[johnnycrash]

In principle to me it does seem wrong when someone who never served in a war zone criticizes those that do. I am with Superdave on this one.

[oldfogey]

Back to energy saving and ways to achieve it....

From a European point of view, the answer would be to tax energy usage in the US (lowering other taxes natch, to be tax neutral overall) so all your ingenuity and drive gets funnelled into appropriate energy-saving technology driven through the commercial system.

But no US politician would propose that, because you won't vote for it, so they come up with inventing stuff from a political budget. No way!

[bwhip]

Originally Posted by johnnycrash

In principle to me it does seem wrong when someone who never served in a war zone criticizes those that do. I am with Superdave on this one.

Even Bush said Kerry should be proud of his service. And Clinton acknowledged in his speech at the Dems convention that he and Bush both looked for a way out of going to Vietnam when Kerry didn't.

[SuperDave]

Originally Posted by oldfogey

Back to energy saving and ways to achieve it....

From a European point of view, the answer would be to tax energy usage in the US (lowering other taxes natch, to be tax neutral overall) so all your ingenuity and drive gets funnelled into appropriate energy-saving technology driven through the commercial system.

But no US politician would propose that, because you won't vote for it, so they come up with inventing stuff from a political budget. No way!

We'll probably just give the entire bidless contract to say...hmmmm,....Hallerburton (sp?). Yea, that's the ticket!

Sorry, I'm still stinging from Cheney and Hallerburton.

You're absolutely right, us Americans are stuck between "don't tax us anymore than you already are" and how can we develop a successfull program that will lessen our reliance on oil, purchasing cheaper modes of power producing methods, and lessening the enviromental impact. Polititions are already scared to death to mention "we're going to raise your taxes", regardless of the program. Oh, and then there is the little problem with Oil Related LOBBYIST!!!

[BDA116]

Uh, the only administration to give a no-bid contract to Halliburton was klinton's. Halliburton won the current contract throught the bidding process at the Defense Department, which the Bush admonistration has no control over. Sorry, but gather facts first.

Oh, and we already DO tax all forms of energy, and there already IS a tax break for those that buy energy efficient products like hybrid vehicles.

The biggest blockage to energy development os the environMENTAL lobbyist (terrorist) groups.

[SuperDave]

Originally Posted by BDA116

Uh, the only administration to give a no-bid contract to Halliburton was klinton's. Halliburton won the current contract throught the bidding process at the Defense Department, which the Bush admonistration has no control over. Sorry, but gather facts first.

Oh, and we already DO tax all forms of energy, and there already IS a tax break for those that buy energy efficient products like hybrid vehicles.

The biggest blockage to energy development os the environMENTAL lobbyist (terrorist) groups.

Uh, everywhere I look, I see no mention of a bid process.

One of the first major contracts was awarded to a subsidiary of Halliburton Co., a company that was run by Vice President Dick Cheney, on a no-bid basis. Some Democrats fear that mostly companies with ties to the Republican Party will be rewarded with contracts.

The early contracts -- including the one to Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root -- have been awarded without competition or detailed explanations of total cost. Administration officials say awarding contracts in that fashion is normal and that the companies have long-standing relationships and proven records. Moreover, they point out that relatively few companies are able to perform such specialized jobs as extinguishing oil-well fires and managing ports.
"I mean, this is not unusual in terms of the way we're doing this, except that we sped up the process," Andrew Natsios, the director of the U.S. Agency for International Development, said Wednesday.

Though critics don't say it directly, they suggest that the White House is playing favorites by funneling business to companies that have strong ties to the Republican Party. In addition to Halliburton, other companies expected to earn big contracts are Bechtel Group, Fluor Corp. and Parsons Group. Those companies gave a combined $2.64 million to political campaigns between 1999 and 2002, with 68 percent of those dollars given to Republican candidates, according to an analysis by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics.
Halliburton has a long and generous attachment to Republicans, contributing $709,320 to candidates between 1999 and 2002. Ninety-five percent of that money went to Republicans, according to CRP.
Yet Halliburton is just one of several companies with Republican pedigrees that are likely to benefit from the war. San Francisco-based Bechtel Group Inc. is one of the biggest engineering and construction companies in the world and virtually certain to win some contracts to rebuild Iraq. Bechtel helped build Hoover Dam, the trans-Alaska pipeline and San Francisco's subway system.
Like Halliburton, Bechtel has deep roots in the Republican Party. Former Secretary of State George Schultz is a board member. It is a generous contributor to politicians, providing $1,297,465 to candidates between 1999 and 2002, with 59 percent going to Republicans.
WHO'S REBUILDING IRAQ
These are among companies that have received contracts, or are in the running for contracts, to help rebuild Iraq after the war. Some Democrats fear that companies with strong Republican ties, or that are major contributors to Republicans, will be favored.


Have government contracts
Halliburton, Houston, 85,000 employees
 About the company: Halliburton's subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root has worked around the world on power, transportation and oil projects. But Halliburton is facing a government inquiry over how it accounts for cost overruns on its projects. Halliburton was led by now-Vice President Dick Cheney before he resigned in 2000 to join the Republican presidential ticket.
 Contract: Kellogg Brown & Root was awarded a no-bid contract by the Defense Department to organize oil well fire fighting and rehabilitation efforts in Iraq. It is the same job the company performed after the 1991 Gulf War. Cost of the contract was not disclosed.
 Political contributions (1999-2002): $709,320 (95% Republican, 5% Democrat)

[BDA116]

Look, arguing about this is as stupid as the rest, but there are reports all over the web showing how the bid process goes. Start with the Defense Department's page.
The fact that the company has ties to the Republican party means what? Nothing? Do you want to research the companies with Democrat ties that are milking the taxpayers right now? There are many of them, where is the news on it?
The FACT is, if there were any major impropriety, Hallibuton's major competitors would be complaining. The other FACT is that there are no other companies that can do the jobs Halliburton does as well as they do them. They won their contracts legally, they do their jobs. Of course there is the occasional bilking of money, there always is regardless of the company or their political affiliation.
Dick Cheney has NOTHING to do with the company any longer, why is that so hard for the haters to grasp?
What about the Microsoft contract with the government? The other various defense contract companies? Why no whining about their contracts with the government?
Why? Because they gained their contracts just as legally and do their jobs just as well. The only difference? One company USED to be headed by a now high ranking Republican.
If people are really so convinced it is a problem and needs to be addressed, find or create a viable alternative business that does everything Halliburton does as well or better, and enter the bid process.
This is very much like the Microsoft haters. Is Microsoft the best company in the world? Absolutely not, but currently they are the best at what they do and therefore gain contracts all over the world.
Halliburton, while not a perfect, pure and clean company is currently the best at what they do, and therefore gain contracts all over the world - even in the U.S. government, where they have had contracts for more than a decade.
Nothing changed when Bush/Cheney took over. The contracts are the same, the work they do is the same, the level of competition is the same.
Where was all the hullaballoo when klinton/gore were in power and Halliburton were doing the very same thing?
It is a non-issue that the I Hate Bush crowd has been trying to make an issue for four years, but can't make stick because there's no grounds.

I'm sure nothing will change your viewpoint, but some fact-finding on your part is needed if you want the truth.

[SuperDave]

You wanted to me get "facts first".

Fact #1 - You were wrong, this contract WAS awarded, no bid competition.
Fact #2 - Halliburton Political contributions are large and 95% Republican
Fact #3 - Cheney's previous involvement with Halliburton

Yes, people start scratching their heads when non-competing billion dollar contracts are merely "given" to a company, especially if the company's ex-CEO is the current Vice President. It's called conflict of interest, even at the lowest levels of government.

If you'll excuse me now, I'm going to celebrate my small victory here.

[BDA116]

Victory over what? Just because I didn't post a link to the contract bidding process?
They DID go through the process - in fact they did it again recently because of the hoopla.
Again, the money Halliburton donates is meaningless as their level of work for the government is no larger now than it was then. This means nothing.
The fact that Cheney USED to be involved means nothing. He completely separated himself from them before the election. Again, this means nothing.
Would you like me to talk about the multitude of democrat supporting companies currently milking taxpayer monies?
Should we talk specifically about the "Big Dig" in Boston, and how kerry and kennedy use their influence to shove even more money into the already disgutingly wasteful project? Should we go into detail of the other companies kerry has direct connections to that are currently government contractors? How about his brother's development company that is sitting on land in Vietnam that kerry is doing everything he can to send money his way?
The list is long and distinguished, and you have NO victory at all.

[TAZ]

Originally Posted by SuperDave

No, what's BullShit is when young yuppys or polititians question or poke fun of the validity of some veteran's purple hearts. The same yuppies who today probably would never have the balls to volunteer himself for combat where they may actually get riddled with bullets and left for dead in some foreign country, for their country. I'll respect the fact he volunteered for his country, I couldn't care less about the specifics of his purple hearts. Not cops judging cops. I wouldn't call any Vietnam vet a pussy or a liar or question what they did. If his own men do, then so be it. They have that right.

You can have my Fahitas.

Well...
I'm a "yuppy". And I don't know that I'd volunteer to go fight a war such as the "War on Terror" at this point in my life (in my 30's, husband, father, business owner, solid job). I don't know whether I'd like to have gone to Vietnam, either. If I were young and single, and the war of the moment was something I believed in, then I might volunteer. But admittedly, I'd rather keep my comfy life and my nice cars and my broadband internet access and my HD TV than go to some desert or swamp country to fight a war that was questionable in my own mind, and the minds of most of my countrymen.

However, I heard (yesterday) that John Kerry attempted to get a deferment before he "volunteered" for duty in Vietnam. Kinda like voting for it before voting against it. (Or the other way around.) If it's true, this had better not get out into the mainstream media, or he's going to look even more ridiculous. Of course, the "mainstream media" is almost entirely liberal anyway, so it's not very likely that it'll get very widespread coverage whether true or not - and it's not as if the media glosses over the multitude of Kerry flip-flops. They have an agenda, too.

I'm not inclined to spend a lot of time questioning Kerry's military service. I probably wouldn't have volunteered either. I don't know that the Swift Vets should be questioning his service...except Kerry wants us to judge him on that (short) time he spent in Vietname - yet he doesn't want anyone to question anything about that service. If he wants to make Vietnam the issue, then let it be investigated and talked about. Why won't he release his military records? (or his complete Senate record, for that matter?)

My personal opinion is that Kerry may have been a good soldier, and yes, even a war hero - I'm impressed. But I'm equally - or more - put off by Kerry's actions AFTER the war. His anti-war actions and words didn't help a thing, caused POW's unspeakable torture and pain, and made him a hero to the North Vietnamese. I hear there's a photo of Kerry in a war museum in Ho Chi Minh City - they consider him as someone who helped defeat the US in the Vietnam War! The validity of his Purple Hearts have been questioned, and although I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, apparently one of the wounds may have been self-inflicted! He apparently has never spent any time in a hospital, and doesn't have any scars or disabilities. How the heck did he earn those Purple Hearts, anyway? Paper cuts? Speculation is that he used the "get three Purple Hearts and get to go home" rule to his advantage.

Adding to his war hero and anti-war hero status is Kerry's record in the Senate, and the fact that he has consistently voted to raise taxes and reduce intelligence spending.

Kerry wants us to judge him on the four months he spent in Vietnam. I'm more inclined to judge him on his actions, non-actions, lies, flip-flopping, and generally spineless, ultra-left-wing behavior in the thirty-plus years that have gone by AFTER that four month stint in Vietnam. Forget it. If Skerry gets elected, it's going to be a nasty four years...

[deez]

Originally Posted by SuperDave

You wanted to me get "facts first".

Fact #1 - You were wrong, this contract WAS awarded, no bid competition.
Fact #2 - Halliburton Political contributions are large and 95% Republican
Fact #3 - Cheney's previous involvement with Halliburton

Yes, people start scratching their heads when non-competing billion dollar contracts are merely "given" to a company, especially if the company's ex-CEO is the current Vice President. It's called conflict of interest, even at the lowest levels of government.

If you'll excuse me now, I'm going to celebrate my small victory here.

BDA I seem to remember you telling me to provide a link or **** off. Take that how you will

[BDA116]

Originally Posted by booth23

BDA I seem to remember you telling me to provide a link or **** off. Take that how you will

Here's just ONE for you: http://www.halliburton.com/news/arch...nws_011604.jsp
I guess I changed my mind since then. I think one should do their own homework on these types of issues.
If reading it directly from Halliburton can't be believed, the same info can be had from the DoD or many media outlets.

Oh, one other clarification - when a contract is "awarded", that means there was some sort of competition for it. When a contract is a no-bid, it is given.
During the klintonista regime, Halliburton was given multiple contracts, no bid necessary.
I guess klinton and gore had cronies there.

[oldfogey]

Originally Posted by BDA116

I guess klinton and gore had cronies there.

My : ALL politicians have cronies. How do they get the money for their election campaigns? Kerry's campaign is being financed almost entirely by the trial lawyers who also provided his vice presidential candidate. Bush has lots of corporate America and particularly big oil. These financiers of politicians expect favours and generally get them.

At least with democracy you can get rid of the guy or gal if they're too awful. The alternatives are less appealing. Just don't expect the politicians to be there for the good of the people.

[ER]

Originally Posted by oldfogey

My : ALL politicians have cronies. How do they get the money for their election campaigns? Kerry's campaign is being financed almost entirely by the trial lawyers who also provided his vice presidential candidate. Bush has lots of corporate America and particularly big oil. These financiers of politicians expect favours and generally get them.

At least with democracy you can get rid of the guy or gal if they're too awful. The alternatives are less appealing. Just don't expect the politicians to be there for the good of the people.

This is a great post and it points out how powerful political lobbies have become. They do indeed expect favors.

In the media you'll hear Bush get hammered for being in with "big corporations". But you rarely hear Kerry's name being tied to the NEA or the trial lawyers, as you pointed out. These are two of the most powerful lobbies in America. How are we going to change our education or litigation systems with them in place? Since the Left panders to them, change will have to come from a more moderate or conservative politician. But who's going to have the guts to go toe-to-toe with groups that powerful - with the money and influence to ruin someone's career?

You know, I read an interesting quote in a spammail I got a month ago. In essence, it said that "a free democracy (we're a republic, but still) will last only as long as it takes for the majority of the population to realize that they can vote themselves favors from the national treasury." Once that happens, they're always going to vote for the politician that promises them the most. Since the Government must first seize before it can give, free rights are gradually submitted until the Government is so big and bloated that what once was a free society becomes a tyranny. If you read history, this has often been the case when a nation's Government has collapsed (for reasons other than invasion, war, etc). We're following the same pattern, of course.

[Baketech]

Concerning Kerry's 10 Year plan for energy independence...

Can someone point me to a link that shows Kerry's Senate record with respect to energy. I know that he proposed to raise the gasoline tax as a method to reduce consumption, but has he actually had any success concerning energy policy....

[bwhip]

Originally Posted by Baketech

Concerning Kerry's 10 Year plan for energy independence...

Can someone point me to a link that shows Kerry's Senate record with respect to energy. I know that he proposed to raise the gasoline tax as a method to reduce consumption, but has he actually had any success concerning energy policy....

That's beside the point. Don't you know that he's got THREE PURPLE HEARTS???!!

[oldfogey]

As I look out of my office window, I see: a hydrogen-powered bus, a small Ford (Norwegian built) electric car, two Toyota Prius Hybrids and probably a third the cars are turbo-diesels. Interesting how real people respond to political signals in a free(ish) market.

Oh, in case of doubt, it's August in London and it's RAINING, particularly because we have a long weekend (so no posting from me for three days, sighs of relief all round).