- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I have never quite comprehended why Chaney's relationship with Halliurton is de-emphasized with relation to Halliburton's profiteering from the Iraq conflict. He received a handsome severance payment when he left and retains a more modest stipend of $160,000/year for which he allegedly needs do nothing further for Halliburton. Are we supposed to believe he is impartial towards the Administration's relationship to Halliburton? Isn't it more likely that he retains some "gratitude" toward his past and present benefactor, even though he no longer has any formal obligations towards his former company? All sorts of irregularities are reported from time to time regarding Halliburton's billings to the government, yet we never hear anything about followup investigations or resolutions. Am I paranoid for suspecting that Chaney is a powerful factor in Halliburton's continued good fortune?
