Kerry Spot    [ jim geraghty reporting ]
[ kerry spot home | archives | email ]

Back during the GOP convention, the Democratic National Committee released this press release: "Democrats' One Word Response to Cheney: Halliburton."

Some connoisseurs of political argument and rhetoric might want multi-word responses to the man a heartbeat away from the presidency. Verbs, adjectives, heck, even a participle phrase might be in order.

But DNC Chair Terry McAuliffe, the architect of his party's sterling victories in the 2002 midterm elections and the cunning mind behind "Operation Fortunate Son," has concluded that the four syllables of the Contractor That Must Not Be Named have such awesome persuasive power that those other parts of a sentence are gilding the lily.

Dana Milbank, the Washington Post White House "reporter," has written that "there is seemingly no charge the Bush campaign can level against John F. Kerry that will not produce a one-word retort: Halliburton."

Newsday throws out the Democrats' charge in plain sight:

Four years after relinquishing the helm of one of the world's largest energy companies, Cheney has been unable to shrug off persistent and growing criticism about his stewardship of Halliburton and its intimate involvement in the administration's most serious undertaking: the war in Iraq.

Persistent, growing...and mostly off base.

Fourteen paragraphs in, Newsday bothers to mention, "None of the investigations have singled Cheney out for wrongdoing. The vice president has complied with financial disclosure rules and promised to donate to charity any after-tax profits from company stock options he maintains."

Even Milbank wrote, "There is no proof the government was wrong to award Iraq contracts to Halliburton without competitive bidding, or that Cheney helped his former employer."

In fact, if you look at most stories about Cheney and Halliburton, the facts — well, no one has actually proven that Cheney's done something illegal or explicitly wrong — are buried at the bottom, while the shocking and scandalous allegations from Democratic officials are the lead.

After telling you what they want you to walk away with, Reuters notes:

Several documents have emerged indicating Cheney's office was aware Halliburton would get business in Iraq before it was announced, but no "smoking guns" have been found showing any impropriety or direct meddling by the vice president.

Do you love the scare quotes around "smoking gun"? "We haven't found any "facts" to "prove" that Cheney is the "epitome of all evil," but questions remain. Wink-wink. Nudge-nudge.

From the Dallas Morning News:

Cheney has released documents showing that most of his deferred salary was paid after he resigned to run in 2000 but before he took office in January 2001. He has also arranged for his stock options to be sold without his input and all proceeds to be donated to charity. Democrats say Cheney nonetheless retains a financial interest in Halliburton's success.

GovExec.com notes that:

Halliburton's work in Iraq includes a wide-ranging contract, called a LogCAP, that it won through competitive bidding in 2001 to provide food, fuel, and other logistical services to troops worldwide. That contract — most of which is for services in the Middle East — and the oil infrastructure contract are estimated to be worth a total of $11 billion. Most of that work has gone to KBR, Halliburton's construction and engineering unit.

Recently the Defense Contract Management Agency issued an approval letter that called KBR's policies and practices "effective and efficient."

A probe was launched to investigate reports that Halliburton had overcharged the government $61 million on its gasoline imports into Iraq. But as Byron York pointed out, Halliburton purchased the gas in Kuwait, where it was more expensive, instead of Turkey, because it was needed quickly in Basra, in southern Iraq, to prevent imminent civil unrest. Not only was it closer, but the supply routes from Kuwait were safer than the ones from Turkey. Once the supply routes were stabilized, gas was purchased from both sources.

And FactCheck.org points out, (futilely, apparently) that Kerry's latest ad about Halliburton gets the facts wrong:

A Kerry ad implies Cheney has a financial interest in Halliburton and is profiting from the company's contracts in Iraq. The fact is, Cheney doesn't gain a penny from Halliburton's contracts, and almost certainly won't lose even if Halliburton goes bankrupt.

The ad claims Cheney got $2 million from Halliburton "as vice president," which is false. Actually, nearly $1.6 million of that was paid before Cheney took office. More importantly, all of it was earned before he was a candidate, when he was the company's chief executive.

Now — there were cases where Halliburton employees have broken the law. Halliburton employees allegedly took $6 million in kickbacks from a Kuwaiti subcontractor, getting them fired. Pentagon auditors in August reported that the company hasn't provided enough details to substantiate $1.8 billion of its work in Iraq and Kuwait.

All of these investigations, fines, and prosecutions are cited as evidence by Cheney's foes that Halliburton is getting away with...away with...well, something bad.

Observation one: Perhaps this is the greatest diversionary tactic in history, where a corporation endures lawsuits, investigations, fines, a shattered public image and plummeting profit margins to hide really secret gains elsewhere.

Observation two: If Halliburton is somehow providing money or favors or something to Cheney in exchange for favors... isn't the vice president doing an awful lousy job? Just what is he getting all that money from the contractor for?

Wouldn't Halliburton have been better off if their previous CEO was some no-name corporate type instead of the next vice president of the United States?

Never mind. Logic is no adversary for the magic, powerful epithet of "Halliburton."

Expect for John Edwards to use Terry McAuliffe's one-word response a lot tonight.