-- > It is not at all clear to me what the spirit of a law that provides an > exception for offshore subsidiaries is supposed to be. I guess that it > could be sorted out in Court, but Clinton seemed strangely uninterested in > pursuing these cases - isn't that just as reprehensible in your mind?
I'll give one clear example of Halliburton behaving in an unpatriotic manner under Clinton. I've seen, from reputable sources, that they sold nuclear bomb triggers to Hussein, using their French subsidy to make it technically legal. (BTW, I'm also mad at the French for giving a wink and nod to such activities.) I posted it here, without it being disputed as factual. It was probably technically legal, so there would be little that Clinton could do. They were opposed to him politically, so he had no sway with them. But, can't we agree that this action, at least, is reprehensible? If your argument is that they didn't do it, I would be very happy to see the refutation, honest. Originally, I was arguing the other side on Culture and was shocked to see that there was credible evidence that the triggers were sold. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
