"The office of Vice President Cheney approved the award by the Pentagon of two huge contracts to redevelop Iraq's oil industry to Halliburton, his old company.

Cheney's office was briefed twice on the $7 billion contracts, which were awarded without competition, despite his repeated public statements that he had no knowledge of or involvement in the deals, according to pentagon officials.

The officials also revealed that -- contrary to White House assertions that the contracts were awarded by career civil servants -- political appointees at the Pentagon, including a senior aide to and former law partner of Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith, decided that Halliburton would get the contract and would be awarded it sole source--i.e. with no competition. (http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=fc2e43dfc19e04cf)" :@@:

shaman, name us a few American companys that can compete with haliburton

Originally posted by Travh20
shaman, name us a few American companys that can compete with haliburton
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh.....so, lying is all-of-a-sudden one o' those conditional-things, now....huh?

"The office of Vice President Cheney approved the award by the Pentagon of two huge contracts to redevelop Iraq's oil industry to Halliburton, his old company.

Cheney's office was briefed twice on the $7 billion contracts, which were awarded without competition, despite his repeated public statements that he had no knowledge of or involvement in the deals, according to pentagon officials."

How convenient!! ;)

again, name me a few american companys that can compete with halliburton for a job like rebuilding iraq.

First off, playing favorites is not unusual in Washington D.C., it is done with awarding sites for VA hospitals and military bases and of course has been done with contracts since the begining.
Trav I could name one company that could compete, Bechtel. But thats not the point I am making.
Cheney awarded a contract to Haliburton, they will scratch his back, someone will burn for it and we will all live on.
In all of the stuff going on in Iraq and D.C. this is the least important.
I dont think anyone could name a recent Prez or VP that didnt do something like this.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
First off, playing favorites is not unusual in Washington D.C., it is done with awarding sites for VA hospitals and military bases and of course has been done with contracts since the begining.
Trav I could name one company that could compete, Bechtel. But thats not the point I am making.
Cheney awarded a contract to Haliburton, they will scratch his back, someone will burn for it and we will all live on.
In all of the stuff going on in Iraq and D.C. this is the least important.
I dont think anyone could name a recent Prez or VP that didnt do something like this.
Hell.......you don't think Bechtel's there, as well???? :eek:

Guess again!!!!!!! (http://corpwatch.radicaldesigns.org/article.php?id=6975)

You think our friends at USAid......i.e. CIA (http://www.sea-us.org.au/gulliver/bechtel.html) are gonna cut ANYONE outta-the-process?????????

to people like shaman bechtel and halliburton are one in the same. they dont even know what these companys are about. they dont do all the work, they subcontract out thousands of jobs to hundreds of smaller companys. they have some sort of problem with anyone making to much money. they would rather see iraq rebuilt poorly or not rebuilt at all then to see dick cheanys former company do buisness. the funniest thing is that thousands of people are employeed by these evil corperations, I thought they were worried abot unemployement?

This is an accusation! Its basis is a letter from Waxman (and asks for more details, amazing he makes an accusation and then wants someone else to back him up) who has been banging this drum, without any success, for the last 3 years.

You'd have to be an absolute moron to think that this is something new.

waldo, meet Mr Shaman, absolute moron.

Originally posted by Travh20
waldo, meet Mr Shaman, absolute moron.

And a parrot with none of his own original thoughts. He is the king of posting liberal propaganda.

Originally posted by The Republican
And a parrot with none of his own original thoughts. He is the king of posting liberal propaganda.
In-other-words, you concur with everything I've posted......seeing-as-how you're unable to dispute them.

Much appreciated.

Originally posted by Mr. Shaman
In-other-words, you concur with everything I've posted......seeing-as-how you're unable to dispute them.

Much appreciated.

In other words...

http://web.media.mit.edu/~fletcher/colombia/parrot.gif

Originally posted by The Republican
In other words...
How weak. :@@:
You whining conservatives want to argue politics........yet, haul ASS when the opportunity arises.

Get back to me, after you've found some training-wheels.........



http://www.americanpolitics.com/MOPAUL20040526bushtrainingwheels.gif

Originally posted by Mr. Shaman
How weak. :@@:
You whining conservatives want to argue politics........yet, haul ASS when the opportunity arises.

Get back to me, after you've found some training-wheels.........



How weak? LMFAO

Maybe when you can actually put your own thoughts and ideas into a thread we can talk. As long as you are just a parrot for the left posting propaganda from liberal Websites I will continue to respond in kind. When you want to have a real conversation then we can debate.

OK shaman, still waiting on that long list of american competitors to halliburton.

Originally posted by Travh20
OK shaman, still waiting on that long list of american competitors to halliburton.
Ya' didn't like hearing about Bechtel, huh?? (http://www.angelfire.com/zine2/DionysianUnderground/bechtel.htm) :p

Sorry.......I could only......well, actually, USAid/CIA could only come-up with Bush-campaign contributors!!!!! (http://www.opensecrets.org/news/rebuilding_iraq/index.asp) :rolleyes:

On March 24, Halliburton, the giant energy-services company once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, announced that a subsidiary, Kellogg Brown & Root, had signed a contract with the Army Corps of Engineers to put out oil fires in Iraq, as well as to evaluate and repair the Iraqi oil infrastructure. The announcement set off an angry reaction in some circles on Capitol Hill. On March 26, California Democratic representative Henry Waxman wrote a letter to the Corps demanding to know why the contract was signed "without any competition or even notice to Congress." On April 8, Waxman, joined by Democratic representative John Dingell, requested a General Accounting Office investigation, writing that "ties" between Cheney and Halliburton "have raised concerns about whether the company has received favorable treatment from the administration." On April 10, Waxman wrote the Corps again, demanding more information. More Waxman letters followed on April 16, May 6, and June 6.

Liberal voices in the press followed Waxman's lead. Writing in the Washington Post, columnist Michael Kinsley called the Halliburton contract "nation-building, Republican-style, with huge contracts awarded in secret to politically connected companies." The New York Times editorialized that the contract "looks like naked favoritism" and "undermines the Bush administration's portrayal of the war as a campaign for disarmament and democracy, not lucre."

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 FIRES THIS TIME?
Waxman has made three basic accusations about the Halliburton deal. The first is that it was signed without appropriate competition. The second is that it called for Halliburton to be paid under an arrangement that — Waxman says — often results in overcharges to the government. The third objection is that it is a questionable use of federal money because of what Waxman calls Halliburton's "troubling" performance record.

First the competition issue. Last year, as administration officials made plans for war in Iraq, they were greatly concerned that Saddam Hussein would set fire to his country's oil fields, just as retreating Iraqi troops had done in Kuwait at the end of the first Gulf War. That, military planners knew, would result in a huge economic and environmental disaster. "The model we were looking at was what the Iraqis had done in Kuwait at the end of the Gulf War," says Lt. Col. Eugene Pawlik, a spokesman for the Army Corps of Engineers. "We had to consider the possibility that the Iraqis would set that many or more wells on fire in Iraq and what it would take for us to throw a maximum response at a maximum destruction scenario."

Last November, the Corps assigned Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR), which has been a wholly owned subsidiary of Halliburton since the 1960s, to do a classified study of potential damage and repairs in the Iraqi oil fields. Contrary to Waxman's assertion, the work was done under a competitively awarded contract system known as the U.S. Army Logistics Civil Augmentation Program, or LOGCAP. The LOGCAP system came about because of the military's need to perform complex jobs — peacekeeping in Bosnia, intervention in Haiti — on sometimes very short notice. In such situations, American troops require lots of logistical support; camps have to be built, utilities have to be supplied, food has to be cooked. By the early 1990s, as the size of the active-duty force shrank, the Pentagon began to "outsource" much of that work, that is, pay civilian contractors to do it rather than tie up soldiers with non-essential tasks. Instead of going through a months-long competitive-bidding process for each job, the military came up with LOGCAP.

LOGCAP is, in effect, a multi-year supercontract. In it, the Army makes a deal with a single contractor, in this case Halliburton, to perform a wide range of unspecified services during emergency situations in the future. The last competition for LOGCAP came in 2001, when Halliburton won the contract over several other bidders. Thus, when the oil-field study was needed, Corps officials say, Halliburton was the natural place to turn. "To invite other contractors to compete to perform a highly classified requirement that Kellogg Brown & Root was already under a competitively awarded contract to perform would have been a wasteful duplication of effort," Corps commander Lt. Gen. Robert Flowers wrote to Waxman in April.

In February 2003, with the study done, the Corps of Engineers decided to issue a contract to actually execute the plan that KBR had drawn up for dealing with problems in the Iraqi oil fields. At the end of that month, Army headquarters authorized the Corps to issue a sole-source contract to KBR. (The assignment seemed logical for another reason: Halliburton/KBR put out 350 oil-well fires in Kuwait after the first Gulf War.) "Only KBR, the contractor that developed the complex, classified contingency plans, could commence implementing them on extremely short notice," Flowers wrote Waxman. "The timing was driven by Central Command's operational requirement to have support available in advance of possibly imminent hostilities." Flowers added that the contract was always intended as a temporary "bridge" to a more permanent contract that would be offered for competitive bidding.

The next question was how large the contract should be. That was a difficult problem, because no one knew how big the problem would be. Would all the fields burn? Would none of them? Just a few? The Army assumed a worst-case scenario and decided the contract would be worth any amount between $0 and $7 billion (a common contracting practice known as ID/IQ, which stands for indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity). The $7 billion cap was thought to be sufficient to handle any emergency.

When the Army told Waxman that, he immediately began calling the KBR deal a $7 billion contract. "We are told it was a short-term contract for very little money, then it turned out it was a $7 billion contract," he said on National Public Radio in early May. What Waxman did not say was that he had been told a month earlier that the contract would not be worth anywhere near the cap amount. Because most of the anticipated disasters did not take place, the Army has asked KBR to do much less work than the original worst-case scenario envisioned, and the contract has therefore been worth far less than it might have been. "We will come nowhere close to the $7 billion figure," says Lt. Col. Pawlik. As of mid June, Pawlik says, the task orders issued to Kellogg Brown & Root totaled about $214 million. It's estimated that, in the end, costs will probably amount to around $600 million. While that is not pocket change, it's also not $7 billion — contrary, again, to Waxman's assertion.

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."

HALLIBURTON — THE CLINTON CONTRACTOR
Waxman's second objection concerns the way the company will be paid for its services. The LOGCAP payment method, known as a cost-plus-award, calls for KBR to be paid its costs plus a profit of 1 percent. According to the General Accounting Office, KBR could also earn "an incentive fee of up to nine percent of the cost estimate, based on the contractor's performance in a number of areas, including cost control." In one of his letters to the Corps of Engineers, Waxman says that the cost-plus-award system is "generally discouraged in the executive branch because it provides the contractor with an incentive to increase its profits by increasing the costs to the taxpayer." But in fact, the cost-plus-award method is an extremely common arrangement throughout the defense-contracting industry; one can leaf through the pages of Defense Daily and see many hundreds of contracts handled on the same basis. Given such widespread use, it is hard to conclude that the cost-plus-award method somehow makes the Halliburton contract a sweetheart deal for a politically favored company. (Nor is the contract unusually generous; the LOGCAP's range of a 1 percent to 9 percent fee is in line with standard government/industry practice.)

[Editor's note — Since this article was published in National Review magazine, Halliburton has said that while the LOGCAP that was in effect from 1992 until 1997 called for a one-to-nine percent profit range, the LOGCAP in effect now calls for significantly less, a one-to-three percent profit margin.]

Finally, Waxman objects to what he calls Halliburton's "troubling" performance record, suggesting that Halliburton would not have gotten the contract had Vice President Cheney not once headed the company. But Waxman's charges — and their echoes in outraged editorials — overlook Halliburton's extensive history of defense work for earlier administrations. Indeed, far from having a "troubling" past, one could argue that Halliburton was a favorite contractor of the Clinton Pentagon.

The first LOGCAP was awarded in 1992, as the first Bush administration (including then-Secretary of Defense Cheney) was leaving office. Four companies competed, and the winner was Brown & Root, as it was known at the time (Halliburton changed the name to Kellogg Brown & Root after an acquisition in 1998). The multi-year contract was in effect during much of the Clinton administration. During those years, Brown & Root did extensive work for the Army under the LOGCAP contract in Haiti, Somalia, and Bosnia; contract workers built base camps and provided troops with electrical power, food, and other necessities.

In 1997, when LOGCAP was again put up for bid, Halliburton/Brown & Root lost the competition to another contractor, Dyncorp. But the Clinton Defense Department, rather than switch from Halliburton to Dyncorp, elected to award a separate, sole-source contract to Halliburton/Brown & Root to continue its work in the Balkans. According to a later GAO study, the Army made the choice because 1) Brown & Root had already acquired extensive knowledge of how to work in the area; 2) the company "had demonstrated the ability to support the operation"; and 3) changing contractors would have been costly. The Army's sole-source Bosnia contract with Brown & Root lasted until 1999. At that time, the Clinton Defense Department conducted full-scale competitive bidding for a new contract. The winner was . . . Halliburton/Brown & Root. The company continued its work in Bosnia uninterrupted.

That work received favorable notices throughout the Clinton administration. For example, Vice President Al Gore's National Performance Review mentioned Halliburton's performance in its Report on Reinventing the Department of Defense, issued in September 1996. In a section titled "Outsourcing of Logistics Allows Combat Troops to Stick to Basics," Gore's reinventing-government team favorably mentioned LOGCAP, the cost-plus-award system, and Brown & Root, which the report said provided "basic life support services — food, water, sanitation, shelter, and laundry; and the full realm of logistics services — transportation, electrical, hazardous materials collection and disposal, fuel delivery, airfield and seaport operations, and road maintenance."

In 2001, after the Bush administration came into office, the giant LOGCAP contract expired again and another competition was held. Once again, Halliburton won the contract, and it was under that arrangement that the Iraqi-oilfield analysis was done. As the record shows, Halliburton won big government contracts under the Clinton administration, and it won big government contracts under the Bush administration. The only difference between the two is that Henry Waxman is making allegations of favoritism in the Bush administration, while he appeared untroubled by the issue during the Clinton years.

INVESTIGATE, INVESTIGATE, INVESTIGATE
That is not to say that there have not been problems with Halliburton's work — under both administrations. For example, Waxman cites a case last year in which the company paid a $2 million fine to resolve fraud allegations stemming from its work on a California military base. He also suggests that Halliburton/KBR overcharged the military throughout the Bosnia mission.

In the California case, the company clearly engaged in wrongdoing. But the scope of the problem, when considered in light of the enormous amount of work Halliburton/KBR does for the government and the fact that the issues have been resolved, does not seem a reason to cut Halliburton off from future work. As far as Bosnia is concerned, while critics correctly point out that the company's payment far exceeded original estimates, they fail to mention that a 1997 General Accounting Office report placed the blame mostly on the Army, and not Halliburton/KBR. "Our review shows that the difference in the Army's estimates was largely driven by changes in operational requirements once the forces arrived in Bosnia," the GAO wrote. "Specifically, the Commander in Chief of U.S. Army, Europe, decided to increase the number of base camps from 14 large camps to 34 smaller ones and to accelerate the schedule for upgrading troop housing." Halliburton/KBR was paid more because the Army wanted more.

Now the company is doing major work in Iraq. And while Halliburton's record is generally good, it seems clear that projects of such enormous scope and cost warrant constant scrutiny from government accountants. Because of that, Waxman's request for a GAO investigation of the Iraqi oil contracts seems entirely reasonable. So reasonable, in fact, that by the time he made the request, the GAO had already decided to study the issue. The study will be part of a long line of GAO investigations of military matters. For example, from 1991 to 1993, the GAO published 75 reports on all aspects of Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm. It would not be unreasonable to expect as many from Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The problem, from Henry Waxman's perspective, is that the investigation will likely show that both the government and Halliburton/KBR acted properly. Such a conclusion won't help Waxman's ongoing campaign to suggest that there is something inherently corrupt in the relationship between the Bush administration and Halliburton. Nor is the New York Times likely to editorialize about it. But if the president's critics really want the truth, they'll have to accept the results of the investigations they have demanded.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york070903.asp

So as i said before you'd have to be an absolute moron to not know that this is old news regurgitated for the angry left.
:hitout::hitout: :hitout: :hitout: :hitout: :hitout: :hitout: :hitout:

Originally posted by Travh20
they dont do all the work, they subcontract out thousands of jobs to hundreds of smaller companys. they have some sort of problem with anyone making to much money.
Yeah.........especially when it's comin' outta TAX-PAYERS' POCKETS!!!!!!!!!!!!! (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/2627469)

"There still needs to be accountability for the taxpayers."

Sorry to burst your Cheney bashing bubble Parrot but it appears Cheney had no knowledge of this whatsoever.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-06-16-halliburton_x.htm

I have an idea, lets let Ben and Jerry rebuild Iraq, those companies that actually do it are way to high priced!

Originally posted by The Republican
Sorry to burst your Cheney bashing bubble Parrot but it appears Cheney had no knowledge of this whatsoever.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-06-16-halliburton_x.htm
Ah, yes.......'cause he said so, huh? :rolleyes:

He was also the guy who said we KNEW where the WMDs were!! :p

Originally posted by Mr. Shaman
Ah, yes.......'cause he said so, huh? :rolleyes:

He was also the guy who said we KNEW where the WMDs were!! :p

Yes he was...and Saddam moved them. And if you read the article you would see that it was not Cheney that said so it was his Cheif of Staff Scooter Libby.

Nice try Parrot...you have a non-story here.

Shaman Bechtel is there of course and probably Eutah as well, if they are still in business. I am not supporting what you said but I am going to go out on a limb and say that if Cheney was involved in this then he will pay, but who else would be able to provide the workers other than Haliburton or Bechtel.
It requires a company of a large size to complete the assignments, I guess we could have sent another 70k troops to Iraq to do these jobs and maybe we would have saved about 50 mil, but we would have had to draft to rebuild the military.
In all Haliburton is one of the only companies in the world that could provide the man power.

In addition to what BV said Haliburton already had the contract with the Pentagon through the LOGCAP process. When jobs like these come up the company that has the existing contract gets the job. So where is the issue?

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
I am not supporting what you said but I am going to go out on a limb and say that if Cheney was involved in this then he will pay....
Ever the optimist, huh?? And, you base that opinion on what......how the Reagan-admin payed for Iran/Contra (http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=336&row=0)??

As long as we figure we've got some Divine Right to the world's oil.....whereEVER it is.....we can't very well whine & cry when the property-owners fight back!!!

Hey shaman when you gonna admit that you are completely off base on the issue? That all you are doing is cut and paste articles that have no basis in reality?

Originally posted by waldo
Hey shaman when you gonna admit that you are completely off base on the issue? That all you are doing is cut and paste articles that have no basis in reality?
No basis in reality???

oooooooooooooooooo....how specific!!

Which article you referring-to????

Originally posted by Mr. Shaman
No basis in reality???

oooooooooooooooooo....how specific!!

Which article you referring-to????

Shaman, do some research on Haliburton and how they got their contract through the LOGCAP process. Also see how when they did not have the LOGCAP contract under Clinton they were given a seperate no-bid contract. When Haliburton got the LOGCAP contract with the Pentagon in 2001 the jobs specified were ones like this...they are only doing what their contract is supposed to be for.

Anyone see a substantive response from shaman to the facts in the article? He's an intelligent guy so it must be around here somewhere.:o

Originally posted by The Republican
Shaman, do some research on Haliburton and how they got their contract through the LOGCAP process. Also see how when they did not have the LOGCAP contract under Clinton they were given a seperate no-bid contract. When Haliburton got the LOGCAP contract with the Pentagon in 2001 the jobs specified were ones like this...they are only doing what their contract is supposed to be for.
What.....you're unable to post any documentation to support your position?

Sorry. I don't fall for the ol' Trust Me-tactic, anymore.

Let's see your cards.

Originally posted by waldo
Anyone see a substantive response from shaman to the facts in the article? He's an intelligent guy so it must be around here somewhere.:o
Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff was told in 2002 that Cheney's former company would receive no-bid work to secretly plan restoration of Iraq's oil facilities, but the information wasn't given to the vice president, a White House official said Tuesday.
Yeah..........I'm aware of this ol' NeoCon-strategy; playin' stupid.

"Just like Clinton, Bush swore an affidavit that he had no involvement in the case, which got him excused from testifying. And just like Clinton, the affidavit was proven false months later by new evidence. In this case, it's the recent sworn testimony of Robert MacNeil, a Bush appointee, that he had discussed the case with Bush at a fundraiser.

Still, the investigation continued. So Waltrip and his lawyer/lobbyist, Johnnie B. Rogers, went to the governor's office and dropped off a letter demanding a halt to the investigation. Rogers told Newsweek that he and Waltrip were ushered in to see Joe Allbaugh, Bush's chief of staff (who is now Bush's campaign manager.) Rogers goes on to say that Bush Jr. popped his head in and said to Waltrip, "Hey, Bobby, are those people still messing with you?" Waltrip said yeah. Then the governor turned to Rogers and said, "Hey, Johnnie B. Are you taking care of him?" Rogers said "I'm doing my best, Governor."

Bush simply didn't show up for his scheduled deposition on July 1st, 1999 in the case. (He isn't a defendant in the case, because Governors are immune from lawsuits in Texas, but is being called as a material witness.) He filed his affidavit on July 20th to indicate that he had nothing to add.

Now Robert MacNeil -- who was the chairman of the Texas funeral commission at the time, a Bush appointee -- confirms that he also discussed the case with Bush, at a 1998 Texas fundraiser. In a sworn deposition, MacNeil says that Bush asked him: “Have you and Mr. Waltrip got your problems worked out?” Replied McNeil: “We’re still trying to work on that, governor.” Bush then said, “Do your job.” Bush's campaign says that MacNeil's statement is false. But the language MacNeil says Bush used is almost identical to what he admits saying to Johnnie Rodgers in the governor's office. (http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#funeral)"

I guess NeoCons are (simply) men of few words, huh? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Mr. Shaman
What.....you're unable to post any documentation to support your position?

Sorry. I don't fall for the ol' Trust Me-tactic, anymore.

Let's see your cards.

I am not asking you to trust me which is why I said do the research yourself. If you want to remain ignorant and come across as stupid to those that know the truth that is plenty fine by me. But if I were you I would want to know all the information before I spout my mouth off.

Originally posted by The Republican
I am not asking you to trust me which is why I said do the research yourself. If you want to remain ignorant and come across as stupid to those that know the truth that is plenty fine by me. But if I were you I would want to know all the information before I spout my mouth off.
In-other-words, ya' got NOTHIN'......or, at least, nothin' you can PROVE!!!!!

That was my point. :p

Originally posted by Mr. Shaman
In-other-words, ya' got NOTHIN'......or, at least, nothin' you can PROVE!!!!!

That was my point. :p

http://moorewatch.com/index.php/weblog/comments/337/
http://tim.2wgroup.com/blog/archives/000213.html
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/richlowry/rl20030918.shtml
http://www.brendoman.com/archives2/004432.html
http://www.halliburton.com/news/archive/2001/kbrnws_121701.jsp

I think those are enough to prove my point. :hitout:

ever notice how when Shaman is called on a point he either ignores it in a post or just doesnt post.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
ever notice how when Shaman is called on a point he either ignores it in a post or just doesnt post.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



http://moorewatch.com

http://www.halliburton.com
Yeah..........THOSE sound like really unbiased sources!!!!!

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What........you forgot Ratt Sludge's site?????????????? :p

Originally posted by The Republican
http://moorewatch.com/index.php/weblog/comments/337/
http://tim.2wgroup.com/blog/archives/000213.html
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/richlowry/rl20030918.shtml
http://www.brendoman.com/archives2/004432.html
http://www.halliburton.com/news/archive/2001/kbrnws_121701.jsp

I think those are enough to prove my point. :hitout:
None of those are credible sources, not a one...

Originally posted by BorgHunter
None of those are credible sources, not a one...
When I see two rotten-apples, on top, I'm pretty certain they're meant to hide the really bad ones!!!!! :rolleyes:

Originally posted by BorgHunter
None of those are credible sources, not a one...

And the ones Shaman posted are? I suggest you guys re-read Waldo's post if you have not read it already.

Here are your sources Shaman, and I dont see a credible source in here either... Hmmmmmmm
Its just you disguise your with text.


http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#funeral

http://www.angelfire.com/zine2/DionysianUnderground/bechtel.htm

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/rebuilding_iraq/index.asp

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/2627469

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=336&row=0

I never implied that the sources Republican posted were unbiased, but yours arent either.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
Here are your sources Shaman, and I dont see a credible source in here either... Hmmmmmmm
Its just you disguise your with text.

I never implied that the sources Republican posted were unbiased, but yours arent either.
Everyone's got their agenda!!!

How 'bout a nice business/economics site???? (http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=alMjDzShgJkQ&refer=us) :D

"The statement by 27 former diplomats and military officers on Wednesday calling for the defeat of U.S. President George W. Bush may be unprecedented.

"Their prominence and seniority and influence when in their diplomatic or military posts, and their number, is really remarkable,'' said Richard Kohn, the Pentagon's chief Air Force historian from 1981-1991 and chairman of the University of North Carolina's peace, war and defense curriculum in Chapel Hill.

The group, which includes Democrats and Republicans, said Bush's foreign policy and the war in Iraq have damaged U.S. security. Its statement may sway voters already concerned by reports of abuse of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. soldiers and the conclusion by a bipartisan commission that Saddam Hussein had no connection to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. "

Sounds fairly record-breaking, to me!!

good source but wrong thread. How about one for this thread.
By the way yo dont really get it do you?
I am not a Bush supporter, I am against Kerry but would like a fourth choice, this is the third election in a row with no real choices.
I voted for Clinton in 92 even after White Water and Flowers so maybe you are attacking my beliefs when I once was a democrat.
Even ran for office as one in Florida but am now an Independent. I made the comment in the other thread about it being Clintons DoD because I knew someone would say it was Bush and I didnt want that fight.
I am a supporter of my nations right to live free and prosper. I will never stick to party lines and spout party BS, and I truly am amazed by people who appear to be intelligent that spout nothing but pure party views because they are told to, like you.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
good source but wrong thread. How about one for this thread.
By the way yo dont really get it do you?
I am not a Bush supporter, I am against Kerry but would like a fourth choice, this is the third election in a row with no real choices.
I voted for Clinton in 92 even after White Water and Flowers so maybe you are attacking my beliefs when I once was a democrat.
Even ran for office as one in Florida but am now an Independent. I made the comment in the other thread about it being Clintons DoD because I knew someone would say it was Bush and I didnt want that fight.
I am a supporter of my nations right to live free and prosper. I will never stick to party lines and spout party BS, and I truly am amazed by people who appear to be intelligent that spout nothing but pure party views because they are told to, like you.
So........stick to your principles, and sit-this-one-out.

There'll be no 4th choice.

My principals is to make sure Kerry is NOT elected, so I am sticking to my principals.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
My principals is to make sure Kerry is NOT elected, so I am sticking to my principals.
......which makes you a Bush-supporter.

Great choice. :rolleyes:

[Removed -- Mod]

I thought this thread was about Haliburton?

I ask shaman to respond to the article and now he wants to talk about something else? What up with that?

How about dealing with the topic? You've leveled an accusation. I've provided evidence which undermines your allegation. Either provide something new and substantive or admit defeat.
:hitout: :hitout: :hitout: