I fail to see how if Haliburton gave contributions to both parties, that it's "deceitful" to say that Haliburton gave money to the Democrats as well. It's a pure and simple fact that they gave money to both parties.

And even 5% (assuming that ratio you disclose is correct, I've seen no such breakdown disclosed) is no doubt a sum in the thousands. And not a sum so small that it couldn't also influence contracts.

And also, it's wrong to assume corruption, while ignoring that there are SEVERAL independent auditors monitoring the contracts.
It's a bit slanderous to assume corruption, just because Bush and Cheney have friends and former ties to the contractors, without evidence to back it up.
It's valid to investigate, but Democrats constantly describe corruption in awarding contracts, without evidence that this has actually occurred. Which is slanderous.

Finally, Lewis (as I quoted in my above previous post) describes that the Defense department is slow in disclosing documentation of contractor expenditures.
But I find this overstated, since we've only been in Iraq for 6 months. It takes a year or more just to build a family home in the U.S., I can only imagine the scale of reconstruction in Iraq, and on a reconstruction project this massive, I can easily see that taking awhile just to estimate and begin.
I wonder what a reasonable timeframe is to disclose documentation of estimates for Iraq reconstruction, or for the actual work when completed, which is quite obviously just beginning.