Vice Pres said Haliburton Best Company For the Job

[broon]

Vice Prez Gore that is. Said Haliburton was the best company in the industry. Oh. But that was when the Clintons gave them a no bid contract. Hmm....

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: broon
Vice Prez Gore that is. Said Haliburton was the best company in the industry. Oh. But that was when the Clintons gave them a no bid contract. Hmm....

Go away troll.

 

[Todd33]

Thank for the useless thread. You added so much to the Clinton sux, except when he does something Bush does debate.

 

[broon]

I wasn't saying Clinton Sux. It's interesting that Bush is criticized for doing the same thing Clinton did.

 

[NeoV]

It wouldn't seem to be a conflict at all under Clinton/Gore, would it? No.

Does it appear to be a conflict of interests under Bush/Cheney? Yes.

Was this contract, under Clinton/Gore, the result of the USA invading another country? No.

Was this contract, under Bush/Cheney, the result of the USA invading another country? Yes.

Next.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: broon
Vice Prez Gore that is. Said Haliburton was the best company in the industry. Oh. But that was when the Clintons gave them a no bid contract. Hmm....

Exactly, but as the wolves say and will say(maybe not in these exact terms however ) - they've know about their hypocrisy over the Haliburton issue for quite some time but they still think they can score points with the issue so they continue on.

CkG

 

[broon]

Bosnia wasn't an invasion? Maybe not on the scale of Iraq but we were there. Besides, if you're going to send someone to do a job, you pick the best person. Had they taken the time to get bids and gone with the lowest...then they get criticized for taking too long and the company they chose doing a shoddy job.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: broon
Vice Prez Gore that is. Said Haliburton was the best company in the industry. Oh. But that was when the Clintons gave them a no bid contract. Hmm....

Exactly, but as the wolves say and will say(maybe not in these exact terms however ) - they've know about their hypocrisy over the Haliburton issue for quite some time but they still think they can score points with the issue so they continue on.

CkG

Ummmm... you're forgetting that Bush and Co were stomping up and down going "This isn't about the oil. This isn't about the oil."

 

[broon]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: broon
Vice Prez Gore that is. Said Haliburton was the best company in the industry. Oh. But that was when the Clintons gave them a no bid contract. Hmm....

Exactly, but as the wolves say and will say(maybe not in these exact terms however ) - they've know about their hypocrisy over the Haliburton issue for quite some time but they still think they can score points with the issue so they continue on.

CkG

Ummmm... you're forgetting that Bush and Co were stomping up and down going "This isn't about the oil. This isn't about the oil."

How much oil has the US received from this "invasion"?

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: broon
Vice Prez Gore that is. Said Haliburton was the best company in the industry. Oh. But that was when the Clintons gave them a no bid contract. Hmm....

Exactly, but as the wolves say and will say(maybe not in these exact terms however ) - they've know about their hypocrisy over the Haliburton issue for quite some time but they still think they can score points with the issue so they continue on.

CkG

Please refer to this post for future reference:

It wouldn't seem to be a conflict at all under Clinton/Gore, would it? No.

Does it appear to be a conflict of interests under Bush/Cheney? Yes.

Was this contract, under Clinton/Gore, the result of the USA invading another country? No.

Was this contract, under Bush/Cheney, the result of the USA invading another country? Yes.

Next.

 

[Zebo]

During wars every American, corporation and especially the politicains should be paid as much as they guy in the trench to show our sacrifice. Certainly not profit off it like so many are doing. Think Iraq would have been "nessesary"?

BTW you know hal gave to clinton/gore right?

 

[Todd33]

Bosnia wasn't an invasion?

Not really. It was a bombing campaign. There were UN peacekeeping troops, but not 140,000 US troops like Iraq.

Haliburton is under fire for far more than it's ties to the VP. Go do some research and stop making dumb threads, we know you love Bush-Cheney. Did you download your talking points from Hannity or O'Liely?

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: broon

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: broon
Vice Prez Gore that is. Said Haliburton was the best company in the industry. Oh. But that was when the Clintons gave them a no bid contract. Hmm....

Exactly, but as the wolves say and will say(maybe not in these exact terms however ) - they've know about their hypocrisy over the Haliburton issue for quite some time but they still think they can score points with the issue so they continue on.

CkG

Ummmm... you're forgetting that Bush and Co were stomping up and down going "This isn't about the oil. This isn't about the oil."

How much oil has the US received from this "invasion"?

Not sure, but it damn looked suspicious (Cheney connection and all that) and something I'd want to look into further.

 

[broon]

Originally posted by: Zebo
During wars every American, corporation and especially the politicains should be paid as much as they guy in the trench to show our sacrifice. Certainly not profit off it like so many are doing. Think Iraq would have been "nessesary"?

BTW you know hal gave to clinton/gore right?

Hitler never did anything to the US during WW2. Was it necessary for the US to get involved in Europe? Should the US have gotten involved about two years earlier and most likely have prevented the deaths of about 6 million people?

Had the US not gotten involved in Iraq after ALL of the Senate (including John Kerry and Hillary Clinton) said Saddam is a threat and should be removed, millions of Iraqi's would likely have been killed.

 

[broon]

I actually don't love Bush. Definately not the best president the US has had. However, I believe he'll be better for the security of the US than Kerry will.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: broon
I actually don't love Bush. Definately not the best president the US has had. However, I believe he'll be better for the security of the US than Kerry will.

I have heard this argument a lot and please explain how?

Will he stand in front of the planes and block them this time? Serioulsy, that is such a tired argument and I have never heard anyone give or support one good reason why John Kerry, a man who has killed for this country, would give the terrorists the keys to the country.

Plese enlighten me?

 

[broon]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: broon
I actually don't love Bush. Definately not the best president the US has had. However, I believe he'll be better for the security of the US than Kerry will.

I have heard this argument a lot and please explain how?

Will he stand in front of the planes and block them this time? Serioulsy, that is such a tired argument and I have never heard anyone give or support one good reason why John Kerry, a man who has killed for this country, would give the terrorists the keys to the country.

Plese enlighten me?

Likewise, I'm tired of hearing how Kerry is so much better because of his service. A purple heart for a couple of stitches? Please. And then to come back and throw his medals...or was it ribbons...oh...it was someone else's medals/ribbons in protest.

Bush has proven what he will do if the US is threatened/attacked. Kerry will change his stance on something when pressured. Or he won't give a position on something.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: broon

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: broon
I actually don't love Bush. Definately not the best president the US has had. However, I believe he'll be better for the security of the US than Kerry will.

I have heard this argument a lot and please explain how?

Will he stand in front of the planes and block them this time? Serioulsy, that is such a tired argument and I have never heard anyone give or support one good reason why John Kerry, a man who has killed for this country, would give the terrorists the keys to the country.

Plese enlighten me?

Likewise, I'm tired of hearing how Kerry is so much better because of his service. A purple heart for a couple of stitches? Please. And then to come back and throw his medals...or was it ribbons...oh...it was someone else's medals/ribbons in protest.

Bush has proven what he will do if the US is threatened/attacked. Kerry will change his stance on something when pressured. Or he won't give a position on something.

That whole Purple Heart for stitches thing is starting to crumble quickly. Better jump off that ship before it sucks you down into the abyss.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: broon

Originally posted by: Zebo
During wars every American, corporation and especially the politicains should be paid as much as they guy in the trench to show our sacrifice. Certainly not profit off it like so many are doing. Think Iraq would have been "nessesary"?

BTW you know hal gave to clinton/gore right?

Hitler never did anything to the US during WW2. Was it necessary for the US to get involved in Europe? Should the US have gotten involved about two years earlier and most likely have prevented the deaths of about 6 million people?

Had the US not gotten involved in Iraq after ALL of the Senate (including John Kerry and Hillary Clinton) said Saddam is a threat and should be removed, millions of Iraqi's would likely have been killed.

You're guessing about Iraq, and one thing for sure is we've killed between 20,000-37,000 depending whose numbers you believe, plus 1000+ our troops which IMO is'nt worth 1 death to save them from themselves..

Much of the support for Germany?s rearmament came from American and international businesses, a scandal that has never been completely made public, but many companies were taken over under the "trading with the enemies act" in 1942...after PH was attacked. It was good for Business.

 

[broon]

Originally posted by: Zebo
You're guessing about Iraq, and one thing for sure is we've killed between 20,000-37,000 depending whose numbers you believe, plus 1000+ our troops which IMO is'nt worth 1 death to save them from themselves..

Much of the support for Germany?s rearmament came from American and international businesses, a scandal that has never been completely made public, but many companies were taken over under the "trading with the enemies act" in 1942...after PH was attacked. It was good for Business.

I am guessing about Iraq. That's one reason we didn't get involved in Germany...it didn't impact us. But then we had a "bombing campaign" in Bosnia because of genocide which was no problem because there was little risk to US soldiers. Saddam was commiting genocide so we stop him and because we've lost 1000+ soldiers, it's not ok? The majority of the soldiers over there see that we are having a positive impact on the majority of Iraqi's and are proud to be helping them.

Edit...we weren't saving them from themselves. We were saving them from a madman.

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Bosnia wasn't an invasion?

Not really. It was a bombing campaign. There were UN peacekeeping troops, but not 140,000 US troops like Iraq.

Haliburton is under fire for far more than it's ties to the VP. Go do some research and stop making dumb threads, we know you love Bush-Cheney. Did you download your talking points from Hannity or O'Liely?

Just read what you are saying. If Haliburton was the 'correct' choice for these contracts under Clinton, why are they not under Bush/Cheney? Their ties to the VP have absolutely NOTHING to do with their competence and ability to do their job. You are nothing but a hate spewing hypocrit. Haliburton should be judged on their abilities to accomplish the job in question, not on who they may have had ties with in the past.

You can't see past your hate to see how hypocritical you are being.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: Todd33

Bosnia wasn't an invasion?

Not really. It was a bombing campaign. There were UN peacekeeping troops, but not 140,000 US troops like Iraq.

Haliburton is under fire for far more than it's ties to the VP. Go do some research and stop making dumb threads, we know you love Bush-Cheney. Did you download your talking points from Hannity or O'Liely?

Just read what you are saying. If Haliburton was the 'correct' choice for these contracts under Clinton, why are they not under Bush/Cheney? Their ties to the VP have absolutely NOTHING to do with their competence and ability to do their job. You are nothing but a hate spewing hypocrit. Haliburton should be judged on their abilities to accomplish the job in question, not on who they may have had ties with in the past.

You can't see past your hate to see how hypocritical you are being.

I agree, judge them on this
Halliburton accused of over 3 Billion dollars in Accounting Fraud

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: Todd33

Bosnia wasn't an invasion?

Not really. It was a bombing campaign. There were UN peacekeeping troops, but not 140,000 US troops like Iraq.

Haliburton is under fire for far more than it's ties to the VP. Go do some research and stop making dumb threads, we know you love Bush-Cheney. Did you download your talking points from Hannity or O'Liely?

Just read what you are saying. If Haliburton was the 'correct' choice for these contracts under Clinton, why are they not under Bush/Cheney? Their ties to the VP have absolutely NOTHING to do with their competence and ability to do their job. You are nothing but a hate spewing hypocrit. Haliburton should be judged on their abilities to accomplish the job in question, not on who they may have had ties with in the past.

You can't see past your hate to see how hypocritical you are being.

Uh, ever hear of closed-bids?