Cheney's company turning huge profits on Army contracts

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: Corn

If the Bush administration had their way with the privatization of Social Security, one of the main goals of his administration, the result would have been US workers would have not only lost their retirement savings they had in 401Ks they would have lost their SS retirement as well.

Will the lies never cease? Tell me BOBDN, what was the percentage of the individual's contribution that Bush's private SS plan would have allowed to be privately invested?

Here, how about I answer that. 2%

That's right kids, you heard it here first: BOBDN claims that a 2% deduction of the amount one pays into SS would have completely drained one's social security.

You'll have to excuse me for a moment by asking for clarification regarding the example that you provided regarding "US worker's" 401k plans having been completely drained. Sounds pretty broad, so please enlighten me, when, and how many, "US workers" lost everything in their 401k? Inquiring minds want to know.

Why did you feel it necessary to add "Cry me a river?" Do you enjoy witnessing your fellow Americans suffer through privatization?

Do I enjoy it? No, did I say LOL? No. Therefore I can only assume you continually want to play the ignorant and tired argument of Republicans don't care!!!! "Suffering"? You make it sound like waiting in line is some horrific experience causing the general population to fling their bodies into the sea. Fool. I'm curious, if things were so rosey before, why did your fellow voters allow this privatization in the first place? I'll tell you why.......The prior inspections system was fscked up before. Sounds like it's merely the status quo. Boo Hoo.

With the baby boom generation nearing retirement age the privatization of SS would drain contributions from the system at exactly the time when they are needed most. With the stock market volatility we've seen in the past two years there is a very real possibility the money won't be there to pay benefits to people who paid their share all their lives. With the looming budget deficit, estimates as high as $500 billion this year and deficits for as far as the eye can see, SS will be further strained.

The 401K accounts of millions of Americans have lost a significant percentage since the Bush recession began.

Don't minimize the risk to the retirement income of the generation about to retire. Along with all these factors they now face paltry interest rates on their savings.

Thanks for calling me a fool. You're staying true to form. I've agreed to stop the personal attacks but after today I'm beginning to wonder whether or not that was a good decision. Some people will never change. But I'm sure the first time I retaliate someone, usually one of the people who share your views, will say I'm at fault.

That pretty much sucks.

Point 1)
My 401k account went down. So what. I'm 32 years old. I'm thinking in 33 years, it will be up again. Any fools who were near retirement and were heavily invested in the stock market and not diversified in Bonds, they knew the risk. Your whole premise is Null. Investing 101, the closer you are to retirement, the lower risk your account should have. People in Bonds made a killing over the last 3 years!!!

Point 2) The stock market "bubble" burst well before Bush entered office. And once again, went down heavily after 9/11. Your association with Bush and these declines are very far from the truth. Last I checked, the market is at about 9,400. Not bad, considering it was dancing around 7,000 a short time ago.

I won't call you a fool, but I will say you are letting your feelings about Bush get ahead of the facts on the markets and investing.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
How about you back up your claims, then perhaps we can respond; just because you say it so, doesn't mean it is...show us the data substantiating your senseless claims. Until then, you have marginalized yourself once again with your half-baked 'facts'

My God, grow up. Just because you say it isn't so doesn't mean it isn't so. At least he is contributing something, even if it is a single example. That's one more example than you've provided, and he did it without your non-stop attacks. You're just adding noise.

Though privatization may save money in some cases, it is certainly not a foregone conclusion. If all things are equal, privatization is more expensive for a couple of fundamental reasons. First, the private sector company is in it to make a profit. Government provides services at cost. Second, whenever you subcontract a function, you must add a certain amount of overhead to manage the contract, monitor performance, audit expenses, etc. The more government scrimps on this oversight, the more likely the contractor is to overcharge. This becomes more of a problem as the contract is extended and renewed. Once a contractor becomes entrenched, it gains considerable leverage in cutting service quality and increasing its rates to the detriment of the public. It becomes cost-prohibitive for the government to move the service back in-house or to another vendor. Etech includes an example of this in his xx:03 post, when Brown & Root was awarded a sole-source contract for work in Bosnia.

In spite of this, private sector contractors can save money in some cases. If the government pay scale (including benefits) is out of whack for the skills and experience required, the contractor may be less expensive. This might be due to union contracts, for example. If the contractor lowers standards for quality, service levels, maintenance, etc., they may save money. If the contractor has proprietary systems or equipment that let them work more efficiently, they may save money. In narrow, specialized cases, the contractor may be able to save money due to economies of scale. One real-world example from my experience was verifying that electronic gaming machines were honest. It was low-volume work in this state, and it required expensive specialized equipment and expertise. Finally, if -- and that's a big if -- the contractor manages its people more effectively, it may save money. All in all, however, there is no inherent reason why government cannot duplicate whatever the contractor is doing to cut costs, if the government is willing to do so.

 

[BOBDN]

Well, this has turned into a debate on the merits of privatization. The thread began as a discussion of corporations with close personal ties to high government officials getting no bid contracts to fix the infrastructure of a nation we invaded on what many people believe were dubious reasons.

The two topics are closely related. When a CEO of a corporation becomes VP in an administration whose policies lead to the destruction of the infrastructure of a nation on what many people consider dubious grounds and the repair of that infrasturcture relies on expertise only the VP's former corporation can only supply many people have a problem with the ethics of that situation.

I feel there are reasonable questions that can be asked about such a situation. I haven't as yet heard any reasonable answers.

Why Iraq?

Why now?

What is our exit strategy now that the die has been cast?

How will we pay for all of this?

What will be the effect on us here at home from the outlay of hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq as well as hundreds of billions of dollars in deficits?

What will we do to maintain our credibility in the world in the face of the obvious misrepresentation of facts on Iraq?

How will we stop the terrorist threat now that these policies have galvanized the groups who want to cause our nation harm?

How will we justify the loss of American troops and Iraqi civilian lives if this adventure backfires on us?

How can a nation whose position as the sole superpower left on earth justify preemptive attacks on nations which pose no threat?

We won the cold war. Is this the best we can do with our victory? If the answer is yes in my opinion we have become the enemy we defeated.

 

[Corn]

Thanks for calling me a fool.

You're welcome.

You're staying true to form.

Don't ever, not for a second, think that I will ever give a free pass to those that misrepresent the facts while shouting their ignorant rhetoric. You're damned right I'm staying true to form.

I've agreed to stop the personal attacks but after today I'm beginning to wonder whether or not that was a good decision.

Let's get something straight right now:

Do you enjoy witnessing your fellow Americans suffer.....

If that isn't a thinly veiled personal attack I don't know what is. Bite me, moron.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Corn

Thanks for calling me a fool.

You're welcome.

You're staying true to form.

Don't ever, not for a second, think that I will ever give a free pass to those that misrepresent the facts while shouting their ignorant rhetoric. You're damned right I'm staying true to form.

I've agreed to stop the personal attacks but after today I'm beginning to wonder whether or not that was a good decision.

Let's get something straight right now:

Do you enjoy witnessing your fellow Americans suffer.....

If that isn't a thinly veiled personal attack I don't know what is. Bite me, moron.

Psst... CYPMs

CkG

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Corn

Thanks for calling me a fool.

You're welcome.

You're staying true to form.

Don't ever, not for a second, think that I will ever give a free pass to those that misrepresent the facts while shouting their ignorant rhetoric. You're damned right I'm staying true to form.

I've agreed to stop the personal attacks but after today I'm beginning to wonder whether or not that was a good decision.

Let's get something straight right now:

Do you enjoy witnessing your fellow Americans suffer.....

If that isn't a thinly veiled personal attack I don't know what is. Bite me, moron.

Taken out of context someone who didn't read the original post might be tricked into believing the statement you refer to was a thinly veiled personal attack. Here is my complete sentence along with your statement I was responding to.

Corn:

"Sounds like to me that the morons who run the state of NJ (probably why my parent's mooved us out when I was but a wee lad--and I remember waiting in these inspection lines well over an hour back then 30 years ago) are to blame for the idiotic "inspection" process you have to endure.

Cry me a river."

BOBDN:

"Why did you feel it necessary to add "Cry me a river?" Do you enjoy witnessing your fellow Americans suffer through privatization?"

Clearly I was referring to your fellow Americans suffering through auto inspection lines. Hardly a personal attack I would think. Unlike your calling me a "fool" or your statement "Bite me, moron."

True to form indeed. Don't you think it's time to stop this nonsense?

 

[Corn]

Clearly I was referring to your fellow Americans suffering through auto inspection lines.

No sh1t sherlock.

Do I enjoy it? No, did I say LOL? No. Therefore I can only assume you continually want to play the ignorant and tired argument of Republicans don't care!!!! "Suffering"? You make it sound like waiting in line is some horrific experience causing the general population to fling their bodies into the sea. Fool. I'm curious, if things were so rosey before, why did your fellow voters allow this privatization in the first place? I'll tell you why.......The prior inspections system was fscked up before. Sounds like it's merely the status quo. Boo Hoo.

That pretty much summed it up right there, didn't it?

Don't you think it's time to stop this nonsense?

Yes I do, so please quit posting your ignorant, dishonest, and nonsensical rhetoric like the parrot you are in thread after thread after thread. If not, then boo fscking hoo.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: Corn

Historically the savings from privatization have been a myth. The truth is govenment can do it for less than the private sector. And with government there is also a modicum of accountability.

You, of course, can back up those claims with some hard data, right?

In New Jersey the Division of Motor Vehicles was privatized by the Whitman administration (after the Florio administration had done all the hard work fixing it). Whitman claimed the state would save millions.

Parsons Infrastructure, a company who won the bid on state auto inspections in what was later proved to be a rigged bidding process in a series of articles in the Star Ledger (Parsons had come to NJ from CA and spread around enough cash in Trenton to buy the bid). Not only did the inspections lines increase from an average of around 30 minutes to over 2 hours but the equipment Parsons used, which they were told wasn't designed to work in all season inspection outdoor inspection stations, broke down when the temps dipped below freezing, which it does frequently in NJ. The staff was undertrained and rude. The state actually took the unusual step of SUSPENDING auto inspections. That's how bad it got. Bottom line the switch to privatization cost the taxpayers of NJ millions more than the state run system. And inspections still take longer than they ever did.

Adding insult to injury the DMV offices every driver in NJ if forced to use were privatized as well. First off the information boothes at DMV offices were left unstaffed to save money. You now have to just stand in line, usually an hour or more from my personal experience, just to find out if you're in the right line. The staff is rude. The DMV offices were clean when run by the state. They are filthy now. And the DMV is raising fees to pay for the privatization of the former state services.

There were a few school districts which attempted to privatize in NJ as well. That little experiment ended in weeks. I can't remember the name of the company which tried to educate students. They weren't around long enough to remember their name. Bottom line, more money for worse education.

The problem with privatization IMO is the state gives its blessing, as well as a monopoly, to companies which sometimes win bids in less than fair bidding processes, provide services which are inferior to the state services, don't have the same quality personnel state services provide, have little accountability and end up costing more than the state services.

In these times safety is also a prime concern. Privatizing state or federal agencies is dangerous IMO. Would you rather have government airport security or minimum wage security guards hired by companies whose main concern is profit rather than safety?

Here is AFSCME's take on privatization.

The Seven Deadly Myths of Privatization

There are lots of ways to mess a system up. My state has a partially privatized DMV and it works quite well. Almost every oil change place can do you your vehicle inspection and you get your vehicle tags at the local grocery store. Very rarely does one actually need to go to actual DMV. The last time I did have to go, I had to wait about 1.5 hours to get my drivers license updated.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Corn

Clearly I was referring to your fellow Americans suffering through auto inspection lines.

No sh1t sherlock.

Do I enjoy it? No, did I say LOL? No. Therefore I can only assume you continually want to play the ignorant and tired argument of Republicans don't care!!!! "Suffering"? You make it sound like waiting in line is some horrific experience causing the general population to fling their bodies into the sea. Fool. I'm curious, if things were so rosey before, why did your fellow voters allow this privatization in the first place? I'll tell you why.......The prior inspections system was fscked up before. Sounds like it's merely the status quo. Boo Hoo.

That pretty much summed it up right there, didn't it?

Don't you think it's time to stop this nonsense?

Yes I do, so please quit posting your ignorant, dishonest, and nonsensical rhetoric like the parrot you are in thread after thread after thread. If not, then boo fscking hoo.

I won't resort to personal attacks. I don't need to. Personal attacks are used by people who can't prove or defend their ideas.

Your attitude and behavior on this forum is appalling.

Here is a bit more on retirement problems faced by my generation. Add this to the SS crisis, the 401K crisis and the crisis being caused by the loss of income on investments caused IMO by the Fed chairman's dozen or so interest rate cuts needed to help the Bush administration stave off a total economic crash in the face of Bush's failed economic policies.

From AARP. It looks as though we'll be losing a large portion of the pensions we worked for all our lives as well as SS, 401Ks and interest from our investment savings. Funny, conservatives are always telling people to take responsibility for their own retirement and save. But even when we do the rules change and our efforts are sabotaged.

Congress May Change Pension Rules

 

[etech]

"Cheney's company turning huge profits on Army contracts"

I haven't read this entire thread so forgive me if this has been covered.


Has anyone noticed the lie and the assumption in the thread title.

Cheney's company.

It isn't his company anymore. That is a lie.

Huge profits.

Has anyone disclosed what the profit margins on the projects are. What is huge? Why are they called "huge" if the profit margins on the projects has yet to be determined?

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: etech
"Cheney's company turning huge profits on Army contracts"

I haven't read this entire thread so forgive me if this has been covered.


Has anyone noticed the lie and the assumption in the thread title.

Cheney's company.

It isn't his company anymore. That is a lie.

"Cheney served as chief executive officer of Brown and Root's parent company, Halliburton, from 1995 to 2000, when he resigned to run for the vice presidency."

It was Cheney's company. He was CEO of Halliburton after his tenure as Secretary of Defence. Moving from the highest civilian position in the military to head the company with the largest amount of contracts with the military.

Huge profits.

Has anyone disclosed what the profit margins on the projects are. What is huge? Why are they called "huge" if the profit margins on the projects has yet to be determined?

You will have to ask Halliburton. See below. But be forewarned. They aren't talking.

"WASHINGTON -- Halliburton, the company formerly headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, has won contracts worth more than $1.7 billion out of Operation Iraqi Freedom and stands to make hundreds of millions more dollars under a no-bid contract awarded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, according to newly available documents.

The size and scope of the government contracts awarded to Halliburton in connection with the war in Iraq are significantly greater than previously disclosed and demonstrate the U.S. military's increasing reliance on for-profit corporations to run its logistical operations. Independent experts estimate that up to one-third of the monthly $3.9 billion cost of keeping U.S. troops in Iraq is going to independent contractors."

"Spreadsheets drawn up by the Army Joint Munitions Command show that about $1 billion had been allocated to Brown and Root Services through mid-August for contracts associated with Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Pentagon's name for the U.S.-led war and occupation. In addition, the company has earned about $705 million for an initial round of oil field rehabilitation work for the Corps of Engineers, a corps spokesman said.

Specific work orders assigned to the Halliburton subsidiary under Operation Iraqi Freedom include $142 million for base camp operations in Kuwait, $170 million for logistical support for the Iraqi reconstruction effort and $28 million for the construction of enemy prisoner-of-war camps, the Army spreadsheet shows. The company also was allocated $39 million for building and operating U.S. base camps in Jordan, the existence of which the Pentagon never publicly acknowledged."

"Over the past decade, Halliburton, a Houston-based company that originally made its name servicing pipelines and oil wells, has positioned itself to take advantage of an increasing trend by the federal government to contract out many of its support operations overseas. It has emerged as the biggest single government contractor in Iraq"

"Waxman's interest in Halliburton was ignited by a routine Corps of Engineers announcement in March that the company had been awarded a no-bid contract, with a $7 billion limit, for putting out fires at Iraqi oil wells. Corps spokesmen justified the lack of competition on the grounds that the operation was part of a classified war plan, and the Army did not have time to secure competitive bids for the work."

"The practice of delegating a vast array of logistics operations to a single contractor dates to the aftermath of the Persian Gulf War in 1991 and a study commissioned by Cheney, then defense secretary, on military outsourcing. The Pentagon chose Brown and Root to carry out the study, and subsequently selected the company to implement its own plan."


So, while Secretary of Defence Cheney commissioned the study "on military outsourcing choosing Brown and Root to carry out the study and subsequently selected the company to implement its own plan." Brown and Root tells the US government how to set policy which will favor Brown and Root at Cheney's request while Secretary of Defence! Then chooses Brown and Root to implement its own plan!

Cheney becomes CEO of Halliburton in the following years which is the parent company of Brown and Root. The same company Cheney allowed to set US government policy by implementing the plan which resulted from their own study! During the decade when Halliburton is "positioning itself to take advantage" of the very policies put in place while Cheney was Defence Secretary!

Cheney resigns his position as CEO with Halliburton in 2000 after 5 years with the company, of which Brown and Root is a subsidiary, to run for and become VP. With the plan he put in place during his tenure as Secretary of Defence, Cheney and his allies in the Bush administration begin their campaign for an invasion of Iraq.

Does anyone other than me have a problem with government officials in the highest positions instituting policy made by specific companies which benefit those same specific companies then upon leaving government becoming CEO of the same companies which benefit from those very same policies, then moving back into government into the second highest position in the US government where they then influence policies resulting in a war based on dubious evidence which ultimately results in the companies they ran becoming the biggest single government contractor in Iraq?

As for their profit margins Halliburton earns on these government contracts, Halliburton isn't sharing that infromation with the public.

"Wendy Hall, a Halliburton spokeswoman, declined to discuss the details of the company's operations in Iraq, or confirm or deny estimates of the amounts the company has earned from its contracting work on behalf of the military."

Draw your own conclusions. I've drawn mine. I know one thing for certain. Without a doubt. If this type of activity had gone on during the Clinton administration the conservatives would have HOWLED and DEMANDED and investigation into the impropriety of such an arrangement.

And the excuse that when Cheney leaves the White House Halliburton won't dismiss their CEO to retire him is not relevant. The job has already been done. Halliburton has already had their subsidiary, under Defence Secretary Cheney, conduct, implement and profit from their own study.

Cheney has done his job as a government official at the highest levels setting policy which benefits the company he headed. This is the worst form of political corruption. Not only is Halliburton adding BILLIONS of dollars to their gross income, at US taxpayer's expense, they are doing it as war profiteers in a conflict that many believe was unnecessary and at the cost of American lives.

This is, IMO, a disgrace and a crime the likes of which we have never witnessed in our nation's history.
People can choose to ignore these facts. I choose not to.

 

[etech]

Halliburton: The Bush/Iraq Scandal that Wasn?t

 

[BOBDN]

By the way

FYI

Here's a little tidbit of info I read in the news.

The majority of the civilian members of the Pentagon, Wolfowitz, Perle and the nameless ones who make up the civilian advisors set up during the Reagan/Bush administration HAVE CLOSE PERSONAL AND BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE COMPANIES WHO DO BUSINESS WITH THE PENTAGON.

Talk about a military industrial complex! No wonder these chickenhawks are warmongers. They are EVERY ONE OF THEM WAR PROFITEERS.

What a disgrace.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: etech
Halliburton: The Bush/Iraq Scandal that Wasn?t

"One element missing from all the criticism was a serious examination of what the Halliburton contract actually involved and how it came to be signed. For example, was it really reached without competition, as Waxman charged? As it turns out, the evidence that is publicly available (some of it remains classified) suggests that Waxman's accusations are misleading at best and flat wrong at worst. It appears not only that there was not "naked favoritism" at work in the Halliburton contract, but that the Corps of Engineers, and the Bush administration, acted reasonably and properly in awarding the contract ? no matter what Waxman says."

The contracts were awarded under policies made BY BROWN AND ROOT AT THE REQUEST OF THEN SECRETARY OF DEFENCE CHENEY. Their legality as policy isn't questioned since they were definitely government policy. The questions being raised among others are,

1. Is it appropriate for a Sec of Defence to have a company set policy for the government?

2.Then become CEO of that company during the time that company is positioning itself to benefit from those very same policies?

3. Then become VP and influence Bush administration policy regarding the invasion of Iraq which ultimately benefits the company he headed by using the same policies he put in place, policies MADE by the company, while Secretary of Defence?

So while the government may have "acted reasonably and properly in awarding the contract" the policies which led to the contracts in the first place were as crooked as the Burma road.


I won't cut and paste the entire piece under the title "The Fires This Time?" You can read it for yourselves. But here is the conclusion Byron York reaches.

"Army officials also suggest that critics consider what might have happened had the Iraqi situation worked out differently. Suppose the wells had been torched and the Army, following Waxman's advice, had begun a long, complicated competitive-bidding process to find a company to put out the fires. "I don't think people would have been satisfied for the wells to have been burning while we were going through standard contract practices," says Pawlik. "I think we would have been getting a lot of questions about why did we pursue that course of action.""

I would ask this. Suppose Cheney as Sec of Defence didn't commission KBR to do their study and implement the plan they themselves made. Suppose Cheney wasn't at the helm of Halliburton as Halliburton positioned itself to take advantage of those same policies. Suppose Cheney didn't become VP and lead his neo-con disciples in the charge for an invasion of Iraq. It's all a moot point whether or not Iraq set fire to its oil well then. The eventuality would never have occured if Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle and the other civilian Pentagon advisors hadn't pushed for a pre-emptive strike against a nation which didn't pose any threat to the US, after Cheney himself, over more than a decade, put in place the policies which Halliburton and KBR under Cheney ultimately took advantage of.

Under the heading "Halliburton - The Clinton Contractor"

Let us not forget both the Pentagon civilian advisory board and LOGCAP were put in place under the REAGAN/BUSH administration. This wasn't by any stretch of the imagination Clinton's baby. And the civilian Pentagon advisors put in place by Reagan/Bush are almost all connected to companies which stand to benefit from their decisions. The decision to invade Iraq for instance. Byron York tries to say again the LOGCAP contracts are SOP but the truth is the policies themselves are corrupt. And those policies were all put in place by the people who are making the decisions right now which are allowing Halliburton and KBR as well as other military suppliers to take advantage of them. That is the point. Not whether they followed policy but that the policies were put in place by the same people who move between the government and industry who supply the government. Total corruption.

Investigate,Investigate,Investigate

Whether or not the quality of work Halliburton and KBR does for the government is good or lacking. Whether or not there are cost overruns the very policies which lead to their work for the government, again, are flawed. Made by people who move between the government, the military and the corporations which supply them like chameleons.

The NRO piece evades the true issues IMO. Corrupt business leaders who become corrupt government leaders who set corrupt policies which result in corrupt military actions so they can all benefit. They all get a piece of the pie. It's called war profiteering and currently it's being used to set national policy including our newly minted policy of pre-emptively striking nations which pose NO threat to the USA but the invasion of which makes BILLIONS of dollars for the corporations and the leaders who profit from war at US taxpayer's expense and the expense of American lives, Iraqi lives (in this current iteration) as well as the stability of international relations.

Many people have wondered why Iraq and why now. This may shed some light on one of the answers. Leaders of government and the corporatins used to supply government moving between the two, planning for two decades, to reap the financial windfall the Iraq invasion made possible.

I find these actions repugnant, disgusting. Though, unfortuantely in the case of Bush, Cheney and their administration not wholly unexpected.

 

[BOBDN]

I have read a few articles at the NRO site you linked etech.

IMO They seem to be just a little bit slanted toward the Bush adiministration, no?

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: BOBDN
I have read a few articles at the NRO site you linked etech.

IMO They seem to be just a little bit slanted toward the Bush adiministration, no?

Considering where you are coming from Bobdn, someone from the middle is a far right winger.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: BOBDN
I have read a few articles at the NRO site you linked etech.

IMO They seem to be just a little bit slanted toward the Bush adiministration, no?

Considering where you are coming from Bobdn, someone from the middle is a far right winger.

Considering where the Bush administration is coming from someone from the McCarthy era is a compassionate conservative.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: BOBDN
I have read a few articles at the NRO site you linked etech.

IMO They seem to be just a little bit slanted toward the Bush adiministration, no?

Considering where you are coming from Bobdn, someone from the middle is a far right winger.

Ahhhh yes, the good old "middle ground" National Review.......LOL.

Maybe Etech actually does have a sense of humor.

 

[BOBDN]

For those of you doubters who still believe there is no quid pro quo in the military industrial complex read this little ditty posted by CkG.

And the beat goes on. The beat goes on.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BOBDN
For those of you doubters who still believe there is no quid pro quo in the military industrial complex read this little ditty posted by CkG.

And the beat goes on. The beat goes on.

Yes BOBDN - there seems to be AirForce/Boeing collusion - Not Bush Administration involvement. Infact....You didn't seem to pick up on my insinuation in the other thread. Who is one of most well known and involved Airline Lobbyists? Hmmm.. yes... questions...

CkG

 

[Corn]

Yes BOBDN - there seems to be AirForce/Boeing collusion - Not Bush Administration involvement. Infact....You didn't seem to pick up on my insinuation in the other thread. Who is one of most well known and involved Airline Lobbyists? Hmmm.. yes... questions...

That's OK CKG, those who are politically astute know to whom you are referring.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Corn

Yes BOBDN - there seems to be AirForce/Boeing collusion - Not Bush Administration involvement. Infact....You didn't seem to pick up on my insinuation in the other thread. Who is one of most well known and involved Airline Lobbyists? Hmmm.. yes... questions...

That's OK CKG, those who are politically astute know to whom you are referring.

I don't defend any corrupt politicians Corn.

Can't say the same for you. You're astute enough to recognize corruption when you see it, right?

Or can you only recognize corruption when it isn't a Republican VP who is corrupt?

 

[BOBDN]

These crickets are defeaning Corn.

 

[BOBDN]

I'd getting tired but these crickets are so loud I can't sleep Corn.

 

[PatboyX]

this ordeal certainly looks suspicious. as an american, it is one of the many things in the past few years that has really damaged my trust in the president. from the outside looking in on america...well, it seems like this can only look worse.