posted on June 4, 2003 11:55:22 AM new
Speaking as one of the others....I'll reserve my vote here untill I hear the speechs.I want a acre of land, and a chicken in my pot..or vise-versa.
Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defence minister said: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."
Prior to that, his boss, defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, had already undermined the British government's position by saying Saddam Hussein may have destroyed his banned weapons before the war.
Mr Wolfowitz's frank assessment of the importance of oil could not come at a worse time for the US and UK governments, which are both facing fierce criticism at home and abroad over allegations that they exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein in order to justify the war.
AGHDAD -- Doaa, 11, opened her eyes to the bright sunshine of early morning and tried without success to blink away the dust covering her eyes. Her face, her clothes, and the brothers and sisters who spent the night huddled close to her on the heat-seared, rock-hard banks of the Tigris River, all are coated with the fine, brown powder. ''We've been sleeping here . . . too long. I don't know how long,'' she said. ''We don't have a house. We used to live in a house, but during the war our parents died. A bomb fell on the house.''
The children were emaciated and dazed. They clutched one another with what looked like desperation, even when they slept.
''We don't know anyone; we don't have anyone to ask for help,'' said Rawaa, a brother Doaa said is 13 but who looked much younger.
posted on June 5, 2003 01:32:57 PM new
Mussolini made the trains run on time. Bush is getting us cheaper gas. Works for me
___________________________________
What luck for the leaders that men do not think. - Adolph Hitler
posted on June 5, 2003 02:22:08 PM newBush is getting us cheaper gas
Big deal. Our gas has gone down about 7 cents a gallon. How long before it makes up for all the money spent over there and all the money we will continue to spend?
Cheryl
My religion is simple, my religion is kindness.
--Dalai Llama
posted on June 5, 2003 02:38:20 PM new
This country had better invest in some mental hospitals because by the time we get to 2008, Bush will have driven most liberals stark raving mad.
You'll be able to tell who the liberals are. They'll be the ones walking down the street wearing tin foil hats and swatting their butterfly nets.
posted on June 6, 2003 04:30:11 AM new
I'm still trying to figure out how we are ending up with cheaper gas. I thought Bush was animate about the oil belonging to the Iraqi people and that the proceeds from that were going to be used to provide universal healthcare to the Iraqi people, educational opportunities to even the poorest Iraqi people and other benefits we cannot afford for our own people. Now suddenly we are going to benefit from the Iraqi oil? Sounds like double talking whooey to me.
Cheryl
My religion is simple, my religion is kindness.
--Dalai Llama
posted on June 6, 2003 04:45:13 AM new
Cheryl, by adding full production to the from Iraqi oil, the supply will out pace demand.... lower prices.... OPEC controls the supply right now, but I am sure that with our help Iraq will favor us in some dealings....
What you say makes sense. However, it also makes it sound more and more like this war was about oil. While we all know that Hussein was a sadistic a**hole (I don't think anyone would disagree with that), if oil is the main reason for Bush's decision to go to war, that doesn't sit well with me. I'd still like to see all the weapons of mass destruction (besides the ones found in Maryland) before I go a-hootin' and a-hollerin' about cheaper gasoline.
Cheryl
My religion is simple, my religion is kindness.
--Dalai Llama
posted on June 6, 2003 09:11:18 AM new
It never ceases to amaze me how this military action is blamed on President Bush and HIS interest in Iraq oil. Especially when Clinton and his administration said exactly the same things about Iraq and Saddam and the WOMD. Clinton's, Madeline Albright, etc in his administration....were they after the oil too? How do you justify their statements in Dec. 1998 when clinton bomb Iraqi sites and when THEY suspected Saddam was building WOMD and had the chemical agents?
The last three administrations and their security advisors all stated Saddam had and would most likely use these weapons. All said they believed there needed to be a regime change.
And I'm in the group that would like an answer to the question someone else posted about **IF** Saddam didn't have these [yet unfound] weapons, then why all the resistance with the UN Security Council? I might have missed your answers to that very important question that no one appears to be able to answer. That alone would have prevented all these years of sanctions, bombings [by both sides of the aisle] and UN involvement.
Funny how so many appear to think the last 12-13 years were waisted efforts since according to many here, since the weapons haven't been found.....Bush lied to us. NOT!!! That thinking implies that the past three administrations and all our intelligence, other country's intelligence, the defectors, etc. have lied about the same issues, as they were all in agreement.
I'd be interested in learning which countries leaders ever stated they didn't think Saddam had WOMD. Not which didn't agree we should bomb Iraq, which said they believed Saddam didn't have these weapons. Shoot even Russia and Germany were opposed to Clinton's bombing Iraq in 1998, but that doesn't mean they didn't believe Saddam had these weapons.
posted on June 6, 2003 11:09:35 AM new
I must have typed the words "Bush lied" in invisible computer ink. That's not what I said. I said I'd like to see the all the WOMD before I go a-hoopin' and a-hollorin' about the gas prices. Geesh.
Why is it in order to defend Bush, you have to bring Clinton into it? Each and everytime. "Well, Clinton. . . ." Clinton is past tense. Nothing we can do about that now. Bush is present tense. . . .
Linda:
I don't quite follow the following. Primarily the last line:
And I'm in the group that would like an answer to the question someone else posted about **IF** Saddam didn't have these [yet unfound] weapons, then why all the resistance with the UN Security Council? I might have missed your answers to that very important question that no one appears to be able to answer. That alone would have prevented all these years of sanctions, bombings [by both sides of the aisle] and UN involvement.
Are you saying instead of trying the diplomatic approach, we should have just gone in there and bombed the crap out of them 12-13 years ago? Show the world who's boss? If not, please clarify (for my fried brain) what you mean.
Edited to add: And why is it that those who swing to the Right try to make their points by acting like a pouncing tiger while at the same time reading things into the posts that were never there to begin with? (Whew, that was a mouthfull.) And those that swing to the Left appear to sound more rational in their thinking and are adept at questioning the things that need to be questioned and all without pouncing? JMO, so don't get all bent out of shape. K?
Cheryl
My religion is simple, my religion is kindness.
--Dalai Llama
[ edited by CBlev65252 on Jun 6, 2003 11:18 AM ]
posted on June 6, 2003 11:16:27 AM new
Clinton didn't lead the American public to believe that there was imminent danger from the 45 minute deployment of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Bush did that and in addition, led the American people to believe that there was a connection between 9/11 and Iraq.
Clinton didn't wage a preemptive invasion without the approval of the U.N -- resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocent people and one hundred forty American soldiers!
It's my opinion that the Bush administration deliberately decieved the American public. If the administration was not deliberately deceiving people then don't you believe that they owe us an explanation of how things could have gone wrong? At the same time that we were being sold this lie about WMD, the Defence Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon had found NO EVIDENCE of WMD.
Why don't you answer a question by your own Conservative, William F. Buckley, who asked....
"We do need to have a much better explanation than any we have had. Going to war to abort Husseinism is justified. But we are nevertheless entitled to know: How was intelligence information, presented as conclusive, so apparently illusory? Who was it, on the assembly line between the first man who spotted what he took to be WMD activity in Iraq, and the Defense Intelligence Agency and the President of the United States who beamed out to the world, not suspicions of WMD activity, but affirmations of it, who screwed up? Who deceived, or was carried away? And what vaccines have our leaders taken to guard against other deceptions of like character?"
posted on June 6, 2003 11:26:48 AM new
"Are you saying instead of trying the diplomatic approach, we should have just gone in there and bombed the crap out of them 12-13 years ago? "
Umm hello ? thats exactly what we did. The problem being that the job was left undone and no advance was made on bagdad once the pull out of Kuwait was over. It was left in the hands of the outmanned resistance to topple sadam and it was a huge mistake on that administration. That is what cost countless iraqi lives and holocoust type "cleansings". The problem should have been handled then but was not. Had it been, an entire generation of people could have been spared. The lose of life in this war while indeed tragic will be in minimal compared to the lose of life without it. Regardless of all the debate of the resoning of the war that is the cold hard fact about the result and is the reason the polls reflect a large majority still support the actions taken.
posted on June 6, 2003 12:51:00 PM new
Cheryl - Hi. I think you're being a little defensive when there is no need for you to be. I did not address my post to you individually. It was a general statement to all who appear to me to blame Bush for the WOMD not yet being found yet. Those implying we've been lied to BY Bush...or it's all about oil...etc. Because a post is made after a post you've made, doesn't direct it to you. I personally usually try to address individual comments to the poster themself.
But did you answer my question about what you see as the difference when Bush says they have these weapons and clinton said the same thing? I don't understand those who single out Bush as a liar when many in three different administrations and many leaders around the world believed the same thing.
Does that mean you/they think Clinton lied too?
You question why I bring clinton up? Why not? I do it to prove to all of you that he acted and believed the same thing. Does it bother those on the left to have facts presented to them, when a question is being asked? If it does, it shouldn't. They should have an answer about why they ONLY focus this 'lie' on Bush and not on clinton when he said and did exactly the same thing. That's why I bring him into it.
posted on June 6, 2003 12:58:10 PM new
Hi Twelvepole - Thanks for asking. No things haven't been going well at all for us and that's the reason for my absence. Probably won't be here much...I'll just drop in when I'm able to. Right now in our lives we're in a 'holding' period for the next couple of weeks and I have a little time to divert my focus and attention away from our problem. So nice of you to ask. Thanks again.
posted on June 6, 2003 01:14:06 PM new
mlecher - Blame Clinton? You've got it so wrong again. I supported what he said and what he did with Iraq in 1998 although I'd have loved for him to have had the guts to do the regime change that Bush has done, especially since his administration stated they thought that should happen.....rather than just three days of bombing where his administration believed Saddam was producing WOMD.
--------------
Cheryl - Are you saying instead of trying the diplomatic approach, we should have just gone in there and bombed the crap out of them 12-13 years ago? Show the world who's boss? If not, please clarify (for my fried brain) what you mean. I've said hundreds of times before we did try the diplomatic approach for 12-13 years. Why continue it wasn't working. That's why clinton said he bomb them in 1998 as they weren't cooperating with the inspectors.
Edited to add: And those that swing to the Left appear to sound more rational in their thinking and are adept at questioning the things that need to be questioned and all without pouncing? JMO, so don't get all bent out of shape. K? I'm not bent out of shape at all. I asked a very simple question. I'd love to read an answer to it. As far as the left and be adept "at questioning the things that need to be question", are you saying that the question I ask 'doesn't need to be asked'? LOL Hopefully not. It's a reasonable question I think.
I totally misunderstood your post and I do indeed apologize for it. I've got far too many things going on right now to think clearly about anything. I took your comment about all the years of sanctions and UN involvment to mean we should have whooped their buts years ago.
I wish I could agree with you guys, but I can't. So, we'll just agree to disagree. See, we can agree.
I think your question was a valid one (I didn't mean for it to sound as though it wasn't) although as I said, I didn't quite get it. Still don't. And also like I said, my brain is fried. We're using the new Medicare billing software and it's been a total nightmare for days now.
Cheryl
My religion is simple, my religion is kindness.
--Dalai Llama
posted on June 6, 2003 05:41:23 PM new
Representative Henry Waxman said in a letter dated Thursday that he recently learned of the deal for Halliburton's Kellogg Brown and Root subsidiary to provide logistical support for US armed forces dating back to 2001.
The contracts awarded to Halliburton, the oil firm once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites), have been criticized by Waxman and others because of the potential for favored treatment and because many appeared to be awarded without bids.
"When the contracts are combined, the total amount that Halliburton has receieved to date for work related to Iraq is now nerly 500 million dollars," Waxman's letter to US Army Secretary Les Brownlee states.
In addition, Waxman said, the open-ended nature of some oil services contracts make the potential even greater.
One contract with the US Army Corps of Engineers has "a two year duration and a ceiling of seven billion dolalrs," he said, while the second contract "has no ceiling at all," making the amount Halliburton could receive "virtually limitless."
"It is simply remarkable that a single company could earn so much money from the war in Iraq," Waxman said.
The deals "allowed Halliburton to profit from virtually every phase of the conflict with Iraq, including the military buildup prior to the war, the conduct of the war and the restoration of Iraq after the war," the Democratic lawmaker said.
Halliburton spokeswoman Wendy Hall said the company's logistical support for the army predates Cheney's arrival at Halliburton, and that the company won another award through a biddong process in 2001.
"US government contracts are awarded, not by politicians, but by government civil servants, under strict guidelines," she said in a statement.
Waxman, a fierce critic of the Bush administration, noted that although the contract was awarded through bidding, "the specific task orders issued to the company under the contract can apparently be awarded on a no-bid basis without competition from other qualified contractors."
The Army Corps of Engineers had described its contract given to Halliburton -- run by Cheney from 1995 to 2000 -- as involving oil well firefighting.
But in a May 2 letter replying to questions Waxman, the army said the contract also included "operation of facilities and distribution of products."
The Army Corps of Engineers said the Halliburton contract was designed as a temporary bridge to a contract that would be out to competitive tender. It expected the replacement contract to be awarded at the end of August.
The corps had already come under fire Wednesday over its granting of the Iraqi oil contract on March 8 to Halliburton without putting it out to tender
..I'll reserve my vote here untill I hear the speechs.I want a acre of land, and a chicken in my pot..or vise-versa.
Probably won't be here much...I'll just drop in when I'm able to. Right now in our lives we're in a 'holding' period for the next couple of weeks and I have a little time to divert my focus and attention away from our problem. So nice of you to ask. Thanks again.