Here is the text of the ad as quoted by the clowns mentioned above in this press release:
BUSH: "One of the most important parts of a reform agenda is to encourage people to own something. Own their own home, own their own business, own their own health care plan, or own a piece of their retirement. Reforms that trust the people, reforms that say government must stand on the side of people. Because I understand if you own something, you have a vital stake in the future of America."What follows is another typical rant against HALLIBURTON! and Pharmaceutical Companies.
They totally distort the HALLIBURTON! bit:
Time Magazine Report Contradicts Previous Cheney Denials:Look at the references again. Do you see a TIME magazine reference ANYWHERE other than the title? Another question for the clowns at Kerry/Edwards, if you think Dick Cheney committed some sort of accounting scheme when he was CEO of HALLIBURTON!, what the (beeeeeeeeep!) does that have to do with no-bid contracts in Iraq? How many times are you clowns going to keep making the same mistakes: every time the campaign makes these silly accusations, information gets released that makes you look like...well, clowns.
-- Cheney: "As vice president, I have absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of in any way, shape or form of contracts led by the Corps of Engineers or anybody else in the federal government." (NBC News, "Meet the Press", 9/14/03)
-- "Cheney's spokeswoman Jennifer Millerwise said, 'The vice president's office has nothing to do with' either USAID or Department of Defense contracting." (Houston Chronicle, 3/15/03)
-- "Asked if Cheney had anything to do with the awarding of the Halliburton no-bid contract, his press secretary, Jennifer Millerwise, said, 'Nope.' Halliburton spokeswoman Wendy Hall also said Cheney played no role." (Chicago Tribune, 5/8/03)
Halliburton Agreed to Pay $7.5 Million to Settle SEC Probe into Cheney-Era Accounting Practices. Halliburton agreed to pay $7.5 million to settle a SEC probe of the company's accounting practices during the tenure of Dick Cheney. In 1998, Halliburton failed to disclose a change in the way it accounted for revenue from some construction work, the SEC said in a statement. Cheney served as Halliburton's chief executive from 1995 until August 2000. The SEC said Cheney provided sworn testimony and cooperated in its two-year investigation. Regulators said today that the company's failure to tell investors about the change until 2000 was "materially misleading." (Bloomberg News, 8/3/04; Washington Post, 8/4/04)
Cheney Testified Under Oath About Halliburton. The SEC said that Cheney had testified under oath and had "cooperated willingly and fully in the investigation conducted by the commission's career staff." (New York Times, 8/4/04)
SEC Cited Halliburton For "Lapses" in Conduct During the Probe. The SEC cited Halliburton for "lapses" in conduct that impeded regulators' access to information during the probe of Halliburton's accounting practices. The SEC did not clarify what the lapses were. (Washington Post, 8/4/04)
Changes Allowed Halliburton To Post Higher Profits in 1998 and 1999. The SEC said the accounting tricks enabled Halliburton to report annual earnings in 1998 that were $278.8 million, or 46 percent higher than they would have been had the change not been made and allowed the company to report a profit $40 million higher than they would have been in 1999. (New York Times, 8/4/04; 5/22/02; Wall Street Journal, 5/10/02)
Cost Overruns Represented Half of the Companies Operational Revenue in 1998 Fourth Quarter. According to the New York Times, "Cost overruns still in dispute represented 50 percent of Halliburton's operating profit in the fourth quarter of 1998, according to company financial reports." (New York Times, 5/30/02)
And again, what do either have to do with 'Ownership'? Just asking...
InstaUpdate
Two things I forgot to mention about HALLIBURTON!:1) John Kerry has his own HALLIBURTON! issues that rarely get mention, but you can read about them here. (Assuming the link is still good, somebody let me know if it isn't.)
2) No-bid contracts for HALLIBURTON! under Clinton = "good"; no-bid contracts for HALLIBURTON! under Bush = "Bad." Why is that? Again, just asking...
