Iraq Contracts. My response: So what? If you truely think about everything that is said in this article and look at some facts and then ask some questions which of course should make things clearer. First fact being that if you abuse people most likely they won't be your friends, i.e. the democrat policy of taxing the hell out of companies doesn't make many friends, thus most large companies are republican leaning to say the least. This is also true of the military, since democrats also have a nice habit of abusing the military by cutting funding to, you guessed it, the personel and their families so the money could be given to the unwilling to work as welfare. Now think about companies that would be willing to risk an investment in an unstable country. Think about companies that work defense contracts. These companies first have to be very large, and naturally have to former military personel on staff to have the know how. Next since everybody knows that its personal links that really rule the world, and much more rides on how somebody represents something than any of the atributes of said thing; it truely is a small world. Thus is it really surprising that those companies that get the contracts in iraq typically are republican leaning? I say not, in fact I would go far as to say the whole study itself is extremely biased because it doesn't list how many viable companies exist that are NOT republican leaning. There probably aren't many at all, so yes you can say that it may "seem" preferential, but a large portion of the facts just got left out. Name a logical fallacy and it probably was commited in that article. Actually I can't name any news article I've read lately that didn't violate at least one fallacy. Since it seems far too little people in this world have ever been exposed to the concept of fallacies I post the following links: The Nizkor Project, Stephen's Guide to Logical Fallacies.