I am not a partisan, you could call me a common sense-isan if you like. But I am not a partisan. I think both extremes are just that; extremes. Being such they usually graze the truth now and then, but there natures prevent them from coming to grips with it.
If my views fall right from your far left view only goes to prove i am close to center. If your view of a partisan is anything that falls right of you, 95% or more of american is partisan.
You think I am RIGHT leaning because I defend this president from the viscous attacks by the left. But you see I would do that for you and for any other president. I feel it is a more difficult job that any of us can imagine and deserves our respect and benefit of the doubt.
Nice rhetoric, but it's baseless and shallow. I could reverse it and it would mean just as much.
'If my views fall left from your far right view only goes to prove i am close to center. If your view of a partisan is anything that falls left of you, 95% or more of american is partisan.
You think I am LEFT leaning because I criticize this president when he doesn't something I believe is wrong. But you see I would do that for you and for any other president.'
Prejudging without knowing what's going on again, scott? Scary how close you are to the phantoms you are inventing to criticize here.
Yeah Scott. How dare you create phantoms!?!
I mean what you need to do is mention an investigation of government workers...
Quote:
The referral to the inspector general indicates that the auditors suspect illegal activity. The investigation will focus on actions by government workers, not the company, a senior military official said on Thursday.
The Army Corps of Engineers, which oversees the contract, has backed Halliburton. Corps officials ruled last month that the Halliburton subsidiary, KBR, did not have to justify the price it was paying Altanmia for fuel.
Letters by Henry Waxman....
and then make sure you claim it is all about Cheney and Haliburton.
Your the one calling "case closed". Don't you even know what you type on your keyboard?
It was a remark referring to other posts (by guys far from "leftist") claiming that the situation had been resolved. Notice the "huh" and the question mark? So when you post:
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
Yea we should close the case before the investigation. That's the intelligent, oops I mean leftist, thing to do.
you are clearly just looking for a way to attack and it just ends up backfiring.
You could have been nice and simply asked what I meant if you weren't clear on it.
Top Kuwaiti officials are denying allegations they forced the Halliburton company to hire a small firm accused of bilking U.S. taxpayers $61 million to bring gas into Iraq.
The Kuwaiti denial contradicts statements by the Army and Halliburton, the oil company once headed by Vice President Cheney.
Charges that Halliburton sold gasoline to Iraq at inflated prices at U.S. expense has been referred to the Pentagon's inspector general.
At the center of the deal is Halliburton's representative in Kuwait, the obscure Altanmia Commercial Marketing Co.
Altanmia is owned by two men from a prominent Kuwaiti family. They have no experience in the oil business, and their firm has been involved in real estate, military and "nuclear-biological-chemical equipment" sales, sources said.
Kuwait experts said it's unheard of for a firm outside the oil business to land a major contract with a company like Halliburton, the world's biggest oil services company.
"It's fishy as hell," said Mary Ann Tetreault, a Trinity University scholar who authored a book on Kuwait's oil industry.
In a letter to the White House Friday, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said Altanmia was awarded the contract a week before bidding closed.
Halliburton and the Army Corps of Engineers, which supervised Halliburton's no-bid contract, have said they were forced by the Kuwait Petroleum Corp., Kuwait's sole gas supplier, to hire Altanmia.
So could Halliburton's contracts in Iraq get any shadier? Of course, there's clearly a lot more to this story, since the Army Corps of Engineers is so intent on protecting the company.
Comments
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Please take it somewhere else. Both of you are off-topic.
So are you now. So I guess you should take it elsewhere also.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I am not a partisan, you could call me a common sense-isan if you like. But I am not a partisan. I think both extremes are just that; extremes. Being such they usually graze the truth now and then, but there natures prevent them from coming to grips with it.
Great Post!
Fellowship
Originally posted by NaplesX
If my views fall right from your far left view only goes to prove i am close to center. If your view of a partisan is anything that falls right of you, 95% or more of american is partisan.
You think I am RIGHT leaning because I defend this president from the viscous attacks by the left. But you see I would do that for you and for any other president. I feel it is a more difficult job that any of us can imagine and deserves our respect and benefit of the doubt.
Nice rhetoric, but it's baseless and shallow. I could reverse it and it would mean just as much.
'If my views fall left from your far right view only goes to prove i am close to center. If your view of a partisan is anything that falls left of you, 95% or more of american is partisan.
You think I am LEFT leaning because I criticize this president when he doesn't something I believe is wrong. But you see I would do that for you and for any other president.'
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NG3S4BB011.DTL
http://www.boston.com/business/globe...fuel_contract/
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/16/national/16HALL.html
So now they are calling for a formal investigation. Case closed, huh?
Originally posted by Scott
Yea we should close the case before the investigation. That's the intelligent, oops I mean leftist, thing to do.
Prejudging without knowing what's going on again, scott? Scary how close you are to the phantoms you are inventing to criticize here.
Originally posted by giant
Prejudging without knowing what's going on again, scott? Scary how close you are to the phantoms you are inventing to criticize here.
Yeah Scott. How dare you create phantoms!?!
I mean what you need to do is mention an investigation of government workers...
The referral to the inspector general indicates that the auditors suspect illegal activity. The investigation will focus on actions by government workers, not the company, a senior military official said on Thursday.
The Army Corps of Engineers, which oversees the contract, has backed Halliburton. Corps officials ruled last month that the Halliburton subsidiary, KBR, did not have to justify the price it was paying Altanmia for fuel.
Letters by Henry Waxman....
and then make sure you claim it is all about Cheney and Haliburton.
Then you aren't chasing phantoms...
Right?!?
Nick
Originally posted by giant
Prejudging without knowing what's going on again, scott? Scary how close you are to the phantoms you are inventing to criticize here.
Your the one calling "case closed". Don't you even know what you type on your keyboard?
Originally posted by Scott
Your the one calling "case closed". Don't you even know what you type on your keyboard?
It was a remark referring to other posts (by guys far from "leftist") claiming that the situation had been resolved. Notice the "huh" and the question mark? So when you post:
Originally posted by Scott
Yea we should close the case before the investigation. That's the intelligent, oops I mean leftist, thing to do.
you are clearly just looking for a way to attack and it just ends up backfiring.
You could have been nice and simply asked what I meant if you weren't clear on it.
Originally posted by trumptman
I mean what you need to do is mention an investigation of government workers...
Yeah, I guess those crazy military guys just decided without halliburton to give the company the no bid contracts and waive oversight just to be nice.
Nevermind everything surrounding the case:
http://news.tradingcharts.com/futures/3/5/52568153.html
Top Kuwaiti officials are denying allegations they forced the Halliburton company to hire a small firm accused of bilking U.S. taxpayers $61 million to bring gas into Iraq.
The Kuwaiti denial contradicts statements by the Army and Halliburton, the oil company once headed by Vice President Cheney.
Charges that Halliburton sold gasoline to Iraq at inflated prices at U.S. expense has been referred to the Pentagon's inspector general.
At the center of the deal is Halliburton's representative in Kuwait, the obscure Altanmia Commercial Marketing Co.
Altanmia is owned by two men from a prominent Kuwaiti family. They have no experience in the oil business, and their firm has been involved in real estate, military and "nuclear-biological-chemical equipment" sales, sources said.
Kuwait experts said it's unheard of for a firm outside the oil business to land a major contract with a company like Halliburton, the world's biggest oil services company.
"It's fishy as hell," said Mary Ann Tetreault, a Trinity University scholar who authored a book on Kuwait's oil industry.
In a letter to the White House Friday, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said Altanmia was awarded the contract a week before bidding closed.
Halliburton and the Army Corps of Engineers, which supervised Halliburton's no-bid contract, have said they were forced by the Kuwait Petroleum Corp., Kuwait's sole gas supplier, to hire Altanmia.
But Kuwait officials deny that... cont
Originally posted by giant
Yeah, I guess those crazy military guys just decided without halliburton to give the company the no bid contracts and waive oversight just to be nice.
Nevermind everything surrounding the case:
http://news.tradingcharts.com/futures/3/5/52568153.html
Sure now all you have to do is sound rational and show how Cheney is actually attached to this.
Nick
http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/23/news...s.dj/index.htm
Of course, as already demonstrated, this is business as usual for halliburton.
Originally posted by trumptman
Sure now all you have to do is sound rational and show how Cheney is actually attached to this.
Nick
This is a different case than what Cheney may be indicted for.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
^
We're talking about the investigation of a company under Cheney's helm as CEO. A very good question to ask is "Will Cheney be indicted?" not:
"Will Dean urinate on his audience" or
"If Clinton screwed a goat"
LOL!
Good one!