War profiteering: Not Halliburton, this time its Edwards

War profiteering: Not Halliburton, this time its Edwards
by MarcTGFG
Tue Jun 15th, 2004 at 07:56:34 EDT



http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/6/15/75634/5691


Yikes.

You apparently need to look it up.

Besides, on the VP front any mention of Halliburton is an absolute gift. Bring it on.

like smart investing to me and the trust is blind isn't it??

The Repuglians seem to think it's going to be Edwards, so they are starting to throw darts at him now.

I'm only passing this along, as I thought it was interesting.

And Kos has supporters of all the VP potentials, and some of them don't like each other.

There was a really sweet nugget of idiocy he came out with the other week. I'm trying to remember.

There was a really sweet nugget of idiocy he came out with the other week. I'm trying to remember.

Although the blog posting idiotic comments does bug me.

I always got the impression he was a Dean supporter?

Either way, his site is interesting and he does a good job raising money for democratic candidates.

I never questioned Kos being a dem by the way. People need to reread what I said and what I was responding to.

There was no garentee that he would make any special advantage money on what he did because hundreds of thousands of people were probably doing the same thing. War profiteering my ass.

Wait, I didn't. Tens of thousands of people WERE NOT IN THE DECISIONMAKING of this war. So, their disgusting playing the market was....legal?

Losers always resent successful people. And Republicans always try to dis them for it. If John has $44 million why would he want more?
How much did fuckface Nadir make on HIS war stocks.
And as for Kos he can just shut up.


Dumpy and the Deanhole lost,get over it. You can't grow rice in Nevada.

:shrug:

Dem senators who like Edwards should be treated with the same weariness.
Can't have it both ways, Edwards fans.

Cheney's war-profiteering will be moot if Edwards is the VP nominee.

So comparisons won't be made. That's the point exactly. With Edwards on the ticket, there will be no finger-pointing at Cheney.

edwards didn't run any of the companies like cheney did. companies which are under investigation and have already been found guilty. edwards hasn't done anything like that.

How (at this point) could we say, "Halliburton" without guilt by association?

"I didn't know... I didn't know..." Where have we heard that excuse before?

...trust.

Edwards proves that you can have an equity interest in a corp and not have that influence your actions as a politician.

especially when it comes to big money

we can trust our politicians to tell us the truth, and to avoid conflicts of interest ... they prove it to us everyday ... integrity is impeccable ...

:eyes:

take one of my Senators, Boxer ... her 2001 Personal Financial Statement stated:

"Senator Boxer put certain assets which made a part of the public record on 8/29/01 into a blind trust which was accepted by the Senate Ethics Committee on 8/9/01."

Her 2000 Personal Financial Statement showed investments in such notables as:

Diamond Offshore Drilling; Maurice Greenberg's insurance company American International Group (AIG); Boeing; Coca Cola; Duke Energy; El Paso Energy; General Motors; General Electric; HALLIBURTON; Home Depot; Mellon Financial Corp.; Nortel; Pfizer; Wal-Mart ... to name a few ...

They're in a Blind Trust now ... phew ...

````````````````````````````````````````````````````
if the party tickets cancel (or blur together) each other out on vital issues ... they can always focus on cultural things, like Gay Marriage, prayer in school, abortion, or such ... if and when they 'debate' ... at least we can say we have a better environmental record ...

the corporate factor is such a key distinguishing factor ... you're either with them or the anti-thesis ... if you're both with them, there is no anti-thesis ...

there are inherent problems when only the wealthy are in a position to determine our laws, policy and future

source: opensecrets.org

And Kos raises a very good point. Cheney to Edwards... I don't get it kid...You criticize the war but yet you voted for it... Now you criticize me for Halliburton but yet you invested in Halliburton before the Iraq war? What gives?

- this isn't Kos's point. It's MarcTGFG, and
- Edwards didn't invest in Haliburton. I believe the blind trust invested in Lockheed Martin and United Technologies.

I was simply defending Kos for posting it but I should have included MarcTGFG... My bad... OK..so it's not as bad as it seems... Thanks

...publish a wide range of readers' opinons? Is there any reason to believe that readers' opinions are Kos's opinons?

Kos endorsed Edwards.

and no it doesn't matter that everyone does it. War profiteering is the number 1 weapon against Cheney. If Edwards is tainted on this, he can't run against Cheney, it's as simple as that.

However, it can be fixed.

1. Disavow any knowledge of the transactions (only if this is the truth)

2. Sell all stock in war companies.

3. Use the profits to set up a fund to aid wounded veterans (prostheses, specially equipped vans, etc.)

4. DO NOT try to make political points with #3. Do it and stay quiet about it.

5. Move on.

However, if Edwards had any knowledge of these stock buys in war companies by the blind trust, ANY AT ALL, he's toast and his political career is pretty much over.

And on a personal note, allow me to say THIS STINKS, because he is my first choice for VP. :(

If we're going to get picky about playing the market, then there's no reason to single Edwards out; he has plenty of company. Even if, I don't think there's anything he did that could put him in the same group with Cheney.

but a $44 million senator investing in blind trusts running as a populist ISN'T.

Most average citizens have no earthly idea what a blind trust is - all they will see is: $44 million and Halliburton.

should have seen it coming.

I'm a supporter of Edwards for VP, but we have to know every possible attack as soon as possible.

A blind trust?

What's he going to say about it?

>> I'm a supporter of Edwards for VP, but we have to know every possible attack as soon as possible. <<

If the GOOPers can't make hay of this, then no harm no foul. But my guess is that they will be on this like sharks to blood.

I am of the mindset that the GOP won't be too quick to jump on this one... but rather, steer as clear as possible, for fear of bringing the attention more severely upon themselves.

However, my point remains in that having this tainted information waters down our ability to point the finger at Cheney... for many of the same reasons.

How do you attack and avoid at the same time? You wait for someone's dog to attack, and then point fingers childishly while making a myriad of excuses.

Edwards is a fine and knowledgeable lawyer, and a skilled politician... surely he knows what happens when the smallest shred of connection can be made. You can stand on top of Capitol Hill and scream your innocence, but once you're tainted, it's a lot harder to get people to listen.

I want Edwards to be able to go after Cheney. Cheney's war profiteering sickens me as much as anything this administration has done, and I want Edwards to be able to tear into him without reservation.

That's the key to it, isn't it? No matter the "dids" and "didn't"... it's the "reservation." No secret I'm a Clark-gal, but Edwards is my second choice. While I have hopes, Edwards would do well in the position and in the debates, as long as this doesn't stand in the way of unreserved Cheney-bashing.

also...Gosh I hope not.

...buying military contractor stock just days before the war...hmmmm

Thanks, but no thanks. We don't need another DICK CHENEY.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295/

MATTHEWS: OK. I just want to get one thing straight so that we know how you would have been different in president if you had been in office the last four years as president. Would you have gone to Afghanistan?

EDWARDS: I would.

MATTHEWS: Would you have gone to Iraq?

EDWARDS: I would have gone to Iraq. I

...no background in FP, and would put us in messes he can't fix.

basically anyone can do diary entries. They only show up for several hours as they move down and then out. Individuals can list any story they want in their diaries.

The KOS site is not promoting this story and should not be attacked and certainly not KOS himself. They are doing great things promoting some Key House and Senate races to help take back the Senate and House.

And yes, KOS site tends to be filled with Dean supporters and in general they have been pretty pro Edwards...both KOS and Trapper John supported Edwards after Dean dropped.

Good think that it was not on the main blog! Not sanctioned by the Dean/Edwards...whatever.

too bad more people don't follow his example.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295/

he agreed with everything except them Halliburton contracts. Hmmm....

I own some computer stock, but that doesn't mean I sanction everything the company does.

If anyone owns a mutual fund, they probably own some defense contractor stock, plus stock of companies that pollute, etc.

It's impossible to invest for the future w/o investing in big companies, and diversity is the name of the game.

I have no problem with making money. I invested in my 401(k) before the war started, because stocks' prices were low. I didn't cause the war. It was going to happen. So I bought while the prices were good. Nothing wrong with that, as far as I can see.

war stock, the SEC, ethics committee may have some problems. Wanting to start elective wars while positioning yourself for a profit out of it presenrs a huge problem for me. Your computers don't kill people - do they? And if you have insider info, SEC might want to talk to ya, unless you are connected with BFEE

Sen. Edwards did not and could not know what assets the trustee bought and sold; that's why it's called a blind trust.

come on, you must know that's not the problem, right?

The trustee invests, sells and buys, all without any knowledge or input from the beneficiary (-ies) of the blind trust. He then writes a check.

What problem?

:shrug:

probably Kerry's best message in this campaign, especially against the masters of dodging accountability.

No VP candidate can hide behind a dodge as lame as "it was a blind trust."

It's entirely truthful. Short of ggiving his fortune away to the poor, the best one can do is to put it in a blind trust--- called 'blind' for a very real reason: the beneficiary has NO knowledge of what the trustee does with the assets.

give away to charity or invest in a blind trust?

Makes no sense, of course there's other choices.

For a prominent politician running for President (or US Senator, e.g.), what other options are there, realistically? I'm all ears...

:shrug:

what's not realistic about that?

That would be 'profiting from the war', wouldn't it? How about General electric? Oops, wait--- they make jet engines for fighter planes (or bombers), so that would be 'profiting from the war', too. How about...?

See my point?

and those investments discussed in the article were defense contractors which demonstrably benefitted from the war.

Heinz foods is not a defense contractor.

Heinz Foods sells food, etc., to the military; thus, they are also a 'defense contractor', Cocoa. The problem here is that the economy is so integrated that it is virtually impossible to find a company that is NOT in some way associated with the military.

Once again, Edwards had NO control over the purchase or sale of stock or other assets in the trust, and that is the ONLY point worth mentioning. Any attempt to make something out of what is clearly NOT there must, perforce, bring the motives of the questioner into the limelight.

you win, Heinz foods is a defense contractor. :eyes:

rather desperate to smear our man Edwards. Sad.

the America that pays the taxes for war, and fights in the wars, and the America that reaps the booty.

with a big smile and deep pockets. In other words, he's an empty suit.