Tenet’s unmentioned war profiteering.
By on May 7th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Tenet’s unmentioned war profiteering.
“When [former CIA director George] Tenet hit the talk-show circuit last week to defend his stewardship of the CIA and his role in the run-up to the war, he did not mention that he is a director and advisor to four corporations that earn millions of dollars in revenue from contracts with U.S. intelligence agencies and the Department of Defense. Nor is it ever mentioned in his book. But according to public records, Tenet has received at least $2.3 million from those corporations in stock and other compensation.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
When do the war crimes trials begin?
May 7th, 2007 at 2:48 pmMy goodness, how could he possibly recall such a trifling matter in the greuling process of writing his book and defending his (choke) honor?
May 7th, 2007 at 2:48 pmsarc/off
That’s a “slam dunk”!
May 7th, 2007 at 2:49 pmThat should be illegal. It’s a clear and serious conflict of interest.
May 7th, 2007 at 2:51 pmof COURSE he has something to hide – something he won’t mention. We’re told by Tenet and his media mouthpieces that now he’s the “good guy” for coming “clean” on all this Iraq mess…
But the reality is – he’s just trying to make a buck. Selling a book, selling a war, and still making more money from the murder….
It’s the nature of the beast for politicians to do things like this.
A good read on their deceit:
May 7th, 2007 at 2:53 pm“Overlooking the Obvious”
http://www.populistamerica.com/overlooking_the_obvious
BUT if George Tenet critiques the current administration ONLY, Think Progress would NEVER throw out this tidbit. I am waiting to see TP cover Mr. Dianne Feinsteins, “war-profiteering”….. But to the chagrin of my “friends” here at TP, I won’t hold my breath.
May 7th, 2007 at 2:54 pmWhen corporate greed melds with Government function, we’re living in a Fascist state. PERIOD.
May 7th, 2007 at 2:56 pmZooooette – George Tenet has no credibility so the fact he omits his montary interest from the discussion should come as a surprise ti NO ONE. You’ll lessen your credibility gap when you research Richard Blums’ (AKA: Mr. Dianne Feinstein) “war-profiteering”….hypocrite.
May 7th, 2007 at 2:56 pmThat is not enough for someone like him to come and tell us about himself in his own words…
It is the job of television stations and the interviewing stations to confront him with this…
He is actually ,and others like him,using the media to sell his book…..
Reporters these days don’t do their homework well…they should confront and pressure these people with all kind of questions…and not to let themsleves[media] to be simply used…
May 7th, 2007 at 2:58 pmZooooette – George Tenet has no credibility so the fact he omits his montary interest from the discussion should come as a surprise ti NO ONE. You’ll lessen your credibility gap when you research Richard Blums’ (AKA: Mr. Dianne Feinstein) “war-profiteeringâ€â€¦.hypocrite.
Comment by valiant venus
Gotta link for your assertion, Haggie?
**crickets chirping**
May 7th, 2007 at 2:58 pmLike that rapper .50 cents says “get rich or die trying!”. I wish I was standing behind the iraqi truck where all that money fell out of!
May 7th, 2007 at 3:00 pmZoooette/Hypocrite – Do your own Googling – Every time I post a link you seem to have ‘technical trouble”.
May 7th, 2007 at 3:01 pmDiane Rehm on NPR rountable said it all:
Both her left and right guests all agreed the
“Slam Dunk”
statement was Tenet telling Bush it was his chance to invade Iraq. No more no less.
May 7th, 2007 at 3:03 pmWhat does the Law say? Is it illegal even when a Republican does it?
Never forget the fact that 9/11 changed EVERYTHING. Remember how 9/11 was a terrorist attack but “Shock & Awe” was not?
May 7th, 2007 at 3:04 pm#8…vacuous vomit…take your Ritalin, reread the story, and try to stay on topic. It’s not about Cheney’s war profiteering or anyone else’s war profiteering, it’s about Tenet’s war profiteering.
May 7th, 2007 at 3:04 pmWill he make money?
May 7th, 2007 at 3:05 pmIt’s a slam dunk!!
Comment by valiant venus — May 7, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
Try posting a link that works for a change
May 7th, 2007 at 3:06 pm#15 – Your “standards” aren’t very standard, are they? You pathetic hypocrite……
May 7th, 2007 at 3:09 pm$immons – Try doing your own research – like MOST Progs, you want someone else to do YOUR job. Maybe your competence quotient would improve…….
May 7th, 2007 at 3:11 pmmy my you’re pretty coarse right out of the gate today, princess valiant, just getting up after a rough weekend?
May 7th, 2007 at 3:12 pm#18…project much?
May 7th, 2007 at 3:13 pmTry doing YOUR research, chicky…
I’m not a Progressive, I just hate idiots.
May 7th, 2007 at 3:14 pmNow can we impeach the idoit who appointed this rude, thoughtless little pig?
May 7th, 2007 at 3:15 pmcowardly cupid
Typical of the neocons, you refuse to comment on the allegations of corruption of someone on your side of the aisle and, instead, try to change the subject to talk about a Democrat.
So, please tell us in a clear and straightforward fashion whether or not you approve of the fact that Tenet had these contracts while also holding the government positions he did. Try to do so before you actually reach the age you have been pretending to be.
May 7th, 2007 at 3:15 pmmy my you’re pretty coarse right out of the gate today, princess valiant, just getting up after a rough weekend?
Comment by Raven — May 7, 2007 @ 3:12 pm
A Meth crash can be pretty bad
May 7th, 2007 at 3:15 pm“try to stay on topic.”
If these scum had been able to stay on topic at all, there would be no war in Iraq.
May 7th, 2007 at 3:15 pmOne More For Gitmo!
May 7th, 2007 at 3:17 pmHey Hag,
Your misery, hate and contempt fill me with great joy.
I’ll be smiling all day, with your sour, sad little soul in mind.
Just keep up the charade of “my side’s better than your’s” while accusing OTHERS of being hypocrites.
LOL
May 7th, 2007 at 3:18 pmAmerican Pie. Everyone in the Bush Administration seems to be having a piece. What is left for us? The pan.
May 7th, 2007 at 3:18 pmCoarse? No Rave, VVGFU is coarse. I slammed George Tenet while TP was breathlessly hanging onto his every word. But like most Progressives….you can’t handle the truth…..Google Richard Blum and ask yourself how much Senator Di and family benefitted…..
May 7th, 2007 at 3:18 pm“Now can we impeach the idoit who appointed this rude, thoughtless little pig?
Comment by beefeater — May 7, 2007 @ 3:15 pm”
Already happened, Beefeater. George Tenet was appointed DCI by President Bill Clinton in 1997.
May 7th, 2007 at 3:18 pmAren’t you afraid of upsetting Mr. Tenet? He might start whining about his reputation again, like he did with Mr. Card. He gets very upset when people call attention to his obvious moral and ethical failings.
May 7th, 2007 at 3:19 pmPLC – you Pathetic Liar. I slammed Tenet now and again for his idiocy and dishonesty – which is something I’ve not seen you do…..hypocrite….
May 7th, 2007 at 3:21 pmTry doing your own research – like MOST Progs, you want someone else to do YOUR job.
Comment by valiant venus — May 7, 2007 @ 3:11 pm
No, Valiant Anus, we would just prefer it if we didn’t have to do YOUR job as well as our own. You’re the one who made the accusation, but you seem reluctant to provide back-up.
I’d think if you had something convincing, you’d be all too happy to wave it in front of our faces. On the other hand, if you’re just interested in dropping stink bombs and chuckling when all the “libruls” try to breathe through their shirts, then I can see your rationale for accusing others of not doing your research.
By the way, we wish you WOULD hold your breath. It’s not just your arguments that stink, if you know what I mean.
May 7th, 2007 at 3:22 pmPathetic Liar – George Tenet should have cleaned up his portfolio before he gave the thumb’s up to invade Iraq. Is that clear enough for a hair splitter like yourself?
May 7th, 2007 at 3:25 pmLike Kurt Vonnegut said about the Viet Nam war…look to the people who are making money on the war. They are key to our involvement.
May 7th, 2007 at 3:25 pm#24 PLC,
Tenet has long been associated with the Democratic Party.
Tenet joined President-elect Bill Clinton’s national security transition team in 1992. Clinton appointed Tenet Senior Director for Intelligence Programs at the National Security Council (1993-95).
Moreover, as I mentioned, he was appointed DCI by Bill Clinton in 1997.
May 7th, 2007 at 3:29 pm“George Tenet should have cleaned up his portfolio before he gave the thumb’s up to invade Iraq.”
#35 VV,
Tenet was not involved with these corporations after after he resigned as DCI. He was not connected with them during the run up to the war.
May 7th, 2007 at 3:32 pmComment by Exley — May 7, 2007 @ 3:29 pm
That was my point! Of course I’m the idiot that spells it idoit.
May 7th, 2007 at 3:35 pmExley is absolutely correct when he points out that Tenet was appointed DCI by Bill Clinton.
You can criticize Tenet for a lot things — rolling over for Bush in the run-up to war, failing to push back against ginned-up intel — but you can’t reasonably accuse him of being a “loyal Bushie” or of hyping the war in order to profit from it, Halliburton-style.
May 7th, 2007 at 3:35 pmWere any of them ammunition companies.
May 7th, 2007 at 3:35 pmIf so, they could send him a couple of well placed AR-15 rounds.
Just in the ass, that’d be fine.
cowardly cupid
My, my, my! Referring to me as a “pathetic”, not just a usual, “liar” and not identifying anything I lied about. Your first post to this thread was NOT a criticism of Tenet but a slam of ThinkProgress.
Did I touched a nerve somewhere in our last interchange of posts or are you just generally irritable today?
May 7th, 2007 at 3:37 pmTo find an anti-conservative website for your perusal pleasure was fun – and knowing you were too lazy to do so was affirming…
http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=10925
Tooodles…..
May 7th, 2007 at 3:37 pmIt matters not who Tenet was appointed by, who was giving him orders while this money scam was going on. Don’t stick up for these crooks, none of them are “Serpicos.”
May 7th, 2007 at 3:38 pmThanks Exley!!! So I guess Richard Blum DOES have an ethical problem…not to mention his bride, the Senator….
May 7th, 2007 at 3:39 pmPathetic Liar – My criticism of Progressive Hypocrisy realllly bothers you? I doubt it……moral relativism is a Progressive Hallmark…..
May 7th, 2007 at 3:41 pm#37 by Exley
So?
May 7th, 2007 at 3:41 pmTYPO CORRECTION:
#38 should have read:
“Tenet was not involved with these corporations UNTIL after he resigned as DCI. He was not connected with them during the run up to the war.”
My apologies.
May 7th, 2007 at 3:42 pmZoooette/Hypocrite – Do your own Googling – Every time I post a link you seem to have ‘technical troubleâ€.
Comment by valiant venus
You made the allegation, you provide the link, lazy ass.
May 7th, 2007 at 3:43 pm#40 Agreed, KRank….Tenet is not a partisan…He is just incompetent.
Retaining him as DCI was the biggest mistake Bush ever made. I understand why he kept Tenet on, despite the fact he was a Clinton-appointee. Bush was clearly trying to place intelligence gathering and analysis outside of the political realm by keeping it bi-partisan.
But if he replaced Tenet in 2001, who knows what could have happened? 9/11 prevented? No war in Iraq? Sadly, we will never know.
May 7th, 2007 at 3:46 pmI get confused, is “moral relativism” like when you get all up in arms about somebody else’s unborn fetuses but have no qualms about sending somebody else’s grown up brown sons and daughters to fight a war?
May 7th, 2007 at 3:46 pm#47, PLC,
You wrote, “you refuse to comment on the allegations of corruption of someone on your side of the aisle and, instead, try to change the subject to talk about a Democrat.”
As I pointed out, Tenet was not from the Republican ’side of the aisle.’ He was a Democratic appointee.
May 7th, 2007 at 3:48 pmComment by Bernard Quatermass — May 7, 2007 @ 3:46 pm
Yeah, sort of like VV calling SOMEONE ELSE a liar and hypocrite.
Exactly like that.
May 7th, 2007 at 3:50 pmcowardly cupid
Do you have ANY instance in which I directly or even indirectly have demonstrated “moral relativism” or been “bothered” by your criticism of progressive hypocrisy?
May 7th, 2007 at 3:51 pmI get confused, is “moral relativism†like when you get all up in arms about somebody else’s unborn fetuses but have no qualms about sending somebody else’s grown up brown sons and daughters to fight a war?
Comment by Bernard Quatermass — May 7, 2007 @ 3:46 pm
I understand your confusion, but the situation you describe is not so much “moral relativism” as “flat-out right-wing hypocrisy”.
May 7th, 2007 at 3:51 pmALL WAR PROFITEERS SHOULD HANG BY THEIR NECKS UNTIL THEY ARE DEAD.
May 7th, 2007 at 3:53 pm#52
OK, I should have just said “change the subject to criticize Progressives”.
May 7th, 2007 at 3:54 pmI think you are intelligent enough to recognize what I meant.
Bernard you moral relativist – Your ignorant comparison MIGHT have merit if there were a draft…..alas, your argument circles the bowl…whoosh!
May 7th, 2007 at 3:54 pmTenet obviously switched party allegiance as evidenced by his complicity.
May 7th, 2007 at 3:55 pmValiant Venus,
Allow me to explain why several people here on TP respond to you with scorn, disrespect, indignation, insult, and venom: the scientific term is “causality” or the principle of cause and effect. You’ve behaved the same way here so often in response to TP’s articles and to posts that, by now, everyone here is familiar with you and deems you unworthy of a serious reply. And since you confessed about 2 weeks ago to “having fun,” which implies that you yourself don’t take the matters debated on TP seriously, you shouldn’t expect anyone to take you seriously on these rare occasions when you do attempt a serious discussion.
Insofar as you’ve accused others today of hypocrisy and the like, you yourself are partly responsible for this. You’ve helped create the intellectual atmosphere which you now find so objectionable.
As I tried telling you several times, try exhibiting some intellectual and moral integrity. Try refraining from committing the ad hominemfallacy of attacking your opponents rather than providing cogent reasons why they’re wrong. Try being civil with everyone regardless of the issue and regardless of your past dealings with them on TP. You expect respect; try giving it. You want your points acknowledged; try acknowledging those of others. You believe your view has truth on its side; try caring more for the truth than for just “fun” or mere rhetorical victory against your intellectual opponents. None of this requires that you abandon your conservatism. What this does require, though, is that you change your disruptive and inappropriate behavior. Perhaps if you do, then those whose behavior you demand to change will indeed change theirs. But you have to set an example since you and a few other “trolls” have created what you find so objectionable when you’re the object of it.
You claim to be an attorney, I believe. If you are, then consider this: when you visit this website, you’re in a courtroom of ideas. The goal of justice in this courtroom is that the best argument win–not the best rhetoric, not the most scorn or insult or invective or sarcasm, not the intensity of commitment, not partisan ideology–but only the best reasons and the best evidence to support those reasons. Intellectual integrity means valuing this kind of justice as much as valuing the kind of justice sought in real courtrooms.
May 7th, 2007 at 3:56 pmyour argument circles the bowl…whoosh!
Comment by valiant venus — May 7, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
Much like every meal you “eat”
May 7th, 2007 at 3:56 pmZoooette – Take your lazy patucci to my link in #43 – (pssst….maybe you should turn on your brain before you start typing…)
May 7th, 2007 at 3:58 pmalas, your argument circles the bowl…whoosh!
Comment by valiant venus
___________________
Where else are we to go to reach you?
May 7th, 2007 at 4:00 pmIs mighty aphrodite on this thread pretending that somebody gives a flying fu*k what she says?
Poor sad little troll.
May 7th, 2007 at 4:01 pmZoooette – Take your lazy patucci to my link in #43 – (pssst….maybe you should turn on your brain before you start typing…)
Comment by valiant venus
Funny, I didn’t see Feinstein or Blum in that article. Got anything else?
Psssst…you have a leak.
Tell us another funny story about your imaginary dead child. Please?
May 7th, 2007 at 4:05 pmMy post #56 should have referenced Exley at #51 (not 52). I am sorry.
May 7th, 2007 at 4:07 pmZooey
You have a patucci? Is that an Italian car or purse or what? Would I like one? Inquiring minds want to know!
May 7th, 2007 at 4:11 pmMy post #56 should have referenced Exley at #51 (not 52). I am sorry.
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC)
Thanks, I’ll stop crying now. *sniff*
:-)
May 7th, 2007 at 4:13 pmZooey
You have a patucci? Is that an Italian car or purse or what? Would I like one? Inquiring minds want to know!
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC)
I’m just not interested enough to ask MA. You go ahead though. :-)
I’m pretty sure it’s my fine Dutch ass. Heh.
May 7th, 2007 at 4:15 pmI am most certain that there has been much that has gone on “without mention”…
May 7th, 2007 at 4:17 pmZoooette = No curious or inquiring mind…..
May 7th, 2007 at 4:19 pmZoooette = No curious or inquiring mind…..
Comment by valiant venus
Are you asking about my ass, dear?
May 7th, 2007 at 4:24 pmHaggie,
You might want to have a rest. Bless your heart, you’re seriously decompensating.
May 7th, 2007 at 4:25 pmComment by valiant venus — May 7, 2007 @ 4:19 pm
Not everyone is into your kind of “curiousity”. Zoooette probably likes men.
May 7th, 2007 at 4:26 pm62 Zooey, for some reason I couldn’t find anything either. I think a lot of trolls are so stupid that they assume we won’t follow the links they post.
May 7th, 2007 at 4:28 pm62 Zooey, for some reason I couldn’t find anything either. I think a lot of trolls are so stupid that they assume we won’t follow the links they post.
Comment by Lily
We must try to understand, Lily. I think that’s the first link our Haggie has ever provided. Poor dear….
May 7th, 2007 at 4:31 pm“Bernard you moral relativist – Your ignorant comparison MIGHT have merit if there were a draft…..alas, your argument circles the bowl…whoosh!”
I’m still confused. Is moral relativism where you call other people names but then get upset because other people are calling you names?
Toodles!
May 7th, 2007 at 4:31 pmIt’s interesting to note that progressives condemn corruption equally whether it occurs on the right or the left. Whereas right-wingers (like valium venus, as a poor excuse of an example) instead in a rather convoluted sort of way seem to try to justify the corruption in their own party by saying something non-sensical like “the Democrats do it too”, or even better yet “Clinton did it”. Which one of these two approaches is the least “corrupt”?
May 7th, 2007 at 4:32 pmAnd Martha Stewart is the one who went to jail.
May 7th, 2007 at 4:36 pmVV so Feinstein and her husband have had accusations of a conflict of interest swirling around them for a number of years now, that is pretty much a certain. Ok so why did the republican controlled congress not investigate her? Seems like they had control for a quite some time. Also Feinstein is one democrat (toss in Jefferson too) with allegations of some sort of mis-deed, now exactly how many republicans have had some sort of ethical lapse in the last few years? How many accusations? How many investigations? How many convictions? And this while they had control of everyything. Imagine how many would be under the hot lights had the congress under republican control had actually done their job. So shouldn’t you have some anger and resenntment of the republican controlled congress for not getting this person under the gun? It is obvious she irritates you and it is also obvious that this issue you complain of hhas been around for quite some time.
May 7th, 2007 at 4:47 pmI think I understand “moral relativism†now!! Finally. It’s like when you get all up in arms about somebody else’s unborn fetuses but blowing the limbs off middle-Eastern children is “kinda cool.”
Is that it? Sorry to be so slow.
May 7th, 2007 at 6:31 pmSickening though as it may be, is that NOT what capitalism is all about?
http://OsiSpeaks.com or http://OsiSpeaks.org
May 7th, 2007 at 6:47 pm“You claim to be an attorney, I believe. If you are, then consider this: when you visit this website, you’re in a courtroom of ideas. The goal of justice in this courtroom is that the best argument win–not the best rhetoric, not the most scorn or insult or invective or sarcasm, not the intensity of commitment, not partisan ideology–but only the best reasons and the best evidence to support those reasons. Intellectual integrity means valuing this kind of justice as much as valuing the kind of justice sought in real courtrooms.” Comment by Prof. Mark Colby
Dear Prof. Colby – Thank you for your thoughtful and considerate suggestions. I have every expectation my ideas will be received like a skunk at a garden party – which does not bother me in the least. If you are under some romantic illusion that committed Progressives are more “tolerant” than ordinary humans – you might want to get out a bit more. YOU might be in the “courtroom of ideas” when you come to Think Progress. I do not consider this site to be more than a regurgitation of well-worn cliches. (A significant number of Progs feel the same about Conservative sites, so this “feeling” might not be unfamiliar.)
I am a criminal defense attorney who utilizes all my skills to protect and defend my clients’ Constitutional Rights. Preparation is key when tackling the evidence of a competent DA and the resources of the state or federal government . But believe it or not, the biggest losers in the courtroom are due to the “likeability or empathy factor”. People rarely convict if the DA is cocky and arrogant. Likewise if defense counsel is ill prepared and does not relate well to the jury, the defendant has a more difficult row to hoe. Since 1994, the number of cases of bona fide jury nullification is staggering.
I apologize if you think I wish to change minds or influence people. That goal – in this place – would be a head-banging exercise. “You People” give me food for thought (and lots of laughs) – period…..
I hope your students do well with their finals…..Enjoy your summer holiday….
May 7th, 2007 at 7:22 pmValiant Venus,
Your reply misses my point, as earlier replies of yours have done. Then, too, you discussed your experience as a criminal defense attorney and tried to use it to defend yourself against my criticisms of you. But it’s just not convincing. My criticisms of you cannot be evaded by your attempts to cite “likeability or empathy.” TP is not a literal courtroom; what matters here should be held to a higher, impersonal standard. Your social role as attorney has nothing to do with your social role as citizen and–presumably–as rational being. You persistently confuse them because it serves your ideological agenda to do so.
Your comments about other posters here are irrelevant. I have no illusions about them–but this is a progressive site, not a conservative one, so they may be forgiven when they occasionally fail by the highest intellectual standards, and they naturally object when someone like you visits this site with the sole purpose of amusing herself at their expense. The real question is whether you have any desire to do better than you contend they do. Clearly you don’t. This is the fallacy of common practice–since others here fail to maintain high standards (or so you contend), it’s acceptable for you to fail as well. In simpler terms, you’re trying to claim that two wrongs make a right. Can’t you do any better than such sophistry?
I have no illusions about you. I realize that you don’t wish to change minds. But what you do in posting here is even worse than just fail to change minds: you interfere with other people in ways that neither serve the truth or mutual understanding; these people serve only your own petty personal agenda, to have fun at their expense. You condescend about the people here; since when is condescension a moral virtue? You condemn the atmosphere here, yet seem blithely unaware that you yourself have played a large role in creating that atmosphere. Your ideas might well be received “like a skunk at a garden party”–but how would you know how they would be received unless you treat the people here in a respectful, courteous manner? Try being patient, try giving evidence, try a civil tone of voice. I’d have to wonder how successful you are as an attorney if your understanding of human nature is so deficient that you think people respond well to abuse, insult, invective, scorn, sarcasm, and the like.
If I were to post on conservative websites, I would do so with as much intellectual and moral integrity as I could muster, in order to try to contribute something to the debate.
As I’ve asked you before and on several occasions, try to be a more intellectually and morally civilized human being. If this task is too much for you, because you’re so trapped in your own narcissistic personality that fun is all that matters to you, please show just enough integrity to stop posting here. If you tried to behave as an attorney as you feel free behave here, you’d be disbarred, and properly so, for misconduct. What makes a progressive website fair game for you but not the courtroom? Only the fact that law is your livelihood? That would be particular self-serving, but this seems to be a personality trait of yours.
Thanks for your hope that my students do well on their finals. I hate to say it, but if they do, it’s because they’re following some of the standards and principles I’ve asked you repeatedly to follow. These standards and principles apply to attorneys, philosophers, students, plumbers, bus drivers, stenographers, and soldiers; they are incompatible with whatever standards and policies govern your conduct on this website.
May 7th, 2007 at 7:59 pmWhy do Americans hate…
…coincedence?
-G. Tenet-
May 7th, 2007 at 9:59 pmHello,testing.This plan now in action has been going on for over 30 years.This fellow is only a small player.A face to put on that agency.Someone to fill that slot.
May 7th, 2007 at 10:04 pmDo you think anything he says is worth all this discussion?
Tell you what.Why don’t you go back and see where he has been over this period.
He and all the others have only shuffled around in circles with the same group.Only changing offices and titles depending on the needs of the plan.
They all know the ins and outs of this new form of profit sharing.Hah!They invented the companies to take full advantage of every aspect of every operation.
Come on people.
Don’t get distracted.
I do not consider this site to be more than a regurgitation of well-worn cliches.
comment by Vile Venus
Says the greatest regurgitator of terrribly worn cliches.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:14 am