiral indeed.

[Shinegayboyx]

look at how many people think the Democrats care about "the little guy"! What is your basis for saying that they don't? They promote unemployment among the least employable by way of minimum wage laws; they promote failure among among poor and minorities, primarily blacks (see separate list below); they support government schools and teachers unions, which may not be as universally bad as many right-wingers say, but in some cases truly Does effectively condemn children to poverty; they support the restriction of self-defense of criminals' victims, which tends to be TLG (the little guy); they tend to demonize and discourage businesses, without which there are fewer jobs, frequently with TLG being the first to go or not be hired; they discourage reasonable exploitation of domestic natural resources, which would create jobs and reduce prices, again, with a greater effect on the TLG. (Hmmm... The list is only Roughly in order of importance, but I don't feel like reordering it.)

Like labor unions, the Dems may have actually been good for TLG at one time, but not as much anymore. Dems in significant elected office are primarily interested in maintaining, increasing, or regaining power, partly by way of keeping significant voter blocks ingnorant and/or dependent. (Note that this should not be misconstrued to imply that I think the Republicans are all saints or whatnot, I'm only addressing some of the inconsistencies of Dem politics. As I said above, Both ruling parties owe much of their power to naivete.)

Deferred list from above:
Continued support of a victim mentality - Even if/where racism persists, the way to succeed is to overcome it, not sit on your butt and whine about it all the time. This is further reinforced by continued support/association with the likes of Jesse Jackson who are quick to claim racism whether or not it exists and never advocate that black miscreants be held accountable for their misdeeds.
Continued support for prohibition - combined with the above victim mentality, teaches inner city youth that the best way to get ahead is to become a gang member and/or drug pusher.
Continued support for broken families - welfare policies (and some feminist rhetoric) teach the poor that having a father around is at best unnecessary, and single parent families are a great predictor of academic failure and criminal activity.

[BokerokyBan]

It is true that the democrats don't care for "the little guy." Honestly, anyone who cares about the little guy wouldn't bust their butts to increase the minimum wage! They'd give jobs to the most unemployable people and give them just enough money to survive cold and hungry.

Think people! Without the minimum wage having a job wouldn't promise that you would have any economic stability. The minimum wage is the only thing keeping food on the plates of many Americans. The most unemployable Americans will not be employed in the United States. This is a sad fact caused by the lack of attention given to them and the failure of our public school systems.

Why do the public schools fail? Because the richest among us are trying to increase the gap between their riches and the poorest peoples poverty. They feel that them having a billion dollars and someone else having twenty is better than them having a billion dollars and someone else having two hundred.

What is the primary cause of American students dropping out of school (or not being successful in school)? Socioeconomic status. This is the most crucial factor in the equation. Think back to high school; do you recall any children from upper middle class on up dropping out?

When food, housing, and healthcare are guaranteed for all Americans, the schools and all else will improve. Until then, the fact that the United States REQUIRES that students stay in schools until they are 16 years old will dictate that many schools will have low test scores. Higher level students are held back by worse students resulting in a weakened education for event he brightest. Int he mean time the bad students fall back and fail out.

The problems with unemployment, education, and racial descrimination don't lie in anything that either party has done. They lie in what neither party has done.