Cheney wasn't tied to Halliburton. He was the CEO of the damned thing. It's like saying 'Bill Gates has a stake in Microsoft'. While correct, it is an understatement of what he actually did and was within the company. If you're going to rant about 'intellectual dishonesty' try avoiding it yourself.
Yes, he WAS the CEO of the thing. He wasn't any longer. That doesn't in any way somehow make my statement that he was previously tied to the company any less false? He was previously tied to the company, by being their CEO. Tied is the correct word, because while he WAS CEO he was no longer directly involved with the company so it was simply his past ties. My point still stands, exactly as I said it. Cheney being tied to the company in the past, having been its CEO, does not in any way "prove" that cronyism was THE reason they recieved the contract.
This lie that any other company other that Halliburton couldn't have gotten the job is quite simply a lie which has been proven over and over again.
Actually, it is a matter that has been routinely disputed and debated since the time with experts weighing in on both sides. Stop proclaiming opinion or arguments as if they're facts. A legitimate argument could be made that Halliburton fit the requirements that are in place to recieve a no-bid contract and the best and only bet in regards to scope, experience, and necessary time to do it. While an argument can be made against that, especially in hindsight, it is not an absolutely absurd notion. Regardless, even if they were not the only company that could've appleid to the situation, that still does not "prove" cronyism as they have prior to it and since gotten No-Bid contracts where an equally strong argument agains them being the "only" company able to do it can be made.
If anything this simply reaffirms the claim.
Um, no it doesn't. Your claim:
If I remember correctly, the objections against Haliburton were not because it got a no-bid contract. It was because of the obvious cronyism involved in the fact that it got the contract.
It doens't reaffirm your claim, it shows your memory that led to your claim to be faulty. Yes, Cronyism was definitely a complaint people had. However, so was the fact it was a no-bid contract. If you'll actually notice, its this claim...made by you....that led to my initial comment. It was not a comment stating that cronyism played no part, but one countering your point that it was in no way No-Bid contracts, but Cronyism, that caused the outcry of the left against the matter.
Anybody who claims cronyism did not play a part in this is simply refusing to see the truth.
Well, glad we can agree Hautey.
Did Cronyism play into it? Quite possibly
Is it likely that cronyism played into it? Quite possibly.
As such, yeah...I'm never going to sit here and say "Without a doubt, without question, cronyism had NOTHING to do with it".
Liberals who take the possability that cronyism may or may not have had some role in it and expand that crack to grand canyon sized proportions of absolute fact and singularity are no more correct than those on the right that act as if its one long piece of solid ground. The finger pointing, on both sides, based on assumptions presented as facts is foolishness.
Its foolish to think that Cronyism absolutely had no chance of being a part of the choice.
However its also absolutely foolish to act like your assumptions are absolute indisputable facts when they're not, they're your opinion based on a few loose facts that you then meld into your opinion and shift to your world view in hopes of presenting your reality as if its absolute gospel truth.
Yet here, 2 years after Bush is gone...Cheney is gone....Obama is here, we see a no-bid contract given to KBR.
I guess that must "prove" Obama has some KBR crony's too, how else could they possibly have recieved a no-bid contract.