Critic of No-Bid Halliburton Contract Demoted; Democrats Demand Probe

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Talk to Clinton, he gave Haliburton the "no-bid" contract.

So you support and praise Clinton's handling of military budgeting and procurement, good to know.

 

[CaptnKirk]

alent1234

in the Boeing case the company was trying to push a more expensive solution on the pentagon and there were other options available

WRONG !

They were gaming the system with a Good-Old-Boy (and Gal) scam to award their friends, and maximize profits. Pentagon Contract Officials given inside Boeing Executive Jobs, to reward them for making the 'Right' choice & cooking the books.

 

[Engineer]

Whether right or wrong with Haliburton being a no bid contract on this isn't the issue, it's whether this woman was unjustly demoted because she critisized what she thought was wrong, and seems retalitation took hold. If this is the case, then someone who did the retaliation should be held responsible.

All of the Haliburton is or isn't is off the side track, IMO.

If her job record was great for 20 years, and then demoted because of this one instance, it sure would seem shady, now wouldn't it?

The real question is would she have been demoted if she had questioned any other contract other than the Haliburton one? I think most suspect the answer is no..

(of course the Bush fanboys here think that this is a huge attack on their terroritory and will drag this woman through the mud and smear her to make Bush and Haliburton look innocent. Hell, they might even blame it on Clinton as they seem to blame everything Bush has done wrong on Clinton. Hell, maybe we can get a two for one impeachment of Clinton and Bush at the same time? What do you say?)

 

[outriding]

THe whole well there is no company that can do the work arguement is really poor at best.

The Hoover Dam was built on there was no company that could do the work. And the dam was built on time under budget.

Maybe we should so revisit that road again.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: Genx87
Talk to Clinton, he gave Haliburton the "no-bid" contract.

Clinton gave Haliburton the no-bid contract for Iraq? Really. Yeah. OK.

Clinton helped setup the system in the 1990s to give long term no-bid contracts to companies.

Haliburton impressed people in the Balkans and so they were awarded a contract in 01.

 

[arsbanned]

Yeah, but Clinton never held a stake in Haliburton. The current admin did/does. I see a problem with that. Start the war, profit from the war=bad.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Yeah, but Clinton never held a stake in Haliburton. The current admin did/does. I see a problem with that. Start the war, profit from the war=bad.

That is a real lame argument. Cheney hasnt had a vested interest in Haliburton since 1999.

If their sole motivation was to profit their former buddies. Why not create some lame brain project in the desert of Nevada and pay them 6 billion? Why go through the trouble of starting a war?

The no bid contract is a product of Clinton administration reforms. Gore even gave Haliburton praise for their work in the Balkans. The only difference between the 1990s Haliburton that democrats praised and the 2000 haliburton democrats dispise is the administration awarding them no-bid contracts.

This is partisan lameness on grand display.

 

[alent1234]

Originally posted by: Engineer
Whether right or wrong with Haliburton being a no bid contract on this isn't the issue, it's whether this woman was unjustly demoted because she critisized what she thought was wrong, and seems retalitation took hold. If this is the case, then someone who did the retaliation should be held responsible.

All of the Haliburton is or isn't is off the side track, IMO.

If her job record was great for 20 years, and then demoted because of this one instance, it sure would seem shady, now wouldn't it?

The real question is would she have been demoted if she had questioned any other contract other than the Haliburton one? I think most suspect the answer is no..

(of course the Bush fanboys here think that this is a huge attack on their terroritory and will drag this woman through the mud and smear her to make Bush and Haliburton look innocent. Hell, they might even blame it on Clinton as they seem to blame everything Bush has done wrong on Clinton. Hell, maybe we can get a two for one impeachment of Clinton and Bush at the same time? What do you say?)

how do you know she wasn't looking to go work for some other company and was only against halliburton to improve her job prospects?

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Yeah, but Clinton never held a stake in Haliburton. The current admin did/does. I see a problem with that. Start the war, profit from the war=bad.

That is a real lame argument. Cheney hasnt had a vested interest in Haliburton since 1999.

If their sole motivation was to profit their former buddies. Why not create some lame brain project in the desert of Nevada and pay them 6 billion? Why go through the trouble of starting a war?

The no bid contract is a product of Clinton administration reforms. Gore even gave Haliburton praise for their work in the Balkans. The only difference between the 1990s Haliburton that democrats praised and the 2000 haliburton democrats dispise is the administration awarding them no-bid contracts.

This is partisan lameness on grand display.

Cheney owes halliburton considering he profitted greatly from them. Think about it, he was their CEO, but he never had any business training, nor did he have any experience in the business world. The only reason they hired him was because they were expecting 'quid pro quo' when cheney went back into the public sector. Also, about your ridiculous thing about the nevada project: You do realize that bush owes a LOT to every single defense contractor out there who donated money to his campaign, right? I doubt a wimpy little project is going to pay them off.

The only partisan lameness is the one coming from you.

 

[alent1234]

so which special interests other than china did clinton pay off while in office? if this is quid pro quo i guess we now know the reason the democrats sold their soul to the trial lawyers and fight any litigation reform.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Yeah, but Clinton never held a stake in Haliburton. The current admin did/does. I see a problem with that. Start the war, profit from the war=bad.

That is a real lame argument. Cheney hasnt had a vested interest in Haliburton since 1999.

If their sole motivation was to profit their former buddies. Why not create some lame brain project in the desert of Nevada and pay them 6 billion? Why go through the trouble of starting a war?

The no bid contract is a product of Clinton administration reforms. Gore even gave Haliburton praise for their work in the Balkans. The only difference between the 1990s Haliburton that democrats praised and the 2000 haliburton democrats dispise is the administration awarding them no-bid contracts.

This is partisan lameness on grand display.

Cheney owes halliburton considering he profitted greatly from them. Think about it, he was their CEO, but he never had any business training, nor did he have any experience in the business world. The only reason they hired him was because they were expecting 'quid pro quo' when cheney went back into the public sector. Also, about your ridiculous thing about the nevada project: You do realize that bush owes a LOT to every single defense contractor out there who donated money to his campaign, right? I doubt a wimpy little project is going to pay them off.

The only partisan lameness is the one coming from you.

lmao the irony.

Read what you just wrote and tell me your sanity is still intact.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: alent1234

Originally posted by: Engineer
Whether right or wrong with Haliburton being a no bid contract on this isn't the issue, it's whether this woman was unjustly demoted because she critisized what she thought was wrong, and seems retalitation took hold. If this is the case, then someone who did the retaliation should be held responsible.

All of the Haliburton is or isn't is off the side track, IMO.

If her job record was great for 20 years, and then demoted because of this one instance, it sure would seem shady, now wouldn't it?

The real question is would she have been demoted if she had questioned any other contract other than the Haliburton one? I think most suspect the answer is no..

(of course the Bush fanboys here think that this is a huge attack on their terroritory and will drag this woman through the mud and smear her to make Bush and Haliburton look innocent. Hell, they might even blame it on Clinton as they seem to blame everything Bush has done wrong on Clinton. Hell, maybe we can get a two for one impeachment of Clinton and Bush at the same time? What do you say?)

how do you know she wasn't looking to go work for some other company and was only against halliburton to improve her job prospects?

Yes, i'm sure pissing off the pentagon and the whitehouse is the greatest way to go about that. Good god some of you are dumb :disgust:

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Yeah, but Clinton never held a stake in Haliburton. The current admin did/does. I see a problem with that. Start the war, profit from the war=bad.

That is a real lame argument. Cheney hasnt had a vested interest in Haliburton since 1999.

If their sole motivation was to profit their former buddies. Why not create some lame brain project in the desert of Nevada and pay them 6 billion? Why go through the trouble of starting a war?

The no bid contract is a product of Clinton administration reforms. Gore even gave Haliburton praise for their work in the Balkans. The only difference between the 1990s Haliburton that democrats praised and the 2000 haliburton democrats dispise is the administration awarding them no-bid contracts.

This is partisan lameness on grand display.

Cheney owes halliburton considering he profitted greatly from them. Think about it, he was their CEO, but he never had any business training, nor did he have any experience in the business world. The only reason they hired him was because they were expecting 'quid pro quo' when cheney went back into the public sector. Also, about your ridiculous thing about the nevada project: You do realize that bush owes a LOT to every single defense contractor out there who donated money to his campaign, right? I doubt a wimpy little project is going to pay them off.

The only partisan lameness is the one coming from you.

lmao the irony.

Read what you just wrote and tell me your sanity is still intact.

Oh, i exposed your fraudulent argument and that's the best you can come up with?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Yeah, but Clinton never held a stake in Haliburton. The current admin did/does. I see a problem with that. Start the war, profit from the war=bad.

That is a real lame argument. Cheney hasnt had a vested interest in Haliburton since 1999.

If their sole motivation was to profit their former buddies. Why not create some lame brain project in the desert of Nevada and pay them 6 billion? Why go through the trouble of starting a war?

The no bid contract is a product of Clinton administration reforms. Gore even gave Haliburton praise for their work in the Balkans. The only difference between the 1990s Haliburton that democrats praised and the 2000 haliburton democrats dispise is the administration awarding them no-bid contracts.

This is partisan lameness on grand display.

Cheney owes halliburton considering he profitted greatly from them. Think about it, he was their CEO, but he never had any business training, nor did he have any experience in the business world. The only reason they hired him was because they were expecting 'quid pro quo' when cheney went back into the public sector. Also, about your ridiculous thing about the nevada project: You do realize that bush owes a LOT to every single defense contractor out there who donated money to his campaign, right? I doubt a wimpy little project is going to pay them off.

The only partisan lameness is the one coming from you.

lmao the irony.

Read what you just wrote and tell me your sanity is still intact.

Oh, i exposed your fraudulent argument and that's the best you can come up with?

What fraudulent argument is that? Clinton created the no-bid system in the 1990s, Haliburton did a good job in the Balkans under Clinton, Gore gave them praise, their contract was renewed in 01?

Lets see I have a fact based timeline and you have a conspiracy laden kickpack program where a president starts a war to pay off supporters who pay 2500 bucks a plate when he comes through town.

You sure proved me wrong.

 

[shurato]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Talk to Clinton, he gave Haliburton the "no-bid" contract.

Then he was being an assw!pe too... oh wait what was your point again? Oh thats right you have none as usual.