Cheney's company turning huge profits on Army contracts

[etech]

Why not add the entire quote instead of a partial snippet of it?

MR. FLEISCHER: No. We know Saddam Hussein is there, but we haven't found him yet, either. The fact of the matter is we are still in a war, and not everything about the war is yet known. But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.

edit/

Did you know that chemical weapons from WWII Japan are still being found in China?

 

[Gaard]

What does that change etech? I was pointing out that, according to Fleischer, the war was about WMD.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: etech

No it isn't. Saddam had chemical, biological and a nuclear program. He ordered the use of those chemical weapons on people. He was effectively on probation for using those weapons and invading his neighbors. Try to use some semblance of the facts please.

Key work here would be had.

Where are the these chemical and biological weapons? How did nuclear weapons become a "nuclear program."

And what about Cheney's company turning huge profits on Army contracts based on these now obviously false Bush claims?

We HAVE been over this "tense" thing before. Saddam is no longer in Power. Therefore "had" is the correct tense to talk about Saddam's regime and things related to such.
Yes - Where are the Weapons that Saddam HAD and used? I didn't hear anyone before the war saying he didn't possess such weapons, infact intel agencies from AROUND THE WORLD thought he did - not just ours. So yes - where did they go?
1% is still HUGE profits to you huh? I foresee a successful business career for you

Plus there were MANY other reasons to go to war - but again you refuse to acknowledge that fact.

CkG

Intel agencies from around the world thought he did? Why didn't everyone just let the UN inspectors do their job and find out for sure?

As for the 1% profit figure I haven't seen Halliburton come up with ANY figures on their profit(eering) from contracts gained throught their close ties with their former CEO who is now VP in the unnecessary invasion of Iraq. Halliburton declined comment as stated by their spokeswoman above.

Plus we weren't given MANY other reasons to go to war. We were given WMD, nuclear material purchased from Niger, terrorist connections and the imminent threat Iraq posed. None of which were true. So, yes. I do refuse to acknowledge that we invaded Iraq for any reasons other than the lies Bush told.

The inspectors job wasn't to FIND - it was to make sure Iraq was in compliance.
1% comes from the LOGCAP contract.(but yes does have incentives)
Yep - you refuse to acknowledge the reasons - we've been over this time and time again but you still can't see past your hatred of Bush.

Gaard - Yes - thought/concluded/whatever you want to call it - which is what they are supposed to do. THEY collect and piece together the info - that is their job.

CkG

LOGCAP was at one time 9% profit margin which was reduced to 3% if memory serves me correctly.

I don't refuse to acknowledge the reasons. I know the reasons. WMD, nuclear material purchased from Niger, terrorist connections and the imminent threat Iraq posed to our security.

Those are the reasons Bush gave the American people.

All false.

Do you want to rewrite history now and claim Bush said something else?

Nothing to do with hatred. I just want the liar to admit he lied.

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
United Nations Address
September 12, 2002
"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."
"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
Radio Address
October 5, 2002
"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."
"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."
"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
October 7, 2002
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003

See? Lies.

No - LOGCAP is Cost+1% but has incentives for performance and for keeping costs low - up to 9%IIRC
Again - you dwell on the narrow - there is more to it than you are willing to admit - we've been over this time and time again but yet you still keep spouting the same things.
Thanks for your spamming though Next time in bold

If you can't see past your hate and will only see what you wish to see then fine but to say that the war was based totally on LIES is infact a LIE itself. Go read the transcripts of Bush's address to the nation the day strikes happened. Go back and read all his speeches in the 14 months(read "rush to war":roll preceeding the invasion if you want to get the reasons - your little soundbites are a nice try though - I might suggest reading what is before and after those

Anywho - you can choose to ignore the facts if you want to believe it was all a lie - so be it, I could care less.

CkG

So Halliburton stands to make between 1% and 9% on the billions of dollars of US taxpayer's money they are contracted to earn based on their connections with VP Cheney. Nice.

As for Bush's statements during his rush to the unnecessary invasion of Iraq. I can understand why you don't want me to post them. They're clear and unequivocal. All lies to support the mess he's gotten us into in Iraq.

And I did follow the statements Bush gave, as well as the statements Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, Fleischer and all the rest of them gave leading up to the unnecessary invasion of Iraq. I stand by my statement. All LIES.

If not where is their proof? And why are they now attempting to change the reasons they rushed into the unnecessary invasion of Iraq?

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: Gaard
<<Plus there were MANY other reasons to go to war >>

But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about.

"That is what this war was about and it is about."

Is that the reason CkG is claiming I'm refusing to acknowledge.

No, that's the lie the Bush administration used to invade Iraq.

So what reason is CkG referring to?

Buahahaha Ari? That's the best you got?- if you people refuse to accept that there were MANY other reasons for this war then it is worthless to engage you in any sort of debate because you refuse to accept the facts which have been called to your attention MANY MANY times.

Later.

CkG

You may believe there were other reasons for the unnecessary invasion of Iraq. But Bush and Co. gave WMD, nuclear material purchased from Niger, terrorist connections and the imminent threat Iraq posed as their reasons. Not "other reasons."

Stop trying to rewrite history. These are the facts.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Gaard
What does that change etech? I was pointing out that, according to Fleischer, the war was about WMD.

The invasion was about WMD and the essential part which was the immenent use by Iraq against the US thus allowing under Article 51 a defence action. The war is about lots of other issues as well. IMO

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: etech

Did you know that chemical weapons from WWII Japan are still being found in China?

What does that have to do with Iraq?

Interesting piece of info though. They're finding WMD in China from WWII 58 years after the end of hostilities.

Makes it even more amazing they still can't find ANY WMD in Iraq.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: Gaard
<<Plus there were MANY other reasons to go to war >>

But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about.

"That is what this war was about and it is about."

Is that the reason CkG is claiming I'm refusing to acknowledge.

No, that's the lie the Bush administration used to invade Iraq.

So what reason is CkG referring to?

Buahahaha Ari? That's the best you got?- if you people refuse to accept that there were MANY other reasons for this war then it is worthless to engage you in any sort of debate because you refuse to accept the facts which have been called to your attention MANY MANY times.

Later.

CkG

You may believe there were other reasons for the unnecessary invasion of Iraq. But Bush and Co. gave WMD, nuclear material purchased from Niger, terrorist connections and the imminent threat Iraq posed as their reasons. Not "other reasons."

Stop trying to rewrite history. These are the facts.

No, YOU are infact wrong. Let me tell you exactly where.

*WMD - yes - it was a reason and we still don't have all the info yet
*Nukes from Niger - FALSE - There was a comment made by Bush about intel collected by the Brits about Uranium purchase attempts from Africa
*Terrorist connections - Yep - and there are. Are you still denying that Saddam paid the suicide bombers? Figures.
*Do you deny that Saddam was a threat to the US's interests? Buahaha

BOBDN - It's been fun.

CkG

 

[Gaard]

President Bush - "And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."

Disarm Iraq of WMD.....still don't have the info CAD? What info? They're whereabouts?

End SH's support for terrorism.....did those camps turn out to be anything? Other than that, anything else besides paying the suicide bombers? Surely, we didn't justify a war for paying suicide bombers.

Free the Iraqis.....That may have been part of the mission, but let's be honest here, would we have gone to war for their freedom alone? Would we give 2 cents for their well-being without a perceived threat to us or our interests?

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

No, YOU are infact wrong. Let me tell you exactly where.

*WMD - yes - it was a reason and we still don't have all the info yet
*Nukes from Niger - FALSE - There was a comment made by Bush about intel collected by the Brits about Uranium purchase attempts from Africa
*Terrorist connections - Yep - and there are. Are you still denying that Saddam paid the suicide bombers? Figures.
*Do you deny that Saddam was a threat to the US's interests? Buahaha

BOBDN - It's been fun.

CkG

We don't have all the info yet is just the continuing excuse used to cover the fact that there is NO WMD in Iraq.
Nukes from Niger. False. You're correct - A LIE used to justify Bush's invasion. Thanks for finally admitting it.
Terrorist connections - none were EVER proven before the invasion. Another lie. But you're right. Yep - there are NOW!
Saddam a threat to US interests? That's not the lie Bush told. Bush said Saddam was an IMMINENT THREAT to the US. Not our "interests"

Stop trying to rewrite history. Bush lied. We're screwed now in the mess his lies created in Iraq.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: etech

Did you know that chemical weapons from WWII Japan are still being found in China?

What does that have to do with Iraq?

Interesting piece of info though. They're finding WMD in China from WWII 58 years after the end of hostilities.

Makes it even more amazing they still can't find ANY WMD in Iraq.

It's even more amazing that it it still being dug up and is still dangerous. Most of it is just buried in drums in the ground. They don't find it unless they stumble onto it.

Your statement makes no sense to me unless the Japanese were in Iraq during WWII. I'm pretty sure they weren't.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: etech

Did you know that chemical weapons from WWII Japan are still being found in China?

What does that have to do with Iraq?

Interesting piece of info though. They're finding WMD in China from WWII 58 years after the end of hostilities.

Makes it even more amazing they still can't find ANY WMD in Iraq.

It's even more amazing that it it still being dug up and is still dangerous. Most of it is just buried in drums in the ground. They don't find it unless they stumble onto it.

Your statement makes no sense to me unless the Japanese were in Iraq during WWII. I'm pretty sure they weren't.

Let me explain. They're finding WMD still TODAY from WWII in China. That's what you claim.

But the Bush administration, after telling us and the world they had PROOF of WMD in Iraq still can't find any there. Even after months of unfettered searching. That's amazing. They can find WMD from 58 years ago in China but they can't find ANY in Iraq today.

Just one more fact pointing to the truth that Bush lied about the WMD in Iraq to justify his unnecessary invasion.

I edit to add

Another funny piece of info. Ari Fleischer left before any WMD was found. Might be because even he couldn't stomach lying for Bush any longer. IMO.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: etech
No it isn't. Saddam had chemical, biological and a nuclear program. He ordered the use of those chemical weapons on people. He was effectively on probation for using those weapons and invading his neighbors. Try to use some semblance of the facts please.

Key work here would be had.

Where are the these chemical and biological weapons? How did nuclear weapons become a "nuclear program."

And what about Cheney's company turning huge profits on Army contracts based on these now obviously false Bush claims?

We HAVE been over this "tense" thing before. Saddam is no longer in Power. Therefore "had" is the correct tense to talk about Saddam's regime and things related to such.
Yes - Where are the Weapons that Saddam HAD and used? I didn't hear anyone before the war saying he didn't possess such weapons, infact intel agencies from AROUND THE WORLD thought he did - not just ours. So yes - where did they go?
1% is still HUGE profits to you huh? I foresee a successful business career for you

Plus there were MANY other reasons to go to war - but again you refuse to acknowledge that fact.

CkG

You're being dishonest Cad. As you well know, the "'tense' thing" refers to the 1990's vs. 2002/2003, right before our invasion. We all know Iraq had WMD's in the 90's. In 2002/2003, Bush-lite and his minions repeatedly asserted Iraq has WMD's, an unverified claim that now appears false. You're trying to revise history when you pretend "had" refers to Hussein's dismantled regime. It means 1990's, when we had current information about Iraq's WMDs.

Next.

You didn't hear anyone before the war saying Iraq didn't posses WMDs? Really? I pretty distinctly remember Iraq saying that. Moreover, I remember Blix reporting that they found no such weapons yet, though they needed to confirm compliance with continuing inspections. I remember British intel acknowledging that they didn't know whether Iraq still had any significant WMD stocks or capabilities, that their estimates were based on best guesses since they had no current information. I remember Scott Ritter saying that at least 90% to 95% of Iraq's WMDs had been destroyed, and that he thought most, perhpas all, of the rest had deteriorated into worthless "goo".

None of this is news, of course. It's all been presented and discussed here many times.

Finally, yes, a 1% guaranteed profit can be huge on a big contract. As you concede later, the real margin is greater since there are additional incentives. More importantly, however, a cost-plus contract like this can be lucrative even with a 0% margin. Why? Because a company can bury all sorts of charges and expenses within the umbrella of "cost".

This might include paying inflated amounts to subsidiaries and sister companies for goods and services, e.g., paying a sister company $10 for a $1 item. It also includes charging the government for employees and overhead that are not necessarily delivering services to the government. A cost-plus contract is a great place to allocate fixed overhead so you can improve your margin on other contracts. For example, one could bill the government 100% for shared management overhead that actually supports dozens of contracts. A company might even claim employees are working on the government contract when they're doing something else entirely.

I'm not claiming Halliburton is doing this. Just recognize that they can, especially if government oversight is limited. Cost-plus contracts can be much more profitable than their nominal margin, even with the most scrupulously honest company.

 

[etech]

Let me explain. They're finding WMD still TODAY from WWII in China. That's what you claim.

But the Bush administration, after telling us and the world they had PROOF of WMD in Iraq still can't find any there. Even after months of unfettered searching. That's amazing. They can find WMD from 58 years ago in China but they can't find ANY in Iraq today.

Just one more fact pointing to the truth that Bush lied about the WMD in Iraq to justify his unnecessary invasion.

I edit to add

Another funny piece of info. Ari Fleischer left before any WMD was found. Might be because even he couldn't stomach lying for Bush any longer. IMO.

Let me explain. Don't you think they have looked for the WMD in China? It is still being found 58 years later.

Desert, needle, haystack.

12 years to learn how to hide.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: etech

Let me explain. They're finding WMD still TODAY from WWII in China. That's what you claim.

But the Bush administration, after telling us and the world they had PROOF of WMD in Iraq still can't find any there. Even after months of unfettered searching. That's amazing. They can find WMD from 58 years ago in China but they can't find ANY in Iraq today.

Just one more fact pointing to the truth that Bush lied about the WMD in Iraq to justify his unnecessary invasion.

I edit to add

Another funny piece of info. Ari Fleischer left before any WMD was found. Might be because even he couldn't stomach lying for Bush any longer. IMO.

Let me explain. Don't you think they have looked for the WMD in China? It is still being found 58 years later.

Desert, needle, haystack.

12 years to learn how to hide.

Uh huh. I understand your point. Now understand mine. Bush and his people said they had CONCLUSIVE proof of Iraq's WMD. While the UN inspectors were in Iraq. The UN asked for the proof so their inspectors could use the info in their work. The Bush administration refused to provide their proof.

Fast forward to Iraq after the invasion. The same Bush administration which said they had conclusive proof of Iraq's WMD can't find ANY WMD in Iraq even with unfettered access and 1,200 or so inspectors.

As a matter of fact the US forces occupied the very building where 12 years of Iraqi weapons records were kept and where every day for two weeks the very scientists the Bush administration said they wanted to talk to walked into work. The US didn't look at the records or talk to the Iraqi scientists even though they were right there in the building with them. The US abandoned the building and it was subsequently looted. The records destroyed. The scientists stopped coming in.

Missed opportunity or intentionally missed opportunity because Bush and Co. knew from the start their claims were false?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
No, YOU are infact wrong. Let me tell you exactly where.

*WMD - yes - it was a reason and we still don't have all the info yet
*Nukes from Niger - FALSE - There was a comment made by Bush about intel collected by the Brits about Uranium purchase attempts from Africa
*Terrorist connections - Yep - and there are. Are you still denying that Saddam paid the suicide bombers? Figures.
*Do you deny that Saddam was a threat to the US's interests? Buahaha

Hey Cad. I'll ignore most of your responses above since I've refuted them all before, but let's take a closer look at Iraq's alleged ties to terrorism and 9/11. Many of your Bush-apologist buddies still want to pretend Bush & Co. never linked his invasion to terrorism and 9/11. They disappear when I post the link below. Somehow, their usual tactic of attacking the source fails them, so they have no response.

Presidential Letter

Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: ( Dear Mr. President: )

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

Comments?

 

[Gaard]

10 more days till the anniversary of 9/11. We'll find out if this mid-september announcement of found WMDs is scheduled for that day also, and if 9/11 is given as a reason for going to war with Iraq.

 

[syzygy]

Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: ( Dear Mr. President: )

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

Comments?[/quote]

i don't know who these 'Bush-apologist buddies' are '[who] still . . . pretend Bush & Co. never linked his invasion to terrorism and 9/11'. there
are many mis- or under-informed people, and you seem to select the most malnourished types. very apropos.

but as for the bolded words above, at the time the text was written there was the prevailing intelligence belief that zarqawi's cell was running
around with saddam's al-ansar proxies. now, thanks to the war () the true picture about these relationships and saddam's love for wmd and
arab world domination can be unearthed.

at the time though, this info was sourced as credible, and stood as one strong assessment, based on the evidence, against others who claimed
that because of their opposed ideological natures saddam and osama would never be caught in flagrante delicto. perhaps not. but bush had to
make a judgment that erred on the side of caution. rational, eh ? linking saddam and osama according to their moral natures is something bush
preferred to do to bridge the gap where the intelligence was found wanting. at the time, not having a means to peak into saddam's war room,
powell's u.n. speech in february was the best case that anyone had yet heard.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: syzygy

Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: ( Dear Mr. President: )

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

Comments?

i don't know who these 'Bush-apologist buddies' are '[who] still . . . pretend Bush & Co. never linked his invasion to terrorism and 9/11'. there
are many mis- or under-informed people, and you seem to select the most malnourished types. very apropos.

but as for the bolded words above, at the time the text was written there was the prevailing intelligence belief that zarqawi's cell was running
around with saddam's al-ansar proxies. now, thanks to the war () the true picture about these relationships and saddam's love for wmd and
arab world domination can be unearthed.

at the time though, this info was sourced as credible, and stood as one strong assessment, based on the evidence, against others who claimed
that because of their opposed ideological natures saddam and osama would never be caught in flagrante delicto. perhaps not. but bush had to
make a judgment that erred on the side of caution. rational, eh ? linking saddam and osama according to their moral natures is something bush
preferred to do to bridge the gap where the intelligence was found wanting. at the time, not having a means to peak into saddam's war room,
powell's u.n. speech in february was the best case that anyone had yet heard.[/quote]

That was after Powell refused to present the original speech handed to him calling it "bullshit."

Bush used intel in his SOTU speech the CIA director told him only three months earlier was false.

I wouldn't characterize this as the best intel available. Just the best attempt by the Bush administration to shape the intel they had to fit their ends.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: syzygy

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: ( Dear Mr. President: )

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

Comments?

i don't know who these 'Bush-apologist buddies' are '[who] still . . . pretend Bush & Co. never linked his invasion to terrorism and 9/11'. there
are many mis- or under-informed people, and you seem to select the most malnourished types. very apropos.

but as for the bolded words above, at the time the text was written there was the prevailing intelligence belief that zarqawi's cell was running
around with saddam's al-ansar proxies. now, thanks to the war () the true picture about these relationships and saddam's love for wmd and
arab world domination can be unearthed.

at the time though, this info was sourced as credible, and stood as one strong assessment, based on the evidence, against others who claimed
that because of their opposed ideological natures saddam and osama would never be caught in flagrante delicto. perhaps not. but bush had to
make a judgment that erred on the side of caution. rational, eh ? linking saddam and osama according to their moral natures is something bush
preferred to do to bridge the gap where the intelligence was found wanting. at the time, not having a means to peak into saddam's war room,
powell's u.n. speech in february was the best case that anyone had yet heard.

Actually, according to reports from within, U.S. intelligence agencies discredited the notion that Iraq was linked to 9/11 or had significant links to al Qaeda. Bush & Co. chose to suggest this link anyway, helping to build popular support for his invasion.

 

[BOBDN]

I'm really surprised no one picked up on the word play between "bullshit" and "fit their ends."

 

[Gaard]

<<i don't know who these 'Bush-apologist buddies' are '[who] still . . . pretend Bush & Co. never linked his invasion to terrorism and 9/11'.>>

tcsenter

<<Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not terrorist connections.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And none were cited as the justification for invading Iraq.>>

 

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: syzygy

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: ( Dear Mr. President: )

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

Comments?

i don't know who these 'Bush-apologist buddies' are '[who] still . . . pretend Bush & Co. never linked his invasion to terrorism and 9/11'. there
are many mis- or under-informed people, and you seem to select the most malnourished types. very apropos.

but as for the bolded words above, at the time the text was written there was the prevailing intelligence belief that zarqawi's cell was running
around with saddam's al-ansar proxies. now, thanks to the war () the true picture about these relationships and saddam's love for wmd and
arab world domination can be unearthed.

at the time though, this info was sourced as credible, and stood as one strong assessment, based on the evidence, against others who claimed
that because of their opposed ideological natures saddam and osama would never be caught in flagrante delicto. perhaps not. but bush had to
make a judgment that erred on the side of caution. rational, eh ? linking saddam and osama according to their moral natures is something bush
preferred to do to bridge the gap where the intelligence was found wanting. at the time, not having a means to peak into saddam's war room,
powell's u.n. speech in february was the best case that anyone had yet heard.

Actually, according to reports from within, U.S. intelligence agencies discredited the notion that Iraq was linked to 9/11 or had significant links to al Qaeda. Bush & Co. chose to suggest this link anyway, helping to build popular support for his invasion.

'significant links to al Qaeda' ? i'm sure the working theory was that there were connections. regardless of whether they were 'significant' or not,
the basis for making this allegation was founded on evidence beleived to be credible by the people who sited these points at the time. zarqawi
was floating around with unusual chutzpah within iraq, in and out of major iraqi cities, and moving the lenght and breadth of the country with
near impunity - or was he ? did he have help ? would such a major al-qaeda figure go totally unnoticed within the world's worst police state ?

i'm not looking for specific, verifiable answers on any of these points. just laying a (very) loose basis for the claims made by our- and other -
intellginece communities. its much easier, saner, and wiser to make these type of postulations than to fly off on these assinine, cynical
conspiracy-hunts.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: syzygy

'significant links to al Qaeda' ? i'm sure the working theory was that there were connections. regardless of whether they were 'significant' or not,
the basis for making this allegation was founded on evidence beleived to be credible by the people who sited these points at the time. zarqawi
was floating around with unusual chutzpah within iraq, in and out of major iraqi cities, and moving the lenght and breadth of the country with
near impunity - or was he ? did he have help ? would such a major al-qaeda figure go totally unnoticed within the world's worst police state ?

i'm not looking for specific, verifiable answers on any of these points. just laying a (very) loose basis for the claims made by our- and other -
intellginece communities. its much easier, saner, and wiser to make these type of postulations than to fly off on these assinine, cynical
conspiracy-hunts.

The Bush administration has begun a new policy initiative, pre-emption. The most powerful military on the planet is now being used by the Bush administration to invade nations considered a threat to our security.

Based on what?

The standard used for such attacks must be higher than "evidence beleived to be credible." Otherwise the US becomes just another invading hoard bent on world domination like the Huns or the Romans or the Nazis.

But I believe this is the intent of the neo-con PNAC bunch. World domination using our military based on faulty intelligence tailored to fit their ends.

And as the title of this topic suggests all the while turning a handy profit for the insiders in the Bush administration.

 

[BOBDN]

PS

I am not supporting the pre-emption madness in the preceding post. Just trying to explain my view of the Bush administration's madness in this new policy.

 

[TaylorD]

Originally posted by: BOBDN
To the more politically astute who have seen this type of profiteering before it appears the Bush administration just faked evidence to start a war so companies with the highest political connections can then be handed government contracts to repair what wasn't broken.

By "the more politically astute" you do mean "conspiracy theorists" right? Did we "fake" all of the people Saddam killed during his time in power?

Also, I can't believe you would discredit someone else's claim about having heard from a few Iraqi families that they were glad to be rid of Saddam as "not a consensus" and then cut and paste some article about one incident. Is your one incident a "consensus"? Or is it any more valid because it made the paper? It was in the New York Times, I might add, which you conveniently left out, under the heading "The Occupiers." Being in the New York Times is bad enough in terms of a liberal bias, being under that heading, in my mind, makes it an opinion piece, not a news story. My guess is that guy was pissed we had a war in the first place, so now he's found some incident he can blow out of proportion. (We obviously don't know what happened, but keep in mind, every suicide bomber's family says "it couldn't be" and "he was such a nice boy")

Also, you mentioned reading stories every day - in the 175 days since war began (3-20-2003) even if you read a story a day, that is also hardly a "consensus" of how the majority of the 24 million people of Iraq feel about Americans. (That doesn't even address the fact that all of the accounts you read may or may not have been fairly reported, nor the possible biases of the authors.)

Our soldiers are over there policing Iraq. Over there, as here, there will be incidents of misunderdstanding between locals and the police force. Just look at any major city in the US. It is unfortunate, yes. But try to tell me how the Iraqis are worse off now than they were under Saddam. They now have control over their own future, something to look forward to.

Saying Iraq would be better off had we never went in, so as to prevent the unfortunate incidents that took place, is like saying an poisoned person is better off not getting the antidote because the injection would hurt too much. Look at the long run, the big picture - Iraq will become a far better place to live than it ever was, or ever would have been, under Saddam.


(edit, fixed a date)