Am I reading right. Did you just equate the ketchup business with the military industrial complex? I'm sure at this very moment Heinz and Hunt's have a large contigent of lobbyists arguing for that new law that will only let you call your stuff ketchup if it uses tomatoes from the vine.

Am I not convinced there was a little hanky panky going on with Whitewater? I'm sure there was something there. But current events are getting very, very ugly.

How you can try and defend is beyond me.


>>What does that have to do with it? If his agreement is for X amount get it and be gone.
>
>It has to do with the amount of money involved. He probably split it up over five years for tax purposes. Plus he insured it in case Haliburton takes a dive.
>
>Here's a hypothetical question: if Kerry had won, would his wife be required to get out of the ketchup business?
>
>> If you want to serve in government and disavow any conflict of interest or even any hint at impropriety, that is.
>
>I would agree with you, however, what should be is often not the same as what must be. If Cheney is breaking any laws, he should be charged, but apparently he is not. The man did what he thought he needed to do to sever his direct involvement with Haliburton as well as his financial interests in it. As far as I'm concerned, what ties he has left with the company are not strong enough to risk influence-peddling charges.