OT: 87 Billion and No Accountability

[Chuck Moore]

I don't know if the issue of who was getting military contracts and how the bidding was handled in FDRs case was ever raised, and it likely wouldn't have mattered anyway, juat as it makes little difference now. And we did in fact issue the "Germany first" policy which sent vastly more resources to Europe than the Pacific. Even though it was the Japaneese that attacked us, the Germans were correctly viewed as the greater threat. The main difference ,as I see it anyway, is that the political oposition in that day didn't go around flinging wild accusations and constantly criticizing the President when lives were at stake. Todays left shows no such consideration. In years after the war, learned people have debated weather FDR should have known about Pearl Harbor, wheather the cost at Normandy was too high and could have been acomplished beter, wheather we should or shouldn't have used the A-bomb and many other debates. There are legitimate lessons to be learned from the things we did right and the things we did wrong, both then and now. But then we stood behind the war effort and the commander in cheif while we were at war even if you were in the oposition. once again we see no such consideration today.

[Peake]

So it's not a conflict of interest to appease campaign contributors prior to actually doing something about the instigator of the actual attack? How do the loved ones of the Tower victims feel about that? Bin Laden shows up somewhere in the "Invade Iraq" equation, right? How odd that Bush signed a national emergency regarding Iraqi oil. Priorities count. Executive Order 13303, May 28, 2003. "This situation constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat. I hereby order: Section 1. Unless licensed or otherwise authorized pursuant to this order, any attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other judicial process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and void, with respect to the following: (a) the Development Fund for Iraq, and (b) all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein, and proceeds, obligations, or any financial instruments of any nature whatsoever arising from or related to the sale or marketing thereof, and interests therein, in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons." Why did no one ever mention this "national emergency" in the media? What was the threat exactly, to the US people? It was obviously more important than WMD, even though we never heard about it. Link: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/ executive_orders/2003.html

[Saint Johnny B]

Chuck This not comparable to WWII, far from it. IRAQ's military could barely put up even a token defense to the Bush and Cheney Invasion Force. Anyway, the question here has to do with Bush and Cheney going on a wild spending spree and not providing an adequate accounting of where the money will go. Much of it will be wasted and fraudulently diverted into secret off-shore bank accounts. Some will find its way into the pockets of local criminals, but most will end up in the Bush Crime Family's coffers. ---------------- Save the World Save America Jail Bush Now! You'll be glad you did

[GZsound]

[b]Originally posted by peake@pacificnet.net: Didn't more people die in the Towers than in the initial attack on Pearl Harbor? And how would people have felt then, if the president [url=http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=716&e=14&u=/nm/20031030/ts_nm/iraq_contracts_dc]appeased campaign contributors[/url] with no-bid contracts before addressing the issue of the Japanese attack? Or if he'd ignored the Japanese and attacked another nation which might have dangerous weapons that they might use someday?[/b] I think you need to go back and re-read your history. At Pearl Harbor we were attacked by another nation. We did not immediately attack that nation in retaliation. We attacked many places where that enemy was in power, where that enemy was training forces and we only attacked the country itself as a last resort. Remember we went island hopping to places like Battan, Manila, Saipan, the Marianas, Guam, and many other places before we actually attacked mainland Japan. The rebuilding of Pearl Harbor was done by no bid contracts. Remember Hawaii was not a state at the time. The government hired companies with the best expertise and the best ability to fix the problem the quickest. Companies that were friends with the administration got more jobs. It was a time of war and most Americans supported doing whatever it took to win. Your other obvious confusion is in trying to compare a campaign against terrorists with a war against another nation. We can only hunt down the enemy where we can find them. We can only attack the countries that support and provide training facilities for terrorists. The terrorists are not a country but a disease that must be treated like the plague they are. Sorry you don't see the difference. I often wonder how folks like you were treated during WWII. Maybe they existed but just didn't have the easy access to the internet and other liberal media. I don't know..seems like the hate and anti American vitriol started during the Vietnam war and never really went away, except for eight years during the nineties when none of you said a thing about unilateral attacks on other countries... funny thing..

[Chuck Moore]

and you've seen these coffers have you? offshore bank accounts?? riiiiight OK Sadamm was A-OK and shoulda been left alone and Bush needs to be in jail. keep up that line dude.... and try and get allllll the dems candidates to take that position too..... I'm sure it will help them next Nov.

[Peake]

[quote]Originally posted by GZsound: [b][b]Originally posted by peake@pacificnet.net: "Didn't more people die in the Towers than in the initial attack on Pearl Harbor? And how would people have felt then, if the president [url=http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=716&e=14&u=/nm/20031030/ts_nm/iraq_contracts_dc]appeased campaign contributors[/url] with no-bid contracts before addressing the issue of the Japanese attack? Or if he'd ignored the Japanese and attacked another nation which might have dangerous weapons that they might use someday?"[/b] I think you need to go back and re-read your history. At Pearl Harbor we were attacked by another nation. We did not immediately attack that nation in retaliation. We attacked many places where that enemy was in power, where that enemy was training forces and we only attacked the country itself as a last resort. Remember we went island hopping to places like Battan, Manila, Saipan, the Marianas, Guam, and many other places before we actually attacked mainland Japan. [/quote]Yes, but Bin Laden and his Al Queda were not in Iraq. Lots of people made lots of noise about the oddness of the plans to invade Iraq, when no proof of WMD or especially, Bin Laden ties, existed. People opposing this needless invasion were characterized as "being with the terrorists", yet in the end, seem to have had better intelligence regarding the situation in Iraq than the entire US government. Odd how they "messed up" the WMD and Al Queda are in Iraq line, but got the campaign contributors all of their rewards, and established plenty of privatization of Iraqi resources. How could they get the business end so right for so many but get the WMD and Bin Laden thing so very wrong? It seems that they're really good at business and terrible at other things. Strange. [quote] Now, Al Queda IS in Iraq, killing US troops. The rebuilding of Pearl Harbor was done by no bid contracts. Remember Hawaii was not a state at the time. The government hired companies with the best expertise and the best ability to fix the problem the quickest. Companies that were friends with the administration got more jobs. It was a time of war and most Americans supported doing whatever it took to win. [/quote]But we were not attacked by Iraq. We bombed them to the stone age, though, and have defeated their oil. The only true comparison to your example would be no-bid contracts to rebuild the Towers, things that were destroyed by the enemy. [quote]Your other obvious confusion is in trying to compare a campaign against terrorists with a war against another nation. [/quote]Odd, I don't seem to remember being at war with Iraq (invading, yes, but not having been attacked), or any Al Queda or Bin Laden ties with Iraq. [quote] We can only hunt down the enemy where we can find them. We can only attack the countries that support and provide training facilities for terrorists. The terrorists are not a country but a disease that must be treated like the plague they are. Sorry you don't see the difference. [/quote]If Iraq had been anything even remotely resembling a threat, I'd grant the first part of your statement. Why the national emergency regarding Iraqi oil??? [quote] I often wonder how folks like you were treated during WWII. Maybe they existed but just didn't have the easy access to the internet and other liberal media. I don't know..seems like the hate and anti American vitriol started during the Vietnam war and never really went away, except for eight years during the nineties when none of you said a thing about unilateral attacks on other countries... funny thing..[/b][/quote]Folks like me? Glad that you are able to know me as a multi-dimensional human being through the pinhole that is the internet, and the text I post upon it. Why the personal attack? Can't make an effective argument? I would have fought in WW2. I would have burned a draft card regarding Iraq. Iraq is a red herring, a fixation of the Bush family, a treasure-trove of resources (anyone remember that the Bush family does oil, and has stock options in Betchel, IIRC?) One guy and some friends who learned to fly jets did that much damage, and are still out there. How much wasted time and money is Iraq? Is another attack around the corner? Something needs to be done. And I don't mean calling national emergencies regarding oil.

[GZsound]

[b]Originally posted by peake@pacificnet.net: One guy and some friends who learned to fly jets did that much damage, and are still out there. How much wasted time and money is Iraq? Is another attack around the corner? Something needs to be done.[/b] I figured out where you are coming from. And from your point of view it makes sense. You equate the 9/11 attacks with Bin Laden. You equate the war on terror with a war against Bin Laden. You think the guys that flew the planes into the buildings are still out there? Most of them were Arabs who were trained by Bin Laden. Al Queda has now attacked Saudi Arabia. So if the terrorists that attacked us were mostly Arabs, Al Queda has attacked Arabs, who do you suggest we fight? It appears you think we should send out John Wayne with a six shooter and take out Bin Laden. As soon as his dead body is shown on TV you will be happy the war is over. It just doesn't work that way. The terrorists are spread out everywhere. Afghanistan provided support for terrorists and training for terrorists. We invaded Afghanistan. Iraq provided support for terrorists..proven. We invaded Iraq to stop the support of any more terrorists. Iran supports terrorists and is now agreeing to cooperate with inspections and has given up some terrorists. They do not want us to invade their country and are being quite helpful. The terrorists that Saddam supported were not named Bin Laden. All terror groups are not called Al Queda. Hamas and Islamic Jihad are killing innocent citizens and Saddam supported them. Let me make this simple. Any country that supports terrorism or terrorists...not just Bin Laden.. are targets of the US war on terror. Notice it is not a "war on Bin Laden", but a war on Terror. Terror is spread out all over the globe and we must find it and stop it wherever it exists. A large amount of terrorist activity no comes from the middle east. We need a presence in the middle east that can better react to terrorist activities and better monitor what is going on. We are now fighting terror and terrorists in the Phillipenes, in Saudi Arabia, in Africa, etc. but because of the fixation on Iraq, you will not hear about it. We have not been attacked on our soil since 9/11 2001. And you call our stratagy stupid? [b]And I don't mean calling national emergencies regarding oil.[/b] See the problem here? A few liberals call this a war for oil. A few liberals want us to loan Iraq money to be repaid with oil money. The administration is not getting money from the Iraqi oil that is now being pumped and the administration is against loaning Iraq any money, saying the oil revenues belong to Iraq. So what is the truth? If they are against a war for oil, why is it the liberal politicians are the ones calling for loans to be made to Iraq that would be paid for out of oil revenues? If we were getting money for oil now, they would have just given the money to Iraq, knowing we were already getting it back. Seems kinda difficult to put much creedence in this continued partisan chant..

[Saint Johnny B]

According to Mark, there are terrorists under every rock, sort of like McCarthy's big red scare, which of course was nothing but Tailgunner Joe doing his "Chicken Little" routine. Ok, Mark, there are terrorists, or their supporters in your little Oregon Town, lets have a straffing mission and call out the B1's and the Blackhawks. What, you say your neigbors are innocent, well they can't prove they didn't support this wave of terror, so sorry, they had to go, it's a matter of national secuity you know. What do you mean you got rights? Rights? You ain't got no rights under orders of Big John Asscroft. What America really needs now are some honest gov't prosecutors to ferret out all the fraud and corruption with these no-bid contracts. Someone should publish copies of these no-bid contracts. Lemme see, 1, 2, 3, 4,....billions to Halliburton. Less expenses and kickbacks.....1.2.3.4. billion...means a profit of 1, 2, 3, 4, billions for the salary raises for the top executives. What America needs are some real investigative reporters and an honest [b]Fraud Patrol.[/b] . It was a rotten week for Bush, but then Bush himself is a rotten criminal.

[Peake]

[quote]Originally posted by GZsound: [b][b]Originally posted by peake@pacificnet.net: One guy and some friends who learned to fly jets did that much damage, and are still out there. How much wasted time and money is Iraq? Is another attack around the corner? Something needs to be done.[/b] I figured out where you are coming from. And from your point of view it makes sense. You equate the 9/11 attacks with Bin Laden. You equate the war on terror with a war against Bin Laden. You think the guys that flew the planes into the buildings are still out there? Most of them were Arabs who were trained by Bin Laden. [/quote]Bin Laden kinda sorta took credit, right? So I kinda wanta see him caught. [quote] Al Queda has now attacked Saudi Arabia. So if the terrorists that attacked us were mostly Arabs, Al Queda has attacked Arabs, who do you suggest we fight?[/quote]The oil. Defeat all of that oil. It offends the national security of the USA. Executive Order 13303, May 28, 2003. "This situation constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat. I hereby order: Section 1. Unless licensed or otherwise authorized pursuant to this order, any attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other judicial process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and void, with respect to the following: (a) the Development Fund for Iraq, and (b) all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein, and proceeds, obligations, or any financial instruments of any nature whatsoever arising from or related to the sale or marketing thereof, and interests therein, in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons." http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/executive_orders/2003.html No wait, find Bin Laden and his cronies. That's it. Or find some justification for bombing Iraq into the stone age aside from Cheney's stock options. [quote] It appears you think we should send out John Wayne with a six shooter and take out Bin Laden. As soon as his dead body is shown on TV you will be happy the war is over. It just doesn't work that way. [/quote]It appears that you are a troll. [quote]The terrorists are spread out everywhere. Afghanistan provided support for terrorists and training for terrorists. We invaded Afghanistan. Iraq provided support for terrorists..proven. We invaded Iraq to stop the support of any more terrorists. [/quote]Afghanistan was a good move, despite the current human rights violations going on there. Iraq? No Al Queda (until now). Is your solution to invade every single Islamic country and provide contracts for Halliburton? [quote]Iran supports terrorists and is now agreeing to cooperate with inspections and has given up some terrorists. They do not want us to invade their country and are being quite helpful. [/quote]I still remember the Reagan weapons for hostages deal. FuXor. And if lengthy inspections were somehow not good enough for Bush then, why are they now????? No oil???? [quote]The terrorists that Saddam supported were not named Bin Laden. All terror groups are not called Al Queda. Hamas and Islamic Jihad are killing innocent citizens and Saddam supported them. [/quote]So we should invade Ireland and bomb it back to the stone age because of the IRA? [quote]Let me make this simple. [/quote]After saying that it's not simple? [quote]Any country that supports terrorism or terrorists...not just Bin Laden.. are targets of the US war on terror. Notice it is not a "war on Bin Laden", but a war on Terror. Terror is spread out all over the globe and we must find it and stop it wherever it exists. [/quote]Goodbye IRA! Oh, and... http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/images/war.008.gif snip [quote]We have not been attacked on our soil since 9/11 2001. And you call our stratagy stupid? [/quote]Sure. Find the anthrax mailer. Still lurking about... And what's to stop another attack? You amazingly imply that we are somehow immune??? [b]And I don't mean calling national emergencies regarding oil.[/b] [quote] See the problem here? A few liberals call this a war for oil. A few liberals want us to loan Iraq money to be repaid with oil money. The administration is not getting money from the Iraqi oil that is now being pumped and the administration is against loaning Iraq any money, saying the oil revenues belong to Iraq. [/quote]The problem is all of the dead Americans, all of the dead Iraqis, zero WMD or "Immenent threat", and lots of privatization of Iraqi resources, pre-invasion no-bid contracts which creep up in value to staggering value, vice-presidents with huge stock options in companies which subsequenty make billions in no-bid contracts, contracts for campaign contributors, etc. etc. Well, that's several problems in a row, and there are more. But partisans tend to overlook these things. [quote]So what is the truth? If they are against a war for oil, why is it the liberal politicians are the ones calling for loans to be made to Iraq that would be paid for out of oil revenues? If we were getting money for oil now, they would have just given the money to Iraq, knowing we were already getting it back. [/quote]You imply that the left and right are different, and somehow eat at different troughs? [quote]Seems kinda difficult to put much creedence in this continued partisan chant..[/b][/quote]Much less your continued partisan response!

[Chuck Moore]

GZ, you're exactly right, the left does not take seriously the war on terror, they regard it as a police action against Bin-Laden. The country and it's President have a different idea, and that is to stop T E R R O R I S M. If you think that we shouldn't fight terrorism where it exists and just go after the current Al Quida leadership, which we are also doing btw, you do nothing to stop future attacks. I would surely be embarrassed to admit it if I were the History or Civics teacher in high school for most of those holding that point of view.

[Peake]

[img]http://www.neochaos.de/forumemo/moresense.jpg[/img]

[Dan South]

[quote]Originally posted by Chuck Moore: [b]GZ, you're exactly right, the left does not take seriously the war on terror, they regard it as a police action against Bin-Laden. The country and it's President have a different idea, and that is to stop T E R R O R I S M. If you think that we shouldn't fight terrorism where it exists and just go after the current Al Quida leadership, which we are also doing btw, you do nothing to stop future attacks. I would surely be embarrassed to admit it if I were the History or Civics teacher in high school for most of those holding that point of view.[/b][/quote]Chuck, I'm sorry that you feel embarrassed, but if I had your grasp of the situation, I, too, would be embarrassed. Bush is not fighting terrorism; he's fighting for business opportunities in the Middle East, mostly oil and gas opportunities for companies like Halliburton, Enron, and Unocal. The money that we have spent in Iraq makes this clear. Iraq had no al Qaeda connection; Afghanistan was full of al Qaeda. Yet, we've spent over a hundred times as much money and manpower in Iraq. Why? Because Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world. By the invasion of Afghanistan was not a charity case. There was an economic incentive there, as well. In the mid-90's, Unocal wanted to build a natural gas pipeline through Afghanistan. Enron and Halliburton had plans for an oil pipeline in the same area. Unocal sent a representative to Taliban-controlled Afghanistan to discuss the deal in 1996. That representative was George W. Bush. Subsequently, Unocal brought top Taliban officials - you know, those guys who sponsored bin Laden and oppressed women - to Texas to wine and dine them. The Taliban was taken to Wonderland, to NASA's mission control center (!), and some of them were even flown up to South Dakota to see Mount Rushmore (an al Qaeda target?). In 1998, al Qaeda blew up two U.S. Embassies in East Africa. President Clinton ordered an immediate halt to all business dealings with the Taliban, a move that killed both pipeline projects. Or did it? Unocal and Enron began making massive contributions to the Bush candidacy. They needed a new man in the White House if they were going to recover their pipeline projects. Within weeks of taking office, President Bush allowed the pipeline negotiations to resume. They continued for several months, when disagreements between Enron, Unocal, and the Taliban could not be worked out. Unocal and Enron backed out on the deals DAYS before 9/11, infuriating the Taliban. Coincidence? He are some more facts for you to consider. Bin Laden family investment in Arbusto (G.W.Bush's oil company): $50,000.00 Bin Laden family contributions to Harvard (Bush's alma mater): $2,000,000.00 Bin Laden family investment in the Carlyle Group (Bush, Sr.'s employer after the Presidency): $2,000,000.00 Saudi royal family's contribution to G.H.W. Bush Presidential Library: $1,000,000.00 Saudi royal family's contribution to Barbara Bush's literacy program: $1,000,000,00 Where G.H.W. Bush stays on his trips to Saudi Arabia: The palaces of the Saudi royal family. Saudi arms purchases in the 1990's, much of it through G.H.W. Bush's Carlyle Group: $172,000,000,000.00 ($172 billion). Saudi deposits in American banks: over $1,000,000,000,000.00 ($1 trillion). Saudi holdings in various American stock exchanges: over $1,000,000,000,000.00 ($1 trillion). Saudi contribution to the Iran/Contra deal (brokered by G.H.W. Bush): $30,000,000.00 Former employee of Unocal: Hamid Karzai, Bush-installed "president" of Afghanistan. Former consultant to Unocal: Zalmay Kalilzad, U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan. Date that the Afghanistan natural gas pipeline deal (forbidden by President Clinton) was finalized by President Bush: December 27, 2001. And the list goes ON and ON and ON. I realize that it's comforting to imagine that our brave President is over in the Middle East ridding the world of "evil doers," but that is NOT his prime objective. Bush, Cheney, and the Bush family are COMPLETELY IN BED with the Bin Laden family, the House of Saud, Enron, Unocal, and Halliburton. Bush's focus is on one thing: money. Keep the money flowing in the Middle East. Keep the oil and gas flowing. Don't let anyone (Saddam, Taliban) keep us from making money. If they get in the way, bomb them. Send troops over to those dust bowl countries to lay down their lives to protect the flow of money and oil. I'm sorry Chuck, WOW, GZ, but you have been sold on a dangerous, far reaching lie by an Administration who likes to cry wolf ("terrorism") to earn your unwavering support, but whose clear objective is NOT the dismantling of al Qaeda - or we'd be spending the $87 billion in Afghanistan and Pakistan - but rather the perpetuation of business deals in the Middle East. Bush wraps these dirty deals up in the flag, and you fall for it. A lot of Americans fall for it, because we want to believe that someone at the top is looking out for us. Well, it's nice to believe that, but if you want it to be true, you had better vote for a Democrat in 2004, because Mr. Bush is sodomizing this great country in 2003.

[Dan South]

[quote]Originally posted by GZsound: [b]Iraq provided support for terrorists..proven. [/b][/quote]No, this is fiction. [quote][b]We invaded Iraq to stop the support of any more terrorists. [/b][/quote]Also fiction. Even Bush didn't make this claim. He claimed that we were invading Iraq because Iraq was secretly manufacturing WMD's and the Iraq had the delivery mechanisms necessary to send those WMD's to the USA. These claims were fabrications, but no more so than the one that you've offered. [quote][b] Let me make this simple. Any country that supports terrorism or terrorists...not just Bin Laden.. are targets of the US war on terror. [/b][/quote]Yeah, that's "simple," alright. You've failed to acknowledge that the UNITED STATES supports terrorists, or has in the past. The USA supported, trained, and armed bin Laden and al Qaeda, so we've supported terrorists. The USA supported death squads in Central and South America. The USA toppled the leaders of Iran (Persia), Chile, and Panama and installed brutal dictators (Shah, Pinochet, Noriega) in their places. The USA supported the brutal government of South Africa. The USA supports or ignors brutal governments in many other countries, government with horrible human rights records. If every country that supports terrorism is a target of the US war on terrorism, then the US will soon be dropping bombs on Washington, D.C. Sri Lanka has the most deadly terrorist organization in the world, the Tamil Tigers. They've killed more people than Islamic Jihad, al Qaeda, and all of the others you mentioned combined. Where is the US-led "war on terrorism" in Sri Lanka? It doesn't exist, because the US is not fighting terrorism, it's fighting obstacles its business interests. Yes, Mark, it IS about oil. Unfortunately.

[alcohol_]

Just like the Niger uranium, Senators having press conferences to raise Social Security and NPR reporting that Bush claimed he ended the war, Cheney's claim that there was an alliance between Saddam and Al Queda, Kays report that a ten yoear old jar of botulism was weapons grade, right wingers have a propensity to invent fictions and believe they are facts.

[Peake]

Here is one place that the 87 Billion will NOT be going... To compensate soldiers of the first Iraq war. http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1082485,00.html

[Chuck Moore]

Not really sure how you get from "Someone is making money from military contracts" to "The whole thing is about the money". The supporters of a sitting President in times of war are always the first ones he calls when something needs to be done. That is nothing new. It is quit a leap however to say that we did something for the SOLE purpose of benefitting those associated with the President. That is a stretch most Americans are unwilling to make. Most reasonable thinking ones anyway, if your looking and prepared to believe the very worst of a person you don't know, thats your right. But don't let your hatred for a particular party or administration push you into oposing what may very well be objectively the most prudent course of action. That is a sure way to find yourself on the wrong side of history.

[GZsound]

[b]Originally posted by Johnny B: Ok, Mark, there are terrorists, or their supporters in your little Oregon Town, lets have a straffing mission and call out the B1's and the Blackhawks. What, you say your neigbors are innocent, well they can't prove they didn't support this wave of terror, so sorry, they had to go, it's a matter of national secuity you know. What do you mean you got rights? Rights? You ain't got no rights under orders of Big John Asscroft.[/b] Nice to hear you are keeping up on current events in Oregon. Nice to hear you know all about the guys arrested here in my "little Oregon town". Arrested under the Patriot Act. The liberal community came out of the woodwork in defense of one guy. Our local birdcage liner newspaper came out yelling and screaming about how unfair it was to hold this guy. He just plead guilty to terrorist activities, plotting against the United States and admitted all the charges were correct. We have a pretty good group of convicted terrorists here in Oregon and some they still can't catch. Trey Arrow a member of Earth First is being hunted for fire bombing some car dealerships. He used to work for our lovely mayor. Domestic terrorists. [b]What America really needs now are some honest gov't prosecutors to ferret out all the fraud and corruption with these no-bid contracts.[/b] I realize that having a rational discussion with you is impossible. However, let's use your point of view. Let's investigate Halliburton. Let's jail Bush, Let's jail Cheney, Let's jail Ashcroft. Let's start the honest bidding process for rebuilding Iraq. That should certainly help us in keeping our country safe. I never realized our national security depended on a bidding process. Thank you for the typically informed idiocy... Usefull Idiot..a great term for what you are.

[pseudonym]

Dan wrote: [b]They continued for several months, when disagreements between Enron, Unocal, and the Taliban could not be worked out. Unocal and Enron backed out on the deals DAYS before 9/11, infuriating the Taliban. Coincidence?[/b] So, Dan most of us got the bait & switch on Iraq, but if you know why the deal with Taliban didn't work-out and 911 happened 2 days later, then I would at least like to know what the problem was if it led to the worst terror attack on US soil. It seems like everyone wants to connect Bush directly with doing it or letting happen, but the so-called evidence really isn't there. Why not just work-out the deal, instead of taking over the country on the premise of the attack in NY? It would appear to be a lot less hassle.

[Johnny Bitch]

Peak, Quit posting shit from the Guardian and the Nation and Salon.com. It shows your bias when you use these media outlets as sources.

[StoneinaPond]

[quote] Quit posting shit from the Guardian and the Nation and Salon.com. [/quote]Well at least they're referencing something. I have yet to see you link to anything that pertains to your point of view. Anything.

[Johnny Bitch]

OK, I'll use Ann Colter and Rush as my references in the future. :freak:

[Johnny Bitch]

[url=http://www.cia.gov/index.html]CIA[/url] [url=http://www.fbi.gov/headlines/hcs111203h.jpg]FBI[/url] [url=http://www.dol.gov/]Dept. of Labor[/url] Here are some sources for you.

[StoneinaPond]

[quote] OK, I'll use Ann Colter and Rush as my references in the future. [/quote]I thought you already did. :D This is about providing [url=http://www.theamericanmind.com/mt-test/archives/012685.html]LINKS[/url] .

[Johnny Bitch]

LOL :D

[Philter]

[quote]Originally posted by WOW: [b]Peak, Quit posting shit from the Guardian and the Nation and Salon.com. It shows your bias when you use these media outlets as sources.[/b][/quote][b]You don't get it- no ad hominem attacks are allowed![/b] Attack the story, not the source. Here you go, here are a bunch of places where you can read the story! [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/10/international/middleeast/10POWS.html]NYTimes: U.S. Opposes Money for Troops Jailed in Iraq[/url] [url=http://www.foxreno.com/news/2623510/detail.html]Fox 11, Reno- Report: Bush Opposes Money For Gulf War POWs[/url] [url=http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Nov/11102003/nation_w/109797.asp] White House fights POWs for Iraq fund [/url] Now do you have something to say about it?

[Peake]

[quote]Originally posted by Chuck Moore: [Most reasonable thinking ones anyway, if your looking and prepared to believe the very worst of a person you don't know, thats your right. [/quote]Then you blatantly contradict yourself: [quote]But don't let your hatred for a particular party or administration push you into oposing what may very well be objectively the most prudent course of action. That is a sure way to find yourself on the wrong side of history.[/QB][/quote]You are a troll. What did we tell you about ad hominem attack? When political threads attract those who are only interested in attacking others personally, maybe it IS time to drop them from the forum. Unless you actually want to address any number of the actual issues presented ;-)

[Peake]

Scary.. They _can't_ address the issues. And the number of issues keeps building and building.. http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/images/war.008.gif

[pseudonym]

The one or two things I can't figure-out about Osama is, if he was an asset to the CIA to defeat the Russians for the US in Afghanistan and then trained the Terrorists' to attack America so that Bush could invade Afghanistan to get rid-of the Taliban, then Bush invades Iraq and the Al Qaeda are now terrorizing Iraq after we got in there, then he is either dead and can't call them off or he's a triple agent and has been working for Saudi Arabia all along, making the suicide attack yesterday in Saudi a fake Al Qaeda attack. But what could be the benefit to Saudi, that would make Osama a Quadruple agent either working for the US again or just for himself (or for someone else) (maybe against Saudi), and that could mean that the attacks in Iraq are just other groups of terrorists. And then maybe Bush could have an agenda to get rid of them there, but that would work only if there were a finite amount of them - they appear to be growing in number and viciousness. It's really getting way out-of-hand anyway you look at it. :confused:

[Philter]

Source: http://www.newyorker.com [b]QUESTIONS FOR PRESIDENT BUSH’S NEXT PRESS CONFERENCE[/b] by CALVIN TRILLIN Issue of 2003-11-17 Posted 2003-11-10 Friendly question: “Sir, although your supporters’ predictions that Iraqis would greet our troops with flowers haven’t been borne out, isn’t it possible that, given the problems with the water supply and the infrastructure in general, there is a serious shortage of flowers over there and that Iraqis might be greeting our troops with flowers if Iraqis had any flowers?” Follow-up question to friendly question: “Mr. President, in your budget for the reconstruction of Iraq, is there any money specifically earmarked for rebuilding the Iraqi cut-flower industry, and, if so, would any American company be able to bid on that contract, or would they have to go through your friend Joe Allbaugh’s consulting firm?” Zen question: “Sir, if the ability of the Star Wars ABMs to hit a nuclear missile is imaginary and the nuclear missiles in Iraq are imaginary, does that mean a Star Wars ABM could hit an Iraqi nuclear missile?” Follow-up question to Zen question if answer is yes:“How could that be verified?” Follow-up question to Zen question if answer is no:“Would you consider that justification for having gone to war against Iraq?” Strategic-planning question: “Sir, now that you’ve acknowledged that there was never any evidence of Iraqi involvement in the September 11th attacks by Al Qaeda, does it remain your policy that in the event of any future Al Qaeda attack against this country we would still retaliate against Iraq, and, if so, how would you avoid hitting our own troops?” Follow-up question to strategic-planning question:“If not, then did you have some other country in mind to retaliate against?” Coalition question: “Is Bulgaria still part of the coalition, and, if so, what have they done for us lately?” Follow-up question depending on answer to coalition question: “Would you encourage the American people to drink more Bulgarian wine?” Follow-up question depending on answer to coalition question: “Would you encourage the American people to boycott Bulgarian wines, and, if so, do you know of any French wines that might make a good substitute?” Second Zen question: “If, as you’ve said, Mr. President, the interim report stating that no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq justifies our having gone to war to remove weapons of mass destruction, what would a report stating that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq justify, if you know?” Alternative to friendly question: “Sir, do you think that the flowers with which your Administration said Iraqis would greet our troops will ever be found?” Follow-up to alternative to friendly question if answer is yes: “Then would that justify having gone to war with Iraq?” Follow-up to alternative to friendly question if answer is no:“Then would that justify having gone to war with Iraq?” Somewhat off-the-wall question: “Speaking of Iraq and Al Qaeda, sir, do you think it’s fair that Arabs don’t have to use a ‘u’ after a ‘q’?” Follow-up to somewhat off-the-wall question if answer is no:“Then would that justify having gone to war with Iraq?” BACK TO THE TOP

[1970]

Vote me, vote for the life.