George Washington vs. Halliburton

Remove all ads!

Sorry to resurrect an older thread, but it is somewhat related. I'm curious as to why there is such hatred of Halliburton. Is it a personal thing or what they do? For instance, if the government fired Halliburton and hired somebody else to do what they do would that be O.K.? I can't help but think that a majority of the disgust is related to Dick Cheney being involved in the company and the fear that somehow he is personally benefiting.

I don't pretend to know everything about what they do, but from what I have heard they seem to be the major outsource supply for our military and a major contractor in the rebuilding of Iraq and Afghanistan. The way I look at it, we need somebody to do these things as they aren't going to happen by themselves and Halliburton has the job. Is there another company that could do it and make people happy?

Or is the hatred of Halliburton related to hatred of the war itself and the thought that if we weren't in this "war" we wouldn't have to deal with these issues.

 

The problem is that they're both incompetent and corrupt.

Or, rather, they're very good at getting money from the government, but they're not so good at actually doing the job they've been contracted to do. The amount of money that's been 'lost' due to corruption post-invasion dwarfs the amount that was 'lost' due to the oil/food scandal (the latter involved $1.8 billion. The former...well, we managed to lose roughly $9 billion). You've expressed concern about corruption at the UN. Surely this is also worthy of your concern.

 

I'm wondering when the military started contracting out so much in the first place. They used to do this stuff on their own, didn't they? It certainly seems now that it would be vastly cheaper and probably more effective to expand the army so that it had the personnel to do this stuff right.

 

Didn't you ever read "Starship Troopers"? A modern military wants to train its soldiers how to fight, not to cook and type.

 

No, but I've listened to the song by Yes.

It's strange to hear about fiscal "conservatives" willing to accept government waste and corruption this blatant and on this kind of scale. They are the first to complain about taxes, but the last to question how they are spent (unless it's the Democrats doing the spending).

We now know, from the experience of the last 7 years, that there really were no fiscal conservatives pushing for less government waste or increased government accountablility. When, as a people, we were extending a helping hand to the poor folk, it was a different matter for the Pretenders of the "less government" cadre. They tried to convnce us of how smaller government was much better. And how it could learn from the competence and "efficiency" of Corporate America. So they elected a President who would sell-off the public interests of those on Main Street to those on Wall Street and the results speak for themselves. They are what they are.

 

It isn't strange at all. You just don't understand it. Fiscal conservatives (like myself) are disgusted by government waste. We also are not very crazy about corruption either. You are correct that we are the first to complain about taxes, but that is because we understand that taxes are the lifeblood of government and therefore government waste and corruption. If you cut off the supply, the waste and corruption should diminish and in a eutopia it would disappear completely (I'm not that naive). Before you villify conservatives for not caring about spending you should actually do some research or ask some conservatives. Most conservatives are not happy with what Bush has done over the past eight years. Now it is true that we put him in office, but that has more to do with being convinced that "stupid" is better than "wrong". We are in the same situation with McCain in 2008.

I'm sorry, but I'm still not convinced that the hatred directed at Halliburton has anything to do with government waste and corruption. It is just another outlet to express outrage at Bush and Cheney. I'm not saying that Halliburton has done a great job, but are you convinced that somebody else could have done a better one?

As to helping the poor. You are 100% correct. I have no interest in having my government and my money (A thing that politicians tend to forget very easily) raise people from the cradle to the grave. Temporary assistance is one thing, permanent is another. Mel Brooks said it best in History of th World Part 1

 

That ain't gonna fly. You don't get to blame Bush for the last eight years. You have to blame the Republican Party, which had control of Congress, not merely the White House.

You may be correct in that the hatred directed at Halliburton is largely a reflection of outrage at Bush/Cheney.

However. In the first place, the rampant corruption and waste seen in Iraq can be laid squarely at the feet of the Bush administration, which, y'know, has adamantly refused to actually oversee and enforce the contracts it's awarded. Which means that, in fact, anger at Bush/Cheney should translate into anger at Hallie & pals. The latter are the crooks, the former are their enablers. Both deserve our scorn.

In the second place, even if you're correct--even if much of the popular hatred of Hallie & pals has everything to do with guilt by association--so what? That's not a defense of Hallie, it's an attack on (some of) Hallie's detractors. Discrediting the latter does nothing to support the former. In the same way that 'Ward Churchill is a nutjob' does not mean that 'Bush really hasn't done anything worthy of contempt'.

Yes, it could have been done better. In point of fact, it can be done better. This will require more--gasp--government oversight, however.