Recommended Posts
DaVinci 0
Yes, Cheney is getting retirement pay from Halliburton...so what?
You also need to learn how military contracts are let, and in what circumstances no-bid or single source contracts are awarded. I noticed there's not much griping about the no-bid contract that Halliburton got from the Clinton administration (Bosnia/Kosovo).
People who do not understand compensation at that level often think it is a big deal for a person to get delayed compensation. It's not. Companies often delay compensation over a few years to spread out the impact over a few years. It is very often the case with retirement
Yeah, people who do not understand military bidding ofetn gripe about Halliburton. But if they understood military bidding (often quite stupid) then they would not be able to use it as an attack. I also notice no one ever mentions Clintons Military nobids.
Lucky... 0
I also notice no one ever mentions Clintons Military nobids
For the same reason they justify GHW Bush cutting FAR MORE troops than Clinton did, GW Bush closing bases, but they all consider those justified and cricify Clinton. See, the blade cuts both ways...... Clinton loves or hates the military, right?
DaVinci 0
For the same reason they justify GHW Bush cutting FAR MORE troops than Clinton did, GW Bush closing bases, but they all consider those justified and cricify Clinton. See, the blade cuts both ways...... Clinton loves or hates the military, right?
And yet when Bush cuts the military you crucify him, but praise Clinton when he did...You are right, the blade cuts both ways.
I see you answered nothing but tried to throw a red herring into the discussion....Care to discuss Clintons No bids and how they were "different" than Bush's?
And you flat ignored the compensation issue.
Pubwoof 0
In case you didn't notice, this wasn't a source that I posted, somebody else did. Also, I wasn't making any points about the facts presented other than they were indeed facts. To say that Cheney oversaw the awarding of a contract to a company from which he was still receiving pay is simply not an attack. Now, had the link said that Cheney was an evil son of a bitch whose Mr. Magoo-like eye sight made him a sad choice for a hunting buddy, that would be an attack.
I may understand more about how government works, including the awarding of contracts, than you would ever suspect. I also fully understand the concept of deferred compensation, which in Cheney's case, does not refute the notion that a conflict of interest existed. Between political jobs, Cheney spent his time with Halliburton helping them get the inside poop on how to get a greater share of taxpayer money by taking advantage of the procurement process and his personal rolodex. As vice president, nobody disputes that he was involved in their being awarded a contract without having to compete with other firms. The ostensible propriety of this no-bid award was Halliburton's expertise in fighting oil well fires. Nobody disputes the procurement process was circumvented on this basis or that the resulting "value added" contract was larger in scope than their expertise in oil well fires by an order of magnitude. The extent of Halliburton's abuse of this contract has yet to accounted for because the Republican congress was conveniently disregarding their oversight duties.
I receive information from a wide variety of sources including FOX, the WSJ, and the Standard (if only to be familiar with all points of view). What I don't do, is to avoid dealing with someone else's argument simply by claiming that their source is biased and then declaring victory as you seem to do. If you disagree with something, try telling us why. To say all of my points come from Soros is presumptious and untrue, especially when you consider I made no points at all based on this sourcing.
Bias manifests itself in opinion. Facts do not constitute attacks, even if you don't like them. If you're ever looking to convince me or any of the other posters with whom you seem to disagree, you're just gonna have to do better than dodging points by declaring bias and moving on.
The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.
I may understand more about how government works, including the awarding of contracts, than you would ever suspect. I also fully understand the concept of deferred compensation, which in Cheney's case, does not refute the notion that a conflict of interest existed. Between political jobs, Cheney spent his time with Halliburton helping them get the inside poop on how to get a greater share of taxpayer money by taking advantage of the procurement process and his personal rolodex. As vice president, nobody disputes that he was involved in their being awarded a contract without having to compete with other firms. The ostensible propriety of this no-bid award was Halliburton's expertise in fighting oil well fires. Nobody disputes the procurement process was circumvented on this basis or that the resulting "value added" contract was larger in scope than their expertise in oil well fires by an order of magnitude. The extent of Halliburton's abuse of this contract has yet to accounted for because the Republican congress was conveniently disregarding their oversight duties.
I receive information from a wide variety of sources including FOX, the WSJ, and the Standard (if only to be familiar with all points of view). What I don't do, is to avoid dealing with someone else's argument simply by claiming that their source is biased and then declaring victory as you seem to do. If you disagree with something, try telling us why. To say all of my points come from Soros is presumptious and untrue, especially when you consider I made no points at all based on this sourcing.
Bias manifests itself in opinion. Facts do not constitute attacks, even if you don't like them. If you're ever looking to convince me or any of the other posters with whom you seem to disagree, you're just gonna have to do better than dodging points by declaring bias and moving on.
The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.
mnealtx 0
To say that Cheney oversaw the awarding of a contract to a company from which he was still receiving pay is simply not an attack.
As vice president, nobody disputes that he was involved in their being awarded a contract without having to compete with other firms.
Same old whine... still no proof.
I receive information from a wide variety of sources including FOX, the WSJ, and the Standard (if only to be familiar with all points of view).
And all you post (or argue) fits the Dhim marching orders... bias, perhaps?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Amazon 7
And all you post (or argue) fits the Dhim marching orders... bias, perhaps?
And posting all that fits the Fox News Snow White House Ultra Right wing Talking points.....bias perhaps???
Poorly, and unfortunately for far too long.
Blues,
Dave
(drink Mountain Dew)
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites