The rest of the story on Cheney and Halliburton

Published on October 7, 2004 By drmiler In Politics

I'm not going to post the whole article, it's to long. I will however link it. This is from the "Wall Street Journal" which as we all know is *very* much to the Democrats side.
Link

Comments

Dr Guy

on Oct 07, 2004

DR,

You forgot. Dont confuse the ignorant with facts! that just makes them madder! Watch the acid spewing coming from this one!

But thanks for the link. of course it is all a set up by a willing media to portray graft of the administration in an admiring light.

of course.

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."

COL Gene

on Oct 07, 2004

The real issue for the American Taxpayer is not Dick Cheney's deferred comp or the % of profit to Halliburton but the fact that the actual cost of the services compared with providing that service with military personnel is the issue. Some of the services Halliburton provides are things like laundry, food preperation, supply and transport. When I served in the Army the military provided thoes services as either combat support or combat service support. They were the cooks, QM, transportation, Supply. The Bush brain trust decided to outsourse many of these services so more of the people in the military would be in the combat branches.

Two big problems with that concept. First, the salaries that Halliburton must pay for people to perform those functions in a combat zone are several times more than Uncle Sam pays the military members. Halliburton was paying about $80,000 salary plus benefits for a person to drive a oil tanker. That function was normally done by a PFC SP4 for about 1/3 of the salary. The second problem is that when one of these support functions become involved in combat operations they are not able to protect themselves and we divert our combat military personnel to help protect them. Under the old system, drivers, clerks etc were soldiers first and were able to defent themselves and were not be a drain on the combat forces.

This idea is an example of how Bush and Cheney have screwed up the military and added to the tax bureden at the same time.

drmiler

on Oct 07, 2004

Reply #2 By: COL Gene - 10/7/2004 6:37:06 PM
The real issue for the American Taxpayer is not Dick Cheney's deferred comp or the % of profit to Halliburton but the fact that the actual cost of the services compared with providing that service with military personnel is the issue. Some of the services Halliburton provides are things like laundry, food preperation, supply and transport. When I served in the Army the military provided thoes services as either combat support or combat service support. They were the cooks, QM, transportation, Supply. The Bush brain trust decided to outsourse many of these services so more of the people in the military would be in the combat branches.

Two big problems with that concept. First, the salaries that Halliburton must pay for people to perform those functions in a combat zone are several times more than Uncle Sam pays the military members. Halliburton was paying about $80,000 salary plus benefits for a person to drive a oil tanker. That function was normally done by a PFC SP4 for about 1/3 of the salary. The second problem is that when one of these support functions become involved in combat operations they are not able to protect themselves and we divert our combat military personnel to help protect them. Under the old system, drivers, clerks etc were soldiers first and were able to defent themselves and were not be a drain on the combat forces.

This idea is an example of how Bush and Cheney have screwed up the military and added to the tax bureden at the same time.

Just maybe you better go read the article "Col", before you start running your trap. Ever hear of LogCapIII? This was congresses idea NOT Bush's or Cheney's! And just an FYI whatever Halliburton pays *their* employees is NONE of OUR business. The US contracted with Halliburton NOT their employees. So therefore Halliburton is our employee. Only what we pay them should have ANY bearing on *anything*!

Myrrander

on Oct 07, 2004

This is from the "Wall Street Journal" which as we all know is *very* much to the Democrats side.

I really hope this was a joke. WSJ is quite conservative in its views, kind of the counterbalance paper to the NY Times.

drmiler

on Oct 07, 2004

Reply #4 By: Myrrander - 10/7/2004 7:56:40 PM
This is from the "Wall Street Journal" which as we all know is *very* much to the Democrats side.

I really hope this was a joke. WSJ is quite conservative in its views, kind of the counterbalance paper to the NY Times.

Hey Myrrander when was the last time you *read* the WSJ? They will just as quick shoot Bush sown as Kerry! (I read them everyday so I nknow just a little about their reporting style). You want conserveative try reading NewsMax!

Daiwa

on Oct 07, 2004

WSJ tends to be conservative in its views, given it is a "business" journal, but in part because it is a business journal it tends to be relatively evenhanded politically, favoring those who are or would be good for the general business climate, whether Democrat or Republican. Republicans in general being historically more "business-friendly," WSJ has understandably tended to be more Republican in view than not. That does not undermine their political objectivity, in my view, however.

This is an excellent article, with information that the press should have reported as a counter to the Kerry camp's baseless accusations long ago.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!