Cheney's company turning huge profits on Army contracts

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: 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. :D

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?

Wasn't it earlier in this thread that the appearance of impropriety was the only thing known for certain in this case.(Haliburton's excompany getting a government contract. It now appears that you are ready to be judge, jury and executioner all based on appearance..

 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: 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. :D

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?

Wasn't it earlier in this thread that the appearance of impropriety was the only thing known for certain in this case.(Haliburton's excompany getting a government contract. It now appears that you are ready to be judge, jury and executioner all based on appearance..

The Republican party set the rules of engagement during their eight year witch hunt against President Clinton.

They spent $64 million dollars of tax payer money having that smarmy low worm Ken Starr investigate every cockeyed allegation any Republican operative could dig up. And all for nothing. Having failed at finding anything they could prove against Clinton they wound up putting our nation through one of the most embarassing episodes in our history asking questions that should never have been asked.

But that's not the end of the story.

Now that the company formerly headed by VP Cheney is getting government contracts worth BILLIONS of dollars to repair Iraq's infrastructure and provide services to our troops there AFTER CHENEY AS DEFENSE SECRETARY HAD THE VERY SAME COMPANY HE LATER HEADED CONDUCT AND IMPLEMENT THE STUDY WHICH LED TO THOSE RULES, AFTER CHENEY LED THAT COMPANY DURING THE YEARS THEY POSITIONED THEMSELVES TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THOSE SAME RULES, AFTER CHENEY AS VP LED THE NEO-CON MANIAC'S CHARGE INTO IRAQ BASED ON ABSOLUTELY NONE OF THE REASONS BUSH GAVE FOR THE INVASION WHICH LED TO HALLIBURTON AND KBR EARNING BILLIONS IN GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS, suddenly it isn't right to base the judgement on appearances.

Well I'm not basing judgement on appearances. I'm basing my judgement on facts. Are you saying, etech, it's OK for Cheney to conduct himself in this manner because he and his legal staff are clever enough to figure out how to skirt the rules just well enough to avoid prosecution? Is that the standard you hold for your VP? Because it sure as hell wasn't the standard the Republicans held for President Clinton.

What a bunch of hypocrites. IMO.

Cheney, as Secretary of Defense, set the stage for Halliburton to earn billions of dollars of taxpayer's money at the cost of American lives. He headed Halliburton as they geared up to take advantage of the policies Cheney put in place as Secretary of Defense. And now as VP, Cheney, still collecting deferred compensation and pay as an advisor to Halliburton, is influencing our government's policy which led us into invade Iraq where Halliburton is now the highest paid contractor.

My God people. If you can defend this there is nothing the Bush administration can do that you won't defend. Good, decent Americans are losing their lives and limbs in Iraq based on policy set by an administration which is CLEARLY USING THEIR POWER TO PROFITEER OFF OF THE INVASION OF IRAQ. AN INVASION IT IS NOW QUITE CLEAR WAS BASED ON FALSE CLAIMS OF IRAQ'S THREAT TO THE USA.

The lives of every one or our troops as well as the lives of every innocent civilian who died in the Bush administration invasion of Iraq are on the heads of Bush, Cheney, their entire administration as well as everyone who supports them in this corrupt, filthy, blatant episode of madness and war profiteering.

There will be a price to pay for all of this as a nation over and above the lives of our troops and the hundreds of billions of dollars it will cost us all, though that price is certainly already unbearable.

The sins of the Bush administration are on our entire nation. He charged others as the Axis of Evil. Like Oedipus he and his administration will find the evil they seek is their own.

May God Bless America. We will need it.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
So, you are saying that since the Republicans engaged in a so-called witch hunt against Pres. Clinton it's ok if you and the democrats do the same with Pres. Bush.

I see where you are coming from.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: etech
So, you are saying that since the Republicans engaged in a so-called witch hunt against Pres. Clinton it's ok if you and the democrats do the same with Pres. Bush.

I see where you are coming from.

Republicans changed the rules. Now that they must live by the rules they made they want to change them again.

I see where you're coming from too.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Answer the questions about Cheney Defense Secretary/Cheney Halliburton CEO/Cheney VP.

Or don't. I already know the answers. I just want to see if you're honest enough to admit the truth.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
What answers? All you have are allegations, at best right now the appearance of impropriety. Yet, in your own mind, you have decided guilt and judged all without any facts of wrongdoing.
 

VioletAura

Banned
Aug 28, 2003
302
0
0
Originally posted by: etech
What answers? All you have are allegations, at best right now the appearance of impropriety. Yet, in your own mind, you have decided guilt and judged all without any facts of wrongdoing.

Decide on guilt and judged without facts? Isn't that what the US did to Saddam?
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: VioletAura
Originally posted by: etech
What answers? All you have are allegations, at best right now the appearance of impropriety. Yet, in your own mind, you have decided guilt and judged all without any facts of wrongdoing.

Decide on guilt and judged without facts? Isn't that what the US did to Saddam?

No.

CkG
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: VioletAura
Originally posted by: etech
What answers? All you have are allegations, at best right now the appearance of impropriety. Yet, in your own mind, you have decided guilt and judged all without any facts of wrongdoing.

Decide on guilt and judged without facts? Isn't that what the US did to Saddam?

:D

Yup.

etech uses shifting standards depending on who is in office. Apparently it's OK for some to get rich(er) on the deaths of Americans as long as you're a member of the Bush administration.

No facts or wrongdoing? Reread the info. If you can live with this kind of behavior from your leaders I understand your support for them, etech.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: VioletAura
Originally posted by: etech
What answers? All you have are allegations, at best right now the appearance of impropriety. Yet, in your own mind, you have decided guilt and judged all without any facts of wrongdoing.

Decide on guilt and judged without facts? Isn't that what the US did to Saddam?

No it isn't. Saddam had chemical, biological and a nuclear program. He ordered the use of those chemical weapons on people. He was effectively on probation for using those weapons and invading his neighbors. Try to use some semblance of the facts please.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: etech

No it isn't. Saddam had chemical, biological and a nuclear program. He ordered the use of those chemical weapons on people. He was effectively on probation for using those weapons and invading his neighbors. Try to use some semblance of the facts please.

Key work here would be had.

Where are the these chemical and biological weapons? How did nuclear weapons become a "nuclear program."

And what about Cheney's company turning huge profits on Army contracts based on these now obviously false Bush claims?

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: etech

No it isn't. Saddam had chemical, biological and a nuclear program. He ordered the use of those chemical weapons on people. He was effectively on probation for using those weapons and invading his neighbors. Try to use some semblance of the facts please.

Key work here would be had.

Where are the these chemical and biological weapons? How did nuclear weapons become a "nuclear program."

And what about Cheney's company turning huge profits on Army contracts based on these now obviously false Bush claims?

We HAVE been over this "tense" thing before. Saddam is no longer in Power. Therefore "had" is the correct tense to talk about Saddam's regime and things related to such.
Yes - Where are the Weapons that Saddam HAD and used? I didn't hear anyone before the war saying he didn't possess such weapons, infact intel agencies from AROUND THE WORLD thought he did - not just ours. So yes - where did they go?
1% is still HUGE profits to you huh? I foresee a successful business career for you
rolleye.gif
Plus there were MANY other reasons to go to war - but again you refuse to acknowledge that fact.

CkG
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: etech

No it isn't. Saddam had chemical, biological and a nuclear program. He ordered the use of those chemical weapons on people. He was effectively on probation for using those weapons and invading his neighbors. Try to use some semblance of the facts please.

Key work here would be had.

Where are the these chemical and biological weapons? How did nuclear weapons become a "nuclear program."

And what about Cheney's company turning huge profits on Army contracts based on these now obviously false Bush claims?

We HAVE been over this "tense" thing before. Saddam is no longer in Power. Therefore "had" is the correct tense to talk about Saddam's regime and things related to such.
Yes - Where are the Weapons that Saddam HAD and used? I didn't hear anyone before the war saying he didn't possess such weapons, infact intel agencies from AROUND THE WORLD thought he did - not just ours. So yes - where did they go?
1% is still HUGE profits to you huh? I foresee a successful business career for you
rolleye.gif
Plus there were MANY other reasons to go to war - but again you refuse to acknowledge that fact.

CkG

Intel agencies from around the world thought he did? Why didn't everyone just let the UN inspectors do their job and find out for sure?

As for the 1% profit figure I haven't seen Halliburton come up with ANY figures on their profit(eering) from contracts gained throught their close ties with their former CEO who is now VP in the unnecessary invasion of Iraq. Halliburton declined comment as stated by their spokeswoman above.

Plus we weren't given MANY other reasons to go to war. We were given WMD, nuclear material purchased from Niger, terrorist connections and the imminent threat Iraq posed. None of which were true. So, yes. I do refuse to acknowledge that we invaded Iraq for any reasons other than the lies Bush told.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Before the war did we use the word 'have' in regards to ChemBio weapons?

<<infact intel agencies from AROUND THE WORLD thought he did - not just ours.>>

Key word here would be thought.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Typically, a contractor 'on call' as Halliburton is with the government would operate on a Cost plus fixed fee basis. There are other contract terms but, given the unknowns in this I'd wager it is Cost Plus Fixed Fee. Those costs would included all direct costs, travel, housing, per diem, and various overhead costs which may be negotiated or based on actual rates subject to audit like Applicable overhead, material handling, SG and A and the like. DCAA or what it is today would audit the entire invoiced submission and not allow the DoD to pay what was not due. I'd expect the profit percentage built in at around 10 or so %. The Contractor will NOT lose money on this kind of operation but, they will not gouge enormous profits either. BTW the pool of overhead will be allocatable over the larger DL or what ever the item used is. Non appropriate O/H will be backed out.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: etech

No it isn't. Saddam had chemical, biological and a nuclear program. He ordered the use of those chemical weapons on people. He was effectively on probation for using those weapons and invading his neighbors. Try to use some semblance of the facts please.

Key work here would be had.

Where are the these chemical and biological weapons? How did nuclear weapons become a "nuclear program."

And what about Cheney's company turning huge profits on Army contracts based on these now obviously false Bush claims?

We HAVE been over this "tense" thing before. Saddam is no longer in Power. Therefore "had" is the correct tense to talk about Saddam's regime and things related to such.
Yes - Where are the Weapons that Saddam HAD and used? I didn't hear anyone before the war saying he didn't possess such weapons, infact intel agencies from AROUND THE WORLD thought he did - not just ours. So yes - where did they go?
1% is still HUGE profits to you huh? I foresee a successful business career for you
rolleye.gif
Plus there were MANY other reasons to go to war - but again you refuse to acknowledge that fact.

CkG

Intel agencies from around the world thought he did? Why didn't everyone just let the UN inspectors do their job and find out for sure?

As for the 1% profit figure I haven't seen Halliburton come up with ANY figures on their profit(eering) from contracts gained throught their close ties with their former CEO who is now VP in the unnecessary invasion of Iraq. Halliburton declined comment as stated by their spokeswoman above.

Plus we weren't given MANY other reasons to go to war. We were given WMD, nuclear material purchased from Niger, terrorist connections and the imminent threat Iraq posed. None of which were true. So, yes. I do refuse to acknowledge that we invaded Iraq for any reasons other than the lies Bush told.

The inspectors job wasn't to FIND - it was to make sure Iraq was in compliance.
1% comes from the LOGCAP contract.(but yes does have incentives)
Yep - you refuse to acknowledge the reasons - we've been over this time and time again but you still can't see past your hatred of Bush.

Gaard - Yes - thought/concluded/whatever you want to call it - which is what they are supposed to do. THEY collect and piece together the info - that is their job.

CkG
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: etech

No it isn't. Saddam had chemical, biological and a nuclear program. He ordered the use of those chemical weapons on people. He was effectively on probation for using those weapons and invading his neighbors. Try to use some semblance of the facts please.

Key work here would be had.

Where are the these chemical and biological weapons? How did nuclear weapons become a "nuclear program."

And what about Cheney's company turning huge profits on Army contracts based on these now obviously false Bush claims?

We HAVE been over this "tense" thing before. Saddam is no longer in Power. Therefore "had" is the correct tense to talk about Saddam's regime and things related to such.
Yes - Where are the Weapons that Saddam HAD and used? I didn't hear anyone before the war saying he didn't possess such weapons, infact intel agencies from AROUND THE WORLD thought he did - not just ours. So yes - where did they go?
1% is still HUGE profits to you huh? I foresee a successful business career for you
rolleye.gif
Plus there were MANY other reasons to go to war - but again you refuse to acknowledge that fact.

CkG

Intel agencies from around the world thought he did? Why didn't everyone just let the UN inspectors do their job and find out for sure?

As for the 1% profit figure I haven't seen Halliburton come up with ANY figures on their profit(eering) from contracts gained throught their close ties with their former CEO who is now VP in the unnecessary invasion of Iraq. Halliburton declined comment as stated by their spokeswoman above.

Plus we weren't given MANY other reasons to go to war. We were given WMD, nuclear material purchased from Niger, terrorist connections and the imminent threat Iraq posed. None of which were true. So, yes. I do refuse to acknowledge that we invaded Iraq for any reasons other than the lies Bush told.

The inspectors job wasn't to FIND - it was to make sure Iraq was in compliance.
1% comes from the LOGCAP contract.(but yes does have incentives)
Yep - you refuse to acknowledge the reasons - we've been over this time and time again but you still can't see past your hatred of Bush.

Gaard - Yes - thought/concluded/whatever you want to call it - which is what they are supposed to do. THEY collect and piece together the info - that is their job.

CkG


LOGCAP was at one time 9% profit margin which was reduced to 3% if memory serves me correctly.

I don't refuse to acknowledge the reasons. I know the reasons. WMD, nuclear material purchased from Niger, terrorist connections and the imminent threat Iraq posed to our security.

Those are the reasons Bush gave the American people.

All false.

Do you want to rewrite history now and claim Bush said something else?

Nothing to do with hatred. I just want the liar to admit he lied.

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
United Nations Address
September 12, 2002
"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."
"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
Radio Address
October 5, 2002
"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."
"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."
"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
October 7, 2002
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003

See? Lies.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
I would think that 'know' would be a prerequisite for declaring war on another country, of course 'thought' may be all that's necessary for a pre-emptive strike.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: Gaard
I would think that 'know' would be a prerequisite for declaring war on another country, of course 'thought' may be all that's necessary for a pre-emptive strike.

Good point, Gaard.

I'd like to try that defense in a court of law.

"Yes, your honor. I thought the deceased was a threat so I pre-empted the supposed threat and killed him."

Hmmmmm, well it's working for Bush. Now all I need to do is find someone I want dead. :)
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: etech

No it isn't. Saddam had chemical, biological and a nuclear program. He ordered the use of those chemical weapons on people. He was effectively on probation for using those weapons and invading his neighbors. Try to use some semblance of the facts please.

Key work here would be had.

Where are the these chemical and biological weapons? How did nuclear weapons become a "nuclear program."

And what about Cheney's company turning huge profits on Army contracts based on these now obviously false Bush claims?

We HAVE been over this "tense" thing before. Saddam is no longer in Power. Therefore "had" is the correct tense to talk about Saddam's regime and things related to such.
Yes - Where are the Weapons that Saddam HAD and used? I didn't hear anyone before the war saying he didn't possess such weapons, infact intel agencies from AROUND THE WORLD thought he did - not just ours. So yes - where did they go?
1% is still HUGE profits to you huh? I foresee a successful business career for you
rolleye.gif
Plus there were MANY other reasons to go to war - but again you refuse to acknowledge that fact.

CkG

Intel agencies from around the world thought he did? Why didn't everyone just let the UN inspectors do their job and find out for sure?

As for the 1% profit figure I haven't seen Halliburton come up with ANY figures on their profit(eering) from contracts gained throught their close ties with their former CEO who is now VP in the unnecessary invasion of Iraq. Halliburton declined comment as stated by their spokeswoman above.

Plus we weren't given MANY other reasons to go to war. We were given WMD, nuclear material purchased from Niger, terrorist connections and the imminent threat Iraq posed. None of which were true. So, yes. I do refuse to acknowledge that we invaded Iraq for any reasons other than the lies Bush told.

The inspectors job wasn't to FIND - it was to make sure Iraq was in compliance.
1% comes from the LOGCAP contract.(but yes does have incentives)
Yep - you refuse to acknowledge the reasons - we've been over this time and time again but you still can't see past your hatred of Bush.

Gaard - Yes - thought/concluded/whatever you want to call it - which is what they are supposed to do. THEY collect and piece together the info - that is their job.

CkG


LOGCAP was at one time 9% profit margin which was reduced to 3% if memory serves me correctly.

I don't refuse to acknowledge the reasons. I know the reasons. WMD, nuclear material purchased from Niger, terrorist connections and the imminent threat Iraq posed to our security.

Those are the reasons Bush gave the American people.

All false.

Do you want to rewrite history now and claim Bush said something else?

Nothing to do with hatred. I just want the liar to admit he lied.

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
United Nations Address
September 12, 2002
"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."
"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
Radio Address
October 5, 2002
"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."
"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."
"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
October 7, 2002
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003

See? Lies.

No - LOGCAP is Cost+1% but has incentives for performance and for keeping costs low - up to 9%IIRC
Again - you dwell on the narrow - there is more to it than you are willing to admit - we've been over this time and time again but yet you still keep spouting the same things.
Thanks for your spamming though;) Next time in bold
rolleye.gif
If you can't see past your hate and will only see what you wish to see then fine but to say that the war was based totally on LIES is infact a LIE itself. Go read the transcripts of Bush's address to the nation the day strikes happened. Go back and read all his speeches in the 14 months(read "rush to war":roll;) preceeding the invasion if you want to get the reasons - your little soundbites are a nice try though - I might suggest reading what is before and after those;)

Anywho - you can choose to ignore the facts if you want to believe it was all a lie - so be it, I could care less.

CkG
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: BOBDN

"That is what this war was about and it is about."

Is that the reason CkG is claiming I'm refusing to acknowledge. :confused:

No, that's the lie the Bush administration used to invade Iraq.

So what reason is CkG referring to?

Buahahaha Ari? That's the best you got?- if you people refuse to accept that there were MANY other reasons for this war then it is worthless to engage you in any sort of debate because you refuse to accept the facts which have been called to your attention MANY MANY times.

Later.

CkG