Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 130
  1.    #41  
    just a little something about clinton and haliburton.



    Read the rest of the article here. Taken from: "Fables of the Reconstruction" by Daniel Drezner Posted Monday, Nov. 3, 2003. http://slate.msn.com/id/2090636


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Clinton Procurement Official Steven Kelman calls allegations that the government rewarded Halliburton "Somewhere between highly improbable and utterly absurd." "One would be hard-pressed to discover anyone with a working knowledge of how federal contracts are awarded - whether a career civil servant working on procurement or an independent academic expert - who doesn't regard these allegations as being somewhere between highly improbable and utterly absurd. ... Many people are also under the impression that contractors take the government to the cleaners. In fact, government keeps a watchful eye on contractor profits - and government work has low profit margins compared with the commercial work the same companies perform. ... As for the much-maligned Halliburton, a few days ago the company disclosed, as part of its third-quarter earnings report, operating income from its Iraq contracts of $34 million on revenue of $900 million - a return on sales of 3.7 percent, hardly the stuff of plunder."
    (Steven Kelman, "No 'Cronyism' In Iraq," The Washington Post,11/6/03)

    Clinton's Undersecretary Of Commerce Says Halliburton Allegations Overblown. "William Reinsch, president of the National Foreign Trade Council in Washington, is a Democrat who served under Clinton as undersecretary of commerce. He said he disagrees with most of the Bush administration's policies, but thinks the Halliburton controversy is overblown. 'Halliburton has a distinguished track record,' he said. 'They do business in some 120 countries. This is a group of people who know what they're doing in a difficult business. It's a particularly difficult business when people are shooting at you. ... I don't think we went to war because we thought it would help selected American companies.'"
    (James Rosen, "Is Iraq's Reconstruction Rigged?" The [Raleigh] News &
    Observer, 10/5/03)

    Army Corps Of Engineers: "No Reason To Think Halliburton Has The Inside Track." "Scott Saunders, a spokesman for the [U.S. Army] Corps [of Engineers], said there is no reason to think Halliburton has the inside track. 'We've never really done something like this before - gone in and tried to fix a country while it's still being terrorized,' he said. 'We wouldn't have competitively bid the contracts if we didn't think there was more than one firm in the world that could do the job.'"
    (James Rosen, "Is Iraq's Reconstruction Rigged?" The [Raleigh] News & Observer, 10/5/03)

    Then, in February 2003, the Corps of Engineers gave Halliburton a temporary no-bid contract to implement its classified oil-fire plan. The thinking was it would be absurd to undertake the drawn-out contracting process on the verge of war. If the administration had done that and there had been catastrophic fires, it would now be considered evidence of insufficient postwar planning. And Halliburton was an obvious choice, since it put out 350 oil-well fires in Kuwait after the first Gulf War.

    The Clinton administration made the same calculation in its own dealings with Halliburton. The company had won the LOGCAP in 1992, then lost it in 1997. The Clinton administration nonetheless awarded a no-bid contract to Halliburton to continue its work in the Balkans supporting the US peacekeeping mission there because it made little sense to change midstream. According to Byron York, Al Gore's reinventing-government panel even singled out Halliburton for praise for its military logistics work.

    So, did Clinton and Gore involve the United States in the Balkans to benefit Halliburton? That charge makes as much sense as the one that Democrats are hurling at Bush now. Would that they directed more of their outrage at the people in Iraq who want to sabotage the country's oil infrastructure, rather than at the US corporation charged with
    helping repair it. (Rich Lowry National Review Editor Sept 22, 2003)

    Under the Clinton administration, Halliburton received hundreds of millions of dollars worth of construction contracts for rebuilding efforts in Kosovo and Haiti.

    In a deal cut in June 2000 under President Clinton, the New York Post reports that Halliburton won 11 Navy contracts worth $110 million to build jails at Guantanamo Bay, a base in Kuwait, a ferry terminal on Vieques, an air station in Spain, a breakwater in the Azores and facilities slammed by a typhoon in Guam.
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    nudist. put some clothes back on. you're scaring us!

    anyone ever PROVE haliburton was scandalous?

    NO. sit down.
    Other than Haliburton pleading guilty to overcharging the govt and being fined?

    If I scare you because I'm a nudist, I bet janet Jackson's nipple TERRIFIED you.
  3.    #43  
    So, did Clinton and Gore involve the United States in the Balkans to benefit Halliburton? That charge makes as much sense as the one that Democrats are hurling at Bush now. Would that they directed more of their outrage at the people in Iraq who want to sabotage the country's oil infrastructure, rather than at the US corporation charged with
    helping repair it. (Rich Lowry National Review Editor Sept 22, 2003


    so nrg, there you have it
  4.    #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by nudist
    Other than Haliburton pleading guilty to overcharging the govt and being fined?

    If I scare you because I'm a nudist, I bet janet Jackson's nipple TERRIFIED you.

    no with her, it was shock and awe
  5. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    So, did Clinton and Gore involve the United States in the Balkans to benefit Halliburton? That charge makes as much sense as the one that Democrats are hurling at Bush now. Would that they directed more of their outrage at the people in Iraq who want to sabotage the country's oil infrastructure, rather than at the US corporation charged with
    helping repair it. (Rich Lowry National Review Editor Sept 22, 2003


    so nrg, there you have it

    I never said that the Bush admin. got us involved in Iraq to reward Halliburton. I said the reason we got involved in Iraq was because of the PNAC . Please read the website throughly. I will post the text of a letter to Clinton in 1998:
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    January 26, 1998



    The Honorable William J. Clinton
    President of the United States
    Washington, DC


    Dear Mr. President:

    We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

    The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.


    Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.


    Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

    We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

    We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

    Sincerely,

    Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

    Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

    Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

    William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

    Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

    Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    this is why we got involved in Iraq. These "fine" people above I am sure you can see some familuar names, i put them in bold.

    Now, about Halliburton, they are just a shady company and they where when Cheney was the CEO. That is all I was saying.
  6. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    no with her, it was shock and awe

    MMMMMM. Nipple.
  7.    #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    MMMMMM. Nipple.
  8. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #48  
    Let's not try to use bias publications to prove a point.

    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    (Rich Lowry National Review Editor Sept 22, 2003)
  9.    #49  
    "Now, about Halliburton, they are just a shady company and they where when Cheney was the CEO. That is all I was saying. "

    well, i understand the suspicion you have, except i would like to see further investigations into the company. i am going to read the article you linked above to look into this whole deal further, but again, i am given to hard evidence for or against any case before i pass judgement on it.
  10.    #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Let's not try to use bias publications to prove a point.
    that goes for you too
  11. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    that goes for you too
    Sure thing
  12.    #52  
    http://www.newamericancentury.org/kerry-20041021.htm

    SUBJECT: Kerry on Zarqawi - Wrong

    This week both John Kerry and his senior foreign policy advisor, Susan Rice, have argued that the Bush administration was wrong about Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi. He was not a danger before the war; his contacts with Saddam's Iraq non-existent; and his relationship to al Qaeda only now cemented.

    Their comments appear to be based on a single Washington Post (October 5, 2004) story concerning a leaked CIA re-assessment of Saddam's ties to Zarqawi. According to that news account, "A U.S. official familiar with the new CIA assessment said intelligence analysts are unable to determine conclusively the nature of the relationship," and that the assessment was "still being worked." Nevertheless, the same official stated: "What is indisputable is that Zarqawi was operating out of Baghdad and was involved in a lot of bad activities."

    Frankly, the idea that Zarqawi would, first, opt to go to Baghdad and, second, operate there for some time without Iraqi intelligence's complicity, is pretty fanciful. And the fact that the CIA does not have "conclusive" evidence of that complicity is hardly a surprise given the number of spies it had within Saddam's inner circle: none.

    Moreover, Zarqawi's activities were hardly benign prior to the Iraq war. As the State Department's 2003 report on "Patterns of Global Terrorism" points out:

    The presence of several hundred al-Qaida operatives fighting with the small Kurdish Islamist group Ansar al-Islam in the northeastern corner of Iraqi Kurdistan--where the IIS operates--is well documented. Iraq has an agent in the most senior levels of Ansar al-Islam as well. In addition, small numbers of highly placed al-Qaida militants were present in Baghdad and areas of Iraq that Saddam controls. It is inconceivable these groups were in Iraq without the knowledge and acquiescence of Saddam's regime. In the past year, al-Qaida operatives in northern Iraq concocted suspect chemicals under the direction of senior al-Qaida associate Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi and tried to smuggle them into Russia, Western Europe, and the United States for terrorist operations.

    Third, the idea that Zarqawi was not "in any way cooperating with al-Qaeda" is certainly wishful thinking. Although Zarqawi and bin Laden may have had different agendas at times, there is plenty of evidence that they had a mutually supportive relationship.

    As Stephen Hayes points out in a piece on yesterday's Weekly Standard website ("The Rice Stuff? Susan Rice talks about Abu Musab al Zarqawi"), the Washington Post (September 27, 2004) reported:

    According to Jordanian officials and court testimony by jailed followers in Germany, Zarqawi met in Kandahar and Kabul with bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders. He asked them for assistance and money to set up his own training camp in Herat, near the Iranian border. With al Qaeda's support, the camp opened and soon served as a magnet for Jordanian militants.
    And, as Hayes further notes:
    But Zarqawi did more than train fighters. According to a Jordanian indictment, Zarqawi planned a series of attacks in Jordan to mark the millennium. His chief co-conspirator in that plot was Abu Zubaydah, frequently described as Osama bin Laden's "operations chief." The Senate Intelligence Committee report says that Zubaydah was the "senior al Qaeda coordinator responsible for training and recruiting." Zubaydah, who is in U.S. custody, is often cited by skeptics of the Iraq-al Qaeda connection because he told interrogators that he thought it "unlikely" that bin Laden would establish a formal alliance with Iraq for fear of losing his independence. But the skeptics often ignore other aspects of Zubaydah's debriefing. Again, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee report, Zubaydah "indicated that he had heard that an important al Qaeda associate, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, and others had good relationships with Iraqi Intelligence."

    Of course, it is hardly surprising that Sen. Kerry and his campaign team would use a leak to the Washington Post to score a political point. That's politics today. But their willingness to so readily dismiss the potential threat posed by Zarqawi before the Iraq war, based on one still-in-the-works intelligence report, is more disturbing. Frankly, it smacks of Clinton-era complacency. Absent a notarized statement by Saddam and bin Laden attesting to their ties with Zarqawi, would a President Kerry have given him a pass? And if so, is that the policy judgment Americans want in a post 9-11 world?
  13.    #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    Daniel Shore, NPR (1-27-05): "Rice was vigorously supported by Diane Feinstein, D., California, and was vigorously opposed by Barbara Boxer, D., California..."
    NOT all Democrats think alike. Nuff said.

    yes i know chick, and this is why i have said before that it is not ALL democrats i fiercely oppose, just certain individuals who i feel are bad for america. there are democrats who, like i said before, are good for the country. despite some disagreements with them, they are valuable to us.
  14. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #54  
    PNAC is calling for a draft!!! These ******* people will stop at nothing to keep the war machine going.

    http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20050128.htm
  15. #55  
    Relax NRG! Barring some unforeseen dire situation, we'll not have another draft in this country.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  16.    #56  
    nrg, that is a pervading myth that many democrats seem to be trying to create.

    there will not be a draft. the only person who ever recommended a draft to be put into effect was charlie rengel of new york.

    who, incidentally, nrg, is none other than .... a democrat.

    so this draft thing is not a product of the republican war machine, but rather an attempt by some democrats to create fear.

    in any case, this is NOT a possiblility, and this has been confirmed many, many times.

    so calm down.
  17. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #57  
    The group I mentioned above is what some people call neo-conservative. These are the same folks that got us into this war. This "think-tank" tries to put a face of "bi-partisan" on things. They are nothing more than people who are looking to overthrow all governments in the Middle East for the coming situation of "Peak Oil". This group really does scare the crap out of me.

    Now since these good folks of the PNAC are asking for a steady building of 25,000 additional troops per year. I was wondering 1) Where they are going to get these troops and 2) Just what in the hell do you think they are going to with these extra troops?

    Iran?
    Syria?
    Remember Bush's speech? Spread freedom across the globe and rid the world of tyranny? Just something for you folks think about.
  18. #58  
    NRG, do you by chance, see any black helicopters following you? Seriously, the draft is not coming anytime soon.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  19. #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    The group I mentioned above is what some people call neo-conservative. These are the same folks that got us into this war. This "think-tank" tries to put a face of "bi-partisan" on things. They are nothing more than people who are looking to overthrow all governments in the Middle East for the coming situation of "Peak Oil". This group really does scare the crap out of me.

    Now since these good folks of the PNAC are asking for a steady building of 25,000 additional troops per year. I was wondering 1) Where they are going to get these troops and 2) Just what in the hell do you think they are going to with these extra troops?

    Iran?
    Syria?
    Remember Bush's speech? Spread freedom across the globe and rid the world of tyranny? Just something for you folks think about.
    Maybe instead of worrying about the draft, or "neo-conservatives", why not concern yourself with the correctness of your avatar
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  20. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    Maybe instead of worrying about the draft, or "neo-conservatives", why not concern yourself with the correctness of your avatar
    My Flordia State University "Chief Osecola" avatar? This has already discussed at length many years ago. The Seminole tribe of Florida seems to have no problem with it. So neither should you.
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions