Haliburton was fined 7.5 mil for it's "accounting problems" as reported on many sites- this one was at the top of the google search, so I just picked it because it had the basics:

http://www.etaiwannews.com/Business/2004/0.../1091674509.htm

and this quote which echos my question-

Joan Claybrook, president of consumer and good-government group Public Citizen, said the US$7.5 million fine "pales in comparison to the estimated US$120 million by which accounting tricks boosted Halliburton's profits during Cheney's stewardship."

"The failure of the SEC to address the responsibility of Cheney, who was in charge when the accounting irregularities occurred, and instead focus upon the company's chief financial officer and controller at the time, indicates that politics may have spared Cheney from necessary enforcement action," she said in a statement.

Is the failure of the SEC to address the responsibility of Cheney to cover the GOP in the election year?

and to me, after silly, very small things like "travel gate" or "whitewater" compared to a violation like this-

Why isn't the dems making more out of this right now?

Is the failure of the SEC to address the responsibility of Cheney to cover the GOP in the election year?

Probably not. More likely, unless it was specifically directed by Cheney, they'd have no chance of doing anything but harrassing him anyway. The rules changed post-Enron and post-WorldCom, which was after Cheney was already a VP.

As for the other "investigations" that went nowhere, Clinton -- like a shlemiel (sp? where's my Yiddish book?) -- AUTHORIZED the independent prosecutors. He had every chance to say "No", but he decided it was the easier way to get the story out. Turns out it wasn't.

Why isn't the dems making more out of this right now?

Probably because it's too complicated and hard to explain to the average person. No one died. No one lost their pension fund. A minor fine, compared to Halliburton's revenues. Even the other accounting tricks would only have merited a minor fine, relative to revenues.

For those voting for "not Bush", it's just another tic mark. For those voting "Bush", it's a non-story.

There is no doubt that this will be a cloud over the GOP during this election year


They will. I have confidence that the democrats will make an issue out of this. I wouldn't be surprised if they make it a campaign issue

That's like saying no one died or was disabled because Bush hit them while driving drunk. He could have, and this company could have gone the way of Enron, too. This company committed a crime and should be more severely dealt with, but then, Bush should have been more severely dealt with for driving drunk, too.

Also, note the bribery scandal investigation. (from the first poster's link)




A far more serious charge, IMO, because the company allegedly had or has business with unsavory characters in power.

Someday soon we'll have a death penalty for corporations who do these things a few times too often, and I hope I see it in my lifetime. Exxon-Mobil needs to go first in the corporate electric-chair, with Haliburton and several others close behind.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=1810

In two surprising recent cases, a law school professor and a circuit court judge seek to revoke the charters of corporate lawbreakers.

[quote]"That's why I'm so strong for accountability"[/quote]
[quote]"there has to be a consequence"[/quote]
[quote]"You see, there has to be a consequence."[/quote]
[quote]"We need to have accountability"[/quote]
[quote]"the best way......is to hold people accountable for -- for breaking the law"[/quote]
[quote]"there needs to be a consequence, enforcement of the law"[/quote]
George W. Bush - Presidential Debate 10/17/00
http://www.c-span.org/campaign2000/transcr...bate_101700.asp

[quote]"or there's going to be a consequence"[/quote]
[quote]"there needs to be a consequence at the federal level"[/quote]
[quote]"there will be a federal consequence"[/quote]
[quote]"there has to be a consequence."[/quote]
[quote]we're going to make sure people get punished
for the crime"[/quote]
[quote]"Well, it starts with enforcing the law"[/quote]
[quote]"there ought to be a consequence"[/quote]
[quote]"But there also needs to be strong enforcement of the law."[/quote]
[quote]"and strong accountability"[/quote]
George W. Bush - Presidential Debate 10/11/00
http://www.c-span.org/campaign2000/transcr...bate_101100.asp

From a variety of topics, all in sequential order if you care to look up the specifics, but you get the drift of the underlying thmem here don't you?

Bush likes to talk about how everyone else needs to held acoountable and should have to suffer a consequence, but doesn't seem to apply that same reasoning to himself and his cronies.

Is the failure of the SEC to address the responsibility of Cheney to cover the GOP in the election year?
I think so, this administration has made it quite clear that if you do anything they don't like or puts them in a negative spotlight that "there will be consequences".

Why isn't the dems making more out of this right now?
For the same reason mostly, I think as the election draws closer, and possibly the next presidential debates, this issue will resurface.

Gotta go help a freind move, I'll dig up the quotes from the other debate later.


Here's the rest:
[quote]" the cornerstone is to have strong accountability"[/quote]
[quote]" Well, I just, you know, I think that people need to be held responsible for the actions they take in life.  I think that"[/quote]
[quote]"We need to say that each of us need to be responsible for
what we do.  And people in the highest office of the land must be
responsible for decisions they make in life."[/quote]
[quote]"what you need to know about me is I'm going to uphold the law"[/quote]
[quote]"I'm going to have an attorney general
that enforces the law"[/quote]
[quote]"I think we need to fully enforce the law.  I mean, I think we
need to have an attorney general that says if laws are broken, we'll
enforce the law, be strict about it, be firm about it."[/quote]
George W. Bush - Presidential Debate 10/03/00

http://www.c-span.org/campaign2000/transcr...bate_100300.asp

To me, it boggles the mind that over, compared to this, basically trivial events like whitewater, travelgate, filegate- that so much hay was made over and "character" was such an issue- that there aren't adds 24/7 by the dems on this, and repubs, that were so much for "character" issues- aren't calling for his resignation.

I totally agree with you CruisingRam it is very mind boggling that this seems to be a non-issue right now. As well as others I had discovered while reading "Worse than Watergate". Like while Cheney was running Halliburton in 1998 doing business with countries that had sanctions from the USA against them at the time. The three that had sanctions at the time were Iraq(sound familiar ), Iran (hmm), and Libya.

Halliburton's Iraq Deals Greater Than Cheney Has Said - Washington Post

What I find also interesting remember a few months ago when the Asbestos Litigation Reform was brought up again by Orrin Hatch like he did back in 1998. Halliburton purchased Dresser in 1998 and said even though Dresser's asbestos litigation cases were nothing to worry about. But the problem is even today there are 117,000 pending asbestos cases that could be financially disastrous for Halliburton which "according to the SEC could cost an estimated $3.4 billion". (Worse than Watergate page 52.)

While doing some searching I did find an article by National Review from back in 2002 before the 2002 elections which might answer why the democrats aren't calling them on it, but that was before the SEC found Halliburton guilty.

Get Cheney: Democrats try to hang the veep with Halliburton - Dick Cheney



Its funny back in 2002 The National Review thought their was possible lacking evidence of fraud against either Halliburton or Cheney seems like they let one get away. Even from articles I looked at after reading Worse than Watergate show that Cheney's replacement said Cheney was well aware of the accounting practicing changes.

From the footnote in the book Worse than Watergate the Newsweek article

Claybrook's assertion (Public Citizen, btw, is a left-liberal group) must be examined in the light of how the SEC has treated the myriad of other companies that have been fined recently. From my passing knowledge, with the rare exceptions of Enron and Global Crossing, its usually the company and sometimes the accounting types that take the hit in these situations. Whether or not this is just is another question, but it is SOP. Thus, I find it difficult to believe that the SEC is covering for Cheney.

That's not reasonable Bikerdad,
According to this research study the highest officials in a company are usually "in the know" on frauds and cheats...
....to the tune of 80% of them:


Just because CEO's and their ilk find ways to avoid getting in trouble for their crimes in no way means that Cheney hasn't found a way to avoid getting in trouble for his crimes

He simply used his political influence.

I find this "informational" site rather hilarious. The White house is rife with SEC vilolators. Considering George Bush's religious tendencies one has ot assume he had a heavy guage lightning rod intallled in the dome of the White house....

LHR, I don't deny that "senior executives" are frequently involved. I simply said that CEOs are rarely taken down as a result. Nothing in your quote contradicts what I said, and without a breakdown of how many CEOs vs. CFOs vs. Controllers vs. COOs vs. Senior VPs, the 80% figure does nothing to establish widespread CEO culpability.

BTW, love your presumption of innocence.

No need for a presumption of innocense when I have clear responsibility to talk about

It's amazing how conservatives talk about responsibility but then make excuses for
their figure heads who avoid responsibility. GEESH. Even Democrats came out during Monica-gate and said that Clinton made a huge mistake. Yes, they also said his attackers were bloodthirsty, but they made no excuses for him and his affair.

However, here you have a man who is running a company that is submitting fraudulent accounting and he isn't respnsible?

Conservatives want teachers to be responsible for kids' test scores even though they have no control over the kids' upbringing and home-life.

They want individuals to be responsible for their poverty/wealth even when immoral practices are exercised against the poor who have no other options (loan shark rates on loans, "credit builder" credit cards, rent-to-own schemes, etc..)

They want countries to be responsible for the terror cells active in thier borders (even though we can neither stop the cells in our own country or in those we occupy)


But they DON'T want their president to be responsible for his bad decisions or the vice-president (and other CEO types) to be responsible for the criminal behaviors of the companies they run.


Let me tell you this: In the real world, when an team or organization fails miserably it is the coach/leader who takes the blame.

Why do conservatives keep giving Bush/Cheney a free pass on every responsibility?

That's an easy one to answer.

We weight things differently than you liberals do, so the score is different. As far as I'm concerned, it isn't the President's job to make sure I have a job or cheap drugs (hallucinogenic or medicinal). Its his job to make sure that some Islamofascist lunatics don't kill me or mine.

I disagree with you, Bikerdad. I don't think Republicans weight things differently. I think it's a matter of numbers, specifically the majority in the Senate and the majority in the House. That's the problem when either party has too much control; the necessity for bipartisanship is gone and so is a degree of fairness.

This is just one more thing regarding Cheney that reveals he's a pretty slippery guy who knows his way around the legislators and the courts. He hasn't revealed the names of the people who were on his Energy Task Force either. It reminds me of an SNL skit that was shown after Clinton was not removed from office for Monicagate: "Heh, he...I'm bulletproof--next time bring Kryptonite."