Of course - and only an Oil Well Service Company could be considered to contract to feed the troops, right?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 1:05 PM Subject: RE: From the Washington Post: Halliburton's Deals Greater Than Th ought | A public bidding process for "rebuilding Iraq" would have been | suspicious, yes. But the service at hand is "feeding our troops" - I'm | pretty sure that our troops need to be fed regardless of active combat | status. ;^) | | My complaint was with the example service given, not the reasoning | behind the choice of contractor. | | If it is actually true that these fundamental services required | "emergency decisions" then it seems quite clear to me that we were | simply not ready to go to war. | | Jim Davis | | > -----Original Message----- | > From: Haggerty, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | > Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 1:07 PM | > To: CF-Community | > Subject: RE: From the Washington Post: Halliburton's Deals Greater | Than Th | > ought | > | > Well Jim, a public bidding process would probably have been somewhat | > suspicious considering we were 'debating' whether or not to go to | war... | > | > M | > | > > -----Original Message----- | > > From: Jim Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | > > Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 12:52 PM | > > To: CF-Community | > > Subject: RE: From the Washington Post: Halliburton's Deals | > > Greater Than Th ought | > > | > > | > > I understand your point, but chafe at the example. | > > | > > "Have the troops starve"? Are you seriously suggesting that | > > we entered Iraq with no plan to feed our troops? That the | > > only way to feed them was to forfeit legitimate processes for | > > "last minute emergency decisions" involving politically | > > valuable, no bid contracts? | > > | > > I'm sorry, but I always suspect unwarrantedly extreme | > > arguments. They tend to mask illicit behavior. | > > | > > Jim Davis | > > | > > > -----Original Message----- | > > > From: Heald, Tim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | > > > Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 11:13 AM | > > > To: CF-Community | > > > Subject: RE: From the Washington Post: Halliburton's Deals Greater | > > Than Th | > > > ought | > > > | > > > By having proved yourself on multiple deployments. | > > > | > > > These were last minute emergency decisions. Would you rather have | > > seen | > > > the | > > > troops starve from not have the proper logistics in place? | > > > | > > > Tim | > > > | > > > | > > > -----Original Message----- | > > > From: Jochem van Dieten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | > > > Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 10:53 AM | > > > To: CF-Community | > > > Subject: From the Washington Post: Halliburton's Deals Greater | Than | > > > Thought | > > > | > > > | > > > Kevin Schmidt wrote: | > > > > | > > > >Haliburton is the best at what it does, period, that's they win | > > > >contracts. | > > > | > > > How do you win a "no bid" contract? | > > > | > > > Jochem | > > > | > > > | > > | > | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
