On 7 Oct 2004 13:36:06 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 16:47:52 GMT, felton said:

No, let's dispel Dave's changing of the subject. We are talking about
the debate

Yes. And the specific subject was Kerry's vote to deny $87 billion to supply
the troops. Here we have another example of slight-of-hand. Edwards claimed
that one of the reasons Kerry voted against the money is that $20 billion
would go to Halliburton on a no-bid contract, and implied that there was
something wrong with that because usual procedures would call for bidding.
While it's literally true that most government contracts are awarded by
competitive bidding, that's not the case where only one supplier has the
capability required to do the job in the required time. That was the case
with the Halliburton contract. Kerry knew it. Edwards knew it. He simply
chose to again mislead his audience so he could chant the magic mantra
Halliburton.

If I am recalling the debate, I believe Edwards voiced a number of
concerns over the "no bid" Halliburton contracts. Halliburton has a
history of overcharging the Federal government and receiving
preferential treatment when it comes to recouping those overcharges.
Further, they have been fined for financial reporting improprieties
which did occur when Cheney was CEO and they do have a rather spotty
record when it comes to doing business with Iran and Lybia through
shell offshore subsidiaries. Those reasons and the obvious connections
with Cheney would raise questions in any thinking person's mind about
the highly unusual "no bid" contracts.

Edwards wasn't misleading anyone, as Factcheck.org confirmed.