Democrats Don't Care???

[gordontravels]

Hey. Didn't the Democrats get pretty upset about FEMA and the Bush Administration about the handling of Katrina? Didn't they want heads to roll? Didn't they want answers?

There is a hearing going on right now by the House of Representatives. This is the body of government, 435 strong, Republicans and Democrats, that we all elect as our first line of representation at the national level. This hearing/investigation is titled "Katrina Preparation and Response". That's right up the alley of what the Democrats and Republicans have been asking. What was the preparation and what was the response.

You would think the Democrats would be there with knives sharpened since Mr. (Brownie) Brown is right now on the hot seat. You would think so but, no. I've seen one Democrat Congressman from Louisiana so far but the Democrats of the House led by Nancy Pelosi are "boycotting" (their word) the hearing/investigation because they call it a sham and a whitewash even before the first gavel came down. I don't think Nancy likes Republicans very much; at least not enough to participate in something they suggest. Maybe she prefers to complain rather than to question. The whole left side is empty chairs.

In fairness to the Republicans, they told the Democrats and the media clearly that the Democrats could ask any questions of any witness that testified. To give that teeth they also told the Democrats that they could call any witness they wanted with no restrictions whatsoever on who the Democrats wanted to call or what questions they wanted to ask. Yet, the Democrats call this a whitewash that they won't even take part in.

It seems to me if the Democrats could call ANYONE they want as a witness and ask ANY questions of ANY witness both with no restrictions, it would go a long way to preventing any whitewash. Right now they could be questioning Mr. Brown but they are busy "boycotting" instead of participating.

I applaud the members of congress that will question Mr. Brown, members of FEMA, current commanders on the scene, the Governor of Louisiana and the Mayor of New Orleans as well as the Governors of Mississippi, Alabama and Texas. There will be other witnesses as well.

Whitewash? The Republicans are questioning Mr. Brown right now as I type and they aren't being soft on him. He's doing fairly well answering but the questions are on point and it seems he's not just the "horse show guy" we have been led to think by the Democrats and our media. I think the Democrats are missing a good opportunity to get any questions they want answered by anyone they want to question or call as a witness.

This is partisan politics as it's worst and I believe the Democrats shoot themselves in the foot by not participating. We elect them to participate and just because they are the minority party; when the Republicans allow an investigation with no restrictions on the Democrats other than them being the minority party, the Democrats should be there. :duel

 

[MSgt]

Beginning with the loss of control of the House of Representatives in the mid-term election in Clinton's first term, progressively, over the next six years the socialist-Lib-Dems lost control of the Senate and the Presidency. During the next four years, the Republicans increased their margin in both the House and Senate, and won a second term for the Presidency.

Having been drubbed at the polls in six elections over ten years, despite the fact that registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans, the socialist-Lib-Dems have nothing left to lose. So, they desperately concentrate on a single, pointed, strategy. That is to do anything and everything in their power to make the Administration look bad. With the mainstream media on their side, they pound away at the President's every move, every word, every policy, regardless of the consequences. What they fail to understand is that their ultra-liberal policies and practices no longer resonate with the electorate as once they did.

There recent exploitation of the hurricane disaster has been extremely dispicable. While every effort to strip responsibility away from any Democratic sponsership was obvious, they blamed and criticized every attempt to react and to find a course. They demand hearings in the midst of the crisis and then they don't bother to show up. They "boycott" for the sake of the negative coverage. Are they really interested in correcting mistakes for a more perfect future? No. They merely wish to tarnish.

This is nothing new. The same antics, in the late 60s, prolonged the Viet Nam business by several years and about twenty thousand US KIA. Our Democratic Liberal left will cry out for “peace” and declare their well intentions to every service man, but underneath it all, they only care about the presidency. They do not care that their constant undermining of the Republican President, in the name of Party unison, could further this current war and make the effort all the more difficult. Their insistence for deadlines and complete publication of any and every scandal they can drum up only serves to place obstacles in the way of every American that carries a rifle against our enemy - of whose “rights” are of deep concern to our Liberal masses.

Democrats Don't Care??? Of course they do....as long as there's the prospect of a vote.

 

[aps]

I am just totally disappointed with the democrats in Congress. The republicans know what they stand for, and they stand together. The democrats don't know what the hell they stand for and have yet to show a united front. *sigh*

Bush is at an all-time low in popularity. The majority of Americans do not support the war in Iraq. Bush fu*cked up with Katrina (well, that is the perception). A bunch of companies with connections to the Governor of Mississippi (whose name escapes me) and Halliburton have been granted contracts to clean up the mess of Katrina, and there were no bidding wars. This is when the democrats should come together and blast the republicans and Bush.

No offence GySgt.

 

[gordontravels]

You can bet that if Halliburton was a criminal enterprise as so many like to suggest, there would be a Democrat somewhere, let's say a competent Democrat, that could come up with some evidence that would stick. Money? Favoritism? My buddy works there? Don't you think Democrats would be able to find something concrete other than just rhetoric?

Here's something you won't hear your choice of media saying, even if they may have a conservative slant:

Halliburton is one of the few companys on the face of the earth that is equipped either with men, materials and equipment that can tackle a job like Kuwait, Iraq or Katrina. Do you think some home builder is going to be called in to work on refineries, electrical producing facilities, port facilities, highway infrastructure, major building demolition, oil platform and distribution systems repairs or any of the many technical aspects of reconstruction?

I have two friends that work for Halliburton and 2 two that work for Schlumberge. These are honest men that have families, contribute to the community and pay their fair share of taxes. They work for Halliburton and Schlumberge. Does this make them dishonest? Does this make them brain dead followers of a company that commits crime on a daily basis with their help?

If someone here or that reads, actually reads this, wants to give me a company that can do what Halliburton does, or does it better, or is more honest, or can be trusted to do the job as well as Halliburton can..... would you please give me the name of that company and why you choose them?

Halliburton gets the huge jobs like Kuwait, Iraq and Katrina because they can do the job. If you want to get 10 smaller companies to do what one large one can you will increase the turmoil, time, problems and cost. Of course, if you believe that Halliburton is so bad then please..... spell it out here. I'll read it. :duel

 

[SixStringHero]

I find it quite amusing that most of the brain washed sheep don't know a damn thing about Haliburton and what the company actually does. All they hear is the name and associate it with "corruption" and "no bid contracts."

If you really think Cheney is profiting from the contracts take a close look into Factcheck.org a highly reputable non-partisan objective site. They pretty much blow away that assesment. I don't particulary care for this administration but their not a bunch of corrupt individuals as so many like to imply through speculation and conjecture.

The other thing I find amusing is that many democrats and liberals are chanting along to the "Haliburton is evil" mantra and fail or conveniently forget that Clinton also gave no bid contracts to them in the Balkans.

Ah, don't you just love partisan politics?

 

[gordontravels]

most employees at Enron were honest, hard working people, and good citizens. But look at our current situation, Enron is synonymous with corruption, although very few people who actually worked for Enron were actually corrupt.

What you're asserting is that the fact that the Vice President was on the board of Halliburton has nothing to do with them getting the jobs that they get. I really don't understand how you could actually believe this, and have to assume that you're just in denial. Sure, there's no evidence that we have access to, but let's not ignore the fact that this president is blatantly and deliberately secretive, admitting on several occassions that he won't give Senate, the body responsible to review and either confirm or reject people for certain positions, documents potentially pertinent to whether or not the person is actually qualified for the position.
So saying that we don't know the facts, considering we're dealing with the Bush Administration, it just a ridiculous argument. I'm not saying prosecuting Halliburton, but what I am saying is that if you honestly believe everything's on the up and up, then I've got a bridge to sell you.
And essentially the message you're sending in buying this steaming pile of crap that the Bush administration squats out on all of us is "Don't tell me anything, it's ok, do whatever you want, I won't look into it, and I'm also alright with you hiding as much information as you possibly can to hide whatever you're doing".
I find it funny that the same people that think it's right for Bush to hide all of these documents are the same people who don't believe in the right of privacy and say to those offended by searches in airports "If you've done nothing wrong you've got nothing to worry about." and yet for some reason believe that this doesn't pertain to Bush.

Just flat out ridiculous.

Don't forget. The Democrats could be in there with any question they want to ask about Katrina from any witness either they or the Republicans want to call. They're not there. Do you think they will make any more accusations of wrong doing? If they do and they had a chance to ask them in a forum that is being televised, transparent, do you think they are credible? Just asking because it goes to the title of this thread.

YOU SAY: "you're asserting is that the fact that the Vice President was on the board of Halliburton has nothing to do with them getting the jobs that they get. I really don't understand how you could actually believe this, and have to assume that you're just in denial."


I never mentioned Dick Cheney so I have nothing to deny but I will ask: Why don't you address what I actually did say?

YOU SAY: "if you honestly believe everything's on the up and up, then I've got a bridge to sell you."


I don't want your bridge nor did I say there is no evidence of things not being or being on the up and up. These weren't my words. What I did say was if Democrats are competent; some former lawyers - where is the evidence that all the stories your media feeds you are based on. I talk to people that work for Halliburton. Halliburton is not forcing them to invest in the company which is where the Enron Employees lost big time. If you understand the "no bid" process of contract law you must know that a company has to prove they can do the job. Where is all this evidence that I am denying?

YOU SAY: "And essentially the message you're sending in buying this steaming pile of crap that the Bush administration squats out on all of us is "Don't tell me anything, it's ok, do whatever you want, I won't look into it, and I'm also alright with you hiding as much information as you possibly can to hide whatever you're doing".


Again, these are not my words, not even close. I don't trust Republicans or Democrats because they only put their party first and us second so I'll make it clear again. WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE FOR YOUR REJECTION OF MY "steaming pile of crap" WHICH I THOUGHT WAS A THOUGHTFUL POST? Otherwise, you print words I never said and I invite you or anyone to go get the evidence. Enron came to light when no one was looking. I think Halliburton has been looked at quite closely. Wouldn't any Democrat just love to really come up with evidence that Cheney got it for them or they couldn't do the job? Just read my words and try to respond to what I write instead of trying to tell me what I wrote. I already know that.

Now, if you would like to try to read what I wrote again instead of rewriting what I actually wrote then maybe you would like to try responding to it as I asked for. Just a response, not a writing lesson. I think my post was quite clear. If you don't want to do that then your response as it stands is:

YOU SAY: "Just flat out ridiculous." :duel

 

[scottyz]

You can bet that if Halliburton was a criminal enterprise as so many like to suggest, there would be a Democrat somewhere, let's say a competent Democrat, that could come up with some evidence that would stick. Money? Favoritism? My buddy works there? Don't you think Democrats would be able to find something concrete other than just rhetoric?

No one in this admin. would ever seriously investigate or punish halliburton, so why would anyone waste their time building a case? Clinton barred them from doing Government work for a reason.

 

[scottyz]

Hey. Didn't the Democrats get pretty upset about FEMA and the Bush Administration about the handling of Katrina? Didn't they want heads to roll? Didn't they want answers?

There is a hearing going on right now by the House of Representatives. This is the body of government, 435 strong, Republicans and Democrats, that we all elect as our first line of representation at the national level. This hearing/investigation is titled "Katrina Preparation and Response". That's right up the alley of what the Democrats and Republicans have been asking. What was the preparation and what was the response.

You would think the Democrats would be there with knives sharpened since Mr. (Brownie) Brown is right now on the hot seat. You would think so but, no. I've seen one Democrat Congressman from Louisiana so far but the Democrats of the House led by Nancy Pelosi are "boycotting" (their word) the hearing/investigation because they call it a sham and a whitewash even before the first gavel came down. I don't think Nancy likes Republicans very much; at least not enough to participate in something they suggest. Maybe she prefers to complain rather than to question. The whole left side is empty chairs.

In fairness to the Republicans, they told the Democrats and the media clearly that the Democrats could ask any questions of any witness that testified. To give that teeth they also told the Democrats that they could call any witness they wanted with no restrictions whatsoever on who the Democrats wanted to call or what questions they wanted to ask. Yet, the Democrats call this a whitewash that they won't even take part in.

It seems to me if the Democrats could call ANYONE they want as a witness and ask ANY questions of ANY witness both with no restrictions, it would go a long way to preventing any whitewash. Right now they could be questioning Mr. Brown but they are busy "boycotting" instead of participating.

I applaud the members of congress that will question Mr. Brown, members of FEMA, current commanders on the scene, the Governor of Louisiana and the Mayor of New Orleans as well as the Governors of Mississippi, Alabama and Texas. There will be other witnesses as well.

Whitewash? The Republicans are questioning Mr. Brown right now as I type and they aren't being soft on him. He's doing fairly well answering but the questions are on point and it seems he's not just the "horse show guy" we have been led to think by the Democrats and our media. I think the Democrats are missing a good opportunity to get any questions they want answered by anyone they want to question or call as a witness.

This is partisan politics as it's worst and I believe the Democrats shoot themselves in the foot by not participating. We elect them to participate and just because they are the minority party; when the Republicans allow an investigation with no restrictions on the Democrats other than them being the minority party, the Democrats should be there. :duel

Considering Brown gets to investigate FEMA's actions during Katrina I can see why the Dems would wave this off as a joke. It's not a independent, impartial investigation.

 

[gordontravels]

No one in this admin. would ever seriously investigate or punish halliburton, so why would anyone waste their time building a case? Clinton barred them from doing Government work for a reason.

You conveniently over look Democrats and the media. If the Democrats had one shred of evidence against the Administration or Dick Cheney in regard to Halliburton you don't think that CNN or CBS wouldn't just grab it and run with it like a fart on the wind?

Please, where is the evidence, that's all I'm asking. You say President Clinton barred Halliburton from doing Government work? I've never heard that one because Halliburton has never been denied government contracts - no bid or not. Want to tell me more? :duel

 

[gordontravels]

Considering Brown gets to investigate FEMA's actions during Katrina I can see why the Dems would wave this off as a joke. It's not a independent, impartial investigation.

Excuse me but Mr. Brown resigned and is only doing transition work at FEMA now. He has nothing to do with decision making nor is he anything other than a subject of the Investigation. Democrats can not only ask him anything they wish, which the two that showed up did, but they can call any witnesses they want.

If you think the Democrats think that this is something to be waved off as a joke then you must agree that since they could ask and demand answers of anyone they wish in this investigation, they must be playing politics. Last time I looked both Republicans and Democrats take politics very seriously.

You say impartial, independent investigation? This type of committee investigation is exactly why you vote these men and women into office in the first place. Now you want committees to sit silent and useless while we bring in who? Non biased, non partisan investigators that are picked by Republicans and Democrats? I'd rather know who is the Democrat and Republican which makes it easier to understand where they're coming from. I want them to do what we elected them for and the Democrats aren't. They are campaigning. :duel

 

[scottyz]

You conveniently over look Democrats and the media. If the Democrats had one shred of evidence against the Administration or Dick Cheney in regard to Halliburton you don't think that CNN or CBS wouldn't just grab it and run with it like a fart on the wind?

Please, where is the evidence, that's all I'm asking. You say President Clinton barred Halliburton from doing Government work? I've never heard that one because Halliburton has never been denied government contracts - no bid or not. Want to tell me more? :duel

Democrats and what media? The media has never cared what Halliburton does . That Halliburton was involved with Saddam and Oil for Food? No one reports that. That Cheney still gets paid by Halliburton and has stock options? No news on that. The media isn't going to bad mouth their friends. CNN and CBS sure jumped on the Franklin Coverup story... :roll:

 

[scottyz]

Excuse me but Mr. Brown resigned and is only doing transition work at FEMA now. He has nothing to do with decision making nor is he anything other than a subject of the Investigation. Democrats can not only ask him anything they wish, which the two that showed up did, but they can call any witnesses they want.

If you think the Democrats think that this is something to be waved off as a joke then you must agree that since they could ask and demand answers of anyone they wish in this investigation, they must be playing politics. Last time I looked both Republicans and Democrats take politics very seriously.

You say impartial, independent investigation? This type of committee investigation is exactly why you vote these men and women into office in the first place. Now you want committees to sit silent and useless while we bring in who? Non biased, non partisan investigators that are picked by Republicans and Democrats? I'd rather know who is the Democrat and Republican which makes it easier to understand where they're coming from. I want them to do what we elected them for and the Democrats aren't. They are campaigning. :duel

Impartial Mike Brown is on the case. Don't worry!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8514671/#050926a

 

[MSgt]

Democrats and what media? The media has never cared what Halliburton does . That Halliburton was involved with Saddam and Oil for Food? No one reports that. That Cheney still gets paid by Halliburton and has stock options? No news on that. The media isn't going to bad mouth their friends. CNN and CBS sure jumped on the Franklin Coverup story... :roll:

You see? This is why bashers always wind up ruining their credibility and the goal of finding "facts". Instead of being happy with the facts you do have and running with them, people have to add the spice of exxagerations and lies.

1. Cheney doesn't have millions in stock. Bush made him sell it when he accepted the Vice Presidency.

2. Cheney's 'payroll' that he recieves is part of a sevarence contract and does not depend or fluctuate with the profits or misfortunes of the company.

The reason the news doesn't bad mouth this is that there is nothing to bad mouth. Now, take a deep breath from your obvious anger and do your homework. It took me a few minutes to find this. With all of the true "facts" involved for possible contriversy surrounding the administration, you would think that the bashers would be better at this. If you are really interested in the "facts", then you should look on numerous sites to make sure that what you pass on isn't bum scoop or irresponsible dribble. Oh, and here is a tip on your bash campaign....If the Democratic Party hasn't pressed the issue, then that means that there is probably not an issue. Shhhhh..pass it on.

 

[MSgt]

I am just totally disappointed with the democrats in Congress. The republicans know what they stand for, and they stand together. The democrats don't know what the hell they stand for and have yet to show a united front. *sigh*

Bush is at an all-time low in popularity. The majority of Americans do not support the war in Iraq. Bush fu*cked up with Katrina (well, that is the perception). A bunch of companies with connections to the Governor of Mississippi (whose name escapes me) and Halliburton have been granted contracts to clean up the mess of Katrina, and there were no bidding wars. This is when the democrats should come together and blast the republicans and Bush.

No offence GySgt.

None taken. I am not Republican. I vote pro-military. It just happens to, so far, fall under Republican sponsership.

Your no-bid issue though is a non-factor.

 

[scottyz]

You see? This is why bashers always wind up ruining their credibility and the goal of finding "facts". Instead of being happy with the facts you do have and running with them, people have to add the spice of exxagerations and lies.

1. Cheney doesn't have millions in stock. Bush made him sell it when he accepted the Vice Presidency.

2. Cheney's 'payroll' that he recieves is part of a sevarence contract and does not depend or fluctuate with the profits or misfortunes of the company.

We should be happy with the facts we have because we know the Government would never lie to us. Makes perfect sense. :rofl

So even you admit Cheney is still getting money from Halliburton? I never said he had millions in stock, just that he has stock options.

It's not an issue if no one is going to investigate it and we sure as hell know that this admin. isn't. Even if the media were against them it's not like they can put the government on trial.

 

[scottyz]

None taken. I am not Republican. I vote pro-military. It just happens to, so far, fall under Republican sponsership.

Your no-bid issue though is a non-factor.

The same republicans that sent troops into Iraq without proper equipment and armor while simultaneously trying to cut their benefits? :rofl

 

[SixStringHero]

No one in this admin. would ever seriously investigate or punish halliburton, so why would anyone waste their time building a case? Clinton barred them from doing Government work for a reason.

Please enlighten me. Was this before or after Clinton decided to give a no bid contract to Haliburton in the Balkans?

 

[aps]

The same republicans that sent troops into Iraq without proper equipment and armor while simultaneously trying to cut their benefits? :rofl

Scotty, an excellent point. GySgt, tell us what you think about Scotty's post.

 

[MSgt]

The same republicans that sent troops into Iraq without proper equipment and armor while simultaneously trying to cut their benefits? :rofl

This is always tried. It will always receive the same answer. The only reason people like Sheehan and her people continue to say things like this is because they know there are people that will give support because they remain ignorant to the issues involved.

1) No combatant deployed without gear and the few support troops that did deploy over without gear, stayed in Kuwait, until they had gear. The reason they didn't have gear, was because the contracts fell through and some gear was defective. There was even one case where a couple Marines were selling gear that they stole on e-bay. (Why am I explaining this to someone that doesn't even know how to wear the gear?)

2) Our benefits weren't cut like you think. What money was cut back, more was given in another place. For example...Imminent Danger pay was cut, but Combat pay was raised to counter it. In fact, I made an extra $2,000 a month.

Once again, you repeat what sounds good to you and you made an ass of yourself. This would be that credibility problem I talked about and your use of 'smileys' won't change this.


"We should be happy with the facts we have because we know the Government would never lie to us. Makes perfect sense."

The point flew right over your head. Now, slow your haste to bash and try to follow along....."With all of the true "facts" involved for possible contriversy surrounding this administration, you would think that the bashers would be better at this."

 

[scottyz]

Continuing to make an ass of yourself I see. :applaud :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[MSgt]

Continuing to make an ass of yourself I see. :applaud :lol: :lol: :lol:

I don't get it.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

You see? This is why bashers always wind up ruining their credibility and the goal of finding "facts". Instead of being happy with the facts you do have and running with them, people have to add the spice of exxagerations and lies.

1. Cheney doesn't have millions in stock. Bush made him sell it when he accepted the Vice Presidency.

2. Cheney's 'payroll' that he recieves is part of a sevarence contract and does not depend or fluctuate with the profits or misfortunes of the company.

The reason the news doesn't bad mouth this is that there is nothing to bad mouth. Now, take a deep breath from your obvious anger and do your homework. It took me a few minutes to find this. With all of the true "facts" involved for possible contriversy surrounding the administration, you would think that the bashers would be better at this. If you are really interested in the "facts", then you should look on numerous sites to make sure that what you pass on isn't bum scoop or irresponsible dribble. Oh, and here is a tip on your bash campaign....If the Democratic Party hasn't pressed the issue, then that means that there is probably not an issue. Shhhhh..pass it on.

Ok, first off as you may have read from other threads where Halliburton was brought up, I think that Halliburton, being that they are probably the only company in America capable of this scale of a project, would have gotten these contracts regardless of who was in office.

However, Cheney does have a financial interest in Halliburton. The following report from Money magazine details that interest:


“…..The report says that the deferred compensation that Cheney receives from Halliburton as well as the more than 433,000 stock options he possesses "is considered among the 'ties' retained in or 'linkages to former employers' that may 'represent a continuing financial interest' in those employers which makes them potential conflicts of interest."

http://money.cnn.com/2003/09/25/news/companies/cheney/?cnn=yes

It is in a blind trust, but just the same he has a significant financial interest in the company.

Also in a previous post you said that Democrats in congress are socialists. Do you know what a socialist is? The Democrats in congress are no more socialists than the Republicans are Fascists and Nazis. There a mile of ideological divide between the ideology of even the most liberal Democrats and socialists in Europe and other countries. In fact, in many European nations, U.S. Democrats would be considered right wing.

 

[MSgt]

Ok, first off as you may have read from other threads where Halliburton was brought up, I think that Halliburton, being that they are probably the only company in America capable of this scale of a project, would have gotten these contracts regardless of who was in office.

However, Cheney does have a financial interest in Halliburton. The following report from Money magazine details that interest:


“…..The report says that the deferred compensation that Cheney receives from Halliburton as well as the more than 433,000 stock options he possesses "is considered among the 'ties' retained in or 'linkages to former employers' that may 'represent a continuing financial interest' in those employers which makes them potential conflicts of interest."

http://money.cnn.com/2003/09/25/news/companies/cheney/?cnn=yes

It is in a blind trust, but just the same he has a significant financial interest in the company.

Also in a previous post you said that Democrats in congress are socialists. Do you know what a socialist is? The Democrats in congress are no more socialists than the Republicans are Fascists and Nazis. There a mile of ideological divide between the ideology of even the most liberal Democrats and socialists in Europe and other countries. In fact, in many European nations, U.S. Democrats would be considered right wing.

That's news to me. Your link definately does state an interest and it does correct my previous statement. I still don't think he has anything to do with the company though.

I meant to differentiate leftists Democrats from the more responsible Democrats. It would be the same as pitting a "fascist" Republican against a more responsible Republican. Often the thoughts are flying through my head faster than I type and I sometimes do not make myself as clear on paper. I write a LOT.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by gordontravels:
If you understand the "no bid" process of contract law you must know that a company has to prove they can do the job.

Its also a violation of the Public Contracts Code that says you must have "competitive bidding" on contracts with public funding.

 

[MSgt]

Its also a violation of the Public Contracts Code that says you must have "competitive bidding" on contracts with public funding.

KBR, a division of Haliburton won the semi-annual bid for military contracts on things like infrastructure contrustion, laundry, food, supplies... etc.... they won this contract back from a rival in 2000. I would like to note it was the Pentagon that awarded the contract in the standard lowest bidder fashion.

In February 2003, I believe, they awarded KBR with the job of supplying things for the Iraq war. They did it without a bidding war. You know why? Because they arent ****ing stupid. It would have taken months to go through the entire process, and more than likely, their current contractor would have gotten it anyways, (i.e. KBR). In the mean time we would have to assault in MOPP gear in the searing desert heat later in the summer. On top of that, the logistics of two different companies interracting with each other on such a massive scale would have been chaos and slowed our already slow government down even more.

Why do people insist on kicking a dead horse about things that aren't a factor one way or the other? People are so desperate to fuel their anger, that they reach for anything and ride until it's not even cared to be discussed anymore. Like everything else that keeps being resurrected and dragged along, let it go.