|
|
| Author |
Message |
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 4:24 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Trinity1 wrote: | | Halliburton, the company that got preferential treatment under Clinton... not Bush... for contracts. |
Are you saying that Halliburton did NOT get preferential treatment under Bush? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 4:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | Halliburton, the company that got preferential treatment under Clinton... not Bush... for contracts. |
Are you saying that Halliburton did NOT get preferential treatment under Bush? |
Nope... they got the same treatment they got under Clinton. Halliburton got these contracts because there were no other companies out there that could provide the services the Army needed, when they needed them, where they needed them. It really isn't much more complicated then that. This type of contracting happens all of the time.
My wife works as a budget analyst for the Army... and she has stated this type of stuff goes on all of the time... more often than what you think... because of mission requirements involved. No one likes talking about the details here... they only like parroting the 'obvious correlation' of Cheney... ‘used to work for Halliburton’... ‘he is now VP’... ‘Halliburton got no bid contracts’.... bingo... cronyism... preferential treatment... yada yada yada...
It is a shame the facts get ignored and partisan politics that a two year can see through is employed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: | | P1234567890 wrote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | Halliburton, the company that got preferential treatment under Clinton... not Bush... for contracts. |
Are you saying that Halliburton did NOT get preferential treatment under Bush? |
Nope... they got the same treatment they got under Clinton. Halliburton got these contracts because there were no other companies out there that could provide the services the Army needed, when they needed them, where they needed them. It really isn't much more complicated then that. This type of contracting happens all of the time.
My wife works as a budget analyst for the Army... and she has stated this type of stuff goes on all of the time... more often than what you think... because of mission requirements involved. No one likes talking about the details here... they only like parroting the 'obvious correlation' of Cheney... ‘used to work for Halliburton’... ‘he is now VP’... ‘Halliburton got no bid contracts’.... bingo... cronyism... preferential treatment... yada yada yada...
It is a shame the facts get ignored and partisan politics that a two year can see through is employed. |
What about all of the allegations of Halliburton fleecing the taxpayers by driving empty trucks between Baghdad and Kuwait? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
theseldomscene
Banned
Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Posts: 7817
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 5:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | RevJP wrote: | | Quote: | | Just remember that they've inherited one heck of a mess, so when they screw up, it's not all going to be on their heads... |
Hardly true. They were in there, in numbers, for the whole thing, the only mess they would have to deal with is the one they helped create. |
This is an interesting point; exactly how many Democrats voted to attack Iraq? Does anyone have the numbers on this? |
i don't...but it was not many at all...most ran with the flow....it seems like onne woman voted against it...that i can remember...more might have...but i don't know...
but as far as the topic goes...
i agree with jp and ana... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: |
What about all of the allegations of Halliburton fleecing the taxpayers by driving empty trucks between Baghdad and Kuwait? |
What about the allegations? What do we know about them? Do we know that these trucks were intentionally driven empty to 'fleech' the taxpayer? Or were the driven to get what might be a normal event of empty trucks heading south back to Kuwait for more supplies? Or could it have been that part of the contract required "X" number of trucks to drive the route regardless if they have cargo or not? Could it just be prepositioning of trucks for additional convoys?
Do you have specifics? Or just more unsubstantiated allegations... against a company Halliburton wanted to sell in the first place? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | Quote: | | Just remember that they've inherited one heck of a mess, so when they screw up, it's not all going to be on their heads... |
Hardly true. They were in there, in numbers, for the whole thing, the only mess they would have to deal with is the one they helped create. |
Ok, I looked it up. The Senate Bill authorizing the use of force in Iraq was called "Joint Resolution 114". The vote was 77-23 in the senate, and EVERY SINGLE one of the 23 senators voting against it was a Democrat.
Check it out:
In other words, 100% of the senatorial opposition against the Iraq war came from the Democrats...
Granted, about as many Democrats voted FOR the resolution, but the point still stands; not a single Republican voted against it, and about half of the Democratic senators did. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6840
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Granted, about as many Democrats voted FOR the resolution, but the point still stands; not a single Republican voted against it, and about half of the Democratic senators did. |
Whoa! Those numbers are staggering! NOT.
What about the House of Representatives?
The point I made, and it still stands, is that the left was deeply involved in the 'mess', as you put it. Subsequently, if they are going to 'clean up the mess' they will be cleaning up their own. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
theseldomscene
Banned
Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Posts: 7817
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i for one agree with you there jp....there is enough blame to go around for all if that is what the dems. wish to do...but, i hope they focus their energy and momentum in a more positive manner...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| theseldomscene wrote: | | i for one agree with you there jp....there is enough blame to go around for all if that is what the dems. wish to do...but, i hope they focus their energy and momentum in a more positive manner... |
I concede that plenty of Democratic senators (about half of them) voted for the Iraq war as well. But are you simply going to ignore the fact that about half of them voted against the war, and exactly ZERO Republicans did?
Opposition to the war in the senate was 100% Democratic. That doesn't count for anything in your books? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5880
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | The Dem's have demonstrated throughout history that they tend to lose sight of their 'mission' once they are in a position to do something about it. |
"Politics."
This has been true of pretty much every election. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IronSharpensIron
House Cat
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 172
Location: Seoul, Korea
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
doesnt have to be our congress to prosecute the old regime-heck Germany is doing it. This is a time magazine article i posted in the other thread- but it pertains to this thread too....
..RUMMY TO BE CHARGED...
According to the article Germany has jurisdiction to pursue Rumsfeld. Nothing kooky here, but i will be interested to see this pan out...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6840
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 9:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P123... wrote: | I concede that plenty of Democratic senators (about half of them) voted for the Iraq war as well. But are you simply going to ignore the fact that about half of them voted against the war, and exactly ZERO Republicans did?
Opposition to the war in the senate was 100% Democratic. That doesn't count for anything in your books? |
Not really because it has absolutely no relevance to the discussion at hand. The point is, and remains, the dem's were involved, the mess is thier mess as well although they have spent the last year or so backtracking and shifting focus from the facts.
The thread is 'what if...' What if they decide to do what they think, or say, they should do? and what are the chances of it actually happening? History tells us those chances are slim to none. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 1:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | History tells us those chances are slim to none. |
Ok, I'll bite. Can you give us some examples? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
theseldomscene
Banned
Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Posts: 7817
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | This has been true of pretty much every election. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5880
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Just look at the campaign promises over the last 8 years or so. You know, abortion is still just as legal as it used to be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
