PDA

View Full Version : Liz Cheney The LIAR Halliburton FRAUD



Gayle in MD
07-12-2010, 12:07 PM
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/07/12/huffington-vs-politifact-and-liz-cheney-escapes/

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>Arianna Huffington vs. PolitiFact . . . and Liz Cheney Escapes
</span>
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? That's a Latin phrase from the Roman poet Juvenal, which roughly means "Who watches the watchmen?" But what's Latin for "Who fact-checks the fact-checkers?"

Recently, there was a tussle between blogger/media titan Arianna Huffington and PolitiFact.com that raises this question.

PolitiFact, the Pulitzer Prize-winning project of the St. Petersburg Times, vets statements from elected officials and others and rates them on its Truth-O-Meter. Appearing on ABC's "This Week" June 6, Huffington noted that the company, which has had a role in the BP oil spill, "defrauded the American taxpayer of hundreds of millions of dollars." Liz Cheney, whose father was Halliburton's CEO before becoming George Bush's vice president, was also part of the round-table discussion that day. She declared that Huffington was living on another planet and that her assertion had "no relationship to the facts." Huffington responded, "I'm so glad PolitiFact is going to be checking this."

In April, Jake Tapper, the interim host of "This Week," had asked PolitiFact to fact-check guests on the show, accepting an idea first proposed by New York University journalism professor Jay Rosen. So, as she was jousting on-air with Cheney, Huffington thought she could corner her. And PolitiFact was game. As the site put it, "We have a hard time resisting when people on national television ask us to fact-check them." PolitiFact assigned one of its veteran vetters, Angie Drobnic Holan, to the case, and three days later, it issued its verdict.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The PolitiFact report noted that Halliburton's former subsidiary, KBR, which held one of the largest contracts assigned during the Iraq war (bagging about $31 billion), has repeatedly been questioned about its fulfillment of contracts. PolitiFact referred to a congressional investigation that found Halliburton had overcharged the government $167 million for its purchases of gasoline, and noted that a government audit had charged KBR with overcharging $4.5 million for meals it provided. PolitiFact also pointed out:

Government auditors have noted that KBR refused to turn over electronic data in its native format and stamped documents as proprietary and secret when the documents would normally be considered public records.
The group added: </span>
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Over the course of several years, the Defense Contract Audit Agency found that $553 million in payments should be disallowed to KBR, according to 2009 testimony by agency director April Stephenson before the bipartisan Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan.</span>
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Commissioner Charles Tiefer, a professor at the University of Baltimore Law School, said that amount represents a small portion of everything that auditors examined as potentially questionable.
The PolitiFact report further noted that the Justice Department is suing KBR for "knowingly including impermissible costs" in its bills to the U.S. government, and the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) director has estimated these bills could total $99 million or more.

But after outlining all this, PolitiFact pronounced Huffington's statement merely "Half True." What bugged PolitiFact was her use of the word "defrauded." It explained:

Some of the overbilling in Iraq appears to have been done from haste or inefficiency, or even in a desire to please military officials in the field without regard for cost. Whether the waste in contracting constitutes fraud is still being examined.
But PolitiFact also said:

In ruling on Huffington's statement, we find much in the public record to support her statement, most notably the Justice Department lawsuit. Certainly there have been hundreds of millions of dollars that Halliburton's KBR attempted to charge the government that have been denied.
Understandably, the "Half True" verdict did not go over well with Huffington. In a column, she fired back, characterizing PolitiFact's conclusion as "an object lesson in equivocation, and a prime exhibit of the kind of muddled thinking that dominates Washington and allows the powerful to escape accountability." She added: </span>This isn't to lump PolitiFact in with Liz Cheney, but its attempt to bend over backwards to find the comfort of the middle ground is part of the problem it was presumably formed to combat.
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Huffington cited a DCAA audit that found KBR had filed more than $1.4 billion in questionable costs and $441 million in unsupported costs. She sarcastically poked at PolitiFact's assertion that there's "much evidence that makes us believe that hundreds of millions of dollars were lost to waste and inefficiency, not deceitful fraud":</span>
<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Really? "Hundreds of millions" lost due to "waste and inefficiency"? Sure, no program is perfect, but when "hundreds of millions of dollars" just disappear, they don't fall between the sofa cushions.</span> And why is it that all of Halliburton/KBR's "inefficiency" somehow redounded to the company's benefit and not the government's? In any case, the best defense PolitiFact could muster is that Halliburton/KBR was only a little fraudulent, and simply hugely, massively, and spectacularly incompetent. Thus, my statement was adjudicated Half True.
I'm a fan of the HuffingtonPost and PolitiFact. But it did strike me that Huffington had done a good job depicting PolitiFact as wishy-washy in its evaluation of her slam on Halliburton. Days later, PolitiFact replied to her assault.

Bill Adair, the Washington bureau chief of the St. Petersburg Times and editor of PolitiFact, insisted it was "silly to suggest we were seeking a safe 'middle ground.' In fact, two days after her column ran, Huffington Post published a piece by another writer complaining that we gave Democrats too many False ratings." He acknowledged that the "Half True" rating can be quite frustrating, explaining that it means a statement "is accurate but leaves out important details or take things out of context."

As for Huffington's specific charge about Halliburton and KBR, Adair noted that "hundreds of millions of dollars have been identified as wasteful and potentially fraudulent, but the lines are not clear." But was PolitiFact giving Halliburton and KBR too much benefit of the doubt? When a company files more than $1.5 billion in questionable or unsupported costs and half a billion dollars in bills are disallowed, what's going on? I'm reminded of another media phenomenon: how difficult it is for mainstream media journalists to declare a president has lied. (I cover that here.)

Adair has a counter-case. But he ends up relying on a cliche, noting proudly that PolitiFact has been blasted by conservatives it has fact-checked and also by liberals, as if this means it's doing something right. He writes, "The lesson of these episodes and many others is that we have found one thing that conservatives and liberals agree on: They don't like it when independent news organizations hold them accountable for what they say."

I suppose no one does. So I hope Adair takes it well when I point out that PolitiFact did miss a big piece of this story. Readers can judge for themselves if Huffington was ill-advised or justified in using the word "defrauded" on the basis of all those investigations and findings. (<span style='font-size: 14pt'>I lean toward calling fraud "fraud.") But what is beyond dispute is that Liz Cheney was dead wrong. On "This Week," she said that Huffington's charge had "no relationship to the facts." Given that even the stingy vetters of PolitiFact concluded there is "much in the public record to support [Huffington's] statement," Cheney's denial deserves the Truth-O-Meter's "Pants on Fire" rating. </span>
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Yet PolitiFact didn't evaluate Cheney's remark. So here's the real problem: Huffington made a charge that was rooted in reality. Cheney responded with a statement that had no basis in reality. Yet PolitiFact zeroed in only on the former and let the real lie escape. True, Huffington had dared PolitiFact to review her remark. But Adair and his intrepid band were free to expand the mission. The greater public service would have been to compare Huffington's and Cheney's comments and determine who was closer to the truth. This is where PolitiFact truly fell short.</span>Having said that, I hope that this column survives any subsequent fact-checking -- and that both Huffington and PolitiFact continue to expose officials, candidates and pundits who flagrantly mug the truth to cover up the misdeeds and improbities of the powerful.

You can follow David Corn's postings and media appearances via Twitter.

yaz
07-12-2010, 12:45 PM
very interesting post..!!!!

Sid_Vicious
07-12-2010, 11:15 PM
Darlin' Gayle...maybe it's just me, but when I see a long "read" in your posts, I stripe it fairly fast and skip the brain power of reading. I know that there is genuine "meat" to your post when you make these, and you KNOW I am on your side always, but just realize that if I skip the details,,,the you really should condense, highlight, PRONOUNCE and link the whole story for impact. Gayle, you have to know I am totally inside your news, but even I can't put the energy into the lengthy words in these posts you make. Let me put it a different way. "When these C&P, long pieces are made...the very first people you INTENDED to read these, surely skip them quickly. "Q" makes some good lead-in posts with follow-up links, and he's pretty good with those. it hardly does me, Jack, and Q much good to see the bodies of text to try to read all by ourselves. Sorry Gayle, I just needed to be totally honest. sid

Gayle in MD
07-13-2010, 01:07 AM
Dear Martin,
To each his own. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Sid_Vicious
07-13-2010, 01:30 AM
If you write or post to inform the opposite viewpoints, and then even your "agreeing" readers do not read the lengthy posts that you C&P in the body...how do you think you will ever make a point with the opposite thinkers for a chance to change their ways of thinking? Seriously Gayle, it's impossible, unless you like writing to the choir to begin with. JM2C sid

Gayle in MD
07-13-2010, 01:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sid_Vicious</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you write or post to inform the opposite viewpoints, and then even your "agreeing" readers do not read the lengthy posts that you C&P in the body...how do you think you will ever make a point with the opposite thinkers for a chance to change their ways of thinking? Seriously Gayle, it's impossible, unless you like writing to the choir to begin with. JM2C sid </div></div>

Martin, respectfully, I provide the information, no one is forced to read it, however, several friends here like having it easily available, so I like to accomodate them.

I don't post for the "opposition" and I wouldn't call them "thinkers" either. Their posts have devolved to nothing but juvennile insults, which has always been the way they leaned, and their usual FAUX News lies, nothing more than propaganda.

I wouldn't expect them to learn a damn thing from anything out there anywhere, other than their usual hateful, Anti-american rhetoric, and denials, they are completely uninformed, and obviously prefer to stay that way.

I really don't see it as a problem for others.

G.

Qtec
07-13-2010, 03:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Martin, respectfully, I provide the information, no one is forced to read it, </div></div>

That's the whole point Gayle. No one, including myself, reads posts that long.


Q

LWW
07-13-2010, 04:07 AM
It amazes me that she expects others to read what she herself does not read.

I probably read more of G's lengthy C/P than many/most/all here ... and what I get from it is that it seldom supports what she claims that it does, and when it does the actual "evidence" is as often as not nonexistent.

LWW

hondo
07-13-2010, 05:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

I probably read more of G's lengthy C/P than many/most/all here ...

LWW </div></div>

Well, sure, you do, Larry. You have more time than the rest of us do.

Qtec
07-13-2010, 07:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I probably read more of G's lengthy C/P than many/most/all here . </div></div>

If you read it you obviously are too far gone to read the post objectively because you never seem to 'get it'..


Off Topic.

Did Bush spy on Americans illegally? Yes or No.

Everyone knows the answer, do you?

Q

Gayle in MD
07-13-2010, 08:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Martin, respectfully, I provide the information, no one is forced to read it, </div></div>

That's the whole point Gayle. No one, including myself, reads posts that long.


Q </div></div>

They can be skimmed over, no? What's the big deal anyway? How hard is it to scroll on by, or skim the post, if someone finds it too long to fully read, for the time available.

G.

Gayle in MD
07-13-2010, 08:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: yaz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">very interesting post..!!!! </div></div>

Thanks, glad someone thought so.
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

pooltchr
07-13-2010, 08:08 AM
ROTFLMAO!

Q tells you he ignores your posts, and you agree with him that they aren't worth reading!!!!!!!!!!!


Steve

Qtec
07-13-2010, 08:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">ROTFLMAO!

Q tells you he ignores your posts, and you agree with him that they aren't worth reading!!!!!!!!!!!


Steve </div></div>

Eh no.

Just like Sid, I said think G can make her posts more catching and appealing by making them shorter.
There is nothing wrong with the content of her posts, it just when you post whole pages of text instead of linking, people tend to skim through and go to the next post.

Q

Qtec
07-13-2010, 08:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">and you agree with him that they aren't worth reading </div></div>

To be honest, most of them I have already read.

Q

Gayle in MD
07-13-2010, 08:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">ROTFLMAO!

Q tells you he ignores your posts, and you agree with him that they aren't worth reading!!!!!!!!!!!


Steve </div></div>

Eh no.

Just like Sid, I said think G can make her posts more catching and appealing by making them shorter.
There is nothing wrong with the content of her posts, it just when you post whole pages of text instead of linking, people tend to skim through and go to the next post.

Q </div></div>

Thanks Q, and Martin,
I make an effort to do just that. I really didn't realize it was such a problem.

My lap top starts to act up when I have more than one site opened up at a time, which is partly why I was going about it that way.

As for the right, they don't read any of our posted proof, regardless of how it is posted, IMO. Or when they do, they twist what is there, to suit themselves, hence, I thought that maybe posting all the information might eliminate their cherry picking and twisting of the overall documentation of the information.

sorry...

G.

eg8r
07-13-2010, 08:31 AM
Great post sid. I think of us skip through the really long posts. To be honest I don't place much interest in what the original author from the quote is saying on the subject because they all have their bias and judging on who posted the quote I can already tell the bias. What I want to read is what the poster has to say about the issue, their own thoughts.

eg8r

eg8r
07-13-2010, 08:36 AM
Well I don't think q said he ignores them. We already know gayle's position on all matters in the news right now. So given that knowledge and a little deduction we can usually tell you what her quoted text is going to say. Like most of us we just skim through and pick and choose what we want to comment on. Ironically she then gets pissy when we don't comment on what she wants us to comment on because she didn't highlight anything and just posted everything.

The problem with gayle is even when those on her side are letting her know her long texts are not useful she is still unwilling to budge. She honestly thinks she knows all, whether it is about subject matter, or value-added posting. Remember she is only nice to you when you agree with her. For the rest you get snubbed like Sid did in the reply, "to each his own". No more no less.

eg8r

Qtec
07-14-2010, 05:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Great post sid. I think of us skip through the really long posts. To be honest I don't place much interest in what the original author from the quote is saying on the subject because they all have their bias and judging on who posted the quote I can already tell the bias. What I want to read is what the poster has to say about the issue, their own thoughts.

eg8r </div></div>

An opinion not based on facts is worthless.

Q

hondo
07-14-2010, 06:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Great post sid. I think of us skip through the really long posts. To be honest I don't place much interest in what the original author from the quote is saying on the subject because they all have their bias and judging on who posted the quote I can already tell the bias. What I want to read is what the poster has to say about the issue, their own thoughts.

eg8r </div></div>

An opinion not based on facts is worthless.

Q </div></div>

Joe Friday: "Just give me the bare facts, ma'am."

eg8r
07-14-2010, 07:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">An opinion not based on facts is worthless.</div></div>This has always been the problem with you. Just because you found an "editorialist" that agrees with you does not make that individual "factual".

eg8r

LWW
07-14-2010, 09:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">An opinion not based on facts is worthless.</div></div>This has always been the problem with you. Just because you found an "editorialist" that agrees with you does not make that individual "factual".

eg8r </div></div>

And that in a nutshell is the far left's real problem. They are spoon fed the "TRUTH" by the likes of MediaMatters, MoveOn, and MSNBC and then immediately dismiss anyone and anything which contradicts the party line.

LWW

Sid_Vicious
07-14-2010, 01:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sid_Vicious</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you write or post to inform the opposite viewpoints, and then even your "agreeing" readers do not read the lengthy posts that you C&P in the body...how do you think you will ever make a point with the opposite thinkers for a chance to change their ways of thinking? Seriously Gayle, it's impossible, unless you like writing to the choir to begin with. JM2C sid </div></div>

Martin, respectfully, I provide the information, no one is forced to read it, however, several friends here like having it easily available, so I like to accomodate them.

I don't post for the "opposition" and I wouldn't call them "thinkers" either. Their posts have devolved to nothing but juvennile insults, which has always been the way they leaned, and their usual FAUX News lies, nothing more than propaganda.

I wouldn't expect them to learn a damn thing from anything out there anywhere, other than their usual hateful, Anti-american rhetoric, and denials, they are completely uninformed, and obviously prefer to stay that way.

I really don't see it as a problem for others.

G. </div></div>

OK, it just seems that there gets to be battles from the idots on the right(wrong) side spewing that they have not seen the facts, which just begins a vicious circle of "I provided that information, just read." We both surely know they won't read beyond 2 sentences unless there are pictures, so I thought that it was worthy of a suggestion to make the glaring facts bold and then provide a link for the entire article. I personally have a limited amount of interest in reading long posts, or to be more honest, read long anythings, hence my books here at home are dusty.

Sooooo, if you are having fun, then I understand the basics of your personal reasons for the lengthy C&P messages. These messages won't even begin to grasp attention from the idiots on the right/wrong. IMO, that is a given, even if one of them was mildly interested in the key points you presented, I don't think they'd finish a dual-windowed message. I don't, and I'm on your side. I'll leave it alone, it's all your choice, and that's fine and dandy. sid

pooltchr
07-14-2010, 01:41 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sid_Vicious</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
We both surely know they won't read beyond 2 sentences unless there are pictures,

I personally have a limited amount of interest in reading long posts, </div></div>

Gayle,
Your friend is trying to tell you something. And although he managed to slip in an insult about the right not being interested in reading your crap, in the same post, he admits he isn't interested in reading it either. (Does that mean he is much like those he would try to insult?)

I know you won't listen to anyone you have deemed to be "beneath you", but your friend is actually trying to help you.

It might be worth your consideration.

Steve

eg8r
07-14-2010, 01:41 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We both surely know they won't read beyond 2 sentences unless there are pictures, so I thought that it was worthy of a suggestion to make the glaring facts bold and then provide a link for the entire article. I personally have a limited amount of interest in reading long posts, or to be more honest, read long anythings, hence my books here at home are dusty.
</div></div>This is great stuff sid. First you try to make a dig at the righties as not reading more than 2 sentences and then you turn around and say that is exactly what you do. Now I don't think I am the only one here that would disagree with you being a righty so it seems you might have hypocritically chastised a group of people for doing something you practice regularly.

eg8r

hondo
07-14-2010, 10:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">An opinion not based on facts is worthless.</div></div>This has always been the problem with you. Just because you found an "editorialist" that agrees with you does not make that individual "factual".

eg8r </div></div>

And that in a nutshell is the far left's real problem. They are spoon fed the "TRUTH" by the likes of MediaMatters, MoveOn, and MSNBC and then immediately dismiss anyone and anything which contradicts the party line.

LWW </div></div>

Must quote Limberger.
Must quote Limberger.
Must quote Limberger.

Gayle in MD
07-15-2010, 10:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Great post sid. I think of us skip through the really long posts. To be honest I don't place much interest in what the original author from the quote is saying on the subject because they all have their bias and judging on who posted the quote I can already tell the bias. What I want to read is what the poster has to say about the issue, their own thoughts.

eg8r </div></div>

An opinion not based on facts is worthless.

Q </div></div>

Here he is again, doing another switcheroo. In another thread, he's whining for a link to my post. Why, if he doen't care about what the author writes????

Ed knows more than the director of the CIA, who wrote a letter to the Senate Investigation Committee, confirming that Valarie Plame was a NOC, CIA Secret Agent, when the Bush Administration had to try to slander her, and her husband, because they lied to the Congress about Saddam, and the supposed attempt to get Yellow Cake, and Joe Wilson had the courage to expose their lies....

Can a person be anymore indoctrinated into the Party Propaganda than THAT?

Reminds me of LWW, trying to make a case that Bush's tax cuts for the millionaire's ended up on the plus side!!!!

It's been proven, over and over again, that is not what Bush's Tax cuts did. The budget was a joke under Bush, he just ran everything through his "Credit Card" with the communists.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

eg8r
07-16-2010, 06:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here he is again, doing another switcheroo. In another thread, he's whining for a link to my post. </div></div>So you are now calling yourself a whiner? Sorry granny but all I have done is copy your attitude on the board. I am glad that is what it took for you to see what a miserable person you are to deal with.

What is it about stupid that makes you want to display it in all your posts? If you are going to plagiarize someone else's work then I am going to follow your suit and request a link. Quit being hypocritical.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
07-16-2010, 08:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here he is again, doing another switcheroo. In another thread, he's whining for a link to my post. </div></div>So you are now calling yourself a whiner? Sorry granny but all I have done is copy your attitude on the board. I am glad that is what it took for you to see what a miserable person you are to deal with.

What is it about stupid that makes you want to display it in all your posts? If you are going to plagiarize someone else's work then I am going to follow your suit and request a link. Quit being hypocritical.

eg8r </div></div>

Continuing to attack another user.