Expanding Halliburton probe confirms Bush administration is

[Winfield Hill]

I don't know anything about the World Socialist Web Site, or
who they are, but I enjoyed the research in this article,

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/oct2004/hall-o30.shtml

It's backed up elsewhere by neutral reporters,
http://olympics.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6665291
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/business/10054309.htm?1c
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6363896/


--
Thanks,
- Win

(email: use hill_at_rowland-dotties-org for now)

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 04:30:54 -0700, Winfield Hill wrote:

I don't know anything about the World Socialist Web Site, or who they
are, but I enjoyed the research in this article,

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/oct2004/hall-o30.shtml

It's backed up elsewhere by neutral reporters,
http://olympics.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6665291
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/business/10054309.htm?1c
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6363896/

This is great! They're not just getting booted out of office, but if
the system does work, they're going to prison!

Thanks!
Rich

 

[John Larkin]

On 30 Oct 2004 04:30:54 -0700, Winfield Hill
<Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote:


Most corrupt in history? US Grant is usually awarded that distinction.
One might also consider Harding (Teapot Dome), LBJ (Gulf of Tonkin
fraud - millions died) and Clinton (foreign campaign bucks, pardons,
perjury.)


John

 

[Frank Bemelman]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> schreef in
bericht news:cj08o09mapbsp9vb1gmlfsj2mkg29cl58p@4ax.com...

On 30 Oct 2004 04:30:54 -0700, Winfield Hill
Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote:


Most corrupt in history? US Grant is usually awarded that distinction.
One might also consider Harding (Teapot Dome), LBJ (Gulf of Tonkin
fraud - millions died) and Clinton (foreign campaign bucks, pardons,
perjury.)

That's 4 smoke screens. Okay, you could argue over 'most corrupt'
or just plain vanilla 'corrupt'.

I changed the subject line for your convenience. Does that make
it look any better?

--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'x' and 'invalid' when replying by email)

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 23:19:53 +0200, "Frank Bemelman"
<f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> schreef in
bericht news:cj08o09mapbsp9vb1gmlfsj2mkg29cl58p@4ax.com...
On 30 Oct 2004 04:30:54 -0700, Winfield Hill
Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote:


Most corrupt in history? US Grant is usually awarded that distinction.
One might also consider Harding (Teapot Dome), LBJ (Gulf of Tonkin
fraud - millions died) and Clinton (foreign campaign bucks, pardons,
perjury.)

That's 4 smoke screens. Okay, you could argue over 'most corrupt'
or just plain vanilla 'corrupt'.

Seems that any suggestion you don't like is a "smoke screen." Read a
little history some time, and put what's happening today in a more
longitudinal perspective.

I changed the subject line for your convenience. Does that make
it look any better?

It doesn't make it look any more sensible.

John

 

[Frank Bemelman]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> schreef in
bericht newsf38o05gr5h0fj9jvt6mtu8gdeeq74bv1u@4ax.com...

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 23:19:53 +0200, "Frank Bemelman"
f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> schreef in
bericht news:cj08o09mapbsp9vb1gmlfsj2mkg29cl58p@4ax.com...
On 30 Oct 2004 04:30:54 -0700, Winfield Hill
Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote:


Most corrupt in history? US Grant is usually awarded that distinction.
One might also consider Harding (Teapot Dome), LBJ (Gulf of Tonkin
fraud - millions died) and Clinton (foreign campaign bucks, pardons,
perjury.)

That's 4 smoke screens. Okay, you could argue over 'most corrupt'
or just plain vanilla 'corrupt'.


Seems that any suggestion you don't like is a "smoke screen." Read a
little history some time, and put what's happening today in a more
longitudinal perspective.

I see it as smoke screens because you evade the topic, dragging
in other cases. Now you do it again - I'm advised to start reading
history. It's just that you don't even realize all your smoke
screens.

I changed the subject line for your convenience. Does that make
it look any better?

It doesn't make it look any more sensible.

You don't trust the information in the links provided by Win?

--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'x' and 'invalid' when replying by email)

 

[xray]

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 14:59:46 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

Seems that any suggestion you don't like is a "smoke screen." Read a
little history some time, and put what's happening today in a more
longitudinal perspective.

Good point...

Bush is a dangerous idiot. Bush is a dangerous idiot. Bush is a
dangerous idiot. Bush is a dangerous idiot. Bush is a dangerous idiot.
Bush is a dangerous idiot.

That's more longitudinal, no?

I changed the subject line for your convenience. Does that make
it look any better?

It doesn't make it look any more sensible.

 

[Frank Bemelman]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> schreef in
bericht news:2faao0111gfdgmk609aeae168jslbtfvoa@4ax.com...

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 10:55:48 +0100, "Frank Bemelman"
f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> schreef in
bericht news:g6k8o0d2hlgs2hetqeie24a9boiblnthk3@4ax.com...
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 00:49:59 +0200, "Frank Bemelman"
f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> schreef
in
bericht newsf38o05gr5h0fj9jvt6mtu8gdeeq74bv1u@4ax.com...
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 23:19:53 +0200, "Frank Bemelman"
f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com
schreef
in
bericht news:cj08o09mapbsp9vb1gmlfsj2mkg29cl58p@4ax.com...
On 30 Oct 2004 04:30:54 -0700, Winfield Hill
Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote:


Most corrupt in history? US Grant is usually awarded that
distinction.
One might also consider Harding (Teapot Dome), LBJ (Gulf of
Tonkin
fraud - millions died) and Clinton (foreign campaign bucks,
pardons,
perjury.)

That's 4 smoke screens. Okay, you could argue over 'most corrupt'
or just plain vanilla 'corrupt'.


Seems that any suggestion you don't like is a "smoke screen." Read a
little history some time, and put what's happening today in a more
longitudinal perspective.

I see it as smoke screens because you evade the topic, dragging
in other cases. Now you do it again - I'm advised to start reading
history. It's just that you don't even realize all your smoke
screens.


The subject (before you changed it) was "most corrupt administration
in US history". How can you evaluate a statement like that without
considering "other cases", namely all the previous Presidents? How can
you evaluate "most corrupt in US history" if you know nothing about
history?

That doesn't make sense.

You could also read 'most' in a different meaning. Like newspapers
headlines. Like the soup you ate yesterday, which was most delicious,
no doubt. It's just to add some drama, to draw attention. Not a
strict claim, I would think.

"Most" means "most" to me; it demands comparison. What does it mean to
you? Is there any difference, in a circuit, between a high voltage and
the highest voltage?

Main Entry: 2most
Function: adverb
1 : to the greatest or highest degree -- often used with an adjective or
adverb to form the superlative <the most challenging job he ever had>
2 : to a very great degree <was most persuasive>

In the given context, I stick to [2]: to a very great degree

Anyway, the dictionairy lists a nice number of meanings. Your comment
that '"Most" means "most" to me' is a too simple shortcut. And please
try to understand that analogies in general only makes things fuzzier,
and in this case, your analogy of high voltages is just another smoke
screen.

You said that the modified subject does not make it any more
sensible. That's a meaningless remark. I can only guess what you
mean, it could be anything:

1) it was very sensible, but not a bit more
2) it was sensible, but not a bit more
3) it was not sensible, and has not become a bit more sensible
4) it was absolutely not sensible, and still is

It means that you can't sensibly alter my answer by changing the
question after the fact.

Another escape. Why don't you openly refuse to answer; I could
have some respect for that.

That's what I call smoke screens. You create the illusion that
you are participating in the discussion, but in fact nothing is
revealed or said.

And snipping my question "You don't trust the information in the
links provided by Win?" instead of giving a short but meaningful
answer, well, there you go, it only thickens your smoke screens.

I may need to catch up on history,

Please do; it puts all this shrieking into perspective.

but I'm not entirely stupid.

So, here's my question again:

You don't trust the information in the links provided by Win?



The opinions of the World Socialist Web Site and one Bunny Greenhouse
are hardly convincing evidence of corruption.

Even Ms G's position is...

"She says she is not alleging any impropriety by President Bush or
Vice President Cheney.

"None whatsoever," she says.

So where's the administration corruption?

Right under your nose. But perhaps you are hiding something
yourself.

--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'x' and 'invalid' when replying by email)

 

[Daniel Haude]

On 30 Oct 2004 14:41:43 -0700,
Tom Seim <soar2morrow@yahoo.com> wrote
in Msg. <6c71b322.0410301341.3bdd08da@posting.google.com>

I think the group's name, WORLD SOCIALISTS, is ALL you need to know
about this set of wackos.

What part of:

do you not understand?

--Daniel

--
"With me is nothing wrong! And with you?" (from r.a.m.p)

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Daniel Haude wrote:

On 30 Oct 2004 14:41:43 -0700,
Tom Seim <soar2morrow@yahoo.com> wrote
in Msg. <6c71b322.0410301341.3bdd08da@posting.google.com

I think the group's name, WORLD SOCIALISTS, is ALL you need to know
about this set of wackos.


What part of:


It's backed up elsewhere by neutral reporters, [sources given]


do you not understand?

--Daniel

Like that fringe publication Time magazine:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101041101-733760,00.html

Beyond the Call of Duty
A whistle-blower objected to the government's Halliburton deals—and says
now she's paying for it
By ADAM ZAGORIN & TIMOTHY J. BURGER


Courtesy TIME Magazine
Bunnatine (Bunny) Greenhouse

Sunday, Oct. 24, 2004
In February 2003, less than a month before the U.S. invaded Iraq,
Bunnatine (Bunny) Greenhouse walked into a Pentagon meeting and with a
quiet comment started what could be the end of her career. On the agenda
was the awarding of an up to $7 billion deal to a subsidiary of
Houston-based conglomerate Halliburton to restore Iraq's oil facilities.
On hand were senior officials from the office of Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld and aides to retired Lieut. General Jay Garner, who
would soon become the first U.S. administrator in Iraq.

Then several representatives from Halliburton entered. Greenhouse, a top
contracting specialist for the Army Corps of Engineers, grew
increasingly concerned that they were privy to internal discussions of
the contract's terms, so she whispered to the presiding general,
insisting that he ask the Halliburton employees to leave the room.

Once they had gone, Greenhouse raised other concerns. She argued that
the five-year term for the contract, which had not been put out for
competitive bid, was not justified, that it should be for one year only
and then be opened to competition. But when the contract-approval
document arrived the next day for Greenhouse's signature, the term was
five years. With war imminent, she had little choice but to sign. But
she added a handwritten reservation that extending a no-bid contract
beyond one year could send a message that "there is not strong intent
for a limited competition."

Greenhouse's objections, which had not been made public until now, will
probably fuel criticism of the government's allegedly cozy relationship
with Halliburton and could be greeted with calls for further
investigation. Halliburton's Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) subsidiary
has been mired in allegations of overcharging and mismanagement in Iraq,
and the government in January replaced the noncompetitive oil-field
contract that Greenhouse had objected to and made two competitively bid
awards instead. (Halliburton won the larger contract, worth up to $1.2
billion, for repairing oil installations in southern Iraq, while Parsons
Corp. got one for the north, worth up to $800 million.) Halliburton's
Iraq business, which includes another government contract as well, has
been under particular scrutiny because Vice President Dick Cheney was
once its CEO. The Pentagon, concerned about potential controversy when
it signed the original oil-work contract, gave Cheney's staff a heads-up
beforehand. (TIME disclosed that alert in June.)

Greenhouse seems to have got nothing but trouble for questioning the
deal. Warned to stop interfering and threatened with a demotion, the
career Corps employee decided to act on her conscience, according to her
lawyer, Michael Kohn. Kohn, who has represented other federal
whistle-blowers, last week sent a letter—obtained by TIME from
congressional sources—on her behalf to the acting Secretary of the Army.
In it Kohn recounts Greenhouse's Pentagon meeting and demands an
investigation of alleged violations of Army regulations in the
contract's awarding. (The Pentagon justified the contract procedures as
necessary in a time of war, saying KBR was the only choice because of
security clearances that it had received earlier.) Kohn charges that
Greenhouse's superiors have tried to silence her; he says she has agreed
to be interviewed, pending approval from her employer, but the Army
failed to make her available despite repeated requests from TIME.

"These charges undercut months of assertions by Administration officials
that the Halliburton contract was on the level," says Democratic
Representative Henry Waxman. As the Corps's top contract specialist, the
letter says, Greenhouse had noted reservations on dozens of procurement
documents over seven years. But it was only after she took exception to
the Halliburton deal that she was warned not to do so anymore. The
letter states that the major general who admonished her, Robert Griffin,
later admitted in a sworn statement that her comments on contracts had
"caused trouble" for the Army and that, given the controversy
surrounding the contract, it was "intolerable" and "had to stop." The
letter says he threatened to downgrade her. (As with Greenhouse, the
Army did not make Griffin available.) When the Pentagon's auditors
accused KBR of overcharging the government $61 million for fuel, the
letter says, the Army bypassed Greenhouse. Her deputy waived a
requirement that KBR provide pricing data—a move that looked
"politically motivated," the letter says.

The Pentagon maintains that it awarded Halliburton's Iraq contracts
appropriately, as does a Halliburton spokeswoman. A senior military
official says the Army "has referred the matter to the inspector general
of the Department of Defense." As for Halliburton, it has faced alleged
cost overruns, lost profits and seen at least 54 company contractors
killed in Iraq. Greenhouse, meanwhile, has requested protection from
retaliation. But her career—and reputation—are on the line.

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 21:04:57 +0000, Fred Bloggs wrote:
....

"These charges undercut months of assertions by Administration officials
that the Halliburton contract was on the level," says Democratic
Representative Henry Waxman.

Hoo Boy! Waxman! He's the High Priest of the antismokerists. Get him
on an anti-Bush jag, and he might do to them what he did to smokers.

So there _is_ a use for fanatics from time to time. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Frank Bemelman]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> schreef in
bericht news:g6k8o0d2hlgs2hetqeie24a9boiblnthk3@4ax.com...

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 00:49:59 +0200, "Frank Bemelman"
f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> schreef in
bericht newsf38o05gr5h0fj9jvt6mtu8gdeeq74bv1u@4ax.com...
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 23:19:53 +0200, "Frank Bemelman"
f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> schreef
in
bericht news:cj08o09mapbsp9vb1gmlfsj2mkg29cl58p@4ax.com...
On 30 Oct 2004 04:30:54 -0700, Winfield Hill
Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote:


Most corrupt in history? US Grant is usually awarded that
distinction.
One might also consider Harding (Teapot Dome), LBJ (Gulf of Tonkin
fraud - millions died) and Clinton (foreign campaign bucks, pardons,
perjury.)

That's 4 smoke screens. Okay, you could argue over 'most corrupt'
or just plain vanilla 'corrupt'.


Seems that any suggestion you don't like is a "smoke screen." Read a
little history some time, and put what's happening today in a more
longitudinal perspective.

I see it as smoke screens because you evade the topic, dragging
in other cases. Now you do it again - I'm advised to start reading
history. It's just that you don't even realize all your smoke
screens.


The subject (before you changed it) was "most corrupt administration
in US history". How can you evaluate a statement like that without
considering "other cases", namely all the previous Presidents? How can
you evaluate "most corrupt in US history" if you know nothing about
history?

That doesn't make sense.

You could also read 'most' in a different meaning. Like newspapers
headlines. Like the soup you ate yesterday, which was most delicious,
no doubt. It's just to add some drama, to draw attention. Not a
strict claim, I would think.

You said that the modified subject does not make it any more
sensible. That's a meaningless remark. I can only guess what you
mean, it could be anything:

1) it was very sensible, but not a bit more
2) it was sensible, but not a bit more
3) it was not sensible, and has not become a bit more sensible
4) it was absolutely not sensible, and still is

That's what I call smoke screens. You create the illusion that
you are participating in the discussion, but in fact nothing is
revealed or said.

And snipping my question "You don't trust the information in the
links provided by Win?" instead of giving a short but meaningful
answer, well, there you go, it only thickens your smoke screens.

I may need to catch up on history, but I'm not entirely stupid.
So, here's my question again:

You don't trust the information in the links provided by Win?

--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'x' and 'invalid' when replying by email)











--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'x' and 'invalid' when replying by email)