Because Halliburton got the largest contract for the rebuilding of Iraq, and didn't have any competition to deal with. It was handed to KBR on a silver platter. Whether Halliburton had contracts under previous administrations is irrelevant.

---

It is relevant because you are suggesting that Cheney orchestrated this (somehow). Halliburton also received no-contest contracts under Clinton, before Cheney was Vice President. Unless Cheney has a time machine (and Constitutional powers that I am not aware of) I don't think he was orchestrated those contracts.

---

I should take fuzzy's advice (along with others) and not bother since it's like beating my head against a wall, but...

What difference does it make what Halliburton did when Cheney was NOT a public servant (the years 1993-2000)? Even IF (big, BIG IF) Cheney isn't making a ton of money off this whole deal (which I doubt), his buddies at Halliburton are...and that is cronyism, like it or not. The point is that he is in office, RIGHT NOW...public servant of the United States of America, and his former company landed that big NO-BID contract, with no questions asked.

I seriously cannot believe how blind you are Makk.

---
Think classy, you'll be classy.

The fact is, yes, Halliburton was crooked under the Clinton Administration, which was also crooked. As for what incredible powers of orchestration Cheney had at the time-- he was CEO. Now he is Vice President. What powers of orchestration he has enjoyed are certainly beyond mine.

---
What others say about boorite!

Makk, suddenly you are arguing against an imaginary contention that Halliburton orchestrated the Iraq war. As I am in the unbreakable habit of saying to you, I did not say that. I said Cheney's old company is profiteering off the war. And they are doing so after having done many millions in business with the monster Saddam, among others. All this was in response to your question, which I quoted in the very post to which you are responding.

Well, we have done so. And your response is not to say, gee, that does seem like cause for suspicion. It is to change the question to something completely different, something I never stated.

You can't change the question. You wrote it, I quoted it, I answered it.

This is what I mean when I say answering your questions is futile. You are a troll, pure and simple. All this information you ask for is abundantly available to you. You are just trying to make an endless food fight of this thread.

---
What others say about boorite!

I suppose I should remark on the many outright false remarks in your post. An example: That I did not cite any specific source regarding Halliburton's dealings with Iraq. I did, in black and white. Washpost, July 11, 2002. And in fact, such sources are so abundant that it's misleading to cite just one source. These facts are widely known to anyone who cares to look at the record, but you don't care, because you're a troll. In any case, I cited a source in the very message you responded to, and you responded by saying I never cited a source. It is useless to give you information.

---
What others say about boorite!

NO ONE SAID CHENEY ORCHESTRATED THE WAR IN IRAQ!!!

Is there some special kind of crack you smoke, MaKK?

I want some. I'm tired of reading between the lines. I want to do everything my President tells me to do, just like you.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

I did say Cheney planned and prosecuted the war. He did, but he did so as part of a team, or in less favorable terms, a conspiracy. I never said he was the only cog in the machine.

Nonetheless, isn't it suspicious that the former CEO of a crooked company becomes VP of the country and helps plan and prosecute a war by which this company handsomely profits in an exclusive no-bid contract? And that said company then comes under criminal investigation?

Is it at all weird that while CEO, Cheney was chair of the VP search committee and wound up getting the nod himself? Do you know of any search committee in the workplace that functions this way, or if it did, wouldn't be regarded as completely bogus?

In light of this, isn't there something besides knee-jerk hysteria behind the view that the Bush Administration is driven by oil interests?

Isn't it morbidly funny that Cheney was Secretary of Defense in the first Gulf War, then proceeded to personally amass several dozen millions off of doing business with Saddam, then proceeded to VP over another war against Saddam?

Is anyone surprised by the Army Corps of Engineering e-mail obtained under the FOIA, stating that Cheney "coordinated" Halliburton's no-bid contract, the fulfillment of which is now under criminal investigation?

Is anyone surprised by any of this? Isn't it odd that this is unfolding more or less the way we said it would all along?

I'm sure it can all be explained away. And if that fails, we can be asked for hard and fast proof that Cheney is the evil all-powerful mastermind of the whole universe, and then exonerate the whole Administration for lack of such proof.

---
What others say about boorite!

quote:

---

I should take fuzzy's advice (along with others) and not bother since it's like beating my head against a wall, but...

What difference does it make what Halliburton did when Cheney was NOT a public servant (the years 1993-2000)? Even IF (big, BIG IF) Cheney isn't making a ton of money off this whole deal (which I doubt), his buddies at Halliburton are...and that is cronyism, like it or not. The point is that he is in office, RIGHT NOW...public servant of the United States of America, and his former company landed that big NO-BID contract, with no questions asked.

I seriously cannot believe how blind you are Makk.

---

But Halliburton was getting no bid contracts before this administration. You seem to suggest that somehow Cheney has given Halliburton these contracts with his Vice President powers, but they were already getting these kind of contracts.

But Halliburton getting these contracts before Cheney was Vice President debunks the idea that somehow Cheney gave them an "in".

So Halliburton was already in a position to get these contracts, with or without Cheney. Again I ask if you know how many other American competitors could have taken a job reconstructing Iraq. If the answer is "no one" it's pretty cut and dry that Halliburton would get the contracts. If you're suggesting impropriety, the only thing Cheney could have done was caused this war in Iraq (somehow) knowing Halliburton would get the reconstruction contracts. How did he do this? How did he get the CIA, Colin Powell, the President, Congress, the media, and the American people to all go along with his little scam?

Isn't it more likely the war was waged for its own understandable reasons?

Oh, by the way, you've brushed by another important question. I told you thank you very much for the details on Halliburton's dealing with Italy and Lybia, but what we were discussing was Iraq. Where are the details on this? You pulled a bait and switch, offering damning evidence about dealings with Saddam. Where is it boorite?

And you concede that they did not start the war. And we have established it's been a matter of routine for Halliburton to have been given no-bid contracts from the government. What's the big deal?

Again I ask where are the details. You had no problem pulling up an article on Italy and Lybia, unfortunately that subject at hand is Iraq. I ask again and again for relevant details.

Well you have stated that Halliburton did not conspire to start the war. You confirm that Halliburton received no-bid contracts before the current administration. The only way they could somehow have profitted through Cheney is if he started the war (which you're saying he didn't). What's the suspicion?

quote:

---

It is to change the question to something completely different, something I never stated.

You can't change the question. You wrote it, I quoted it, I answered it.

This is what I mean when I say answering your questions is futile. You are a troll, pure and simple. All this information you ask for is abundantly available to you. You are just trying to make an endless food fight of this thread.

---

I understand you don't like Halliburton. But you point to Cheney, you point to Halliburton, and you grunt. What is the suspicion? What has Cheney done as Vice President to benefit Halliburton?

This:

?

Maybe I am to assume this was also sent to Iraq. If it was, we didn't invade because of it, so I don't see the point.

But wait, I thought you just said he didn't orchestrate the war.

But the other cogs didn't all work for Halliburton. Or should we just assume impropriety?

Halliburton would have gotten reconstruction contracts anyway. For there to be impropriety you have to assume Halliburton somehow orchestrated the war. This is the assumption I take serious issue with.

I don't see how that speaks to my question of relevance. You seem to be asking to assume impropriety.

In light of what? Your insinuations of wrong-doing?

But now we're not talking about Cheney and Halliburton, it's Bush and big oil. How many more buzz words would you like to work into this? Because I'm just about convinced.

You still haven't detailed those dealings, or even identified if they were illegal.

Again, Halliburton got no-bid contract before this administration. I noticed you've selectively quoted the email. Maybe it's because you know the real thing isn't as suggestive as you purport it to be.

quote:

---

Is anyone surprised by any of this? Isn't it odd that this is unfolding more or less the way we said it would all along?

I'm sure it can all be explained away. And if that fails, we can be asked for hard and fast proof that Cheney is the evil all-powerful mastermind of the whole universe, and then exonerate the whole Administration for lack of such proof.

---

All you have done is ask us to assume wrong-doing. The simple facts remain:

Halliburton received no-bid government contract before Cheney was president.

The war in Iraq, as you agree, was not coordinated by Halliburton.

Cheney is a former CEO of Halliburton.

I'm not asking you to proove anything ridiculous, I'm asking you to prove ANYTHING you've suggested. You complain about me putting ideas in your mouth, but you only leave room for assumption. Your entire last post was just assumption and insinuation. Excuse me for being skeptical.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

If you see nothing suspicious in Halliburton or Cheney, given the facts, then that's your option. I think they're hosing us. The Pentagon thinks they're hosing us. But if Makk doesn't think they're hosing us, Makk doesn't have to.

The article I cited does talk about Halliburton's dealings with Iraq. In fact, it mentions Iraq in the very paragraph I quoted, which you actually cut and pasted from to show that the article doesn't[ talk about Iraq and is therefore irrelevant.

Surely even you can read the phrase "Libya and Iraq."

Surely even you can see the relevance of that quote to your question, which was, why vilify Halliburton? Not how did Halliburton singlehandedly start the war, but what specifically have they done to merit contempt?

Of course the full article has much more to say about Cheney, Halliburton, and Iraq. The citation is there so that you can read it if you want to, but since you seem unable to comprehend even one short paragraph, I don't see where it's going to get us.

The fact is, our former Secretary of Defense and current VP assumed leadership of this fine company at the time when it was under fire (under indictment actually) for supplying prohibited weapons technology to official enemies of the United States. Now this fine, criminal company happens to benefit from a sweetheart deal in occupied Iraq. What's wrong with all this? Nothing, according to you.

Fine. I think I have an idea of where you stand now, and we might agree to disagree.

---
What others say about boorite!

Halliburton could over charge us with or without Cheney. I'm not arguing they are or aren't. I'm saying that the suggestions by you and others that somehow Cheney orchestrated events so that Halliburton could profit is silly at best.

It says they "came under fire". It doesn't say they broke the law. And even if it did it's not talking about any reason we went to war being caused by Halliburton.

Ok, that's fine, dislike them. This still doesn't explain why somehow Cheney is automatically guilty of something.

Funny you saw fit to omit all of that. Guess I'll just have to imagine what it says. Or assume. Assuming is always good.

It was oil technology. Don't talk to me about not being able to understand a simple paragraph. There are a lot of dual use technologies.

What is the competing American company you would have prefered get the contract? Your argument still seems to amount to 1) you do not like Halliburton and 2) things seem suspicious. Well whoopity doo da.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

quote:

---

Halliburton could over charge us with or without Cheney. I'm not arguing they are or aren't. I'm saying that the suggestions by you and others that somehow Cheney orchestrated events so that Halliburton could profit is silly at best.

---

So silly that criminal probes are being launched as we speak.

False. The excerpt does say explicitly that Halliburton broke the law and even pled guilty to criminal charges of selling prohibited weapons technology to an enemy state. This is the fine company that Cheney assumed command of. And this is the fine CEO that the Bush Administration picked for VP.

Which was not the argument.

quote:

---

Ok, that's fine, dislike them.

---

Thank you.

quote:

---

This still doesn't explain why somehow Cheney is automatically guilty of something.

---

Which was not the argument. The argument was that Cheney stinks to high Heaven, and this deal stinks to high Heaven. Perhaps there's a way to explain it all away. Then again, perhaps Cheney is guilty of something. We'll see.

Halliburton has certainly been guilty of an awful crime, and may be found so again. They are deeply twisted, and our VP was their number one guy for 5 years. That doesn't seem to bother you.

quote:

---

Funny you saw fit to omit all of that. Guess I'll just have to imagine what it says. Or assume. Assuming is always good.

---

Again, the citation is there so you can read the article. I encourage you to employ the same fingers you are using to type neverending bullshit. Just go to Google and get the article. But again, since you can't seem to understand even one paragraph of it, I doubt reading the whole thing would be useful to you.

It was oil technology. Don't talk to me about not being able to understand a simple paragraph. There are a lot of dual use technologies.

---

Yes, there are lots of them, and they are also weapons technology, and they are listed, and it is illegal to sell them to enemy states, as Halliburton clearly knew.

Just as clearly, you did not understand that simple paragraph. You said pulse neutron generators are not weapons but oil technology, when the excerpt states that they can be used to detonate nuclear weapons. You said the paragraph is irrelevant to Iraq when in fact it mentions Iraq by name. You said, just above, that the excerpt does not say Halliburton broke the law, when in fact it says exactly that. This is why it is useless to give you information.

quote:

---

What is the competing American company you would have prefered get the contract?

---

Depends on which contract. Just about any company would be preferable to one that sells prohibited weapons technology to our enemies and gouges the Pentagon.

quote:

---

Your argument still seems to amount to 1) you do not like Halliburton and 2) things seem suspicious. Well whoopity doo da.

---

Whoopity doo da, indeed. This is indeed big whoop. Your sarcasm reveals where your loyalties lie, and it's not with the law or the taxpayers or national security.

---
What others say about boorite!

So silly that criminal probes are being launched as we speak.

---

Bring it on.

False. The excerpt does say explicitly that Halliburton broke the law and even pled guilty to criminal charges of selling prohibited weapons technology to an enemy state.

---

I was talking about in respect to Iraq. It does not say that with respect to Iraq, it says it in respect to Lybia and Italy.

Which was not the argument.

---

Then what is the nature of the wrong doing between the Vice President and Halliburton you keep alluding to?

Which was not the argument. The argument was that Cheney stinks to high Heaven, and this deal stinks to high Heaven.

---

Halliburton has been getting no bid contracts since before this administration.

Have you tried explaining it away because no other American company can offer the services Halliburton does?

Selling a piece of oil equipment to Lybia doesn't really seem that awful to me. It only resulted in a fine so it couldn't have been that bad.

Again, the citation is there so you can read the article. I encourage you to employ the same fingers you are using to type neverending bullshit. Just go to Google and get the article. But again, since you can't seem to understand even one paragraph of it, I doubt reading the whole thing would be useful to you.

---

You could just post a link to the article. Or easily post a quote from it to answer any of my questions. All I ask from the article is details on the Iraq dealings. The details in your quote are about Lybia and Italy. It only says Halliburton "came under fire" for dealings with Iraq. Well you're under fire now boorite. Maybe you are just as bad as Halliburton.

Yes, there are lots of them, and they are also weapons technology, and they are listed, and it is illegal to sell them to enemy states, as Halliburton clearly knew.

---

It could have been used as a weapon if Lybia already had a nuclear bomb. It's not as sexy of a scandal as you make it sound.

It's not a weapon unless they already had a nuclear bomb.

It just says Halliburton "came under fire" for dealings with Iraq. Then it details its dealings with LYBIA and ITALY.

It does not say they broke the law with respect to Iraq. It says they plead guilty in regards to their dealings with Lybia. My question, over and over, had been how this relates to Iraq, not Lybia.

Depends on which contract. Just about any company would be preferable to one that sells prohibited weapons technology to our enemies and gouges the Pentagon.

---

Then they should contract out Wendy's to rebuild Iraq.

Whoopity doo da, indeed. This is indeed big whoop. Your sarcasm reveals where your loyalties lie, and it's not with the law or the taxpayers or national security.

---

Not with the law? What law was broken in respect to Halliburton's deal to rebuild Iraq? What part of national secuirty was compromised in respect to Halliburton's deal to rebuild Iraq? The money allocated to fund the war and reconstruction was preset. How is that screwing the tax payers? A politcally motivated criminal probe sounds like a big fat waste of tax payer money if you ask me.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

quote:

---

Selling a piece of oil equipment to Lybia doesn't really seem that awful to me. It only resulted in a fine so it couldn't have been that bad.

---

...selling a prohibited piece of "oil equipment" that can be used to detonate nuclear weapons... to an official enemy of the United States... doesn't seem that bad to you.

O

K.

I think that pretty much says everything that needs to be said.

---
What others say about boorite!

It says in the article that it is oil drilling equipment. Detonating a nuclear bomb isn't the hard part, building the implosion casing for the plutonium sphere, and enriching the uranium and getting it to take on the extra proton is the hard part. Maybe if Halliburton was selling hexafluorocarbons to Lybia it might be very suspicious.

But thanks for not answering any of my other points.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

You're welcome.

---
What others say about boorite!

My other points, included, by the way:

What is the nature of the wrong doing between the Vice President and Halliburton you keep alluding to?

Halliburton has been getting no bid contracts since before this administration. Why are you suddenly now complaining?

Where are the details in this article pertaining to the dealings involving Iraq? The details only mention Lybia and Italy.

You said:

I ask: What law was broken in respect to Halliburton's deal to rebuild Iraq?

What part of national secuirty was compromised in respect to Halliburton's deal to rebuild Iraq?

The money allocated to fund the war and reconstruction was preset. How is that screwing the tax payers?

A politcally motivated criminal probe sounds like a big fat waste of tax payer money if you ask me.

By the way, boorite, I've read the whole Washington Post article on Iraq. It's right here. The reason you keep stalling on the Iraq details is because they aren't in the article. It just says Halliburton "came under fire" with respect to alleged Iraq dealings. They did not plead guilty to this alleged dealing with Iraq, nor does the article says the Iraq dealings were illegal.

It's kind of convenient you kept stalling on posting a link to the article, or posting any more information from it, in respect to my very understandble questions.

Questions like: Hey, the article only describes illegal activities regarding trading with Lybia. You're saying it talks about illegal trading with Iraq. Where is this information about the illegal trading with Iraq?

The answer was, apparently: "The information isn't there. I, boorite, a big fat deceiver."

I gave you several chances to answer this yourself so don't complain about me doing it for you. You are still welcome to clarify your statements and allegations.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

This is the person who supplied incorrect intelligence regarding WMDs.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Makk, you can't even get one small point right, or concede when someone answers your question (which was basically what's so bad about Halliburton). You distort every statement your opponents make. So how am I supposed to engage fifty of your bullshit "questions" at once? Forget it. I think we've seen enough.

BTW, nobody here is buying your crap. You've torpedoed your own credibility more thoroughly than just about any troll I've ever seen. Surely you realize that.

So if posting the longest and last messages means you win an argument, go ahead and win.

---
What others say about boorite!

I'm asking what's so bad about Halliburton getting contracts when Cheney is Vice President, but why it's not bad when Halliburton gets contract when he's not Vice President.

You're the one who said the Iraqi dealings Halliburton had were illegal. I would like to see the information on this. You pointed me to the article, which I read and posted, and it does not contain the information you claim it does. It says Halliburton pleaded guilty to selling a piece of equipment to Lybia through one of its companies. In regards to Iraqi dealings it says Halliburton "came under fire". That is all it says, though you have claimed it says something else. This is all I want cleared up, since you're the one who brought it up in.

quote:

---

BTW, nobody here is buying your crap. You've torpedoed your own credibility more thoroughly than just about any troll I've ever seen. Surely you realize that.

So if posting the longest and last messages means you win an argument, go ahead and win.

---

I just want to know what exactly it is that is wrong with Cheney being Vice President and Halliburton getting reconstruction contracts. That's all I'm asking. I'm not asking if Halliburton dealt with Lybia (you brought that up) I'm not asking if you like Halliburton (a topic you brought up) I'm not asking if you like the oil industry or Bush (which you brought up) and I'm not asking what Cheney's salary or pension benefits are (something I also didn't bring up). The topic was Cheney and Halliburton somehow have swindled the nation in respect to the Iraq war. You knew this was the topic of conversation when you entered it. All I ask is that this is justified.

I have to write long posts to respond to the "infinite details" you bring up which are not relevant.

You can ignore the whole post and just read and answer this if you want:

The topic was Cheney and Halliburton somehow have swindled the nation in respect to the Iraq war. You've established that you do not believe Halliburton conspired to start the war. Halliburton received no bid contracts for similar work before Cheney was in the administration. Given this information, how could Halliburton have conspired with Cheney to profit from the Iraq war? If you do not believe they did, then just say so, becuase I agree with you.

You aren't answering this because you'd rather ignore the logical conclusion that Halliburton would profit from a war in Iraq independent of Cheney being Vice President. Yes, they profit from war. I am not disputing that. I do not believe this means they somehow conspired with the administration, and you certainly have offered nothing that speaks to this point.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

But I hate to bring down the good mood. So just remember that Tenet was nice enough to not only take the fall for the Iraq war, but any failure of intelligence about 9-11 for the administration, like the typical Clinton-apointee that he was.

And on top of that we get a bright shiny new Republican-appointed CIA chief! :) :) :)

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

This is the only thing anyone who gets sucked into your world of Trolling has to realize:

What you are "asking" has changed consistently from post to post. You are "asking" one thing, and someone, usually boorite, nails your grimy little testicles to the wall. Then what you were "asking" changes, just to keep the thread going. Then, boorite relents and nails your miniature gonads to the wall on THAT insipid question, and the question changes once again.

Most people here, I think, have seen this by now and realize that you and your "rhetoric" are just one big joke. Ha. Every joke gets old eventually.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

Spanking brought up this topic by posting:

So yes, I am asking how it is suddenly different that Halliburton gets contracts from the government with Cheney as Vice President when they got no-bid contracts before this administration.

Niteowl's next comment was

quote:

---

Two wrongs don't make a right.

You also might want to ask the families of the 800+ troops who have died in the name of Halliburton profits whether it was worth it.

---

Here he suggests the war is being fought for Halliburton profits. I ask, rhetorically, how could Halliburton have coordinated the war. The answer of course is, they couldn't have and didn't.

Niteowl posted back with this:

Which pretty much sums up the entire theme of boorite's responses. "Well Halliburton is being investigated for overcharging." "Well Halliburton has gotten fined." "Halliburton Halliburton, big oil, Bush, Cheney, Halliburton."

Ok, great. But what does that have to do with Halliburton getting contracts, or the suggestion that the war was fought so that Halliburton could get the contracts?

I have concrete points and questions. Boorite just asks that you assume impropriety. I ask in what shape or form this impropriety is taking. How is Cheney benefitting? How is he being paid off? What did he do that would could not have been done if Cheney was not in the administration?

My point in arguing this is that this "news story" started with a politically-motivated interpretation of an email which says the White House was to be notified of the arrangements of the contracts. It's pretty funny that boorite hasn't quoted this email, given how vehemently he has argued.

The reason he hasn't is that this was a phony charge, and he's had to run to picking apart why he thinks Halliburton is bad to cover up the fact there is no Cheney-Halliburton scandal like the media wanted him to think. Better luck next time.

If you don't like Halliburton don't buy stock in them. If you don't like the war write your Congressman.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Oh you mean the LIBERAL media? The media that is liberal when and only when it's SAFE to be liberal? When a voice of dissent means getting called a communist and a traitor? Is THIS the media that wants you to think there's a Cheney-Halliburton scandal? The same media that was the Bush Administrations war-propaganda machine up until it was finally OK to be against the war?

Shut the fuck up, you moron.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

There were news stories released in major media outlets depicting an out-of-context email as evidence that Cheney somehow coordinated a backdoor deal with Halliburton. There has been no evidence to support this except for the words "coordinate" and "vp office" in the same email. Funny that this "coordination" was in respect to notifying the White House of something as a courtesy.

If you have valid information that contradicts this I'd like to see it. I never said anything about a liberal media. Whatever personal issues you are dealing with in respect to that are your own. I said the only reason boorite was arguing about Halliburton with such furvor is this news story, which is no longer being run because in major outlets because it was grossly incorrect.

This is evidence that the media rushes to report what it thinks is sensational news before it facts checks it. I posted a recent example about the Boston Globe reporting that still frames from pornography was evidence of American soldiers raping Iraqis. This is another example of the media rushing to report a sensational scandal.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

http://cnn.aimtoday.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?photoid=/cp/news/top/i/sept_11200.jpg&idq=/ff/story/0002%2F20040603%2F2333074720.htm&sc=rontz&floc=NW_1-T

Check it out. Apparantly the FBI had advanced notice that there was some plans to crash planes before 9/11. Maybe this guy turned out to be a crackpot, but it's information they chose to disregard nonetheless.

Oh by the way, do you like having to say "I never said..."? Maybe we can get you to do that every post from now on. :)

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

The e-mail was from a high Army Corps of Engineers official. Most of Halliburton's contracts under Cheney (and they ballooned during his tenure as CEO) were through the Army Corps of Engineers. The e-mail stated that the action had been coordinated with the VP's office-- not that the VP's office had been "notified as a courtesy."

Cheney was hired as CEO as a former Defense Secretary with no business experience, but plenty of Pentagon ties. From 1995-2000, Halliburton's government contracts ballooned about 200%, if memory serves. This indeed reeks of cronyism, but isn't hard and fast proof of wrongdoing, on the face of it. Just business-as-usual Washington influence-peddling.

That Cheney's company is sleazy, there's little doubt. From the criminal conviction to bribing foreign officials to shifty accounting practices to the current allegations of price gouging and cronyism, Halliburton simply stinks. Makk says selling pulse neutron generators to Libya (who btw had an impressive nuclear weapons program under way) was really no big deal. So I just wonder whose grandmother Halliburton would have to rape for someone like Makk to admit the company gives off even the faintest taint of corruption.

I think the rest of us get it, though.

---
What others say about boorite!