Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > As expected: Halliburton contracts *are* likely nepotism

As expected: Halliburton contracts *are* likely nepotism
Thread Tools
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2004, 03:43 AM
 
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...644111,00.html

Dated March 5, 2003, the e-mail says "action" on a multibillion-dollar Halliburton contract was "coordinated" with Cheney's office. The e-mail says Douglas Feith, a high-ranking Pentagon hawk, got the "authority to execute RIO," or Restore Iraqi Oil, from his boss, who is Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. RIO is one of several large contracts the U.S. awarded to Halliburton last year.

The e-mail says Feith approved arrangements for the contract "contingent on informing WH [White House] tomorrow. We anticipate no issues since action has been coordinated w VP's [Vice President's] office." Three days later, the Army Corps of Engineers gave Halliburton the contract, without seeking other bids. TIME located the e-mail among documents provided by Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group.
Well, duh.

-s*
     
MacGorilla
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2004, 11:43 AM
 
I am withholding judgement for now but it stinks.
Power Macintosh Dual G4
SGI Indigo2 6.5.21f
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2004, 11:58 AM
 
I don't think nepotism is quite the word you're looking for - that usually applies to hiring one's relatives. But patronage is the same concept.

I'm not sure what this proves - FWIW, Halliburton is generally the most qualified at what it does - but it doesn't smell particularly good in light of Cheney's persistent claims that he has nothing to do with such contracts.

Unfortunately, patronage is the name of the game in Washington, and it isn't limited to Republicans. I'm sure that most such contracts are, ahem, "coordinated" with the White House in any given administration.
     
Spheric Harlot  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2004, 12:07 PM
 
Originally posted by zigzag:
Unfortunately, patronage is the name of the game in Washington, and it isn't limited to Republicans. I'm sure that most such contracts are, ahem, "coordinated" with the White House in any given administration.
That, while true, is irrelevant to the matter.

It doesn't really make it any better: It does not make the administration's claims of being there for the good of the Iraqi people any more credible, nor does it un-kill some 10,000 innocent civilians whose deaths are indirectly lining Halliburton's pockets.

-s*
     
dreilly1
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Rochester, NY, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2004, 12:28 PM
 
I remember reading about this (sorry, can't remember where, maybe opinionjournal.com, which has its share of conservatives). One interpretation of this was that the reason the Pentagon required "coordination" with the White House was because White House lawyers needed to make sure that there was nothing in the contracts or relationship with Haliburton that could constitute a conflict of interest on Cheney's part. Just because things were being coordinated with the White House doesn't necessarily mean that Cheney was calling the shots himself.

Yeah, it smells fishy to me too, but if Cheney is controlling the process, he's too smart to do it in a way that we can find out about, anyway...

Member of the the Stupid Brigade! (If you see Sponsored Links in any of my posts, please PM me!)
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2004, 02:52 PM
 
Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
That, while true, is irrelevant to the matter.

It doesn't really make it any better: It does not make the administration's claims of being there for the good of the Iraqi people any more credible, nor does it un-kill some 10,000 innocent civilians whose deaths are indirectly lining Halliburton's pockets.

-s*
I wasn't trying to argue that two wrongs make it right, only that I take it for granted that this sort of thing goes on and therefore the news doesn't surprise me. Like I said, it doesn't smell very good in light of Cheney's statements, although I'd be interested in whether there's a plausible explanation before I draw any conclusions.
     
spacefreak
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2004, 02:54 PM
 
Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
... nor does it un-kill some 10,000 innocent civilians whose deaths are indirectly lining Halliburton's pockets.
And your official source for that "some 10,000" number?????
     
dcolton
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2004, 02:57 PM
 
Originally posted by spacefreak:
And your official source for that "some 10,000" number?????
They don't need sources. If they read it on the internet and if it is anti-American...it must be true!
     
Spheric Harlot  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2004, 04:32 PM
 
Originally posted by spacefreak:
And your official source for that "some 10,000" number?????
http://www.iraqbodycount.net

Every individual incident there for your perusal.

dcolton needn't look, he won't believe anything anyway that's not explicitly pro-Bush.

-s*
     
zachs
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2002
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2004, 04:36 PM
 
Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
http://www.iraqbodycount.net

Every individual incident there for your perusal.

dcolton needn't look, he won't believe anything anyway that's not explicitly pro-Bush.

-s*
And before anyone screams "anti-American!" or "partisan!", take a look at how they do it:

Casualty figures are derived solely from a comprehensive survey of online media reports. Where these sources report differing figures, the range (a minimum and a maximum) are given. All results are independently reviewed and error-checked by at least three members of the Iraq Body Count project team before publication.
     
dcolton
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2004, 04:43 PM
 
Originally posted by zachs:
And before anyone screams "anti-American!" or "partisan!", take a look at how they do it:
Yes, but the news sources are getting their information from questionable sources. If you ask an insurgent...all deaths are innocent civillians. If you ask a coalition official, the death count includes insurgents.

If they really wanted to be impartial, they would have included links to each news source. Look ay k161. Is that a civilian death caused by Coalition mortars or 'insurgent' mortars. How about k164. A police car was attacked and 2 'innocent' civillians were killed according to this source.

So if a Iraqi attacks and civillians are killed, it is the coalitions fault?
If someone opens fire on a coalition force and is killed out of self defense, is that included in this count.

Too many questions. Too few answers.
     
zachs
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2002
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2004, 04:54 PM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:
Yes, but the news sources are getting their information from questionable sources. If you ask an insurgent...all deaths are innocent civillians. If you ask a coalition official, the death count includes insurgents.

If they really wanted to be impartial, they would have included links to each news source. Look ay k161. Is that a civilian death caused by Coalition mortars or 'insurgent' mortars. How about k164. A police car was attacked and 2 'innocent' civillians were killed according to this source.

So if a Iraqi attacks and civillians are killed, it is the coalitions fault?
If someone opens fire on a coalition force and is killed out of self defense, is that included in this count.

Too many questions. Too few answers.
I'd recommend reading the full background. Especially the methodology. It addresses your concerns.
     
dcolton
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2004, 05:03 PM
 
Originally posted by zachs:
I'd recommend reading the full background. Especially the methodology. It addresses your concerns.
No, I read that. It is BS. It takes all accountiblity and responsibility away from the terrorists and 'insurgents'. It is a skewed source that does not tell the truth. The US IS NOT responsible for all of the deaths this site claims.
     
Spheric Harlot  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2004, 05:27 PM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:
The US IS NOT responsible for all of the deaths this site claims.
That is most certainly a matter of opinion, not truth.

But feel free to use the lower of the two figures, then.
     
dcolton
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2004, 06:19 PM
 
Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
That is most certainly a matter of opinion, not truth.

But feel free to use the lower of the two figures, then.
We can agree it is a matter of opinion (both ways). But I believe my number would be lower than the lowest figure.
     
zachs
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2002
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2004, 06:27 PM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:
We can agree it is a matter of opinion (both ways). But I believe my number would be lower than the lowest figure.
And where do you get your number?
     
dcolton
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2004, 06:30 PM
 
Originally posted by zachs:
And where do you get your number?
Not from a biased site.
     
freakboy2
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2004, 06:36 PM
 
he makes it up.. i think most of their "sources" are hospitals and the red cross/red crescent. All the iraqibodycount bodies are verified deaths. The actual count is much likely higher as its hard to verify how many people die from 2000 pound bomb.

Anyway, i really am amazed by dcolton's persistence. i'm beginning to think he's an eliza script bot that just scans this forum and spews forth the vile drivel.

dcolton, how are you feeling today?

btw dcolton, if you didn't notice, i think the red cross is pretty much a bunch of commies.. After all, they have "Red", "committee" and "international" in their name. Being commies, they are terrorists as well, and since we're at war with the idea of terrorism we should just kill them all. DEATH TO THE RED CROSS!!

I just love being at war with an idea. We should have a war on murder or a war on corporate scams. Or a war on bad movies.

doesn't anyone see the problem with this? your terrorist is my freedom fighter.

fb2

eagerly awaiting yet another thoughtless script-bot response.
     
zachs
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2002
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2004, 06:43 PM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:
Not from a biased site.
Again, where from? Please share.

Thanks.
     
dcolton
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2004, 06:50 PM
 
Originally posted by freakboy2:
he makes it up.. i think most of their "sources" are hospitals and the red cross/red crescent. All the iraqibodycount bodies are verified deaths. The actual count is much likely higher as its hard to verify how many people die from 2000 pound bomb.

Anyway, i really am amazed by dcolton's persistence. i'm beginning to think he's an eliza script bot that just scans this forum and spews forth the vile drivel.

dcolton, how are you feeling today?

btw dcolton, if you didn't notice, i think the red cross is pretty much a bunch of commies.. After all, they have "Red", "committee" and "international" in their name. Being commies, they are terrorists as well, and since we're at war with the idea of terrorism we should just kill them all. DEATH TO THE RED CROSS!!

I just love being at war with an idea. We should have a war on murder or a war on corporate scams. Or a war on bad movies.

doesn't anyone see the problem with this? your terrorist is my freedom fighter.

fb2

eagerly awaiting yet another thoughtless script-bot response.
You bore me. If you can't see what is wrong with blaming American and coalitiion forces for deaths that are clearly caused by the opposition, there is no hope for this world. Basically, you live in a dream world where the US can do no right and terrorists can do no wrong. You are a disguisting person who encourages filthy, killer muslims to kill innocent civillians by blaming every death on coalition forces.
     
zachs
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2002
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2004, 06:57 PM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:
You bore me. If you can't see what is wrong with blaming American and coalitiion forces for deaths that are clearly caused by the opposition, there is no hope for this world. Basically, you live in a dream world where the US can do no right and terrorists can do no wrong. You are a disguisting person who encourages filthy, killer muslims to kill innocent civillians by blaming every death on coalition forces.
Nobody is blaming deaths clearly caused by terrorists on Americans! Nor is anyone blaming every death in Iraq on coalition forces. You, however, seem to want to to blame no death on American troops.

You should read what's on the page, not what's in your head.
     
christ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Gosport
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2004, 06:59 PM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:
Blah
You invade, you are responsible.

End of story.
Chris. T.

"... in 6 months if WMD are found, I hope all clear-thinking people who opposed the war will say "You're right, we were wrong -- good job". Similarly, if after 6 months no WMD are found, people who supported the war should say the same thing -- and move to impeach Mr. Bush." - moki, 04/16/03
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2004, 08:14 PM
 
Every death in Iraq is directly attributable to Saddam Hussein and no one else. If he hadn't supported the 9/11 terrorists then tried to purchase nuclear material from Niger, none of this would have happened. The US is entirely innocent. The Abu Ghraib deaths, which I think were probably justified, happened in Saddam's torture prison!!! The correct number for deaths caused by the US is zero, until you give me an official number from the US military or other official, unbiased source. It seems that almost everyone in this forum is a French commie terrorist, but thank God that dcolton stands up to represent the best of American ideals!
     
Spheric Harlot  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2004, 08:47 PM
 
Originally posted by tie:
Every death in Iraq is directly attributable to Saddam Hussein and no one else. If he hadn't supported the 9/11 terrorists then tried to purchase nuclear material from Niger, none of this would have happened. The US is entirely innocent. The Abu Ghraib deaths, which I think were probably justified, happened in Saddam's torture prison!!! The correct number for deaths caused by the US is zero, until you give me an official number from the US military or other official, unbiased source. It seems that almost everyone in this forum is a French commie terrorist, but thank God that dcolton stands up to represent the best of American ideals!
Sir,

With all due respect:

Why the FUCK do you think so many nations were hesitant and INSISTED on using every last non-violent method available?

Because nobody wanted to be responsible for 10,000 innocent human deaths.

Perhaps it would have led to a concerted military action eventually. It currently looks as not, seeing as there *were* no connections to al Qaeda, nor WMD. But a concerted military action by the UN would probably have not been nearly as bloody - seeing as it would have been supported by the surrounding neighbors of Iraq.

The blood is on the United States' and Britain's hands for not retaining military action as the absolute ultima ratio, to be employed as a threat but executed *only* when all else - ALL else - has failed.

John Wayne diplomacy isn't.

Everybody everywhere is glad Saddam is gone, but I'm not so sure that what is happening right now is so much better.

I do hope time proves me wrong.

-s*
     
theolein
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: zurich, switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2004, 08:48 PM
 
Originally posted by tie:
Every death in Iraq is directly attributable to Saddam Hussein and no one else. If he hadn't supported the 9/11 terrorists then tried to purchase nuclear material from Niger, none of this would have happened. The US is entirely innocent. The Abu Ghraib deaths, which I think were probably justified, happened in Saddam's torture prison!!! The correct number for deaths caused by the US is zero, until you give me an official number from the US military or other official, unbiased source. It seems that almost everyone in this forum is a French commie terrorist, but thank God that dcolton stands up to represent the best of American ideals!
Ahmen! Oh, and God save the Queen, er wait...
weird wabbit
     
zachs
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2002
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2004, 10:21 PM
 
Originally posted by tie:
Every death in Iraq is directly attributable to Saddam Hussein and no one else.
Not exactly.

If he hadn't supported the 9/11 terrorists
So you disagree with President Bush?

then tried to purchase nuclear material from Niger, none of this would have happened.
Been debunked a LOOOOOONG time ago. That document was a crude forgery. Where have you been?

The US is entirely innocent.
Of what?

The Abu Ghraib deaths, which I think were probably justified, happened in Saddam's torture prison!!!
Ironic isn't it?

The correct number for deaths caused by the US is zero, until you give me an official number from the US military or other official, unbiased source.
Not quite...But something tells me you wouldn't accept the number even if it came from Bush himself. Afterall, you didn't believe Bush when he denied Saddam's connection with the 9/11 attacks.

It seems that almost everyone in this forum is a French commie terrorist, but thank God that dcolton stands up to represent the best of American ideals!
Don't know what being French has anything to do with being a "commie terrorist", but OK...

As Darrel Hammond as Chris Matthews would say..."When you had your brain washed, did you have it waxed, too?"

Edit: On second thought, this post is just too stereotypically right-wing that it has to be satire.
     
spacefreak
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2004, 11:06 PM
 
Originally posted by freakboy2:
he makes it up.. i think most of their "sources" are hospitals and the red cross/red crescent. All the iraqibodycount bodies are verified deaths. The actual count is much likely higher as its hard to verify how many people die from 2000 pound bomb.
And what international accreditation does iraqbodycount.net have? What organizations have lent their name to the website as sponsors and verifying agents?

Where was this website during Saddam's reign?
     
Spheric Harlot  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2004, 11:18 PM
 
Originally posted by spacefreak:
And what international accreditation does iraqbodycount.net have? What organizations have lent their name to the website as sponsors and verifying agents?

Where was this website during Saddam's reign?
Always the same.

Bush is ultimately only defensible when you compare him directly with Clinton.

Current US Iraq <anything related> is ultimately defensible by direct comparison with Saddam.

Either something or someone has merits, morals, or quality on their own, or they have neither merits, morals, nor quality.

"At least we're better than Saddam" is not a valid argument for war, spacefreak.

-s*
     
Taliesin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 2, 2004, 05:34 AM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:
You are a disguisting person who encourages filthy, killer muslims to kill innocent civillians by blaming every death on coalition forces.
Hey, hey, here we have it again: killer muslims, killer muslims, what a great combination. What does it make then the US-forces or the CIA or the US-paramilitary-forces: killer-christians, killer-atheists, no wait, killer-liberators!

Seriously, you have some severe issues there regarding muslims, while at the same time having a blind eye for american crimes: Terrorism is not an islamic invention, it's a french invention as France was the one with the first democracy (ignoring the greek half-democracy millenias ago).

Terrorism is as old as democracies are, why is that so? Because terrorism has the aim to kill civilians in order to change public perception, public opinion, etc.. in order to achieve a change in politics through the civilians who back up the democratically elected governments.

In France there were different parties or clubs that used terrorism so that a their club comes into power, so it was an inner-country-terrorism trying to manipulate the masses.

The other form of terrorism happens between two different countries, in which sometimes the one being terrorised is the democracy that suppresses the other country, which doesn't have to be a democracy or a nation at all, and which turns the terrorism into a resistance-fight.

Most of the time though terrorism happens between two countries without any resistance-fight or suppression going on, just as part of normal politics, mostly commited by a democracy against another democracy, in order to change the politics of latter democracy or in order to change the democratic system into a dictatory system which would then serve the interests of the other democracy... That variation happens mostly between democracies that are not on the same level economically, military or technologically. The superior nation is terrorising the inferior nation so that it serves the interests of the superior nation, so that it can stay superior..

Democracies tend to use terrorism when they are sure that they can't convince the public that official actions have to be taken in the interest of the own country, as a secret intervention-weapon without having to resort to official troops...

Taliesin
     
christ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Gosport
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 2, 2004, 06:03 AM
 
Originally posted by tie:
The correct number for deaths caused by the US is zero, until you give me an official number from the US military or other official, unbiased source.
Ignoring the oxymoron here, that the US military is an unbiased source, would you deny the numbers of dead in the holocaust until there was an official, unbiased, nazi source?

It seems that the killers are the last people that one should trust in determining the number of their victims.
Chris. T.

"... in 6 months if WMD are found, I hope all clear-thinking people who opposed the war will say "You're right, we were wrong -- good job". Similarly, if after 6 months no WMD are found, people who supported the war should say the same thing -- and move to impeach Mr. Bush." - moki, 04/16/03
     
Taliesin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 2, 2004, 06:08 AM
 
christ and zachs,

don't you realize that tie is just being satirical?

Taliesin
     
christ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Gosport
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 2, 2004, 07:34 AM
 
No, I didn't (but, in retrospect, "thank God that dcolton stands up to represent the best of American ideals" should have been a giveaway!).
Chris. T.

"... in 6 months if WMD are found, I hope all clear-thinking people who opposed the war will say "You're right, we were wrong -- good job". Similarly, if after 6 months no WMD are found, people who supported the war should say the same thing -- and move to impeach Mr. Bush." - moki, 04/16/03
     
zachs
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2002
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 2, 2004, 11:58 AM
 
Originally posted by Taliesin:
christ and zachs,

don't you realize that tie is just being satirical?

Taliesin
I realized that after I posted. (Hence the "Edit:")
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:52 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,