On Jan 22, 10:01*am, wrote:
On Jan 22, 9:22*am, wrote:





On Jan 22, 9:02*am, wrote:

On Jan 21, 11:48*pm, wrote:

On Jan 21, 11:46*pm, jps wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 19:07:59 -0500, RLM wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 01:08:43 -0500, Eisboch wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
. ..

How you could possibly think of Bush as someone to look up to is
certainly beyond me. *You have to be living in a special reality, like
he did.

I would offer this:

One thing that occurred to me today while watching all the inauguration
activities was that it would have been a perfect day and timing for a
terrorist attack. *Virtually everybody who would have a responsibility to
respond were tied up in activities. *It would be chaotic.

I think thanks can be given for the fact that it didn't occur to the
departed cowboy from Texas.

Eisboch

Bush tranported the victims to them to save them fuel.

Good point. *He also transported pallets of $100 bills. *My nephew
said they didn't count it when handing it out, they weighed it.

Those were my hard earned tax dollars at work. *Buying Iraqi
cooperation or refunding them for the value of their family member's
lives.

Let's not forget how much fuel we've purchased over their to keep
those humvess and transports on the road. *I'm sure Halliburton made a
pretty penny off each litre. *I'm sure a percentage of our fuel
purchases went to fund terrorism, the mid-eastern version of *unicef
or Ronald McDonald house.

jps- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yeah, "you're sure".. * right snerk Find out why we used Haliburton,
find out why Clinton used them too, exclusively, then come back and
talk..- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Scotty, Clinton used them because they were already there. Makes sense.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

He used them for the same reason Bush did.
They are the only company in the world that does what they do under
fire. From bricks to college degrees to retail operations, they are
the only company that can provide infrastructure for a working
civilization from top to bottom...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nope. They weren't already deployed when Bush/Cheney hired them. In
Clinton's case, they were already there.
And your last statement is not true, either.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, enlighten me, what other compay can provide those kind of
services under fire? There is not really anybody else that I know of
that can do that like I said, from infrastructure, to books, to
hospitals, to welfare, to bullets.... All in one package..

On Jan 22, 10:22*am, wrote:
On Jan 22, 10:01*am, wrote:





On Jan 22, 9:22*am, wrote:

On Jan 22, 9:02*am, wrote:

On Jan 21, 11:48*pm, wrote:

On Jan 21, 11:46*pm, jps wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 19:07:59 -0500, RLM wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 01:08:43 -0500, Eisboch wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
. ..

How you could possibly think of Bush as someone to look up to is
certainly beyond me. *You have to be living in a special reality, like
he did.

I would offer this:

One thing that occurred to me today while watching all the inauguration
activities was that it would have been a perfect day and timing for a
terrorist attack. *Virtually everybody who would have a responsibility to
respond were tied up in activities. *It would be chaotic.

I think thanks can be given for the fact that it didn't occur to the
departed cowboy from Texas.

Eisboch

Bush tranported the victims to them to save them fuel.

Good point. *He also transported pallets of $100 bills. *My nephew
said they didn't count it when handing it out, they weighed it.

Those were my hard earned tax dollars at work. *Buying Iraqi
cooperation or refunding them for the value of their family member's
lives.

Let's not forget how much fuel we've purchased over their to keep
those humvess and transports on the road. *I'm sure Halliburton made a
pretty penny off each litre. *I'm sure a percentage of our fuel
purchases went to fund terrorism, the mid-eastern version of *unicef
or Ronald McDonald house.

jps- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yeah, "you're sure".. * right snerk Find out why we used Haliburton,
find out why Clinton used them too, exclusively, then come back and
talk..- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Scotty, Clinton used them because they were already there. Makes sense.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

He used them for the same reason Bush did.
They are the only company in the world that does what they do under
fire. From bricks to college degrees to retail operations, they are
the only company that can provide infrastructure for a working
civilization from top to bottom...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nope. They weren't already deployed when Bush/Cheney hired them. In
Clinton's case, they were already there.
And your last statement is not true, either.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, enlighten me, what other compay can provide those kind of
services under fire? There is not really anybody else that I know of
that can do that like I said, from infrastructure, to books, to
hospitals, to welfare, to bullets.... All in one package..- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There's several tens of defense contractors that do the same exact
thing as Halliburton. There are some in Iraq as we speak.
Halliburton, in it's own vision statement says it provides energy
services, energy equipment, engineering, construction, and
maintenance. Period.

"Today's decision by the Army means the LogCap contract will be split-
up into three companies, reports the Post, with a fourth firm hired to
help monitor the performance of the other three. Halliburton will be
permitted to rebid on some of the new work. But last year, the
company's CEO, David Lesar, said: "If we do choose to rebid, we're
going to jack the margins up significantly," a threat that could prove
costly to taxpayers if Halliburton is allowed back into any LogCap
work."

Four companies?!!!

wrote in message
...
On Jan 22, 10:22 am, wrote:
On Jan 22, 10:01 am, wrote:





On Jan 22, 9:22 am, wrote:

On Jan 22, 9:02 am, wrote:

On Jan 21, 11:48 pm, wrote:

On Jan 21, 11:46 pm, jps wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 19:07:59 -0500, RLM wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 01:08:43 -0500, Eisboch wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
. ..

How you could possibly think of Bush as someone to look up
to is
certainly beyond me. You have to be living in a special
reality, like
he did.

I would offer this:

One thing that occurred to me today while watching all the
inauguration
activities was that it would have been a perfect day and
timing for a
terrorist attack. Virtually everybody who would have a
responsibility to
respond were tied up in activities. It would be chaotic.

I think thanks can be given for the fact that it didn't occur
to the
departed cowboy from Texas.

Eisboch

Bush tranported the victims to them to save them fuel.

Good point. He also transported pallets of $100 bills. My nephew
said they didn't count it when handing it out, they weighed it.

Those were my hard earned tax dollars at work. Buying Iraqi
cooperation or refunding them for the value of their family
member's
lives.

Let's not forget how much fuel we've purchased over their to
keep
those humvess and transports on the road. I'm sure Halliburton
made a
pretty penny off each litre. I'm sure a percentage of our fuel
purchases went to fund terrorism, the mid-eastern version of
unicef
or Ronald McDonald house.

jps- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yeah, "you're sure".. right snerk Find out why we used
Haliburton,
find out why Clinton used them too, exclusively, then come back
and
talk..- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Scotty, Clinton used them because they were already there. Makes
sense.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

He used them for the same reason Bush did.
They are the only company in the world that does what they do under
fire. From bricks to college degrees to retail operations, they are
the only company that can provide infrastructure for a working
civilization from top to bottom...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nope. They weren't already deployed when Bush/Cheney hired them. In
Clinton's case, they were already there.
And your last statement is not true, either.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, enlighten me, what other compay can provide those kind of
services under fire? There is not really anybody else that I know of
that can do that like I said, from infrastructure, to books, to
hospitals, to welfare, to bullets.... All in one package..- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

There's several tens of defense contractors that do the same exact
thing as Halliburton. There are some in Iraq as we speak.
Halliburton, in it's own vision statement says it provides energy
services, energy equipment, engineering, construction, and
maintenance. Period.

"Today's decision by the Army means the LogCap contract will be split-
up into three companies, reports the Post, with a fourth firm hired to
help monitor the performance of the other three. Halliburton will be
permitted to rebid on some of the new work. But last year, the
company's CEO, David Lesar, said: "If we do choose to rebid, we're
going to jack the margins up significantly," a threat that could prove
costly to taxpayers if Halliburton is allowed back into any LogCap
work."

Four companies?!!!


Halliburton had built most of the stuff there. So they had the plans as
well as the expertise.