partisanship is showing.
The argument as regards Halliburton and others has been made, when required, many times but that doesn't make it anything other than repetitive special pleading. If looked at critically it amounts to saying the following:
The American taxpayer having already born the cost of the most expensive military in the world (and in history) also must pay the tab to a for-profit monopoly to provide vital support to that very military when it goes to 'war'. Now, there are a couple of pertinent and obvious questions here; why can't the military provide that support itself? If it is deemed more cost effective to have the private sector provide it, on what basis, in the absence of material competition, can there be any possible way of knowing that?
The fact that only one contractor is competent to provide these services says that something is fundamentally wrong with the idea in the first place. Saying that Halliburton has been at a long time is simply saying that Willie Sutton robbed more than one bank. No bid, monopoly procurement stinks and can't pass any smell test at all, the GOP nosegay notwithstanding.
