Well, whod'a thunk it?

A Halliburton subsidiary that has been subjected to numerous investigations for billions of dollars in contracts it received for work in Iraq has systematically misused federal rules to withhold basic information on its practices from American officials, a federal oversight agency said yesterday.
...
Henry A. Waxman, the California Democrat who is the ranking minority member of the House Committee on Government Reform and was one of the earliest critics of KBR's use of the proprietary label, said the new memo showed how the company had tried to conceal "corporate profiteering during wartime."

Yeah, you go Henry. On November 8th, it's all you!

You know, here's a story from the New York Times that pretty much summarizes why November 7th is so important. The first two grafs...

Frustrated with laws and regulations that have made companies and accounting firms more open to lawsuits from investors and the government, corporate America - with the encouragement of the Bush administration - is preparing to fight back.

Now that corruption cases like Enron and WorldCom are falling out of the news, two influential industry groups with close ties to administration officials are hoping to swing the regulatory pendulum in the opposite direction. The groups are drafting proposals to provide broad new protections to corporations and accounting firms from criminal cases brought by federal and state prosecutors as well as a stronger shield against civil lawsuits from investors.

So yeah, sure. Make businesses absolutely immune from criminal prosecution and civil litigation. What a great (and ultimately) republican idea! Shielding companies from federal and state prosecution for malfeasance! What a concept!

Notice that it's a plan being encouraged and espoused by none other than the 1600 Crew. I guess that after MBNA got their bankruptcy bill with the help of MBNA Joe Biden, these other guys figure that they have no real problems getting absolute immunity from Congress with the help of Beloved Leader. Let's see how long it will be before he starts making speeches (to selected audiences) about how not passing this legislation will drastically affect the competitiveness of American Business because they are soooo overburdened with you know, having to watch their asses and do the right thing.

The only thing keeping most companies from selling sub-standard shit are (1) some vestige of market forces, but mostly (2) fear of being sued and/or prosecuted. Yeah, those "voluntary" measures work oh-so-well, don't they?

Is this just funny (not in that humorous TBogg way, but in that sad, pathetic way) or am I missing something?

President Bush, campaigning aggressively ahead of the high-stakes Nov. 7 elections, said Saturday Democrats should not be trusted to control Congress because they have no idea how to win in Iraq.

Did he have a phone call from GAWD last night?

It's finally time for Jim Webb and the other veterans who have served honorably and valiantly, whether it was counting blivets or winning the Navy Cross to finally start pointing out the fact that their opponents who avoided Military Service are fucking loathsome human beings, and one of the reasons is that they (the opponent) avoided Military Service, usually with every fiber of their being. (See: Five Deferments Dick)

They are not always completely loathsome for having avoided service, but for thinking that their brand of self-serving patriotism somehow gives them license to attack Vets of any stripe. And if, in the process of pointing out these loathsome, self-serving pricks are well, just that, it comes out that they are dickless, self-indulgent cowards, well so be it.

No more swiftboating. No. More. I am sick of watching men and women who served honorably having to tip-toe around their opponents choice to not perform military service, when their Chickenhawk/Yellow Elephant opponents seem to have no compunction at smearing them for anything that they think will give them an advantage, especially based on military service, or any related facts.

Another JACKabramOFF-ette bites the proverbial dust. David Safavian, another ethically challenged crony-appointment to the GSA is going away for 18 months in another Abramoff conviction. Geez, these guys can start their own white-collar prison gang...

A federal judge yesterday sentenced David H. Safavian, a former top Bush administration official, to 18 months in prison for lying and concealing unethical dealings with lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
...
"Did he believe in public service? I guess he did," Friedman said. "But he also wanted someday to join Mr. Abramoff in that lucrative lobbying business."
...
Safavian, 39, a former chief of staff for the General Services Administration, wept as he told Friedman that he knows now he never should have given Abramoff inside information about government-owned real estate that the lobbyist wanted to acquire. At the time, Safavian said, he thought what he was doing was innocuous. "I didn't see anything wrong in helping Jack," he said.
...
Barbara Van Gelder, Safavian's attorney, urged leniency, telling Friedman that Safavian exhibited an ethical "blind spot" in his dealings with the brazen and flashy Abramoff. "He may have been blinded, dazzled," she said, but his wrongdoing with Abramoff was "isolated, not a man beginning a life of crime."

Not a drop of sympathy for this man from me. Had he not gotten caught, he'd have continued to play the game, and moved on to being in the same league as his buddy, Jack. Buying and Selling CongressCriminals and their favors for fun and mostly profit.

I just want to know how stupid he thought the judge was to testify that paying $3,100 dollars for a week at St. Andrews in Scotland was "fair market value". Incredible.

All the content from the 7th to today is gone. There was a server crash at my hosting company and they could only restore up to the 6th of October.

So, all that wit and wisdom is lost for all time. [/snark off]

Apparently my hosting company must have had a server problem, and much of my recent content has vanished. (I hope there's a back-up).

More later (I hope).

Jo

1. A shocker! (Not!)
   
2. Why we have to win
   
3. Unintentional funny?
   
4. Jim Webb
   
5. Yeah, baby!
   
6. Gone
   
7. Something's wrong here