sorry if this was posted already...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/12/arms.halliburton.iraq.reut/index.html

Quote :

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- The Army will discontinue its multi-billion dollar contract with oil services giant Halliburton Co. to provide logistical support to U.S. troops worldwide, The Washington Post reported Wednesday."

Quote :

"Army officials defended the company's performance but said Pentagon leaders decided multiple contractors would give them better prices, more accountability and greater protection if a one contractor fails to perform, the newspaper said."

Isn't this exactly what critics of the contract with Halliburton said when the deal was made?

Discussion?

7/12/2006 12:56:27 PM

So what are you guys gonna complain about now..

7/12/2006 1:38:54 PM

there's plenty

7/12/2006 1:43:52 PM

clearly this is W's way of paying back all his oil buddies, by spreading the wealth to multiple companies now!!1

7/12/2006 1:45:33 PM

Dude they got enough kickbacks over a two year span.

This is more of W realizing "oh shit. legacy"

7/12/2006 1:53:15 PM

As long as their stock prices stay above 72.5 until next Friday I'm fine with it. So far they haven't taken a major hit for the news.

7/12/2006 2:29:28 PM

if i was running the W Administration, i'd be trying to pull all the loose ends before the upcoming midterm elections. Republicans have nothing to gain and everything to lose. Haliburton connections to the VP always seems like a big liability.

but... they've always managed to avoid any negative fallout from Haliburton for 6 years, so i dont see why they'd start worrying now. unless theres some impending scandal that's waiting to surface. but that seems kind of doubtful.

i think its simply what the army says. that they want competitive bids and greater accountability.

what took so long? or why all of a sudden now? maybe Haliburton is not doing as thorough or timely work as they used to. or maybe their budget overruns are becoming too much and/or too often.

7/12/2006 2:54:40 PM

Quote :

"As long as their stock prices stay above 72.5 until next Friday I'm fine with it. So far they haven't taken a major hit for the news."

I'm dumping it.

7/12/2006 2:56:41 PM

^ Covered calls at 70 and 72.5. The premiums were great though, so I don't see myself losing any money on this even if they do take a hit.

7/12/2006 3:12:27 PM

I'd hate to see Halliburton not be as thorough as they used to be

7/12/2006 3:25:26 PM

Quote :

""This is the year of transition for Iraqi reconstruction. The U.S.-funded projects are being completed and transferred to Iraqi management and control," said James Mitchell, spokesman for the inspector general's office."

Quote :

"No contractor has received more money as a result of the invasion of Iraq than Halliburton, whose former chief executive is Vice President Cheney. The logistics work is performed through a subsidiary, Kellogg Brown & Root Services Inc. Last year, the Army paid the company more than $7 billion under the contract, according to a search of government contracting data by Eagle Eye Inc., a private consulting firm. The number this year is expected to be between $4 billion and $5 billion, according to Randy King, a program manager with the Army."

Oh yeah go ahead and open it up to competition just as the contracts are ending, great!

7/12/2006 6:08:04 PM

hmm. well, i tried to look for the positive spin, but it does look kind of shady after all.

7/12/2006 8:29:14 PM

It was shady as fuck from the start.

There have been so many "WE DO WHAT WE WANT! IN YO FACE, BITCH!!!!" moves made by this adminstration. I mean, it wasn't just partisan bullshit...folks were outraged for a reason.

7/12/2006 9:06:19 PM

^ When you can do no right, why would you bother doing what others want anyway?

7/12/2006 10:34:57 PM

the man's got a point

7/12/2006 10:43:05 PM

^,^^so you're conceding that I'm right here?

Actually, don't answer that. I don't really care.

From now on:

1337 b4k4, you will be described by me as a useless son of a whore. I would say that you're a son of a bitch, but I happen to know that your mother fucked for formula right after you were born...

burr0sback, I think I'm just gonna call you "bitch" from now on because, well, you're a bitch, you know.

I may just use this link in place of the name-calling. We'll see.

[Edited on July 13, 2006 at 12:33 AM. Reason : sss]

7/13/2006 12:29:45 AM

I guess the administration's theme for this week is "Do everything the liberals told your dumbass to do 3 years ago."

7/13/2006 2:51:45 AM

^^AHA, none of that makes any sense. My bad.

7/13/2006 5:50:51 AM

Yea, definitely looks like b4k4 was agreeing with you. Did you take your meds? Take too many?

7/13/2006 11:03:05 AM

And you say I attack arguments that aren't there... yeesh.

7/13/2006 11:41:13 AM

aha, I thought about the son of a bitch thing, and it turns out whore is included in the word bitch...no need for me to differentiate...I should have been taught my curse words properly...damn you elementary school peers!!1

And, 1CYPHER, he was agreeing with me that it was shady, but he was also justifying it...basically saying, "If everybody's gonna criticize him anyway, he might as well do what he wants..." Or did you mean something else by this, 1337 b4k4:

Quote :

"1337 b4k4: ^ When you can do no right, why would you bother doing what others want anyway?"

???

[Edited on July 13, 2006 at 12:18 PM. Reason : sss]

7/13/2006 12:17:57 PM

No I meant it almost exactly as it sounds. A lot of stuff the administration has done is viewed as shady and some of it really is, but if everything they do is going to be criticised like that, why should they even care? As long as it's technicaly legal it's irellevant because no matter what they do, they'll be criticised for being shady, so they might as well do what they think is best.

It's sort of a backlash and side effect of the extreme and vocal anti-Bush crowd. Since they seem unwilling to compromise or deal with the president reasonably, they become ignored because they are therefore irellevant. Rebublicans should be fairly familiar with this as it happened during clinton's time too.

Essentialy, the only way to get anywhere in politics is to be willing to work with the other side. Rejecting everything the other side does as shady, conspriacies and retarded is the quickest way to have you ignored and marginalized.

Edit
------

By the way, was there a reason you felt the need to bring personal attacks into this? Does it make you feel like a better person? Does it help add credibility to your arguments?

[Edited on July 13, 2006 at 12:34 PM. Reason : ?]

7/13/2006 12:31:53 PM

7/13/2006 4:52:25 PM

Quote :

"1337 b4k4: By the way, was there a reason you felt the need to bring personal attacks into this? Does it make you feel like a better person? Does it help add credibility to your arguments?"

I was drunk, and it totally amused me. Pathetic, I know. I also think you're stupid so I'm never going to respect you as an individual worth seriously arguing with and learning from, but I actually think we're on the same low level as far as debating abilities go (or you're just taking it easy on me).

One edit to your latest bullshit post...

Quote :

"1337 b4k4: As long as it's technicaly legal it's irellevant because no matter what they do, they'll be criticised for being shady, so they might as well do what they think is best benefits them the most."

I cannot believe that you tried to sneak "what they think is best" in there.

Quote :

"1337 b4k4: Essentialy, the only way to get anywhere in politics is to be willing to work with the other side."

That's profound, man.

Quote :

"1337 b4k4: Rejecting everything the other side does as shady, conspriacies and retarded is the quickest way to have you ignored and marginalized."

1. No liberal politician rejected everything the Bush administration did. Let's not pretend that there has been some out of control "I HATE BUSH" party going on. Most of the criticisms that he received from his peers were warranted.

2. The Bush administration has been able to engage in and has engaged in shady shit for many reasons, none of which revolve around this notion that liberals were being hypercritical. Here's a few of the reasons:

a. The administration is shameless.
b. 9/11 opened the door for them.
c. Republicans currently own the government.

[Edited on July 13, 2006 at 10:20 PM. Reason : sss]

7/13/2006 10:06:03 PM

Quote :

"Let's not pretend that there has been some out of control "I HATE BUSH" party going on."

Oh, but there is.

7/13/2006 10:14:52 PM

^Find me a liberal politician who matters and has rejected everything the Bush administration has done as "as shady, conspriacies and retarded" (1337 b4k4). You'll probably need to find more than one if you want to establish this idea that the administration's decisions are the direct result of complete and rabid liberal contrariness.

[Edited on July 13, 2006 at 10:43 PM. Reason : sss]

7/13/2006 10:29:24 PM

Quote :

"I cannot believe that you tried to sneak "what they think is best" in there. "

Is there something inaccurate in that statement? I never specified best for who. Simply best, which is a relative concept. For example, what is best for say Coca Cola is not best for Pepsi.

Quote :

"That's profound, man. "

But clearly lost on many people.

Quote :

"1. No liberal politician rejected everything the Bush administration did. Let's not pretend that there has been some out of control "I HATE BUSH" party going on. Most of the criticisms that he received from his peers were warranted. "

The politicians are irellevant. Their actions are predictable and their motives self serving or at the very least intrest group pandering. The public as a whole believe it or not is who matters. And the extremely vocal part of the anti-bush party has made themselves maginalized and irellevant, therefore the politicians (and by extension, Bush) are ignoring them. Why do you think the democratic leaders are moving closer and closer to the center?

Quote :

"2. The Bush administration has been able to engage in and has engaged in shady shit for many reasons, none of which revolve around this notion that liberals were being hypercritical. Here's a few of the reasons: a. The administration is shameless. b. 9/11 opened the door for them. c. Republicans currently own the government. They are politicians. "

That's the only true reason. Remember that the patriot act and many of the other bills which allow the president to expand his powers come with the approval of congress, and very few of them are split down party lines. Congress has the power today to end all military actions by cutting funding. They have the power to revoke the patriot act, make federal wiretapping without congressional approval illegal and all sorts of shit. They won't and they don't because they are politicians and therefore self serving, and it does not serve them to pander to the vocal bush opposition.

7/13/2006 11:15:25 PM

^^

Quote :

"Find me a liberal politician who matters"

That, ma'am, is a tall order. If it will make you feel better, I can start keeping quotes from Pelosi, Murtha, Kerry, Gore, Dean, et al.

I'm sure that it goes without saying that I believe that, as a general rule, liberal Democrats are opposed to Bush and Republican policies and actions. Of course, such broad generalizations (liberals aren't pro-anything--they're only anti-Bush, all of Bush's actions are for personal gain, all Republicans are racist, all Democrats are spineless pacifists, ...) are pretty silly to begin with. Nevertheless, Democrats have become (or at least have allowed themselves to be percieved as) the anti-Bush. My general impression of the current state of the Party is that they are no longer focused on furthering liberal policy, but rather only on opposing conservative policy. That's fine as far as it goes, but people, including myself, are interested in hearing new ideas and not the opposite of old ideas.

[Edited on July 13, 2006 at 11:16 PM. Reason : ^]

7/13/2006 11:15:40 PM

Quote :

"1337 b4k4: Is there something inaccurate in that statement? I never specified best for who. Simply best, which is a relative concept. For example, what is best for say Coca Cola is not best for Pepsi."

I figured you would say that. You're tricky!

Quote :

"1337 b4k4: The politicians are irellevant. Their actions are predictable and their motives self serving or at the very least intrest group pandering. The public as a whole believe it or not is who matters. And the extremely vocal part of the anti-bush party has made themselves maginalized and irellevant, therefore the politicians (and by extension, Bush) are ignoring them. Why do you think the democratic leaders are moving closer and closer to the center?"

Oh, please, Bush cut himself off from the public at the very start. He doesn't look at the newspaper, remember? He has questions of him screened before he'll even listen to them. Liberals were marginalized and irrelevant from the beginning (no extreme vocalities were necessary to achieve this state).

As far as Democrats moving towards the center go, both parties were moving towards the center. Until Bush.

Quote :

"1337 b4k4: That's the only true reason. Remember that the patriot act and many of the other bills which allow the president to expand his powers come with the approval of congress, and very few of them are split down party lines. Congress has the power today to end all military actions by cutting funding. They have the power to revoke the patriot act, make federal wiretapping without congressional approval illegal and all sorts of shit. They won't and they don't because they are politicians and therefore self serving, and it does not serve them to pander to the vocal bush opposition."

While I agree with your assertions about politicians, I object to the application of those ideas to my proposal of how and why Bush engaged in shady behaviors.

By the way, before you were saying that the Bush administration's actions were partly affected by hypercriticism. Now you're saying the "only true reason" for them is that they are politicians. Which is it?

Anyway, I'm not saying that you're wrong about hypercriticism being associated with administrations that don't care anymore, but in this case, you are wrong because this administration didn't care from the start.

Quote :

"A Tanzarian: If it will make you feel better, I can start keeping quotes from Pelosi, Murtha, Kerry, Gore, Dean, et al."

That's not needed, but if you can somehow link their criticism to the Bush administration's decision to deal with Halliburton, that would really help 1337 b4k4 out.

Quote :

"A Tanzarian: That's fine as far as it goes, but people, including myself, are interested in hearing new ideas and not the opposite of old ideas."

PUBLIC PRESCHOOLS FOR ALL!!! ARE YOU WITH ME?!?!

[Edited on July 13, 2006 at 11:55 PM. Reason : sss]

7/13/2006 11:50:27 PM

Quote :

"I figured you would say that. You're tricky! "

If being factualy correct is tricky then so be it. Just because you read deeper into the sentence than you should have does not invalidate the fact that I never specified who the actions were best for and that I did so very intentionaly.

Quote :

"Oh, please, Bush cut himself off from the public at the very start. He doesn't look at the newspaper, remember? He has questions of him screened before he'll even listen to them. Liberals were marginalized and irrelevant from the beginning (no extreme vocalities were necessary to achieve this state)."

I seem to recall early Bush being more open and becoming less so very quickly as it became evident that he couldn't do right. Besides, it's not like the extreme levels of criticism came late in the presidency. Before he was even in office he was being accused of fixing elections. I don't know about you but I wouldn't be inclined to open up to people after that.

Quote :

"As far as Democrats moving towards the center go, both parties were moving towards the center. Until Bush."

Right. As I said, the republicans should be familiar with being marginalized as it happened during clinton's time too. Therefore the republicans moved center, took control and are now running right. As a result the democrats have to marginalize their left most people to move center and retake control. Such is politics.

Quote :

"While I agree with your assertions about politicians, I object to the application of those ideas to my proposal of how and why Bush engaged in shady behaviors. "

Why? Bush is a politician like any other person in the government. Honest politicians are so few and far between and very few of them ever get to the national scale. Why is Bush being shady any different from any other politician being shady?

Quote :

"By the way, before you were saying that the Bush administration's actions were partly affected by hypercriticism. Now you're saying the "only true reason" for them is that they are politicians. Which is it?"

I told you, the reaction to the criticism is how politics is played. Since bush is a politician he's only answerable to the people that can harm his position, and the people that can harm his position are those that are willing to play the compromise game. Since the far left is being marginalized because of their unwillingness to play politics he doesn't have to answer them, hence ingoring them and "in your face" shady moves.

Quote :

"Anyway, I'm not saying that you're wrong about hypercriticism being associated with administrations that don't care anymore, but in this case, you are wrong because this administration didn't care from the start. "

As I said before, the criticism started just as early.

7/14/2006 12:33:24 PM

7/14/2006 1:22:34 PM

ummm... isnt' cheney ceo?

7/14/2006 3:42:55 PM

He was CEO from 1995 until 2000.

7/14/2006 3:46:13 PM