For My Good Buddy, Taks

[Commissar]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060328/ts_nm/..._halliburton_dc

[Judge Hades]

Bunny Greenhouse?!?!? What kind of name is that???

[LoneWolf16]

Cruel parents.

 

Oh, and the oil/overcharging thing. Who didn't know this already?

[Commissar]

Cruel parents.

 

Oh, and the oil/overcharging thing. Who didn't know this already?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We did, but we also knew that it'd been brushed off a thousand times over. We also didn't really know the scope. I doubt we do now, either, but it's always amusing to see the, "Oh, Halliburton's not that bad," garbage countered.

[Llyranor]

The joke is, taks actually doesn't really like you at all.

[taks]

uh, may i say "big deal"?

 

also, d'ya think maybe the article is a bit one-sided? hmmm...

 

taks

[taks]

btw, before commissar gets his panties in a bind, my point is that if they did stick their hands in the cookie jar, then apparently they are caught. the system works. amazing. if they did not, then the thought of political motivation certainly raises it's head.

 

given that we have only the one-sided information so far, it is a bit hard to make a judgement. facts, just the facts.

 

note, too, that they are claiming these issues have already been resolved, which would render the point moot. we shall see, i guess.

 

taks

[WITHTEETH]

Bush and Cheney, former oil tycoons invade iraq under many false premises, they get their own men to pump money out, via oil. Then they over charge us. They leave the United states with the biggest deficit in our history of 9 trillion dollars.

 

Wait... whos making a profit still? Oh yea, the very people who got us in to this mess! <_< The math isn't hard, just look at the numbers and tell me if they don't disturb you.

 

Hmm 9 trillion thats 30 grand a peice, including every infant. Thats some great executive republican president we have. Clinton cleaned his clock when it came to this. We had a surplus, now we have 9trillion in debt.

 

I'm sorry but if Bush gets oral in the oval office I want him impeached. Since oral in the oval office is now the standard of impeachment. Yes I said it.

[alanschu]

A deficit of 9 trillion dollars? Somehow I find that hard to believe, especially when the CNN just announced that the deficit is $477 billion.

 

I'm assuming you mean debt (an exceptionally important distinction is required between debt and deficit). Well, would Bush really be alone in this? Haven't most presidents in recent years left office with a larger debt than when they started?

 

 

$9 trillion dollars, and an alleged surplus under Clinton (especially since your use of surplus is meaning lack of debt). You make me laugh. Learn your financial terms before you start to criticize people.

Edited March 29, 2006 by alanschu

[kumquatq3]

Todays phrase is: No bid contracts, discuss

[Commissar]

btw, before commissar gets his panties in a bind, my point is that if they did stick their hands in the cookie jar, then apparently they are caught.  the system works.  amazing.  if they did not, then the thought of political motivation certainly raises it's head.

 

given that we have only the one-sided information so far, it is a bit hard to make a judgement.  facts, just the facts.

 

note, too, that they are claiming these issues have already been resolved, which would render the point moot.  we shall see, i guess.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

One-sided? We all know what a bastion of liberal tree-hugging Democrats the Pentagon is.

 

C'mon. Procurement officers generally don't chat about government contracts with the media, especially to criticize them; you'd know that as well, and, come to think of it, better than me.

 

I'm really curious who you think is capable of giving an impartial view on this particular matter. KBR representative, maybe?

[Cantousent]

Waxman comes out with an attack on Halliburton and you're jumping all over the report? What a surprise.

 

Let's boil this down to the essentials. This is politically motivated. The article cited the Pentagon once in the article:

 

"[t]he documents showed that [the] Pentagon's Project and Contracting Office (PCO) found that Halliburton repeatedly overcharged the government, Waxman said."

 

So, there were no direct quotes from the Pentagon in the first place and no real context given from the alleged reports. For my part, I don't doubt that there were some abuses. In a company the size of Halliburton, there will undoubtedly be abuses, and those abuses should be investigated, proven, and punished. However, Halliburton still went through the bidding process.

 

Let's call this what it is, a politically motivated attack on the Vice President by a strictly partisan representative from a state in which Democrats outnumber Republicans by a healthy margin. Waxman isn't interested in serving justice, only his politcal aspirations.

 

Come on, Commissar, you're fair minded. What can you say about a "news article" that begins with:

 

"[o]il services company Halliburton Co. repeatedly overcharged taxpayers and provided substandard cost reports under a $1.2 billion contract to restore Iraq's southern oil fields, according to a new report by U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman (news, bio, voting record)."

 

Isn't it interesting that the article doesn't even name the source of this charge, a Democrat congressman, until the very end. It begins with a very specific charge and doesn't even provide the context until the last clause?

 

Sure, you won't find any lacking of folks to jump up and agree with this article sight unseen. However, I think we should have specific charges from identified individuals working with due appropriate oversight. Even then, so what? You want to hate the Vice Presdent? Go ahead.

 

If Halliburton broke the Law, they should pay. However, blindly following any politician with so much at stake in the issue doesn't make much sense either. Frankly, this article disgusts me.

 

Hey, don't let me stop you from throwing red meat to the crazies. That's all well and good. Nevertheless, this is a clear example of gotcha politics and nothing more. This sure as hell isn't an example of trying to improve the system or find the truth. The best hope we have is that the result of this political axe grinding will result in a better system. I hope so.

[Walsingham]

Bush and Cheney, former oil tycoons invade iraq under many false premises, they get their own men to pump money out, via oil. Then they over charge us. They leave the United states with the biggest deficit in our history of 9 trillion dollars.

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I've never had a problem with people who say oil profits were involved in this invasion. To deny it seems to me a nonsense. However I STILL get steamed about persons claiming this was the whole reason.

 

False reasons? The legal basis for reactivating the 1991 conflict was supported by the US and UK, and opposed by France and Russia. France and Russia both having equally tremendous corrupt reasons not to want a war. The moral justification I couldn't find stronger. Militarily there was no reason not to. Capice?

[WITHTEETH]

A deficit of 9 trillion dollars?  Somehow I find that hard to believe, especially when the CNN just announced that the deficit is $477 billion.

 

$9 trillion dollars, and an alleged surplus under Clinton (especially since your use of surplus is meaning lack of debt).  You make me laugh.  Learn your financial terms before you start to criticize people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

BBC Reports US owes 9 billion

Not including the extra trillion.

Your right, its not deficit its debt. I still don't support is his excessive spending, along with everything else he stands for.

[astr0creep]

All I have to say here is this:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescott_Bush

 

And Americans keep re-electing them.

 

Thank you and good night.

 

Edited March 29, 2006 by astr0creep

[WITHTEETH]

Bush and Cheney, former oil tycoons invade iraq under many false premises, they get their own men to pump money out, via oil. Then they over charge us. They leave the United states with the biggest deficit in our history of 9 trillion dollars.

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I've never had a problem with people who say oil profits were involved in this invasion. To deny it seems to me a nonsense. However I STILL get steamed about persons claiming this was the whole reason.

 

False reasons? The legal basis for reactivating the 1991 conflict was supported by the US and UK, and opposed by France and Russia. France and Russia both having equally tremendous corrupt reasons not to want a war. The moral justification I couldn't find stronger. Militarily there was no reason not to. Capice?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Was Iraq involved with Al Qeada? No

Did the Oil Pay for the war? No

Did we get in and out like he said we would? No

Did we do the right thing? Thats under dabate

[Commissar]

Waxman comes out with an attack on Halliburton and you're jumping all over the report?  What a surprise.

Yeah, 'cause I love Waxman. Really. I'm all up on his bandwagon, despite not knowing who the hell he is.

 

Let's boil this down to the essentials.  This is politically motivated.  The article cited the Pentagon once in the article:

You know what? I don't care if it's politically motivated or not. This is serious stuff, the sort of contracting they're doing over there, and it's not just Halliburton that's screwing up and costing you and me money, it's almost all of them. I don't get twenty-three different tries to get things right, where I work, and I assume most people don't, either. If the guy working the register at McDonald's came up short at the end of every night, and you gave him a stern talking-to about it and he claimed the issue was resolved, would you believe him?

 

I don't care if Halliburton has ties to Cheney or Bush; they're doing fine making utter idiots of themselves by their lonesome these days. I care because it's the company we chose - not that won their contract, mind you, but that we simply chose - to do essential work on a post-war Iraq. Why on earth would you think that would be the sort of thing we could be hit-or-miss on?

 

So, there were no direct quotes from the Pentagon in the first place and no real context given from the alleged reports.  For my part, I don't doubt that there were some abuses.  In a company the size of Halliburton, there will undoubtedly be abuses, and those abuses should be investigated, proven, and punished.  However, Halliburton still went through the bidding process.

Check the end of the article.

 

Let's call this what it is, a politically motivated attack on the Vice President by a strictly partisan representative from a state in which Democrats outnumber Republicans by a healthy margin.  Waxman isn't interested in serving justice, only his politcal aspirations.

Don't care who brings it up. Don't care who disagrees with it. It's the sort of thing that needs to be pounded on by the media until there's actually a goddamn answer one of these days.

 

Come on, Commissar, you're fair minded.  What can you say about a "news article" that begins with:

 

"[o]il services company Halliburton Co. repeatedly overcharged taxpayers and provided substandard cost reports under a $1.2 billion contract to restore Iraq's southern oil fields, according to a new report by U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman (news, bio, voting record)."

I can say, based on what I remember from journalism class, that that's exactly how you're supposed to write it. I can find you no less than three hundred other examples of articles that start out in this exact same manner, if you really wish me to, including where the quote is attributed to President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Ken Milnan, director of midwest marketing for Piggly-Wiggly, and any number of others. If you haven't seen this sort of hook before, then I believe you may need to pick up a news journal once in a while. I don't care about the journalism.

 

Sure, you won't find any lacking of folks to jump up and agree with this article sight unseen.  However, I think we should have specific charges from identified individuals working with due appropriate oversight.  Even then, so what?  You want to hate the Vice Presdent?  Go ahead.

 

If Halliburton broke the Law, they should pay.  However, blindly following any politician with so much at stake in the issue doesn't make much sense either.  Frankly, this article disgusts me.

Know what, Eldar? If this was the first of its kind, you might have some sort of point there. This is a long-running issue that never seems to get resolved, but you're apparently fine with that. If this were a personal situation - if a contractor building your house, for example, was constantly overcharging, constantly screwing things up, constantly having to go back and redo various tasks due to intentionally sloppy work the first time around, how forgiving would you be?

 

I ask because this is something of a personal issue with me. The longer it takes Iraq to get up and running, the longer we have troops in a combat capacity walking around with bullseyes painted on them.

 

But hey, as long as people have yellow ribbon magnets stuck to the trunks of their cars, I guess that's enough, right?

[alanschu]

A deficit of 9 trillion dollars?  Somehow I find that hard to believe, especially when the CNN just announced that the deficit is $477 billion.

 

$9 trillion dollars, and an alleged surplus under Clinton (especially since your use of surplus is meaning lack of debt).  You make me laugh.  Learn your financial terms before you start to criticize people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

BBC Reports US owes 9 billion

Not including the extra trillion.

Your right, its not deficit its debt. I still don't support is his excessive spending, along with everything else he stands for.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You'll also notice that at no point during Clinton's reign did that bar go down. So he didn't really matter that he was running a surplus. If he couldn't cover the interest, then he wasn't technically running a surplus.

 

You know what else I notice with that graph. Every president since the mid 1960s has put the debt to the highest point ever. Because it has never gone down.

 

Next up, try adjusting those numbers for inflation.

 

To criticize Bush for having the debt the largest its ever been, means you have to criticize every president for the last 65 years.

[WITHTEETH]

Yes the graph speaks for itself.

[astr0creep]

You'll also notice that at no point during Clinton's reign did that bar go down.  So he didn't really matter that he was running a surplus.  If he couldn't cover the interest, then he wasn't technically running a surplus. 

 

You know what else I notice with that graph.  Every president since the mid 1960s has put the debt to the highest point ever.  Because it has never gone down.

 

Next up, try adjusting those numbers for inflation.

 

To criticize Bush for having the debt the largest its ever been, means you have to criticize every president for the last 65 years.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You must admit though that Mr. B. is taking this debt thing to new levels.

 

Sure it always went up with the other Prezes but the graph shows a steady incline. Until Big B comes along and kapow! Through the roof in just a few years. And when he took power there was a sort of surplus(according to the graph).

 

Meh.

[kirottu]

War has always been really expensive and you don

[astr0creep]

War has always been really expensive and you don

[kirottu]

War has always been really expensive and you don

[Cantousent]

You know what?  I don't care if it's politically motivated or not.

 

But you should, Commie. For a good reason you should. If, and I mean if, the attack is politically motivate, it might not be true. The article does not provide sufficient evidence that the allegations are true. The idea behind the media is that you evaluate the source of any article, and this article, with the exception of Bunny? (How could I overlook Bunny, a "news" item from one year ago) So, they have a single source from today's news and one source who has been the center of controversy from 2005 onward.

 

Don't care who brings it up.  Don't care who disagrees with it. 

Don't even care about the proof, apparently. The source of an allegation is important in a news article. If you discredit the source, you discredit the charge. If this report came from an independent source, I would find it more compelling.

"[o]il services company Halliburton Co. repeatedly overcharged taxpayers and provided substandard cost reports under a $1.2 billion contract to restore Iraq's southern oil fields, according to a new report by U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman (news, bio, voting record)."

I can say, based on what I remember from journalism class, that that's exactly how you're supposed to write it.

 

So, according to you, the headline: "President Bush was charge and convicted of crimes against humanity" is perfeclty legit. When the reader later finds that the court was the Obsidian Forum Community (OFC), the paper's already sold. Yes, I can find a lot of examples of an article leading on the reader. In my classes, this would be the equivalent of modern yellow journalism.

 

Know what, Eldar?  If this was the first of its kind, you might have some sort of point there.  This is a long-running issue that never seems to get resolved, but you're apparently fine with that.

 

I ask because this is something of a personal issue with me.  The longer it takes Iraq to get up and running, the longer we have troops in a combat capacity walking around with bullseyes painted on them.

 

But hey, as long as people have yellow ribbon magnets stuck to the trunks of their cars, I guess that's enough, right?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

No, I'm not, Commie. I'm really not fine with it. I want to see justice done also. I just see this article as being completely devoid of worth. It should have come clean and tried to provide a balanced view. If Halliburton has carried out the sorts of outrageous excesses Waxman charges against them, then surely an independent source, with appropriate oversight, can confirm this report. If Halliburton did these things, then I say fry them. Of course, I said that in my original post. Hell, I said it twice.

 

You're not getting what I'm saying. I'm saying that I'd rather not give Waxman a pass to push his political agenda. Could he be right? Sure. ...But the article is single source, and don't make me laugh by citing the article's one line/last line reference to Bunny.

 

I understand this is an issue for you. I have two family members overseas right now, one in Afghanistan and one in Iraq. I have friends overseas. I don't want Halliburton to get a free pass either. I don't want any company to get a free pass. Nonetheless, I don't want to try Halliburton in the center ring of the big tent of the media circus. Surely, if they've defrauded the public to the extent that all these people allege, there will be evidence. When that evidence comes in, I won't eat my words. I'll do what I would have done all along, be glad that justice was done.

[alanschu]

War has always been really expensive and you don

Edited March 29, 2006 by alanschu