Meanwhile, in the smokey back room...

[VeeKaChu]

ROFL. Just ROFL. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/keye/20030613/lo_keye/halliburtondoublescostofiraqcontract)

========================================

Halliburton Doubles Cost Of Iraq Contract
2 hours, 26 minutes ago


The Army admits Houston-based Halliburton's no-bid work to revive Iraq's oil industry is likely to last longer than originally estimated. The cost to the U-S government has more than doubled in the past month. The US Army Corps of Engineers this week backed off estimates that a fully competitive replacement contract would be awarded by August. The government cost of the noncompetitive work awarded to Vice President Dick Cheney's former company is ballooning. Cheney's office repeatedly has said he had no role in the award, which was given to Halliburton's KBR subsidiary. The total cost as of last week was $184.7-million. That's up from $76.7-million one month ago. Halliburton spokeswoman Wendy Hall says KBR is proud to assist with the restoration of Iraq's oil infrastructure.

=========================================

[Jigga|]

hahahahaha o god. i just woke up and could barely read that. haha of course the media wont even bother reporting a story on this.

[Cain]

Originally posted by Jigga|
hahahahaha o god. i just woke up and could barely read that. haha of course the media wont even bother reporting a story on this.

What do you mean? O'Reilly's going to slam his fist against the desk, and pontificate (as usual) on this administration's lies and corruption. This kinda thing will be all over talk radio. Halliburton has bribed foreign governments, been convicted of defrauding the Federal Government, and now suspiciously gets awarded a non-competitive contract. Shortly after Congress approves an independent commission to determine what intelligence led to war with Iraq, rest assured that an independent investigation of these suspicious activities will be launched. This isn't some failed land deal from 20 years ago over 40 thousand dollars that will eventually boil down to blowjobs and stained blue dresses.

[philly]

LOL...all roads lead to Clinton eh Cain? I'm looking forward to the probe when things catch up, if it occurs at all. Should also be interesting to see how we get Iraq to recompensate us for the contract money we are paying to have this company "reconstruct" the Iraqi oil fields....maybe a bit of the oil rewards and a large military base(s)?

[AGT-WildBillGates]

Yeah because cheating on your wife and lieing under oath is not bad and no one should be outraged at it. I was on the "hey this is fishy" train but you really turn me off when you try to downplay Clinton's crimes. Lets look at what we know from both of them. Clinton DID cheat on his wife. He DID lie to the whole United States on natinal TV. The nation he said he would put before himself. You can just ignore that because you agree with him politically? Now the haliburton thing. What we know so far is they were awarded a non-competivie contract and that the price just doubled for it. Now do we know the reason yet? are they working twice as long in Iraq? I dont know but if its fishy I think there should be outrage and investigations. But you cannot come on here and say Clintons crimes are ok but the supposed haliburton crimes are not.

[Moniker]

Wait wait wait, hold on. You can't even compare the two in terms of how lopsided the media coverage is.

Perhaps if it had any impact on the way the country was being run, it would be bad. I don't really care if he lied about getting a blowjob on national tv because it had nothing to do with the government, whatsoever. Something like, uhh, the vice-president's former company getting shady government contracts, however, does affect me because it has everything to do with the government.

Perhaps there were more reasons the Bush Administration were pushing for the war besides WMD's that we can't seem to find at all.

[Cain]

Yeah because cheating on your wife and lieing under oath is not bad

*Shrug*

and no one should be outraged at it.

You mean other than his wife and daughter? Not sure.

I was on the "hey this is fishy" train but you really turn me off when you try to downplay Clinton's crimes.

Like getting blowjobs and then lying about it (under oath!)?

Lets look at what we know from both of them. Clinton DID cheat on his wife. He DID lie to the whole United States on natinal TV. The nation he said he would put before himself. You can just ignore that because you agree with him politically?

I don't really agree with Clinton politcally. For some reason, though, I feel there's a profound difference between lying about blowjobs and lying about an imminent threat. Using phrases like "grave danger" and conjuring up the images of 9/11 with all the necessary "armies of fire fighters" etc. Perhaps others feel differently.

Now the haliburton thing. What we know so far is they were awarded a non-competivie contract and that the price just doubled for it. Now do we know the reason yet? are they working twice as long in Iraq? I dont know but if its fishy I think there should be outrage and investigations. But you cannot come on here and say Clintons crimes are ok but the supposed haliburton crimes are not.

You see, when you say "Clinton's crimes" I immediately think of his war crimes. But you can't possibly mean that. What crimes, other than lying about blowjobs, do you have in mind? Freely to quote from the Starr Report if you wish.

The refrence to Clinton (one line) serves as nothing more than a comparison. If anyone was outraged at his crimes then, for the sake of consistency, we should at least be equally appalled at the shenanigans of the current administration.

We shouldn't be the least bit surprised that the President lie. President's lie, that's what they do.

[Halfbreed]

the current administration is far better then clintons.. Monica Lewisnky was not the first and only person to accuse Mr Clinton of sexual assault. There is a list of about 6 woman who all alleged clinton sexually assaulted them. Clinton didnt just lie, he lied under oath.. Then he did nothing when al-quada attacked US interests 3 TIMES. Yes 3 times and his solution was to go bomb 1 training camp. Lets not forget the World trade center was bombed previous to 9/11 did we retaliate? course not.. Clinton was a horrible president.
What is the big deal about halliburton? They are the most qualified company to handle the job in Iraq and as for the spending doubling the rebuilding of Iraq has turned out to be more expensive and more difficult then originally projected and thats for everyone not just halliburton or oil...

[Cain]

Yes, yes. These are just typical cost over-runs. Take their word for it -- and change the subject, please.

[The House Of Bulk]

knockout makes me laugh

you used to be half breed yes?

[Halfbreed]

Good Job Soldier!

[Tone-Loc]

Originally posted by knockout
Clinton didnt just lie, he lied under oath..

IMHO, he lied under oath in answer's to questions that were nobody's business. Lewinsky wasn't suing him, so why should he have to answer any question's relating to his relationship to her?


Originally posted by knockout
Then he did nothing when al-quada attacked US interests 3 TIMES. Yes 3 times and his solution was to go bomb 1 training camp.

He bombed a training camp. I guess that was a response. Maybe not enough. But did we have enough evidence of anything to go into Afghanistan back then?

Originally posted by knockout
Lets not forget the World trade center was bombed previous to 9/11 did we retaliate?

We pretty much caught the big wigs, aside from bin Laden and a couple others, and put them in jail. I don't know about you, but the mindset of dealing with terrorism, or even analyzing the total threat to the US from it was completely different from Sept. 10th, 2001 prior.


Originally posted by knockout
course not.. Clinton was a horrible president.

That certainly is your opinion, one I am not inclined to share. I generally gauge the success of a president on the old "are you better off now?" formula. And I will tell you one thing, I would gladly give back the whole $600 I got from President Bush 2 years ago, if it would have kept myself or my wife from being laid-off continuously for the last year and a half.

Originally posted by knockout
What is the big deal about halliburton? They are the most qualified company to handle the job in Iraq and as for the spending doubling the rebuilding of Iraq has turned out to be more expensive and more difficult then originally projected and thats for everyone not just halliburton or oil...

I don't know if there is some big deal about Halliburton... yet. When a company get's awarded a huge governemnt contract, when the sitting Vice President was as pivotal a part of the company as he was, and is still getting his retirement/pension/whatever from them... I would say a little suspicion is not out of line.

[The House Of Bulk]

this forum should be flammable

[Halfbreed]

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/6075186.htm
^^ good stuff ^^

[motang]

I AM OUTRAGED! POLITICAL CORRUPTION?! SIMPLY SHOCKING! THIS WOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED WITH CLINTON!

[Kami-]

All this talk of 'omg, clinton cheatz0rzed on his wifei!!1~'...

Who gives a flying shit? It's not like we elected him to be the male role-model of the entire country. Personaly, I wouldn't give a fuck if he hired interns for the sole purpouse of massaging his meat, as long as he did a decent job in his elected position.

However, I'm drasticly uninformed of political info from the early 90's, so I'm not making any comments about Clinton's performance in office.

As Cain so aptly put it:
I feel there's a profound difference between lying about blowjobs and lying about an imminent threat.

[motang]

yet some would say, 'why the hell is the lewinski incident being spoken of in the first place?'

there are many more relevant instances when clinton was less than truthful to compare to such a situation...the damn lewinski incident wasn't brought up by anyone defending bush, it was brought up by cain, and in my mind, is misdirection...no one could seriously make a claim that clinton wasn't suspected of shady business dealings, and many of them received less than spectacular coverage in the press, just like...hmmm...exactly what we're talking about here...but i guess it's actually just the result of some right wing conspiracy to keep things quiet...

good god, i'm absolutely amazed that the left wing thinks only the right is corrupt and vice versa...

[No one]

"the current administration is far better then clintons.."

Yeah because lying about blowjobs is far worse than lying about WMD's to send us into a war. At least Clinton's lie didn't result in any deaths.

[Moniker]

good god, i'm absolutely amazed that the left wing thinks only the right is corrupt and vice versa... That might have had some relevance had it been posted 3 years ago. But tell me o wise one, what are some examples of left-wing shady government deals?

[Cain]

Originally posted by Moniker
But tell me o wise one, what are some examples of left-wing shady government deals?

I think that's the wrong question.

Name one example of a left-wing government.

[motang]

moniker you can't possibly be serious...it appears that you are exactly the person i was talking about when i made that statement...allow me to be as blunt as possible...

'hello. i am a political machine. i am immensely rich, which complements my insatiable avarice. i make my own rules, and i have laughed many times in the face of legality. my belly is filled with people who use me for their gain, and i have made many of them powerful. my name is the left-wing. my name is the right-wing. my name is a 2-party system. my name is washington d.c.'

moniker, not even the most die hard left winger with any knowledge of politics would claim that their party is not, and has not been, plagued by corruption...the issue is not about a 'left-wing government' (i don't even know what that is), it is about the corruption that fills the ranks of political parties and the individuals that comprise them...it is entertaining that you refer to me as 'wise one,' like i'm saying something even remotely controversial...look, guy, there are COUNTLESS instances of 'shady' business dealings involving liberals, just as there are with conservatives...to claim otherwise is absolute lunacy...we could spin round from campaigns to presidents, or even to current senators...

where this evident blind faith in a political party comes from escapes me completely...i simply do not understand the mindset that allows one to remain so naive as to be blinded to indiscretions involving one's party of choice, or how one's views may evolve to an 'all-or-none' view of republicans and democrats...

i have absolutely no interest in dredging up this junk...that is, specific examples of political corruption involving the left wing...indeed, i'm not sure where i would even begin, given the overwhelming amount of material we'd be sifting through, but i suppose i could be goaded into it...

by the way, just to avoid misunderstanding...i am not one of these america-hating geniuses who jump at the chance to down the government at every opportunity, posting anti-american articles in a seeming effort to show how much smarter and morally superior they are to the current government (indeed, they seem to make up a substantial portion of the catacombs population)...i simply have a distaste for many aspects of the political machine...i have no solutions, nor am i arrogant enough to think that i would do a better job than the president, be it clinton or bush or whoever...

[Moniker]

Yeah, but I didn't ask about political parties, in your post you refer to the left wing and the right wing. Now I could see a conservative politician making a shady deal regarding something like oil or getting a military contract...

But what would a liberal shady deal be? Backhanded dealings to get the government to raise emissions standards or creating a classified task force to enhance welfare? I mean, I can't really envision a politician taking bribes from a liberal organization or something like that. I've never even heard of a thing like that.

All I'm asking is just to give me a few good examples..

Lets not forget the World trade center was bombed previous to 9/11 did we retaliate?

correct me if im wrong, but I thought that the first WTC bombing was in 1991, and clinton didnt take office until 1992.

[VeeKaChu]

It was '93, and the perpetrators were caught, tried and convicted.

It's weird; they were, by all accounts, bozos. They hung around to watch. They rented the truck in their own names. They even went BACK to the rental place and tried to recover their security deposit, even though they had no truck to return!!

Yet it was revealed AFTER 9/11- obviously it would've been stupid to give anything like this away while the towers still stood- that in that first attempt, if they'd parked the truck 6 feet closer to a particular wall it probably would've collapsed the building.

So we did dodge a bullet in that case- but I don't wonder if the fact that the perps were blithering idiots didn't somehow color our view of these people and their abilities somewhat...

[Tone-Loc]

Sometimes I have to really slap myself when I read that quote and think that the person is quoting Moby Dick and not "Wrath of Kahn"! lol

[VeeKaChu]

ROFL.

Not to go to OT, but the actual quote predates them both- it's initially found, I'm reasonably sure, in Thomas More's "Paradise Lost".

[LuTze]

Originally posted by Cain
What do you mean? O'Reilly's going to slam his fist against the desk, and pontificate (as usual) on this administration's lies and corruption. This kinda thing will be all over talk radio. Halliburton has bribed foreign governments, been convicted of defrauding the Federal Government, and now suspiciously gets awarded a non-competitive contract. Shortly after Congress approves an independent commission to determine what intelligence led to war with Iraq, rest assured that an independent investigation of these suspicious activities will be launched. This isn't some failed land deal from 20 years ago over 40 thousand dollars that will eventually boil down to blowjobs and stained blue dresses.

but the majority of the population doesn't tune into these media sources.

this should be something all major networks are making clear to the public.

Sadly though capitilism has failed with the media :(

[brett]

the current administration is far better then clintons.. Monica Lewisnky was not the first and only person to accuse Mr Clinton of sexual assault. There is a list of about 6 woman who all alleged clinton sexually assaulted them.

Four of which are currently in the insane asylum, the other two of which are hosting Fox reality TV shows..

If we could start getting politicians into power that haven't been funded by the media, perhaps we could start getting some undistorted media coverage.

When I make it in this world (and believe me, I will :p), I'm going to run my own TV channel, completely unbiased. (Is that possible? lol) Run out of my own pocket, so the people running it aren't told what not to say and stuff. Booyea.

[Cain]

but the majority of the population doesn't tune into these media sources.
this should be something all major networks are making clear to the public.
Sadly though capitilism has failed with the media

And it's going to get worse before it gets better: the FCC recently empowered media conglomerates to further consolidate their power and control (so much so that conservatives like William Safire, a right-wing lunatic, has been hoppin' mad. See his editorial in today's Times).

It's been pointed out more than a few times that our privately owned media might as well be state-run.

Paul Krugman asks:
What explains this paradox? It may have something to do with the China syndrome. No, not the one involving nuclear reactors — the one exhibited by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation when dealing with the government of the People's Republic.

In the United States, Mr. Murdoch's media empire — which includes Fox News and The New York Post — is known for its flag-waving patriotism. But all that patriotism didn't stop him from, as a Fortune article put it, "pandering to China's repressive regime to get his programming into that vast market." The pandering included dropping the BBC's World Service — which reports news China's government doesn't want disseminated — from his satellite programming, and having his publishing company cancel the publication of a book critical of the Chinese regime.

And that's precisely the problem with for-profit media. Those who control the media are not trying to disseminate information that will empower us as citizens. They're trying to make a buck.

Specific kinds of programming are not necessarily sold to us- the public. Instead we're sold to advertisers, and if we don't buy their products, that programming disappears. It's expensive to run foreign news bureaus, and cheap to report which movie was champion at the box-office over the weekend. Ooh, interesting, it looks as though "Finding Nemo" found it's way to the top spot again...

[motang]

moniker, i'm not sure how my use of the term 'left-wing' limits me from making statements concerning political parties, or how your use of the phrase 'left-wing shady government deals' precludes statements concerning democrats...you appear to be trying to differentiate between political corruption which involves the advancement of a party's ideals, and corruption which relates more to an individual politician who is a member of a certain party...

now, i'm not sure why delineating such a difference is important, but i believe your ideas concerning the left and right wing are somewhat mistaken...your question is loaded, considering the issues you name concerning the right involve less that happy topics like oil and military contracts, while your question about the left involves really sweet sentiment concerning environmental protection and caring for the poor...i would no more let you get away with such a characterization than i would let a right winger characterize his party as the one who is against 'killing babies'...

now, do you really believe that the left-wing despises oil-contracts? do you really believe that there are no highly placed democrats over at haliburton? do you really think that only the right-wing is about 'big business,' and that left-wingers don't sit on the power and industry committee, or that only right-wingers on that committee are susceptible to corruption? have you really never heard of controversy surrounding the massive donations to politicians by special-interest groups in exchange for certain 'services' in return?...are you really unaware of the relationship of 'less-than-inncocent' monies to the clintons? why you cannot 'envision' liberal special interest groups donating monies to politicians in less than reputable transactions is completely beyond me...

both parties control massive amounts of business in this country, and both parties have managed to pull the wool over the american public's eyes, namely the right disguising itself as the 'christian' side, and the left disguising itself as the 'enlightened' side...neither of these characterizations is remotely close to reality, and the issues you mention are an extremely simplified view of the issues these parties deal with on a daily basis...the democratic party is not the poor man's party that cares for the disadvantaged, or minorities, and the republican party is not the big-business oil party...

to sum up, the issue presented here involving haliburton seems to me to be less one of conservative corruption than corruption involving a highly placed conservative...a kick-back in exchange for rewarding an exclusive contract is not a novel occurence (not that i'm willing to blindly believe that this is actually what happened in this case), and i can guarantee you that conservatives are not the only ones to receive them in this country...i have to deal with hmo's on a daily basis, and i can't write certain prescriptions to people, as only certain 'treatment regimens' have been approved, which says to me, 'hello hmo, i am a pharmaceutical company...tell doctors they have to prescribe my drug, and we'll leave you a little something special...' now i leave it up to you to tell me which side of the political coin is largely responsible for hmo's coming to power, though of course both sides have been involved...

god i'm sick of typing...this forum can wear you out...

[blah]

You know the difference between a democratic senator and a republican senator?

The democratic senator's state was poorer at the time of election.

Honestly, if you think there's any inherent difference between most democratic and republican senators then you're just fooling yourself. Sure there are some who truly believe what they preach, but for every one of them there are ten others who just spout whatever they think will get them elected.

[VeeKaChu]

Haha, so true, Bleh.

Reminds me of a skit SNL did before the election in 2000. Basically it was Gore and Bush running into each other on the campaign trail, having a discussion about platforms and realizing that they were virtually identical in their campaign ideology....

Originally posted by Tone-Loc
He bombed a training camp. I guess that was a response. Maybe not enough. But did we have enough evidence of anything to go into Afghanistan back then?... we didn't have any more evidence after (9/11), just more public support.

[Moniker]

Okay that's just way too much stuff to read, so I'll use the "let's agree to disagree" cop-out and exit stage left..

[Kermit]

Back on topic.

Please tell me how many other companies could do the work that Haliburton's subsidiary is supposed to do?

If the answer is NONE, then there is no issue here.

If the answer is "One other company that happens to be French", then, again, there is no issue here.


Please tell me what EXACTLY is fishy here. And , no, saying that because the Vice President used to work for Haliburton then something fishy HAS to be going on is NOT an answer. If you say this then you just show how you aren't relying on facts but emotions and beliefs about the "supposed" BEHAVIOR of people you don't like. Please give me facts, not innuendo and beliefs. I want cold hard facts. Show me the memo where VP Cheney says Haliburton WILL get the contract for Iraq's oil industry.

The problem is that you can't. People WANT to believe that powerful people are all corrupt and that EVERYTHING that occurs is because of corruption or "the good ol' boys network." Welp, I'm tired of it. Give me facts and not your suppositions and perhaps I'll listen.

As for doubling the cost of contract. If the government underestimated the cost of repairing Iraq's oil industry then the company who won the contract will get a contract modification that results in an increase in the award price. There's nothing unusual about this. Happens all the time in government contracts. People underestimate the costs associated for performing a task and then have to modify the contract to account for that underestimation.

I surely hope you all understand this. If you can't , then I'd like for you to invest all of my savings in the stock market because I'm sure you all can tell exactly how the stock market is going to behave.
(what i'm saying is that making cost estimates for something before you have a good idea of what it will cost often means your estimates will be way off)

Kermit

[Cain]

Bush did not crash the stock-market (although we're still waiting for that "stimulus" to kick in.

I'm still waiting for Larcain to provide us with examples of anti-conservative invective.

[veggicide]

kermit,

there are plenty of companies that were contracted after desert storm to put out oil fires, etc. can't think of names off hand - however i'm quite certain halliburton was not the only company that was contracted at that time.

companies that are contracted by the government can only make 3-5% profit off of a given contract. the way this limit on profits is worked around is that the company that is initially contracted sub-contracts to it's subsidiaries(if you're not following this, gov't goes to halliburton for contract, halliburton turns around to it's subsidiaries - bechtel, kbr, etc. - those companies then charge prime rates back to the parent company, in this case halliburton. halliburton then turns around and assesses the couple percentage points of profit for itself and then this is the number that goes to the government. it's a quaint set up and completely legal with the current set of rules unfortunately.) who can bill the parent company whatever they please. i won't even get into the bit where halliburton provided services to libya, iraq, and iran in the nineties... we are, after all, getting tough on countries and companies that do business with terrorist states. no need for competitive bidding on contracts whatsoever, eh.