In the aftermath of Enron's meteoric fall, the company formerly headed by VP. Dick Cheney had lost over half its value since its mid-year high of $49.25, and that was BEFORE the latest absestos judgement against it sent its stock down another 42.5%+ last Friday. Halliburton shares closed at $12, down from $20.85 the previous day. Writing in the NY Times, Neela Banerjee began her article "Call it the Enron aftershock."

While the stock has come back up to over $14, the question remains: what did Cheney know and when did he know it? Public knowledge of the asbestos claims has been responsible for the slow decline in stock values, but Cheney, as CEO, must have known about the liability his company incured long before that. Thus far, the corporate media has not been asking such questions.

I dont understand the ramifications of the question, "what did Dick Cheney know?" What is the political import of such a question. Are people in government supposed to be excelent businessmen? What is the aspect of this whole thing that I am missing? What is the scandal that the press is ignoring?

The question is not about Cheney's business acumen, it's about his integrity, and possibly even criminality. Of course most folks visiting this site don't expect businessmen to have much integrity, but that's the basis on which they sell themselves--even when they're admittedly rapacious. ("The rules of the market are unforgiving, but he plays by them honestly." That kind of crap.)

The recent fate of Haliburton makes it quite clear that Cheney *knew* he was sitting on a dung heap. He got out while the getting was good--and had built his reputation in large measure on raising the stock price, which has since plummeted. So what did he do to keep all this from coming out *before* the election? What he did to conceal it may well be criminal. (Killing people with products like asbestos isn't criminal. It's the American way! But defrauding other wealthy folks who own lots of stock--now THAT'S serious.)