Halliburton

Did you even read the article? The Army gave them the contract.

And I've never thought Bush had anything with Haliburton getting contracts, it was Cheney i suspected.
 
Actually, the no-bid contracts awarded to Halliburton have been going on since the Clinton years, and seem to be still going strong.
 
[quote name='Krymner']Actually, the no-bid contracts awarded to Halliburton have been going on since the Clinton years, and seem to be still going strong.[/QUOTE]

And here's the winner. The rules that have allowed Halliburton to get away with these No-Bids were put in place by the administration of a man who's name starts with "C" and ends in "(D)". But it's all Bush's (or, Cheney's, if you will) fault.

I bet they used time machines. And laser cannons.
 
It started with Cheney who was Secretary of Defense under H.W. Bush, before he became CEO while Clinton was around. According to my timeline, H.W. Bush is in fact before Clinton. No time machine necessary.

Doesnt really change that the military has been full of warmongers for decades and that war profiteering is immoral and should be illegal.

No one is going to backpedal on claims against Halliburton because of Clinton. I dont know what you're getting at here.
 
Though there is a difference between one President giving a contract to a company (no bid or otherwise) and a vice president getting us into unnecessary wars preceding giving contracts to a company that he used to be CEO of.

Clinton was a terrible president, but not because of shit like this. It was because he continued selling our domestic industries out by continuing the free trade nonsense that started with Reagan.
 
So, Cheney masterminded Afghanistan and Iraq (9/11 too?) in order to get his former company profitable, no-bid contracts using rules put in place before he was put into office?
 
9/11, no. They were going to attack Iraq anyway. Afghanistan, partially. 9/11 made Afghanistan possible but we still shouldntve gone in.

I have to add here that it is generally not the conscious motive of a warmonger/neocon to go to war simply for profit. They genuinely believe that war, pre-emptive or otherwise, is a good solution to problems (real or imagined). The problem is when that particular worldview is formed by working in the defense industry, both public and private, that does thrive on war.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top