Repost Halliburton thread. Let's keep the flaming to a minimum and discuss the issues.

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: alchemize
I'm not attacking a man, Lozina. that was sarcasm. But let me spell it out for you. I'm setting precedent. Haliburton has been awarded no-bid contracts for quite a long time. The OP is insinuating that this somehow changed when Bush & Cheney entered office.

How I interpreted your response (forgive me if I was wrong) was that you implied that since previous administrations may have allowed no-bid contracts so if it was done before I don't care if it continues? You said we should 'set a precedent' with the 'first administration' but how do you set a precedent for something done in the past? Aren't precedents set with the judgement of an issue currently at hand?

I would say I was using this definition:

Convention or custom arising from long practice

 

[gistech1978]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: Gaard
You're probably free to post about Haliburton again BOBDN, I just think the other thread was locked down because of the personal attacks...not the subject matter.

I'm sure you're right. Let's discuss the use of no bid contracts given to corportaions recently headed by VP Cheney instead of discussing each other's perceived weaknesses.

In a nation with the second largest oil reserves on the planet the US taxpayer is subsidizing fuel being distributed by Cheney's Halliburton Corp. and being GOUGED on the price in the process.

This is simply wrong. And those who are responsible must be investigated for their actions.

You are correct. Let's start with the first administration to have awarded Haliburton no-bid contracts.

Originally posted by: alchemize

When you can't defend what the man is saying, instead attack another. SOP.

So are you trying to say that you can't defend the fact that Haliburton got no-bid contracts during Clinton's Administration?

CkG

cheney was a crook then, hes a crook now. the man has connections in government and has had them for decades. just because Clinton was President doesnt mean cheney didnt have cronies in the Pentagon then. do you think the entire staff of the DoD and Pentagon turn over with each Presidency?

Wasnt cheney involved in some shady accounting principles when CEO of Halliburton, cost overruns ring a bell? Isnt that what this is essentially?
This is not suprising in the least.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: gistech1978

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: Gaard
You're probably free to post about Haliburton again BOBDN, I just think the other thread was locked down because of the personal attacks...not the subject matter.

I'm sure you're right. Let's discuss the use of no bid contracts given to corportaions recently headed by VP Cheney instead of discussing each other's perceived weaknesses.

In a nation with the second largest oil reserves on the planet the US taxpayer is subsidizing fuel being distributed by Cheney's Halliburton Corp. and being GOUGED on the price in the process.

This is simply wrong. And those who are responsible must be investigated for their actions.

You are correct. Let's start with the first administration to have awarded Haliburton no-bid contracts.

Originally posted by: alchemize

When you can't defend what the man is saying, instead attack another. SOP.

So are you trying to say that you can't defend the fact that Haliburton got no-bid contracts during Clinton's Administration?

CkG

cheney was a crook then, hes a crook now. the man has connections in government and has had them for decades. just because Clinton was President doesnt mean cheney didnt have cronies in the Pentagon then. do you think the entire staff of the DoD and Pentagon turn over with each Presidency?

Wasnt cheney involved in some shady accounting principles when CEO of Halliburton, cost overruns ring a bell? Isnt that what this is essentially?
This is not suprising in the least.

8 years of Clinton. Haliburton gets no-bid contracts during that time....but now it is all Bush and Cheney's fault.

Yeah - I get it. Nobody was bitching back then about the no-bid contracts. It's now just a conveinent spouting point for the leftists.

Like I said - if there is something amiss - it will get taken care of, but at this point we don't have much more than 2 people saying things, so no, it isn't "essentially" what this is....YET.
How quickly you judge....

CkG

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY


8 years of Clinton. Haliburton gets no-bid contracts during that time....but now it is all Bush and Cheney's fault.

Yeah - I get it. Nobody was bitching back then about the no-bid contracts. It's now just a conveinent spouting point for the leftists.

Like I said - if there is something amiss - it will get taken care of, but at this point we don't have much more than 2 people saying things, so no, it isn't "essentially" what this is....YET.
How quickly you judge....

CkG

You're right Cad, it's too early to serve judgement as we need an investigation into this matter.

But in regards to the Clinton referal, what makes you think no one complained about no bid contracts before? And perhaps no one has abused this process to price gouge until now? Anyway, I'm not blaming Bush- I'd blame Cheney and the corruption in the government in general who allowed this, if it turns out something fishy is going on

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: Gaard
You're probably free to post about Haliburton again BOBDN, I just think the other thread was locked down because of the personal attacks...not the subject matter.

I'm sure you're right. Let's discuss the use of no bid contracts given to corportaions recently headed by VP Cheney instead of discussing each other's perceived weaknesses.

In a nation with the second largest oil reserves on the planet the US taxpayer is subsidizing fuel being distributed by Cheney's Halliburton Corp. and being GOUGED on the price in the process.

This is simply wrong. And those who are responsible must be investigated for their actions.

You are correct. Let's start with the first administration to have awarded Haliburton no-bid contracts.

We discussed this in a thread a few weeks ago. During the Reagan/Bush administration policy was changed to allow corps to supply the military and relieve them from work that could be done by the private sector.

Does anyone remember the name of the DOD program?

In any event, Cheney as Sec of Defense had KBR (wholly ownded subsidiary of Halliburton) conduct a study then allowed KBR to implement their own study. Then Cheney becomes CEO of Halliburton and positions them to take advantage of the very program he had KBR set up!

Now as VP of the USA, while still receiving compensation from Halliburton (read the link I posted in the first post above about the findings of the Congressional Search Service) Cheney is INSTRUMENTAL in rushing our nation into a war based on statements and evidence which we all know now were COMPLETELY FALSE.

So sure, let's investigate the FIRST administration to have awarded Halliburton no-bid contracts.

As we all know, or as most of us will admit to ourselves, the Bush Doctrine of pre-emption was fomented by people in government who tried during the first Bush administration to achieve the goals they have now succeeded in reaching. Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Perle and the rest of the civilian Pentagon personnel were hell bent on invading Iraq from the moment Bush told Schwartzkopf to end the '91 Gulf War.

The implications cannot be ignored. We are dealing with people who planned this invasion and put themselves in a position to profit from it for 11 years.

This to my way of thinking is criminal. War profiteering with malice and forethought.

I find it difficult if not impossible to believe ANY AMERICAN can support such actions by people in or out of government.

Administrations since the mid '80s implementation of the Pentagon no-bid policy have granted Halliburton and other corporations no-bid contracts.

THIS administration has taken it one GIANT step further. They have used outdated intelligence, innuendo and outright lies to mire America in a war in which they are now, at the very highest offices in governement, are profiteering from.

That's just a bit further than other administrations have gone. And now with charges of price gouging for fuel in a nation with the world's second largest oil reserves I am led to wonder just how many other schemes the Bush administration, Halliburton and other contractors they are using in Iraq are conducting to fleece the American taxpayer. All the while telling us at home there isn't money for domestic programs.

These actions by the Bush administration are simply sickening war profiteering - and are from an unnecessary war that they contrived for just this purpose.

This is criminal. And Americans need to wake up to these facts.

 

[alchemize]

We discussed this in a thread a few weeks ago. During the Reagan/Bush administration policy was changed to allow corps to supply the military and relieve them from work that could be done by the private sector.

Then why are you bringing it up again?

Does anyone remember the name of the DOD program?

In any event, Cheney as Sec of Defense had KBR (wholly ownded subsidiary of Halliburton) conduct a study then allowed KBR to implement their own study. Then Cheney becomes CEO of Halliburton and positions them to take advantage of the very program he had KBR set up!

Now as VP of the USA, while still receiving compensation from Halliburton (read the link I posted in the first post above about the findings of the Congressional Search Service) Cheney is INSTRUMENTAL in rushing our nation into a war based on statements and evidence which we all know now were COMPLETELY FALSE.

Then you must have evidence to the contrary! Please refute EVERY ASSERTION made as to the reasons we went to war. Not just one (and I question that you can prove just one).

So sure, let's investigate the FIRST administration to have awarded Halliburton no-bid contracts.

Knock yourself out. I thought all those years of Democratic congress, and 8 years of Clinton would have cleaned up any messes from Reagan?

As we all know, or as most of us will admit to ourselves, the Bush Doctrine of pre-emption was fomented by people in government who tried during the first Bush administration to achieve the goals they have now succeeded in reaching. Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Perle and the rest of the civilian Pentagon personnel were hell bent on invading Iraq from the moment Bush told Schwartzkopf to end the '91 Gulf War.

The implications cannot be ignored. We are dealing with people who planned this invasion and put themselves in a position to profit from it for 11 years.

Just curious...how exactly will Cheney profit from Haliburton? If it goes bankrupt, his deferred income is insured. If it makes a gajillion dollars, the stocks go to a charitable trust.

This to my way of thinking is criminal. War profiteering with malice and forethought.

That's no big suprise. Just about anything done by "the evil conservatives" is criminal by your way of thinking.

I find it difficult if not impossible to believe ANY AMERICAN can support such actions by people in or out of government.

That's no suprise either. You can't seem to get it through your thick skull that not many people are as biased and one-track minded as you are.

Administrations since the mid '80s implementation of the Pentagon no-bid policy have granted Halliburton and other corporations no-bid contracts.

THIS administration has taken it one GIANT step further. They have used outdated intelligence, innuendo and outright lies to mire America in a war in which they are now, at the very highest offices in governement, are profiteering from.

See above profit statement

That's just a bit further than other administrations have gone. And now with charges of price gouging for fuel in a nation with the world's second largest oil reserves I am led to wonder just how many other schemes the Bush administration, Halliburton and other contractors they are using in Iraq are conducting to fleece the American taxpayer. All the while telling us at home there isn't money for domestic programs.


These actions by the Bush administration are simply sickening war profiteering - and are from an unnecessary war that they contrived for just this purpose.

This assumes your profit statement, which is invalid.

This is criminal. And Americans need to wake up to these facts.

Maybe if you could prove anything you were saying, we would wake up. Me, along with about 240 or so million other americans, prefer to hear facts and evidence, not theories and innuendo.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: alchemize

We discussed this in a thread a few weeks ago. During the Reagan/Bush administration policy was changed to allow corps to supply the military and relieve them from work that could be done by the private sector.

Then why are you bringing it up again?

Does anyone remember the name of the DOD program?

In any event, Cheney as Sec of Defense had KBR (wholly ownded subsidiary of Halliburton) conduct a study then allowed KBR to implement their own study. Then Cheney becomes CEO of Halliburton and positions them to take advantage of the very program he had KBR set up!

Now as VP of the USA, while still receiving compensation from Halliburton (read the link I posted in the first post above about the findings of the Congressional Search Service) Cheney is INSTRUMENTAL in rushing our nation into a war based on statements and evidence which we all know now were COMPLETELY FALSE.

Then you must have evidence to the contrary! Please refute EVERY ASSERTION made as to the reasons we went to war. Not just one (and I question that you can prove just one).

So sure, let's investigate the FIRST administration to have awarded Halliburton no-bid contracts.

Knock yourself out. I thought all those years of Democratic congress, and 8 years of Clinton would have cleaned up any messes from Reagan?

As we all know, or as most of us will admit to ourselves, the Bush Doctrine of pre-emption was fomented by people in government who tried during the first Bush administration to achieve the goals they have now succeeded in reaching. Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Perle and the rest of the civilian Pentagon personnel were hell bent on invading Iraq from the moment Bush told Schwartzkopf to end the '91 Gulf War.

The implications cannot be ignored. We are dealing with people who planned this invasion and put themselves in a position to profit from it for 11 years.

Just curious...how exactly will Cheney profit from Haliburton? If it goes bankrupt, his deferred income is insured. If it makes a gajillion dollars, the stocks go to a charitable trust.

This to my way of thinking is criminal. War profiteering with malice and forethought.

That's no big suprise. Just about anything done by "the evil conservatives" is criminal by your way of thinking.

I find it difficult if not impossible to believe ANY AMERICAN can support such actions by people in or out of government.

That's no suprise either. You can't seem to get it through your thick skull that not many people are as biased and one-track minded as you are.

Administrations since the mid '80s implementation of the Pentagon no-bid policy have granted Halliburton and other corporations no-bid contracts.

THIS administration has taken it one GIANT step further. They have used outdated intelligence, innuendo and outright lies to mire America in a war in which they are now, at the very highest offices in governement, are profiteering from.

See above profit statement

That's just a bit further than other administrations have gone. And now with charges of price gouging for fuel in a nation with the world's second largest oil reserves I am led to wonder just how many other schemes the Bush administration, Halliburton and other contractors they are using in Iraq are conducting to fleece the American taxpayer. All the while telling us at home there isn't money for domestic programs.


These actions by the Bush administration are simply sickening war profiteering - and are from an unnecessary war that they contrived for just this purpose.

This assumes your profit statement, which is invalid.

This is criminal. And Americans need to wake up to these facts.

Maybe if you could prove anything you were saying, we would wake up. Me, along with about 240 or so million other americans, prefer to hear facts and evidence, not theories and innuendo.

You can choose to remain blind if you like. That is your choice.

But please don't speak for 240 million or so Americans (I believe we're closer to 290 million now but no matter). They can decide this for themselves.

 

[alchemize]

{q]You can choose to remain blind if you like. That is your choice.

But please don't speak for 240 million or so Americans (I believe we're closer to 290 million now but no matter). They can decide this for themselves.[/quote]


Why can't I? You did:

I find it difficult if not impossible to believe ANY AMERICAN can support such actions by people in or out of government.

And Americans need to wake up to these facts

I allowed about 20% for liberals that buy into this stuff with 240 million...

There's quite a difference between "remaining blind" and "being blind to partisan politics". Perhaps you should look inwards and see if you can distinquish the difference.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: alchemize
{q]You can choose to remain blind if you like. That is your choice.

But please don't speak for 240 million or so Americans (I believe we're closer to 290 million now but no matter). They can decide this for themselves.

Why can't I? You did:

I find it difficult if not impossible to believe ANY AMERICAN can support such actions by people in or out of government.

And Americans need to wake up to these facts

I allowed about 20% for liberals that buy into this stuff with 240 million...

There's quite a difference between "remaining blind" and "being blind to partisan politics". Perhaps you should look inwards and see if you can distinquish the difference.[/quote]

You try to justify a war begun on lies wherein American corporations with connections to the highest government officials are right this minute gouging American taxpayers while American troops die to protect their interests and you have the nerve to call me partisan.

My disbelief at any American being able to accept this administration's actions in Iraq both before, during and after their unnecessary invasion is not an attempt to speak for them as your statement unequivocally was.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: alchemize
{q]You can choose to remain blind if you like. That is your choice.

But please don't speak for 240 million or so Americans (I believe we're closer to 290 million now but no matter). They can decide this for themselves.

Why can't I? You did:

I find it difficult if not impossible to believe ANY AMERICAN can support such actions by people in or out of government.

And Americans need to wake up to these facts

I allowed about 20% for liberals that buy into this stuff with 240 million...

There's quite a difference between "remaining blind" and "being blind to partisan politics". Perhaps you should look inwards and see if you can distinquish the difference.

You try to justify a war begun on lies wherein American corporations with connections to the highest government officials are right this minute gouging American taxpayers while American troops die to protect their interests and you have the nerve to call me partisan.

My disbelief at any American being able to accept this administration's actions in Iraq both before, during and after their unnecessary invasion is not an attempt to speak for them as your statement unequivocally was.[/quote]

Maybe you didn't even read what I said. Let's try again.

Me, along with about 240 or so million other americans, prefer to hear facts and evidence, not theories and innuendo.

So argue against what I said. Do most Americans prefer facts and evidence, or theories in innuendo? Unequivocal? Hardly. You are the master of making unequivocal statements that are backed by nothing but opinion.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: alchemize
{q]You can choose to remain blind if you like. That is your choice.

But please don't speak for 240 million or so Americans (I believe we're closer to 290 million now but no matter). They can decide this for themselves.

Why can't I? You did:

I find it difficult if not impossible to believe ANY AMERICAN can support such actions by people in or out of government.

And Americans need to wake up to these facts

I allowed about 20% for liberals that buy into this stuff with 240 million...

There's quite a difference between "remaining blind" and "being blind to partisan politics". Perhaps you should look inwards and see if you can distinquish the difference.

You try to justify a war begun on lies wherein American corporations with connections to the highest government officials are right this minute gouging American taxpayers while American troops die to protect their interests and you have the nerve to call me partisan.

My disbelief at any American being able to accept this administration's actions in Iraq both before, during and after their unnecessary invasion is not an attempt to speak for them as your statement unequivocally was.

Maybe you didn't even read what I said. Let's try again.

Me, along with about 240 or so million other americans, prefer to hear facts and evidence, not theories and innuendo.

So argue against what I said. Do most Americans prefer facts and evidence, or theories in innuendo? Unequivocal? Hardly. You are the master of making unequivocal statements that are backed by nothing but opinion.[/quote]

I'm backing my opinion with the two articles I posted above.

What are you backing yours with?

I couldn't help but notice you didn't try to refute ANY of the claims made in the articles about the exhorbitant prices for fuel Halliburton is charging American taxpayers or the finding of the law division of the congressional research arm of the Library of Congress that federal ethics laws treat Vice President Cheney's annual deferred compensation checks and unexercised stock options as continuing financial interests in the Halliburton Co.

 

[alchemize]

What do I have to refute? I'm not the one claiming CHENEY IS PROFITING. You are the one calling folks criminals and clamoring about profiteering.

The financial interest thing is obviously legalese. Try refuting this statement:

Whether Haliburton makes 100 Billion dollars, or goes bankrupt tomorrow, does not impact Cheney financially.

The "financial ties" bit is a bunch of legalese. He's effectivley severed his profit/loss relationship through the trust and the insurance on the deferred compensation.

 

[Gaard]

Maybe you didn't even read what I said. Let's try again.


Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Me, along with about 240 or so million other americans, prefer to hear facts and evidence, not theories and innuendo.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This one goes in the vault...for future reference.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Maybe you didn't even read what I said. Let's try again.


Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Me, along with about 240 or so million other americans, prefer to hear facts and evidence, not theories and innuendo.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This one goes in the vault...for future reference.

And feel free to break it out when some facts and evidence come out. An example:

"CNN Breaking News: White House Tapes prove GW Bush knowingly lied"
"CNN Breaking News: Dick Cheney made $5 Billion from Haliburton contracts and secretly deposited it into a swiss bank account"

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Gaard
Maybe you didn't even read what I said. Let's try again.


Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Me, along with about 240 or so million other americans, prefer to hear facts and evidence, not theories and innuendo.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This one goes in the vault...for future reference.

And feel free to break it out when some facts and evidence come out. An example:

"CNN Breaking News: White House Tapes prove GW Bush knowingly lied"
"CNN Breaking News: Dick Cheney made $5 Billion from Haliburton contracts and secretly deposited it into a swiss bank account"

Oh sorry. I thought you meant in general. I didn't realize you meant just on this subject. Carry on.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: alchemize
What do I have to refute? I'm not the one claiming CHENEY IS PROFITING. You are the one calling folks criminals and clamoring about profiteering.

The financial interest thing is obviously legalese. Try refuting this statement:

Whether Haliburton makes 100 Billion dollars, or goes bankrupt tomorrow, does not impact Cheney financially.

The "financial ties" bit is a bunch of legalese. He's effectivley severed his profit/loss relationship through the trust and the insurance on the deferred compensation.

That's your personal opinion. As I've repeatedly stated the position I posted is the opinion of the law division of the congressional research arm of the Library of Congress. Two US Representatives have questioned Halliburton's overcharging the American taxpayers for FUEL IN IRAQ - an nation which has the world's second largest oil reserves.

That's my proof.
If you don't mind I'll take their word over yours.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: alchemize
What do I have to refute? I'm not the one claiming CHENEY IS PROFITING. You are the one calling folks criminals and clamoring about profiteering.

The financial interest thing is obviously legalese. Try refuting this statement:

Whether Haliburton makes 100 Billion dollars, or goes bankrupt tomorrow, does not impact Cheney financially.

The "financial ties" bit is a bunch of legalese. He's effectivley severed his profit/loss relationship through the trust and the insurance on the deferred compensation.

That's your personal opinion. As I've repeatedly stated the position I posted is the opinion of the law division of the congressional research arm of the Library of Congress. Two US Representatives have questioned Halliburton's overcharging the American taxpayers for FUEL IN IRAQ - an nation which has the world's second largest oil reserves.

That's my proof.
If you don't mind I'll take their word over yours.

Of course our two fine US representatives only have the taxpayer in mind when researching this item...

So in other words, Cheney isn't profiting? Maybe Haliburton is, but Cheney isn't it. Come on...back your words up...This isn't opinion. This is a simple matter of dollars and sense (mispelling intended).

We are dealing with people who planned this invasion and put themselves in a position to profit from it for 11 years.

These actions by the Bush administration are simply sickening war profiteering - and are from an unnecessary war that they contrived for just this purpose.

 

[rjain]

alchemize: Any facts you can present are your opinion. Any opinions BOBDN presents are facts. That's what he's trying to say. Nothing about Cheney or Halliburton or whether there is still any relation in the profits of one to the profits of the other.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: rjain
alchemize: Any facts you can present are your opinion. Any opinions BOBDN presents are facts. That's what he's trying to say. Nothing about Cheney or Halliburton or whether there is still any relation in the profits of one to the profits of the other.

Thanks for clearing that up Rjain

 

[BOBDN]

You two girlfriends can pool your intelligence and read the articles I posted.

If you concentrate you may be able to see how you're being screwed.

Or maybe you enjoy being screwed. That's the only logical explanation for your decision to ignore the facts.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: BOBDN
You two girlfriends can pool your intelligence and read the articles I posted.

If you concentrate you may be able to see how you're being screwed.

Or maybe you enjoy being screwed. That's the only logical explanation for your decision to ignore the facts.

I've read them...more than a few times. Now I'm just waiting for you to prove your "facts" that I've asked you to.

I haven't questioned that there might be issues with how Haliburton is administering no-bid contracts. There might be fraud, might be well within the rights of the contract. Guess the lawyers will figure that out. I'm used to being screwed by the government, it's been happening for ages now, from both sides of the aisle. Ever since the $400 hammer...

It's your tie to Cheney and profits that you've stated over and over again as FACT, yet cannot and will not prove.

 

[glenn1]

According to the two lawmakers, Halliburton has charged the government $1.62 to $1.70 a gallon for gasoline that could be bought wholesale in the Persian Gulf region for about 71 cents and transported to Iraq for no more than 25 cents. The fuel was sold in Iraq for 4 cents to 15 cents a gallon, the letter said.

I only see a problem with the second part of this. If doesn't really matter that Halliburton only paid 71 cents for the oil. Since they could sell it into the United States for the cited retail market price of $1.62 to $1.70, I see no problem with charging the government that amount to make up for their lost opportunity cost.

I do agree however that selling it in Iraq for a fraction of its cost of procurement makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[burnedout]

Halliburton Refutes Statements Made about Fuel Procurement and Delivery in Iraq

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: burnedout
Halliburton Refutes Statements Made about Fuel Procurement and Delivery in Iraq

More lies! Lies from the war profiteering illegal regime!! You stupid americans can't you see past these lies?

 

[alchemize]

*Cricket* *Cricket*
Guess BOOB get's bored when the facts start to come out.