<Do you know of any other company that does what Halliburton does?> That was not the point.
<The liberals can't get this through their thick skulls.> In lifestyle, voting, religion, etc. there is probably no more truly conservative person on this board. There is a lot I can't get through my thick skull. If this was a simple problem, it would have a simple answer.
'No outrage at Halliburton getting a not bid contract in Bosnia?' Outrage presupposes a moral outrage here. I am against genocide, and therefore not outraged. Its the apparent conflict of interest in Cheney running Halliburton that should be taken care of by a simple bid with Bechtel. Transparent. Clear. Clean. Morally the right step. Maybe no other company can do it. Don't blame 'us' liberals for every problem, when in fact I am Barry Goldwater conservative. We got into this mess on moral grounds, now we have to take care of it as best we can.
Do you know of any other company that does what Halliburton does? Who else goes into war zones to supply troops and put out oil well fires? The only other company I know of is Bechtel. The liberals can't get this through their thick skulls. Halliburton was given a no-bid contract to supply the US forces in Bosnia too. No outrage there
We would have never lost WWII no matter what. Do you really think the Japanese could have sent an army to North America and occupy this country?
FDR would be considered a moderate today, not liberal. He practically pushed America into the war with Germany. He didn't seem to concered about political correctness either when fighting the war
FDR was the president who flipflopped on that issue in the 30's and 40's.
If he had not started building the infrastructure--like the hydroelectric dams--we would have lost WWII. The electicity created in Nevada and Washington produced planes and ships we would not have been able to.
FDR was a liberal. IMHO both liberal and conservatives understand it. Wether either wishes to go ahead with that information is another question.
The $500 toilet seats are the result of the poor bidding system that the government uses to buy things. Open bidding on all purchases. If no one wants to fill out 5 copies and make a bid on one toilet seat, the company would put in a rediculous price and if they were the only bid, they got it. The 9/11 commission pointed this out. The current administration has sidestepped the bidding process and gives the business directly to Halliburton for example. This was to insure effeciency and keep costs down. hmmmmm The troops needed the food ect. hmmmm Tougher issue to justify with political ties to Halliburton. It does seem to be less than desirable right now.
Excellent research and this shows the way things happen in Washington. I am impressed with how quickly you came up with this set of stats.
I would like to know what Cheney thinks of his list now, and what he thinks we need. He seemed to have overcut back then, but times change and needs for a different military have evolved.
The 9/11 Commission seems to have pointed out organizational needs and homeland defense needs that are not being handled as quickly as we want or need.
Take care and stay out of trouble.
There were basically no real threats to America in the early 1990's. The USSR had collapsed and there wasn't really an Islamic threat to America yet. Cheney was right to cut defense in the early 1990's.
In the 1920's and 1930's defense was cut because there was no war. In the 1940's defense spending increased because there was a war. It's pretty simple but the liberals still don't understand it, just like they didn't understand how to use a ballot.
as i recall, there were a couple of real tall buildings still standing in downtown New York city when all those defense cuts were being made. the cold war was declared over, and we were a 'kindler, gentler nation' back then. its a new world now.