Why did Bush lie about Saddam being connected to 9/11?

[Wry Catcher]

Fox News is reliable! Watchers are guaranteed a biased opinion.

If they watch an opinion show.

That's the problem with you of the Khmer Rouge, you don't grasp the difference between news reporting and opinion.

I don't turn to a comedian for news, like most dumbfuckcrats do. That's not "news," that is opinion. I don't turn to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck for news either.

I get most of my news from Google feeds. Most of that seems to come from the WP and Forbes.

And I get my News from TIME, The Economist, PBS, NPR, local TV and Radio + links on the Internet; most of the latter I screen for the source.

 

[GreenBean]

I consider this to be Bush's biggest lie about Iraq and Saddam.

Rightwingers like to distract from the event that Bush tried to link Saddam to - 9/11. Even the dumbest of rightwingers should now be convinced that Saddam HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11. However, if any of them still think so - please provide credible proof.

I heard and saw Bush live on TV when he first tried to make this link. If there are any doubters - just Google "bush links saddam to 9/11"...

for the 100 trillionth time

He didn't lie

he was wrong

but all you leftist morons can't learn this very veryveryveryveryvery simple fact

Duh, he did lie.

Lakhota - you speak a lot of "çesdi"

“Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.” — Democrat Madeline Albright,

“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — Slick Willy Clinton

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton

“Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” — Al Gore

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” — Ted Kennedy

“I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force – if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” — John F. Kerry

“The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.” — John Kerry, October 9, 2002

“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” — Nancy Pelosi

Yeah, and they got all that stupid shit form former CIA Director George Tenet. Bush even awarded him the Medal of Freedom.

Some of it ... and some came from the Clinton Administration - with good cause, there was and still is good reason to believe that Hussein {Saddam not Barrack] had WMD. Barrack simply has WSD [Weapons of Societal Destruction]. While Obama Bin Laden ...uh I mean Osama the Bomber had box cutters

 

[Lakhota]

Remember when I fucking crushed every pathetic liberal that uses the Halliburton cliche they always break out?

With this post:

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.

Regarding the Iraq contracts, Halliburton was accused by Democrats of receiving special "no-bid" contracts because of Cheney’s influence. One advertisement by the Democrats charged, "Bush gave contracts to Halliburton instead of fighting corporate corruption."

FactCheck.org an organization which ascertains the validity of political campaign advertisements researched this accusation. According to FactCheck, "The Bush administration is doing a fair amount to fight corporate corruption, convicting or indicting executives of Enron, Arthur Andersen, Tyco International, Worldcom, Adelphia Communications Corporation, Credit Suisse First Boston, HealthSouth Corporation and others, including Martha Stewart. The Department of Justice says it has brought charges against 20 executives of Enron alone, and its Corporate Fraud Task Force says it has won convictions of more than 250 persons to date. Bush also signed the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation in 2002, imposing stringent new accounting rules in the wake of the Arthur Andersen scandal."

When Factcheck.org checked the facts about allegations by Democrats that there was a scandal because of the "no-bid" contracts awarded to Halliburton they stated, "It is false to imply that Bush personally awarded a contract to Halliburton. The ‘no-bid contract’ in question is actually an extension of an earlier contract to support U.S. troops overseas that Halliburton won under open bidding. In fact, the notion that Halliburton benefited from any cronyism has been poo-poohed by a Harvard University professor, Steven Kelman, who was administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy in the Clinton administration. ‘One would be hard-pressed to discover anyone with a working knowledge of how federal contracts are awarded...who doesn't regard these allegations as being somewhere between highly improbable and utterly absurd,’ Kelman wrote in the Washington Post last November." (Emphasis added.)

The Center for Public Integrity another public interest group also investigated the purported scandal of the Halliburton "no-bid" contracts. They wrote:


In Iraq, Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR) has been awarded five contracts worth at least $10.8 billion, including more than $5.6 billion under the U.S. Army's Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) contract, an omnibus contract that allows the Army to call on KBR for support in all of its field operations. When the Army needs a service performed, it issues a "task order," which lays out specific work requirements under the contract…From 1992 to 1997, KBR held the first LOGCAP contract awarded by the Army, but when it was time to renew the contract, the company lost in the competitive bidding process to DynCorp after the General Accounting Office reported in February 1997 that KBR had overrun its estimated costs in the Balkans by 32 percent (some of which was attributed to an increase in the Army's demands). KBR (obtained) the third LOGCAP contract in December 2001…n November 2002 the Army Corps of Engineers tasked KBR to develop a contingency plan for extinguishing oil well fires in Iraq…[O]n March 24, 2003, the Army Corps announced publicly that KBR had been awarded a contract to restore oil-infrastructure in Iraq, potentially worth $7 billion. The contract KBR received…would eventually include 10 distinct task orders. KBR did not come close to reaching the contract ceiling, billing just over $2.5 billion…The contract was awarded without submission for public bids or congressional notification. In their response to congressional inquiries, Army officials said they determined that extinguishing oil fires fell under the range of services provided under LOGCAP, meaning that KBR could deploy quickly and without additional security clearances.

Neither the Center for Public Integrity nor Factcheck.org determined anything sinister about Halliburton’s no-bid" contracts for the Iraq war. Two nonpartisan, nonaligned, public interest organizations have investigated the Halliburton allegations and found them to be specious allegations made for purely political purposes.

An L.A. Times op-ed of April 22 said, "Halliburton Received No-Bid Contracts During Clinton Administration For Work In Bosnia And Kosovo." An October 2003 article in the (Raleigh, NC) News & Observer quoted Bill Clinton's Undersecretary Of Commerce William Reinsch as saying "'Halliburton has a distinguished track record,' he said. 'They do business in some 120 countries. This is a group of people who know what they're doing in a difficult business. It's a particularly difficult business when people are shooting at you.'"

If Democrats want to investigate a scandal involving Iraq they should devote their efforts to the UN "Oil-for-Food" program instead of Halliburton. However, they will not because Saddam Hussein is not a candidate in this presidential election.

Contractors Reap $138 Billion from Iraq War, Cheney’s Halliburton #1 with $39.5 Billion


Cheney must have a GREAT retirement package from Halliburton.

 

[Theowl32]

Remember when I fucking crushed every pathetic liberal that uses the Halliburton cliche they always break out?

With this post:

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.

Regarding the Iraq contracts, Halliburton was accused by Democrats of receiving special "no-bid" contracts because of Cheney’s influence. One advertisement by the Democrats charged, "Bush gave contracts to Halliburton instead of fighting corporate corruption."

FactCheck.org an organization which ascertains the validity of political campaign advertisements researched this accusation. According to FactCheck, "The Bush administration is doing a fair amount to fight corporate corruption, convicting or indicting executives of Enron, Arthur Andersen, Tyco International, Worldcom, Adelphia Communications Corporation, Credit Suisse First Boston, HealthSouth Corporation and others, including Martha Stewart. The Department of Justice says it has brought charges against 20 executives of Enron alone, and its Corporate Fraud Task Force says it has won convictions of more than 250 persons to date. Bush also signed the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation in 2002, imposing stringent new accounting rules in the wake of the Arthur Andersen scandal."

When Factcheck.org checked the facts about allegations by Democrats that there was a scandal because of the "no-bid" contracts awarded to Halliburton they stated, "It is false to imply that Bush personally awarded a contract to Halliburton. The ‘no-bid contract’ in question is actually an extension of an earlier contract to support U.S. troops overseas that Halliburton won under open bidding. In fact, the notion that Halliburton benefited from any cronyism has been poo-poohed by a Harvard University professor, Steven Kelman, who was administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy in the Clinton administration. ‘One would be hard-pressed to discover anyone with a working knowledge of how federal contracts are awarded...who doesn't regard these allegations as being somewhere between highly improbable and utterly absurd,’ Kelman wrote in the Washington Post last November." (Emphasis added.)

The Center for Public Integrity another public interest group also investigated the purported scandal of the Halliburton "no-bid" contracts. They wrote:


In Iraq, Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR) has been awarded five contracts worth at least $10.8 billion, including more than $5.6 billion under the U.S. Army's Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) contract, an omnibus contract that allows the Army to call on KBR for support in all of its field operations. When the Army needs a service performed, it issues a "task order," which lays out specific work requirements under the contract…From 1992 to 1997, KBR held the first LOGCAP contract awarded by the Army, but when it was time to renew the contract, the company lost in the competitive bidding process to DynCorp after the General Accounting Office reported in February 1997 that KBR had overrun its estimated costs in the Balkans by 32 percent (some of which was attributed to an increase in the Army's demands). KBR (obtained) the third LOGCAP contract in December 2001…n November 2002 the Army Corps of Engineers tasked KBR to develop a contingency plan for extinguishing oil well fires in Iraq…[O]n March 24, 2003, the Army Corps announced publicly that KBR had been awarded a contract to restore oil-infrastructure in Iraq, potentially worth $7 billion. The contract KBR received…would eventually include 10 distinct task orders. KBR did not come close to reaching the contract ceiling, billing just over $2.5 billion…The contract was awarded without submission for public bids or congressional notification. In their response to congressional inquiries, Army officials said they determined that extinguishing oil fires fell under the range of services provided under LOGCAP, meaning that KBR could deploy quickly and without additional security clearances.

Neither the Center for Public Integrity nor Factcheck.org determined anything sinister about Halliburton’s no-bid" contracts for the Iraq war. Two nonpartisan, nonaligned, public interest organizations have investigated the Halliburton allegations and found them to be specious allegations made for purely political purposes.

An L.A. Times op-ed of April 22 said, "Halliburton Received No-Bid Contracts During Clinton Administration For Work In Bosnia And Kosovo." An October 2003 article in the (Raleigh, NC) News & Observer quoted Bill Clinton's Undersecretary Of Commerce William Reinsch as saying "'Halliburton has a distinguished track record,' he said. 'They do business in some 120 countries. This is a group of people who know what they're doing in a difficult business. It's a particularly difficult business when people are shooting at you.'"

If Democrats want to investigate a scandal involving Iraq they should devote their efforts to the UN "Oil-for-Food" program instead of Halliburton. However, they will not because Saddam Hussein is not a candidate in this presidential election.

Contractors Reap $138 Billion from Iraq War, Cheney’s Halliburton #1 with $39.5 Billion


Cheney must have a GREAT retirement package from Halliburton.

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.

Regarding the Iraq contracts, Halliburton was accused by Democrats of receiving special "no-bid" contracts because of Cheney’s influence. One advertisement by the Democrats charged, "Bush gave contracts to Halliburton instead of fighting corporate corruption."

FactCheck.org an organization which ascertains the validity of political campaign advertisements researched this accusation. According to FactCheck, "The Bush administration is doing a fair amount to fight corporate corruption, convicting or indicting executives of Enron, Arthur Andersen, Tyco International, Worldcom, Adelphia Communications Corporation, Credit Suisse First Boston, HealthSouth Corporation and others, including Martha Stewart. The Department of Justice says it has brought charges against 20 executives of Enron alone, and its Corporate Fraud Task Force says it has won convictions of more than 250 persons to date. Bush also signed the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation in 2002, imposing stringent new accounting rules in the wake of the Arthur Andersen scandal."

An L.A. Times op-ed of April 22 said, "Halliburton Received No-Bid Contracts During Clinton Administration For Work In Bosnia And Kosovo." An October 2003 article in the (Raleigh, NC) News & Observer quoted Bill Clinton's Undersecretary Of Commerce William Reinsch as saying "'Halliburton has a distinguished track record,' he said. 'They do business in some 120 countries. This is a group of people who know what they're doing in a difficult business. It's a particularly difficult business when people are shooting at you.'"

========================================

Why am I even communicating with a hopeless hack like you? Illiterate moron.

 

[Lakhota]

Remember when I fucking crushed every pathetic liberal that uses the Halliburton cliche they always break out?

With this post:

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.

Regarding the Iraq contracts, Halliburton was accused by Democrats of receiving special "no-bid" contracts because of Cheney’s influence. One advertisement by the Democrats charged, "Bush gave contracts to Halliburton instead of fighting corporate corruption."

FactCheck.org an organization which ascertains the validity of political campaign advertisements researched this accusation. According to FactCheck, "The Bush administration is doing a fair amount to fight corporate corruption, convicting or indicting executives of Enron, Arthur Andersen, Tyco International, Worldcom, Adelphia Communications Corporation, Credit Suisse First Boston, HealthSouth Corporation and others, including Martha Stewart. The Department of Justice says it has brought charges against 20 executives of Enron alone, and its Corporate Fraud Task Force says it has won convictions of more than 250 persons to date. Bush also signed the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation in 2002, imposing stringent new accounting rules in the wake of the Arthur Andersen scandal."

When Factcheck.org checked the facts about allegations by Democrats that there was a scandal because of the "no-bid" contracts awarded to Halliburton they stated, "It is false to imply that Bush personally awarded a contract to Halliburton. The ‘no-bid contract’ in question is actually an extension of an earlier contract to support U.S. troops overseas that Halliburton won under open bidding. In fact, the notion that Halliburton benefited from any cronyism has been poo-poohed by a Harvard University professor, Steven Kelman, who was administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy in the Clinton administration. ‘One would be hard-pressed to discover anyone with a working knowledge of how federal contracts are awarded...who doesn't regard these allegations as being somewhere between highly improbable and utterly absurd,’ Kelman wrote in the Washington Post last November." (Emphasis added.)

The Center for Public Integrity another public interest group also investigated the purported scandal of the Halliburton "no-bid" contracts. They wrote:


In Iraq, Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR) has been awarded five contracts worth at least $10.8 billion, including more than $5.6 billion under the U.S. Army's Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) contract, an omnibus contract that allows the Army to call on KBR for support in all of its field operations. When the Army needs a service performed, it issues a "task order," which lays out specific work requirements under the contract…From 1992 to 1997, KBR held the first LOGCAP contract awarded by the Army, but when it was time to renew the contract, the company lost in the competitive bidding process to DynCorp after the General Accounting Office reported in February 1997 that KBR had overrun its estimated costs in the Balkans by 32 percent (some of which was attributed to an increase in the Army's demands). KBR (obtained) the third LOGCAP contract in December 2001…n November 2002 the Army Corps of Engineers tasked KBR to develop a contingency plan for extinguishing oil well fires in Iraq…[O]n March 24, 2003, the Army Corps announced publicly that KBR had been awarded a contract to restore oil-infrastructure in Iraq, potentially worth $7 billion. The contract KBR received…would eventually include 10 distinct task orders. KBR did not come close to reaching the contract ceiling, billing just over $2.5 billion…The contract was awarded without submission for public bids or congressional notification. In their response to congressional inquiries, Army officials said they determined that extinguishing oil fires fell under the range of services provided under LOGCAP, meaning that KBR could deploy quickly and without additional security clearances.

Neither the Center for Public Integrity nor Factcheck.org determined anything sinister about Halliburton’s no-bid" contracts for the Iraq war. Two nonpartisan, nonaligned, public interest organizations have investigated the Halliburton allegations and found them to be specious allegations made for purely political purposes.

An L.A. Times op-ed of April 22 said, "Halliburton Received No-Bid Contracts During Clinton Administration For Work In Bosnia And Kosovo." An October 2003 article in the (Raleigh, NC) News & Observer quoted Bill Clinton's Undersecretary Of Commerce William Reinsch as saying "'Halliburton has a distinguished track record,' he said. 'They do business in some 120 countries. This is a group of people who know what they're doing in a difficult business. It's a particularly difficult business when people are shooting at you.'"

If Democrats want to investigate a scandal involving Iraq they should devote their efforts to the UN "Oil-for-Food" program instead of Halliburton. However, they will not because Saddam Hussein is not a candidate in this presidential election.

Contractors Reap $138 Billion from Iraq War, Cheney’s Halliburton #1 with $39.5 Billion


Cheney must have a GREAT retirement package from Halliburton.

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.

Regarding the Iraq contracts, Halliburton was accused by Democrats of receiving special "no-bid" contracts because of Cheney’s influence. One advertisement by the Democrats charged, "Bush gave contracts to Halliburton instead of fighting corporate corruption."

FactCheck.org an organization which ascertains the validity of political campaign advertisements researched this accusation. According to FactCheck, "The Bush administration is doing a fair amount to fight corporate corruption, convicting or indicting executives of Enron, Arthur Andersen, Tyco International, Worldcom, Adelphia Communications Corporation, Credit Suisse First Boston, HealthSouth Corporation and others, including Martha Stewart. The Department of Justice says it has brought charges against 20 executives of Enron alone, and its Corporate Fraud Task Force says it has won convictions of more than 250 persons to date. Bush also signed the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation in 2002, imposing stringent new accounting rules in the wake of the Arthur Andersen scandal."

An L.A. Times op-ed of April 22 said, "Halliburton Received No-Bid Contracts During Clinton Administration For Work In Bosnia And Kosovo." An October 2003 article in the (Raleigh, NC) News & Observer quoted Bill Clinton's Undersecretary Of Commerce William Reinsch as saying "'Halliburton has a distinguished track record,' he said. 'They do business in some 120 countries. This is a group of people who know what they're doing in a difficult business. It's a particularly difficult business when people are shooting at you.'"

========================================

Why am I even communicating with a hopeless hack like you? Illiterate moron.

Halliburton corruption:

Halliburton Watch

 

[Tuatara]

Yes! That post needs to go in the thread Stupid things Democrats Say. All the talking points.

LOL.

Halliburton.

The cliches.

Notice how they never bring up how Clinton awarded Halliburton no bid contracts in the 90s? As if any of them knew or cared about that.

Factcheck has disproved all of their lame claims of Haliburton.

Such losers.

Well, as long as you are cool with Factcheck......

factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/they-lied-they-died.pdf

sigh

Why do leftists demonize Halliburton? What proof exists of their claims of corruption? What exactly has Halliburton done to profit from American military casualties? Indeed, have they profited from military casualties? Is there a special relationship between the Bush administration and Halliburton so that the company receives contracts without observing the normal bidding process?

From your own link.


On March 24, 2003, the Army Corps announced publicly that KBR (A Subsidiary of Halliburton) had been awarded a contract to restore oil-infrastructure in Iraq, potentially worth $7 billion. The contract KBR received…would eventually include 10 distinct task orders. KBR did not come close to reaching the contract ceiling, billing just over $2.5 billion…The contract was awarded without submission for public bids or congressional notification. In their response to congressional inquiries, Army officials said they determined that extinguishing oil fires fell under the range of services provided under LOGCAP, meaning that KBR could deploy quickly and without additional security clearances.

Also from my link and from Factcheck.org.

When Factcheck.org checked the facts about allegations by Democrats that there was a scandal because of the "no-bid" contracts awarded to Halliburton they stated, "It is false to imply that Bush personally awarded a contract to Halliburton. The ‘no-bid contract’ in question is actually an extension of an earlier contract to support U.S. troops overseas that Halliburton won under open bidding. In fact, the notion that Halliburton benefited from any cronyism has been poo-poohed by a Harvard University professor, Steven Kelman, who was administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy in the Clinton administration. ‘One would be hard-pressed to discover anyone with a working knowledge of how federal contracts are awarded...who doesn't regard these allegations as being somewhere between highly improbable and utterly absurd,’ Kelman wrote in the Washington Post last November."

The allegations were first made by other contractors who alerted their congressman. Can you put the link up. I'm at Factcheck.org. but cannot find your article. I have found this one.

Remember when I fucking crushed every pathetic liberal that uses the Halliburton cliche they always break out?

With this post:

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.

Regarding the Iraq contracts, Halliburton was accused by Democrats of receiving special "no-bid" contracts because of Cheney’s influence. One advertisement by the Democrats charged, "Bush gave contracts to Halliburton instead of fighting corporate corruption."

FactCheck.org an organization which ascertains the validity of political campaign advertisements researched this accusation. According to FactCheck, "The Bush administration is doing a fair amount to fight corporate corruption, convicting or indicting executives of Enron, Arthur Andersen, Tyco International, Worldcom, Adelphia Communications Corporation, Credit Suisse First Boston, HealthSouth Corporation and others, including Martha Stewart. The Department of Justice says it has brought charges against 20 executives of Enron alone, and its Corporate Fraud Task Force says it has won convictions of more than 250 persons to date. Bush also signed the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation in 2002, imposing stringent new accounting rules in the wake of the Arthur Andersen scandal."

When Factcheck.org checked the facts about allegations by Democrats that there was a scandal because of the "no-bid" contracts awarded to Halliburton they stated, "It is false to imply that Bush personally awarded a contract to Halliburton. The ‘no-bid contract’ in question is actually an extension of an earlier contract to support U.S. troops overseas that Halliburton won under open bidding. In fact, the notion that Halliburton benefited from any cronyism has been poo-poohed by a Harvard University professor, Steven Kelman, who was administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy in the Clinton administration. ‘One would be hard-pressed to discover anyone with a working knowledge of how federal contracts are awarded...who doesn't regard these allegations as being somewhere between highly improbable and utterly absurd,’ Kelman wrote in the Washington Post last November." (Emphasis added.)

The Center for Public Integrity another public interest group also investigated the purported scandal of the Halliburton "no-bid" contracts. They wrote:


In Iraq, Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR) has been awarded five contracts worth at least $10.8 billion, including more than $5.6 billion under the U.S. Army's Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) contract, an omnibus contract that allows the Army to call on KBR for support in all of its field operations. When the Army needs a service performed, it issues a "task order," which lays out specific work requirements under the contract…From 1992 to 1997, KBR held the first LOGCAP contract awarded by the Army, but when it was time to renew the contract, the company lost in the competitive bidding process to DynCorp after the General Accounting Office reported in February 1997 that KBR had overrun its estimated costs in the Balkans by 32 percent (some of which was attributed to an increase in the Army's demands). KBR (obtained) the third LOGCAP contract in December 2001…n November 2002 the Army Corps of Engineers tasked KBR to develop a contingency plan for extinguishing oil well fires in Iraq…[O]n March 24, 2003, the Army Corps announced publicly that KBR had been awarded a contract to restore oil-infrastructure in Iraq, potentially worth $7 billion. The contract KBR received…would eventually include 10 distinct task orders. KBR did not come close to reaching the contract ceiling, billing just over $2.5 billion…The contract was awarded without submission for public bids or congressional notification. In their response to congressional inquiries, Army officials said they determined that extinguishing oil fires fell under the range of services provided under LOGCAP, meaning that KBR could deploy quickly and without additional security clearances.

Neither the Center for Public Integrity nor Factcheck.org determined anything sinister about Halliburton’s no-bid" contracts for the Iraq war. Two nonpartisan, nonaligned, public interest organizations have investigated the Halliburton allegations and found them to be specious allegations made for purely political purposes.

An L.A. Times op-ed of April 22 said, "Halliburton Received No-Bid Contracts During Clinton Administration For Work In Bosnia And Kosovo." An October 2003 article in the (Raleigh, NC) News & Observer quoted Bill Clinton's Undersecretary Of Commerce William Reinsch as saying "'Halliburton has a distinguished track record,' he said. 'They do business in some 120 countries. This is a group of people who know what they're doing in a difficult business. It's a particularly difficult business when people are shooting at you.'"

If Democrats want to investigate a scandal involving Iraq they should devote their efforts to the UN "Oil-for-Food" program instead of Halliburton. However, they will not because Saddam Hussein is not a candidate in this presidential election.

Also from Factcheck.org PDF File "the General Accounting Office found that even these minimal paperwork requirements were not properly met. As GAO Comptroller General David Walker said in his testimony before the House Committee on Government Reform, “The Army Field Support Command should have prepared a written justification to authorize the work without competition. In light of the exigent circumstances, such a justification was likely possible but needed to be made and documented to comply with the law and protect the taxpayer’s interests.”The Minority Staff for the same Committee noted that the GAO found that “Administration officials 'overstepped the latitude provided by competition laws' when they misused the logistics contract to assign the planning job to Halliburton.
This plan was the major reason that Halliburton was later given its $7 billion sole-source oil infrastructure contract."

 

[Tuatara]

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.

Regarding the Iraq contracts, Halliburton was accused by Democrats of receiving special "no-bid" contracts because of Cheney’s influence. One advertisement by the Democrats charged, "Bush gave contracts to Halliburton instead of fighting corporate corruption."

FactCheck.org an organization which ascertains the validity of political campaign advertisements researched this accusation. According to FactCheck, "The Bush administration is doing a fair amount to fight corporate corruption, convicting or indicting executives of Enron, Arthur Andersen, Tyco International, Worldcom, Adelphia Communications Corporation, Credit Suisse First Boston, HealthSouth Corporation and others, including Martha Stewart. The Department of Justice says it has brought charges against 20 executives of Enron alone, and its Corporate Fraud Task Force says it has won convictions of more than 250 persons to date. Bush also signed the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation in 2002, imposing stringent new accounting rules in the wake of the Arthur Andersen scandal."

An L.A. Times op-ed of April 22 said, "Halliburton Received No-Bid Contracts During Clinton Administration For Work In Bosnia And Kosovo." An October 2003 article in the (Raleigh, NC) News & Observer quoted Bill Clinton's Undersecretary Of Commerce William Reinsch as saying "'Halliburton has a distinguished track record,' he said. 'They do business in some 120 countries. This is a group of people who know what they're doing in a difficult business. It's a particularly difficult business when people are shooting at you.'"

========================================

Why am I even communicating with a hopeless hack like you? Illiterate moron.

Thanks for bolding that part where Bush cracks down on corruption because guess who was caught one year later after that article.

Pentagon Finds Halliburton Overcharged on Iraq Contracts - New York Times
Halliburton unit faces Pentagon inquiry - Mar. 15 2005
http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB107118703457570100
seMissourian.com National News Corps of Engineers changes explanation of Halliburton award 02 10 04
Halliburton Contracts Face New Scrutiny - Los Angeles Times
Center for Corporate Policy Mission

I could add many more

 

[Faun]

If a chain doesn't have LINKS - how can it be CONNECTED?

LINK
1. one of the rings or separate pieces of which a chain is composed.

Synonyms
2. connection, connective, copula.

Link Define Link at Dictionary.com

So, can you NaziCon retards stop your nonsense about the thread title? The thread title is accurate.

If Bush lied so did both clintons and the UN. They all had the same intel and came to the same conclusions.

Remember CIA Director George Tenet? BTW, the Clintons never invaded Iraq - Bush did.

George Tenet: At The Center Of The Storm - CBS News

So, in your small mind Bush personally invaded Iraq???????????? are you that much of a partisan loon? Both parties authorized and funded that lunacy, and they all had access to the same intel that Bush had. Both clintons are on record supporting the invasion in several speeches.

They were all wrong. Why not deal with this truthfully so we can learn from our mistakes? Get over the partisan bullshit and deal with reality.

If not, we wil continue to lose our young people and billions of dollars in foolish escapades like Iraq and Viet Nam.

Why do you lie like that? I know you know it's been proven time and time again that the president, a few select members of Congress, and a few others with the proper clearance had access to a 90 page NIE; whereas the other 90% of Congress, who didn't have security clearance to the 90 page NIE, only had access to the heavily redacted 28 page version of the NIE. Anyone who claims they "all had access to the same intel" is lying and throwing their credibility out the window.

 

[Faun]

I assume you prefer "reliable" sources such as Fox News, Beck, and Limbaugh.

Fox News is reliable. Beck and Limbaugh offer opinion. Data is better gleaned from news sources. If you read the links I post, they generally point to the Washington Post and Forbes, not sure why those two come up so often, probably better positioning for spiders.

Yeah, fox is real trustworthy ...

Here they are falsely claiming Bush never claimed there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda, even though Bush actually said that numerous times...

Fox s Kilmeade claimed Bush never even said there s a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq Research Media Matters for America

 

[Tuatara]

If a chain doesn't have LINKS - how can it be CONNECTED?

LINK
1. one of the rings or separate pieces of which a chain is composed.

Synonyms
2. connection, connective, copula.

Link Define Link at Dictionary.com

So, can you NaziCon retards stop your nonsense about the thread title? The thread title is accurate.

If Bush lied so did both clintons and the UN. They all had the same intel and came to the same conclusions.

Remember CIA Director George Tenet? BTW, the Clintons never invaded Iraq - Bush did.

George Tenet: At The Center Of The Storm - CBS News

So, in your small mind Bush personally invaded Iraq???????????? are you that much of a partisan loon? Both parties authorized and funded that lunacy, and they all had access to the same intel that Bush had. Both clintons are on record supporting the invasion in several speeches.

They were all wrong. Why not deal with this truthfully so we can learn from our mistakes? Get over the partisan bullshit and deal with reality.

If not, we wil continue to lose our young people and billions of dollars in foolish escapades like Iraq and Viet Nam.

Why do you lie like that? I know you know it's been proven time and time again that the president, a few select members of Congress, and a few others with the proper clearance had access to a 90 page NIE; whereas the other 90% of Congress, who didn't have security clearance to the 90 page NIE, only had access to the heavily redacted 28 page version of the NIE. Anyone who claims they "all had access to the same intel" is lying and throwing their credibility out the window.

I already pointed this out to Redfish in post # 424 but he just conveniently ignored it.

Lets see if he still uses any of his catchphrases like "get over the partisan bullshit".

 

[Lakhota]

Bush should be held accountable!

 

[Faun]

Bush should be held accountable!

That's never gonna happen, get over it. There is no proof Bush lied. At worst, you can say he's an incompetent idiot who took us to war over WMD that weren't there.

 

[theHawk]

I consider this to be Bush's biggest lie about Iraq and Saddam.

Rightwingers like to distract from the event that Bush tried to link Saddam to - 9/11. Even the dumbest of rightwingers should now be convinced that Saddam HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11. However, if any of them still think so - please provide credible proof.

I heard and saw Bush live on TV when he first tried to make this link. If there are any doubters - just Google "bush links saddam to 9/11"...

I did exactly as you asked and googled it.

Here is the result from the first link:

"The Bush administration view, as defined by the Colin Powell speech before the UN, postulated that there might have been a cooperative relationship, but that Saddam was not supportive of the 9/11 attacks"

Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Nice try, you pathetic hack.

How can there be a cooperative relationship but not support?

It means he and his regime had contact with known terrorists, but they were not informed or took part in the 9/11 attacks specifically.

Is this really that hard for you to comprehend?

 

[theHawk]

Bush should be held accountable!

And so should all the Democrats who voted for the war that saw the same intelligence reports as the President.

I assume you'll hold Hilary "accountable" next election right?

 

[Tuatara]

I consider this to be Bush's biggest lie about Iraq and Saddam.

Rightwingers like to distract from the event that Bush tried to link Saddam to - 9/11. Even the dumbest of rightwingers should now be convinced that Saddam HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11. However, if any of them still think so - please provide credible proof.

I heard and saw Bush live on TV when he first tried to make this link. If there are any doubters - just Google "bush links saddam to 9/11"...

I did exactly as you asked and googled it.

Here is the result from the first link:

"The Bush administration view, as defined by the Colin Powell speech before the UN, postulated that there might have been a cooperative relationship, but that Saddam was not supportive of the 9/11 attacks"

Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Nice try, you pathetic hack.

How can there be a cooperative relationship but not support?

It means he and his regime had contact with known terrorists, but they were not informed or took part in the 9/11 attacks specifically.

Is this really that hard for you to comprehend?

And neither were they al Qaeda. "intelligence reports concluded that there was no evidence of ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda" Can you name a country that did not have contact with known terrorists.

 

[paulitician]

Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link

WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country.

Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Saddam was involved.

The belief in the connection persists even though there has been no proof of a link between the two.

More: USATODAY.com - Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link

Gee, I wonder why so many Americans believed there was a link (connection) between Saddam Hussein and 9/11?

Government/Corporate Media Propaganda. It's very powerful.

FOX does have a large following....

All MSM is Government/Corporate Media.

 

[Tuatara]

Bush should be held accountable!

And so should all the Democrats who voted for the war that saw the same intelligence reports as the President.

I assume you'll hold Hilary "accountable" next election right?

I think I have lost my patience with this. Literally 3 and 4 posts above yours shows that not everyone was privy to the same intel as the president. Are we dealing with very young people here or are you all willfully ignorant. This argument had been thrown out years ago.

 

[paulitician]

True, you the average Citizen haven't benefited at all. You never do in these Interventions/Wars. But many have gotten very rich off the Iraq War. And they continue to. The Elites now control Iraq's Banking System and are plundering its natural resources. And that was the plan all along. They're attempting to do the same thing in Syria and Ukraine right now. They recently accomplished that in Libya and Egypt. So you are right, you didn't benefit at all from the Iraq War. But others did.

I agree, but that's true of all government spending. I know you're against that as well. I'm just saying it's not specific to the military.

If we would focus on energy at home, there would be no need to keep sending troops to the Middle East.

War & chaos is big business. There's much more profit in plundering natural resources around the world. It's always about the money. But only the few Elites make that money. The average Citizen certainly doesn't. They just go on being poor dupes and funding the schemes. It's that fear of the Boogeyman that always convinces them to support another Intervention/War. Fear is the most important tool. It works. It's as simple as that.

 

[Tuatara]

Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link

WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country.

Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Saddam was involved.

The belief in the connection persists even though there has been no proof of a link between the two.

More: USATODAY.com - Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link

Gee, I wonder why so many Americans believed there was a link (connection) between Saddam Hussein and 9/11?

Government/Corporate Media Propaganda. It's very powerful.

FOX does have a large following....

All MSM is Government/Corporate Media.

This poll shows that Bush & Co. intentionally claimed a connection between Saddam and 911. Many of us saw through his lies. Only those who supported him believed that hogwash. I was on a couple of political forums when the invasion started and every single Bush supporter was claiming Saddam's ties to al Qaeda and 911.

 

[kaz]

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.

Regarding the Iraq contracts, Halliburton was accused by Democrats of receiving special "no-bid" contracts because of Cheney’s influence. One advertisement by the Democrats charged, "Bush gave contracts to Halliburton instead of fighting corporate corruption."

FactCheck.org an organization which ascertains the validity of political campaign advertisements researched this accusation. According to FactCheck, "The Bush administration is doing a fair amount to fight corporate corruption, convicting or indicting executives of Enron, Arthur Andersen, Tyco International, Worldcom, Adelphia Communications Corporation, Credit Suisse First Boston, HealthSouth Corporation and others, including Martha Stewart. The Department of Justice says it has brought charges against 20 executives of Enron alone, and its Corporate Fraud Task Force says it has won convictions of more than 250 persons to date. Bush also signed the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation in 2002, imposing stringent new accounting rules in the wake of the Arthur Andersen scandal."

An L.A. Times op-ed of April 22 said, "Halliburton Received No-Bid Contracts During Clinton Administration For Work In Bosnia And Kosovo." An October 2003 article in the (Raleigh, NC) News & Observer quoted Bill Clinton's Undersecretary Of Commerce William Reinsch as saying "'Halliburton has a distinguished track record,' he said. 'They do business in some 120 countries. This is a group of people who know what they're doing in a difficult business. It's a particularly difficult business when people are shooting at you.'"

========================================

Why am I even communicating with a hopeless hack like you? Illiterate moron.

Thanks for bolding that part where Bush cracks down on corruption because guess who was caught one year later after that article.

Pentagon Finds Halliburton Overcharged on Iraq Contracts - New York Times
Halliburton unit faces Pentagon inquiry - Mar. 15 2005
http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB107118703457570100
seMissourian.com National News Corps of Engineers changes explanation of Halliburton award 02 10 04
Halliburton Contracts Face New Scrutiny - Los Angeles Times
Center for Corporate Policy Mission

I could add many more

And you could even add more than that if you looked at government contractors in the social spending side. Of course you're not interested in that. Only the ones that fit your agenda.