make you democrats look like hypocrites?
2007-01-12 03:33:27 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
during a two year period Halliburton’s revenue from Defense Department contracts doubled. However, that increase in revenue occurred from 1998 to 2000 - during the Clinton administration.
In 1998, Halliburton's total revenue was $14.5 billion, which included $284 million of Pentagon contracts. Two years later, Halliburton’s DoD contracts more than doubled.
----
Isn't it rediculous to do the math backwards? By saying, halliburton is used by bush, they are crooked?
2007-01-12 03:44:49 · update #1
All stats aside, Halliburton is the ONLY company who gets the job done when needed. It is a phenomenal job they are doing to support our troops, and I don't say that lightly.
2007-01-12 20:31:50 · answer #1 · answered by red d 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Democrats aren't hypocrites just because the president selects a company to perform contract labor.
The question I have that may help you see the difference is: how many lost lives, either military or civilian, or injured people were directly involved with Halliburton's profit margin under their deals with Clinton?
2007-01-12 03:43:36 · answer #2 · answered by jimvalentinojr 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, for a few of reasons.
1) During the Clinton administration, Haliburton had not already established a track record of fraud and abuse of government contracts.
DURING those contracts, Haliburton comitted fraud and abuse, and they were forced to pay the biggest fines in history for government contract fraud.
Given the track record established, Haliburton no longer had the assumption of being a trustworthy partner.
2) Top-level Clinton administration figures were not directly linked to Haliburton, none had stock options whose value was directly linked to the financial welfare of the company, none had deferred income agreements that could be dumped if the company went bankrupt.
3) There is no allegation that top level Clinton administration figures intervened to influence the decisions for those contracts. The Bush administration denied this, but emails obtained under FOIA requests showed that the VPs office was heavily and directly in contact with the agencies involved specifically regarding awarding the contracts to Haliburton and their subsidiaries.
No bid contracts can be awarded objectively. It's not the no-bid contracts, it's not the fact that it was Haliburton, it was the combinations, plus the clear conflict of interest that is at issue.
When there is a direct conflict of interest, as there was in this case, or even the potential for appearance of conflict of interest, then those who have the interest must remove themselves from the process (not insert themselves into it), and a more objective process must be followed.
If you can't tell the difference between the situations, then you are in denial.
2007-01-12 03:50:37 · answer #3 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I refuse get involved in this bickering. Whether you realise it or not there are not many companies out there than can do logistics like Halliburton. If it comes down to giving this nobid to an American copany rather than sending it to the other company which is Danish or British or something, I would rather give the jobs to Americans. Yes they do rip the US off but then the money stays here in this country.
2007-01-12 03:45:44 · answer #4 · answered by fire16 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It just shows that both sides are in bed with the same company that is ripping us off.
2007-01-12 03:38:02 · answer #5 · answered by . 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Could we has some evidence or proof. The easiest way to shut down a Republican is ask for evidence.
2007-01-12 03:37:59 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
your question doesn't make alot of sense.....can you rephrase it?
2007-01-12 03:48:00 · answer #7 · answered by kissmybum 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋