More nonsense from the left. I read the article, and like I suspected, it is devoid of import data and it is based on "interviews of people"? Where are the facts? All I saw was opinion with important facts left out, our spun to mislead people. Who cares if they received large contracts? What does that have to do with profits and profiteering?
First, Chaney sold all his interest (stock holdings) in Halliburton and resigned as CEO when he ran with Bush. Thus, he broke all ties. This was only done for the purpose preventing any one of legitimately accusing him of conflict of interest. The article said he still gets his pension payments for his previous service, (as he should, by contract.) Does getting a pension/severance package mean he is connected to Halliburton's operations? Nope. He would be getting that pension regardless of what Halliburton is doing currently.
Do you think everyone who has ever worked in the private sector must refuse their pension(s) once they become a government worker? I don't. Pensions are awarded for previous work that has already been done. Once that work has been done, the pensions shouldn't be revoked for any reason.
I think any reasonable person could see this argument (he gets a pension, so he is linked to them) it total garbage. Guess what? I used to work for AT&T. They gave me a severance package. I was in no way affiliated with them once I left the company, even though I was still getting some benefits!
As for profiteering, do you know what that word means? It doesn't mean making any profit! All businesses and corporations are in the business of providing goods or services for the purpose of making a profit! this may be shocking to you, if you are a communist!
The definition of profiteering is what is considered an unreasonable profit especially on the sale of essential goods during times of emergency
Do you know what courts consider reasonable profit? It is usually defined around 10%--depending on the business/risk/etc.
So, let's see. Halliburton is limited to a maximum profit of 7% (as legislated by congress--that is why so many of their contracts are awarded on a non-bid basis. The other reason is that there are only one or two companies in the world large enough to accomplish such large jobs.)
So please explain to me how a maximum of 7% is considered profiteering, when this is significantly less than what is considered a fair and reasonable profit? And how this lesser amount is considered an unreasonable profit?
Do you consider it unreasonable because the profit margin is so very low? 
I think the definition means "unreasonably large profits", not "unreasonably low profits"!
Under the field support contract, Halliburton can earn 1 percent to 3 percent of contract costs
Wow, one to three percent! They are making a killing! 
My bank account pays almost that much interest, and I don't even have to risk anything!
I do understand that they may be getting the full 7% profit, as a bonus for meeting the contracts objectives ahead of time, but this is still far, far less than what is considered fair, much less considered profiteering.
www.forbes.com/markets/commodities/newswire/2003/09/12/rtr1080160.html
So, last year, (2003) Halliburton had 16 billion in total sales and they had a net operating loss of 820 million dollars. Doesn't look like profiteering to me! And no, I wouldn't be interested in owning stock in this "profiteering" company! 
http://cbs.marketwatch.com/tools/quotes/financials.asp?symb=HAL&sid=2303&siteid=mktw
Rodney
