Cheney's company turning huge profits on Army contracts

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
More on a topic which appeared earlier on the forum.

A spokesperson from Halliburton claims in the piece suggestions of profiteering are "an affront to all hard-working, honorable Halliburton employees."

I disagree. The actions of the Bush administration in following this course, what has now proved to be an unnecessary invasion and occupation in Iraq and the billions of dollars being paid to connected corporations, are an affront to all hard-working, honorable Americans. They earn the profits. We get to pay for Bush's folly. This is IMO a national disgrace. Adding insult to injury as we face the largest budget deficits in our nation's history.

No matter how you look at it or try to excuse it the bare fact is Halliburton and other politically connected US companies are making billions on the US taxpayer's dime rebuilding a nation that didn't need rebuilding until Bush's unnecessary invasion.

Cheney's company turning huge profits on Army contracts

 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,939
569
126
No matter how you look at it or try to excuse it the bare fact is Halliburton and other politically connected US companies are making billions on the US taxpayer's dime rebuilding a nation that didn't need rebuilding until Bush's unnecessary invasion.
Well first of all, its not 'Cheney's company', anymore.

But beyond that, Haliburton has extensive experience with this kind of reconstruction, particularly oil infrastructure repair and improvement. They are one of the most experienced of any company who offers similar services and are probably the most experienced operating in not-so-secure foreign countries.

In this case, as opposed to the MCI/WorldCom situation, Haliburton is indisputably among an extremely small number of companies who have the expertise and experience to do this kind of thing and do it well.

Who else would you have recommended?
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: tcsenter
No matter how you look at it or try to excuse it the bare fact is Halliburton and other politically connected US companies are making billions on the US taxpayer's dime rebuilding a nation that didn't need rebuilding until Bush's unnecessary invasion.
Well first of all, its not 'Cheney's company', anymore.

But beyond that, Haliburton has extensive experience with this kind of reconstruction, particularly oil infrastructure repair and improvement. They are one of the most experienced of any company who offers similar services and are probably the most experienced operating in not-so-secure foreign countries.

In this case, as opposed to the MCI/WorldCom situation, Haliburton is indisputably among an extremely small number of companies who have the expertise and experience to do this kind of thing and do it well.

Who else would you have recommended?

First off it was Cheney's company. He resigned leadership of Halliburton in 2000 to join the Bush ticket as VP candidate. You can't buy that kind of influence in Washington. But you can inherit it apparently.

As for Halliburton's experience I suppose that can't be denied. But my point is this, there was no need for Halliburton's expertise in Iraq until an administration which includes Halliburton's former CEO decided to invade Iraq. Now to the naive it may appear that Halliburton is doing some sort of service for the billions they are being paid. 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.

Bush sold the nation a bill of goods on Iraq. We invaded Iraq based on the claims Bush made. All of the claims have proved to be false. What was the point of this excercise? To hand out no bid contracts to politically connected US companies one of which saw their CEO leave his office in Houston for the VP's office in Washington.

Doesn't this smell of the highest form of political corruption to you? It sure as hell does to me and to many other Americans as well.

To answer your last question, I wouldn't recommend anyone. I would recommend we don't go off half cocked and invade nations on false charges to make necessary the need to repair what wasn't broken in the first place.
 

dabuddha

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
19,579
17
81
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: tcsenter
No matter how you look at it or try to excuse it the bare fact is Halliburton and other politically connected US companies are making billions on the US taxpayer's dime rebuilding a nation that didn't need rebuilding until Bush's unnecessary invasion.
Well first of all, its not 'Cheney's company', anymore.

But beyond that, Haliburton has extensive experience with this kind of reconstruction, particularly oil infrastructure repair and improvement. They are one of the most experienced of any company who offers similar services and are probably the most experienced operating in not-so-secure foreign countries.

In this case, as opposed to the MCI/WorldCom situation, Haliburton is indisputably among an extremely small number of companies who have the expertise and experience to do this kind of thing and do it well.

Who else would you have recommended?

First off it was Cheney's company. He resigned leadership of Halliburton in 2000 to join the Bush ticket as VP candidate. You can't buy that kind of influence in Washington. But you can inherit it apparently.

As for Halliburton's experience I suppose that can't be denied. But my point is this, there was no need for Halliburton's expertise in Iraq until an administration which includes Halliburton's former CEO decided to invade Iraq. Now to the naive it may appear that Halliburton is doing some sort of service for the billions they are being paid. 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.

Bush sold the nation a bill of goods on Iraq. We invaded Iraq based on the claims Bush made. All of the claims have proved to be false. What was the point of this excercise? To hand out no bid contracts to politically connected US companies one of which saw their CEO leave his office in Houston for the VP's office in Washington.

Doesn't this smell of the highest form of political corruption to you? It sure as hell does to me and to many other Americans as well.

To answer your last question, I wouldn't recommend anyone. I would recommend we don't go off half cocked and invade nations on false charges to make necessary the need to repair what wasn't broken in the first place.

BOBDN: I have a feeling that even if someone showed you an apple, and it smelled like an apple, and even tasted like an apple, you'd be too blinded by your hatred for apples and tell everyone it's an orange. I hope you'll actually think about that for a minute. As per the topic, Halliburton is best suited for the job. And I do think the administration knows a lot more than you do :)
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: dabuddha

BOBDN: I have a feeling that even if someone showed you an apple, and it smelled like an apple, and even tasted like an apple, you'd be too blinded by your hatred for apples and tell everyone it's an orange. I hope you'll actually think about that for a minute. As per the topic, Halliburton is best suited for the job. And I do think the administration knows a lot more than you do :)

Your reply does not address the central topic.

Did the US need to invade Iraq?

Were there US corporations which stood to profit from the invasion?

The question is not whether Halliburton is qualified to handle the job in Iraq. The question is, how did we get to the point where Halliburton's services were needed?

I have one more question for you, dabuddah. Why do you feel it is necessary to equate my questioning the Bush administration on what has proved to be an invasion based on false reasons with hatred?
 

dabuddha

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
19,579
17
81
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: dabuddha

BOBDN: I have a feeling that even if someone showed you an apple, and it smelled like an apple, and even tasted like an apple, you'd be too blinded by your hatred for apples and tell everyone it's an orange. I hope you'll actually think about that for a minute. As per the topic, Halliburton is best suited for the job. And I do think the administration knows a lot more than you do :)

Your reply does not address the central topic.

Did the US need to invade Iraq?

Were there US corporations which stood to profit from the invasion?

The question is not whether Halliburton is qualified to handle the job in Iraq. The question is, how did we get to the point where Halliburton's services were needed?

I have one more question for you, dabuddah. Why do you feel it is necessary to equate my questioning the Bush administration on what has proved to be an invasion based on false reasons with hatred?

Uh maybe you can't read what you wrote but the thread title is "Cheney's company turning huge profits on Army contracts" which is basically wrong for many reasons pointed out already. And you do not know all the facts regarding the war. Sadly, even if the facts were finally out in the open proving you wrong, you'd still be arguing against the whole war. Fact, you're not a citizen of Iraq nor do you live there so you have NO clue about what life is like over there.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: dabuddha
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: dabuddha

BOBDN: I have a feeling that even if someone showed you an apple, and it smelled like an apple, and even tasted like an apple, you'd be too blinded by your hatred for apples and tell everyone it's an orange. I hope you'll actually think about that for a minute. As per the topic, Halliburton is best suited for the job. And I do think the administration knows a lot more than you do :)

Your reply does not address the central topic.

Did the US need to invade Iraq?

Were there US corporations which stood to profit from the invasion?

I edit to add:

It's not what I wrote. It's the title of the article.

The question is not whether Halliburton is qualified to handle the job in Iraq. The question is, how did we get to the point where Halliburton's services were needed?

I have one more question for you, dabuddah. Why do you feel it is necessary to equate my questioning the Bush administration on what has proved to be an invasion based on false reasons with hatred?

Uh maybe you can't read what you wrote but the thread title is "Cheney's company turning huge profits on Army contracts" which is basically wrong for many reasons pointed out already.

You evade the question again. I can only surmise you do so because you have no valid answer.

How did we get to the point where Halliburton's services were needed in Iraq? And why do you insist on equating my dissent with hatred?

Are we all supposed to fall in line behind the Bush administration whether they are right or wrong? No matter what their motives?
 

dabuddha

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
19,579
17
81
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: dabuddha
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: dabuddha

BOBDN: I have a feeling that even if someone showed you an apple, and it smelled like an apple, and even tasted like an apple, you'd be too blinded by your hatred for apples and tell everyone it's an orange. I hope you'll actually think about that for a minute. As per the topic, Halliburton is best suited for the job. And I do think the administration knows a lot more than you do :)

Your reply does not address the central topic.

Did the US need to invade Iraq?

Were there US corporations which stood to profit from the invasion?

The question is not whether Halliburton is qualified to handle the job in Iraq. The question is, how did we get to the point where Halliburton's services were needed?

I have one more question for you, dabuddah. Why do you feel it is necessary to equate my questioning the Bush administration on what has proved to be an invasion based on false reasons with hatred?

Uh maybe you can't read what you wrote but the thread title is "Cheney's company turning huge profits on Army contracts" which is basically wrong for many reasons pointed out already.

You evade the question again. I can only surmise you do so because you have no valid answer.

How did we get to the point where Halliburton's services were needed in Iraq? And why do you insist on equating my dissent with hatred?

Are we all supposed to fall in line behind the Bush administration whether they are right or wrong? No matter what their motives?

And as I've explained before as well as others, no matter how many times we explain it to you, it's just going in one ear and out the other. The majority of Iraqi citizens are glad the US ousted Saddam. That is a good enough reason for needing Halliburton's services. There are many other reasons as well but you refuse to believe them even when they smack you in the face.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
What should we do BOBDN? Get a different company with less experince in oil related projects? Or just leave and let the shitie(sp?) muslims rule the land and we have another Iran? I know the 60% of the shities(sp?) will allow the rest of the populas to have thier voice heard.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
The majority of Iraqi citizens are glad the US ousted Saddam.
Is that your opinion or do you have proof of that? It seems to me that Iraqi's dislike America as much as they did Hussien.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: dabuddha
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: dabuddha
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: dabuddha

BOBDN: I have a feeling that even if someone showed you an apple, and it smelled like an apple, and even tasted like an apple, you'd be too blinded by your hatred for apples and tell everyone it's an orange. I hope you'll actually think about that for a minute. As per the topic, Halliburton is best suited for the job. And I do think the administration knows a lot more than you do :)

Your reply does not address the central topic.

Did the US need to invade Iraq?

Were there US corporations which stood to profit from the invasion?

The question is not whether Halliburton is qualified to handle the job in Iraq. The question is, how did we get to the point where Halliburton's services were needed?

I have one more question for you, dabuddah. Why do you feel it is necessary to equate my questioning the Bush administration on what has proved to be an invasion based on false reasons with hatred?

Uh maybe you can't read what you wrote but the thread title is "Cheney's company turning huge profits on Army contracts" which is basically wrong for many reasons pointed out already.

You evade the question again. I can only surmise you do so because you have no valid answer.

How did we get to the point where Halliburton's services were needed in Iraq? And why do you insist on equating my dissent with hatred?

Are we all supposed to fall in line behind the Bush administration whether they are right or wrong? No matter what their motives?

And as I've explained before as well as others, no matter how many times we explain it to you, it's just going in one ear and out the other. The majority of Iraqi citizens are glad the US ousted Saddam. That is a good enough reason for needing Halliburton's services. There are many other reasons as well but you refuse to believe them even when they smack you in the face.

I don't think you are qualified to speak for the majority of Iraqis. From the news accounts I've read as well as statements made by US and UK officials it is becoming apparent the majority of Iraqis consider the US just as much of a burden as they did Saddam. They are glad he's gone but they will be even more appreciative the sooner the US is gone as well.

But let's get to the heart of the matter. Bush didn't claim we needed to invade and occupy Iraq because the Iraqi people didn't like Saddam. Bush claimed we had to invade Iraq becuase the were an imminent threat to our security, the possessed WMD, nuclear material and had terrorist connections.

All of Bush's reasons for invading Iraq have proved to be false. Now Halliburton is handling the rebuilding effort. So far their contracts are approximately $1.7 billion plus approximately one-third of the $4 billion per month it is costing US taxpayers just to maintain military operations there.

What was the reason we invaded Iraq? How can you ignore the connection between VP Cheney and Halliburton?
 

dabuddha

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
19,579
17
81
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
The majority of Iraqi citizens are glad the US ousted Saddam.
Is that your opinion or do you have proof of that? It seems to me that Iraqi's dislike America as much as they did Hussien.

Not my opinion. It's the opinions of a few of my friend's families back in Iraq. They told my friends how people are still apprehensive with the change but do have a sense of relief that Saddam is at least out of there. We can not really comprehend what it's like because we do not live everyday fearing for the lives of our families and all.
I'm not like BOBDN and claim to have a clue on what the Iraqis feel like. I barely had a taste of the fear when the DC sniper was on the prowl last year. And I was so glad when they finally caught those 2 assholes.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: dabuddha
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
The majority of Iraqi citizens are glad the US ousted Saddam.
Is that your opinion or do you have proof of that? It seems to me that Iraqi's dislike America as much as they did Hussien.

Not my opinion. It's the opinions of a few of my friend's families back in Iraq. They told my friends how people are still apprehensive with the change but do have a sense of relief that Saddam is at least out of there. We can not really comprehend what it's like because we do not live everyday fearing for the lives of our families and all.

While I appreciate your sharing the views of Iraqi families you know I would add a few families do not make a consensus.

From the accounts I read every day Iraqis are fearing for the lives of their families as much now as they ever did.

Here is one example from the NY Times. This is not a good position for our troops to be in. Tragedies like this are occuring every day across Iraq. Again, I would suggest the entire excercise was unnecessary given the reasons Bush enumerated.

How and Why Did Iraqi Die? 2 Tales of Anger and Denial
By JOHN TIERNEY


BAGHDAD, Iraq, Aug. 26 ? Any of Ali Muhsin's neighbors can describe the scene after he was shot by the Americans.

First he stumbled around the corner, dripping blood, and collapsed near the front door of his home. His neighbors hailed a taxi to take him to the hospital, but then a Humvee roared down the street and blocked the way.

An American soldier leaped out and ran up to Ali, firing a shot in the air to scatter the crowd, then aiming his rifle at the boy. The boy's mother, Rajaa Yousif Matti, implored the soldier not to kill him. She wept and wailed. She pleaded in Arabic that he had done nothing wrong and begged to put him in the taxi. She kissed the soldier's boots. But she could not get through to the American.

"If they had let us take him to the hospital, my son would still be alive," she said two days later, at Ali's funeral, weeping once again as she accused the soldiers of killing her son by letting him bleed on the pavement for hours. "It does not matter if you are a Muslim or a Christian or a Jew. How could anyone treat a human being this way?"

The soldiers' answer is that they could not and did not. In their version of the scene, they feared for their own lives when they entered that narrow, crowded street in a tough neighborhood, yet they still did their best to save a young man who had just tried to kill them with a grenade. But, just like Ali's mother, they could not make themselves understood.

It was never easy for American soldiers and Iraqis to understand each other, and the gulf is widening now that the soldiers are responding to an average of a dozen attacks daily, and confusion becomes more common.

Stories about murderous civilians and brutal soldiers are becoming endemic. The truth is generally impossible to ascertain because many incidents are not even formally reported, much less investigated.

The death of Ali Muhsin, 17, two weeks ago made no news outside the neighborhood, but the scene was recorded by a passing photographer, and subsequently more than a dozen participants and witnesses were tracked down in an effort to reconcile the two versions of events.

Did the soldiers shoot a grenade-thrower or an innocent teenager? Did they then try to save his life or let him die?

The soldiers' story begins on the Port Said thoroughfare several blocks from Ali Muhsin's house on the scorching afternoon of Aug. 11. A Humvee full of soldiers was escorting another Humvee carrying their boss, Maj. Will Delgado, the executive officer of the First Battalion, 36th Infantry, First Armored Division.

Major Delgado and the soldiers described in interviews what happened:

As the lead Humvee descended to a short tunnel beneath Nidhal Street, Staff Sgt. Ray Vejar looked up at the potentially dangerous sidewalk overhead. "Up on the right side I saw a guy in white standing with a guy in green," Sergeant Vejar recalled. "The guy in white moved toward the railing." Then the Humvee entered the tunnel, cutting off his view.

As the second Humvee approached the tunnel, Major Delgado's view of the sidewalk overhead was obstructed, but he noticed something descending from the right side.

Major Delgado recalled: "I saw this object coming down, and I thought, `Is that a piece of trash, or is that something else?' Then I heard the explosion."

A second explosion followed. The attack sprayed the left side of the major's Humvee with shrapnel.

Major Delgado promptly radioed other units: "Two grenades, no casualties. We're going after them."

The soldiers drove up to the crowded overpass. Two figures in white and green started running when they saw the soldiers, and Sergeant Vejar got a good look at the man in green.

"He looked right at me, and I positively ID'd him as the guy who was at the railing," the sergeant said. When the man dashed into a warren of narrow streets, Major Delgado and Sergeant Vejar ran down one street and sent soldiers in a Humvee down another one, where they spotted a man in a green shirt walking along. They ordered him to approach the Humvee.

The young man, Ali Muhsin, fled, according to both the soldiers and Hazim Karim, a boy from the neighborhood who saw the encounter.

A Humvee gunner, Specialist John Rogers, fired a warning shot, and Ali stopped. As another soldier, Pfc. Christopher Crayton, got out of the Humvee and approached him, Ali ran again. Specialist Rogers fired several shots, hitting Ali before he turned toward his home on Al Urfalia Street, two blocks away.

By the time the soldiers found him outside his home, Sergeant Vejar had rejoined them in a Humvee. He was the one who jumped out and ran toward Ali. "I pushed back the people and got on the ground and positively ID'd the guy," he recalled. "I know he was at the railing."

That would have been impossible, Ali's relatives and friends said, because at that moment Ali was working at a tire-repair shop about 100 yards from the overpass.

"I was working with him in the shop," said Omar Natiq, his best friend. "We heard the explosions and went outside. He ran ahead of me to see what happened." The owner of the shop, Agab Latif, said he himself had not been in the shop when the grenades went off, but that another employee had also said Ali was at work at that moment.

"He was a very good boy, a very polite boy," Mr. Latif said, echoing a common theme among Ali's relatives and friends. They praised him for being the sole supporter of his mother and five sisters since his father's death earlier this year, and told how he had been trying to save money for an operation for his younger brother's wounded leg.

"All Ali did was go to work and go home," said Qusay Matti, a neighbor. "He had no interest in politics. The Baath party was particularly hated in this neighborhood, at least until now. Now we are all afraid of the Americans. My wife cannot forget him lying on the street asking for water. She wakes up at night crying out, `Ali is thirsty.' "

Ali's relatives and neighbors said his only crimes were being scared of soldiers and wearing the wrong shirt at the wrong place ? perhaps by arriving at the overpass shortly after the explosions. The scene afterward on their street convinced many that the soldiers were trigger-happy.

"They seemed confused and arrogant and nervous," said Ali's mother. Other neighbors complained of being threatened with rifles in their faces. They quoted English phrases they said they had heard from the soldiers: "Shut your mouth." "Not your business." "If you speak, I will kill you."

Ali's uncle, Khadim Herz, said the experience made him nostalgic for Saddam Hussein. "We were very happy with the Americans, but we are not friends anymore," he said. "We heard about Saddam's mass graves, and now we are seeing the Americans' graves."

The accounts from relatives and the alibi from the tire shop did not sway the soldiers' verdict on Ali.

"There's no doubt in my mind," Major Delgado said. "I wouldn't have spent 15 minutes chasing him in 40 pounds of gear in 125-degree heat if I wasn't sure."

Whether or not he had thrown a grenade, did the soldiers prevent him from receiving medical treatment?

Sergeant Vejar acknowledged stopping the family from sending Ali to the hospital in a taxi. "I didn't want to be heartless," he said, "but I didn't want to let a suspect get away, and he was in no condition to move. We wanted to transport him ourselves."

He and Major Delgado, who arrived on the scene a moment after the sergeant, said they bandaged Ali's leg and chest as quickly as they could with a crowd of people tugging at their arms and Ali's mother at their feet.

"I kept trying to tell the woman at my feet, `It's O.K., it's O.K.,' " Major Delgado said. "The only thing that calmed her down was when I said `Al Kindi,' the name of the hospital. We finished dressing the wounds and loaded him on the truck and left. The whole procedure didn't take more than five minutes."

Ali's family insisted he lay there for an hour, but there are reasons to doubt it. One is that some neighbors, when interviewed individually, said it was more like 15 minutes.

The other reason is that it is not easy to imagine any American soldiers willingly standing around for an hour surrounded by angry Iraqis in a narrow street flanked by two-story homes that could be presumed to contain AK-47's.

As Major Delgado and Sergeant Vejar were at Ali's side, Private Crayton was anxiously scanning the second-floor balconies and pointing his rifle at anyone who appeared. "Those were the longest four minutes of my life," he said.

As Sergeant Vejar put it: "A period of time can seem forever when you have one of your family members is on the ground bleeding. But we were there no longer than four to five minutes. The only thing on my mind was: I want to get out of here."

The soldiers drove Ali several blocks to an open spot in Tahrir Square for a rendezvous they had arranged with an ambulance, but Ali died when they arrived at the square, they said, so they left the body there with Iraqi police officers; he was never taken to Iban al-Kindi Hospital, as Ali's mother had been promised.

But no one got that message through to the family, and that one final misunderstanding sealed the verdict against the soldiers.

Ali's mother and her family searched frantically for him at Al Kindi, then at other hospitals. When they finally found his body at Tahrir Square, his mother concluded that the Americans had never intended to save him.

As her son's body was loaded into a truck, Mrs. Matti sat at the square weeping and telling passers-by how the Americans had stopped her from taking her son to the hospital.

"Why would they leave him on the pavement to die?" she asked. Flouting Muslim custom, she ripped off her head scarf and sat there with her hair exposed as she beat her chest.

"Why?" she kept asking. "Why?"

There were no soldiers left to give her an answer, not that they could have anyway. She had her story and they had theirs.
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,939
569
126
First off it was Cheney's company. He resigned leadership of Halliburton in 2000 to join the Bush ticket as VP candidate.
Right, so that would make it "Cheney's former company", not "Cheney's company".
You can't buy that kind of influence in Washington. But you can inherit it apparently.
Well you can buy it, too.
As for Halliburton's experience I suppose that can't be denied. But my point is this, there was no need for Halliburton's expertise in Iraq until an administration which includes Halliburton's former CEO decided to invade Iraq.
Really?

Are you attempting to say that Baghdad was the antithesis of disrepair and dilapidation before the invasion?
Now to the naive it may appear that Halliburton is doing some sort of service for the billions they are being paid.
Halliburton is not providing any kind of work in exchange for that money? Would you have any kind of link which may show Halliburton workers getting paid to sit around with their thumbs up their rear?
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.
Politically astute? Is that how you refer to yourself? lmao!
Bush sold the nation a bill of goods on Iraq. We invaded Iraq based on the claims Bush made. All of the claims have proved to be false.
Which claims have been proven false?

Please provide actual Bush quotations in their original context arguing the necessity for invading Iraq which turned out to be false.
To answer your last question, I wouldn't recommend anyone. I would recommend we don't go off half cocked and invade nations on false charges to make necessary the need to repair what wasn't broken in the first place.
So Iraq was a model of modern civil infrastructure before we 'broke' it?
 
Jan 12, 2003
3,498
0
0
Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: Boobdn

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.



Politically astute? Is that how you refer to yourself? lmao!



Please provide actual Bush quotations in their original context arguing the necessity for invading Iraq


Man, don't go there, sir...normalcy has returned here for the last couple days.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Right, so that would make it "Cheney's former company", not "Cheney's company".
Cheney is currently receiving compensation from Halliburton. Even so although Halliburton is technically Cheney's former company the specter of a sitting VP coming straight from the boardroom of Halliburton and supporting an unnecessary invasion which that same company is profiteering from should raise red flags for even the most ardent Bush/Cheney supporters. Especially in light of the clandestine efforts Cheney led on national energy policy.


Well you can buy it, too.
My second point was you can't buy this sort of influence at any price. With Cheney in the White House Halliburton INHERITED it.


Really?

Are you attempting to say that Baghdad was the antithesis of disrepair and dilapidation before the invasion?
I am saying Iraq had water, electricity, security, jobs and an infrastructure prior to the unnecessary Bush led invasion.


Halliburton is not providing any kind of work in exchange for that money? Would you have any kind of link which may show Halliburton workers getting paid to sit around with their thumbs up their rear?
Don't misquote me. I'm saying the entire invasion and occupation was unnecessary since the reasons Bush gave have all been proven to be false. That would mean Halliburton, no matter how good a job they do, is doing what is ultimately unnecessary work. The invasion was sold to us on a false bill of goods. Anything that follows therefore is unnecessary.


Politically astute? Is that how you refer to yourself? lmao!
Yes, I'm politically astute in that I can form opinions on world events instead of simply regurgitating the party line. You can lyao all you like but I would suggest comments like that border on personal attack and add NOTHING to the discussion. I refuse to join you in your apparent inability to discuss issues without flaming anyone who disagrees with you.


Which claims have been proven false?
Please provide actual Bush quotations in their original context arguing the necessity for invading Iraq which turned out to be false.
Here are the claims which have been proven false as you requested:

"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


So Iraq was a model of modern civil infrastructure before we 'broke' it?
Iraq may not have been "model of modern civil infrastructure" before we destroyed it but their infrastructure and economy were working and it certainly wasn't costing US taxpayers $4 billion per month along with another estimated $100 billion to repair it.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: Boobdn

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.



Politically astute? Is that how you refer to yourself? lmao!



Please provide actual Bush quotations in their original context arguing the necessity for invading Iraq


Man, don't go there, sir...normalcy has returned here for the last couple days.

Not to worry galt. I refuse to retaliate. I hope everyone takes note of the members who cannot maintain civil discussion and must resort to personal attacks and flaming when they cannot defend their beliefs.
 
Jan 12, 2003
3,498
0
0
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: Boobdn

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.



Politically astute? Is that how you refer to yourself? lmao!



Please provide actual Bush quotations in their original context arguing the necessity for invading Iraq


Man, don't go there, sir...normalcy has returned here for the last couple days.

Not to worry galt. I refuse to retaliate. I hope everyone takes note of the members who cannot maintain civil discussion and must resort to personal attacks and flaming when they cannot defend their beliefs.

Go away and take your 'cut and paste' nonsense with you...every single thread is the same thing.
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,939
569
126
September 12, 2002 - "Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."
That was the entire speech...one sentence? Wow, did Bush just walk up to the podium, say that one sentence and walk away?
"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."
Can you disprove that Bush in fact had no sources indicating this?
"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."
Hey, great, more statements not...taken...out...of...context or edited.

Can you prove that the available intelligence did not indicate that these things were highly probable, with the exception of the Niger uranium acquisition attempt, which we all know was shady?

Intelligence is rarely about absolutes. We are extremely fortunate to have the rare instances of absolution that intelligence yields.

Intelligence is about probabilities, likelihoods, reasonable deductions, and inferences. You do understand that, right?
 
Jan 12, 2003
3,498
0
0
Originally posted by: tcsenter

Can you prove that the available intelligence did not indicate that these things, with the exception of the Niger uranium acquisition attempt, which we all know was shady?

He doesn't have to; he has quotes!

 

dabuddha

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
19,579
17
81
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: Boobdn

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.



Politically astute? Is that how you refer to yourself? lmao!



Please provide actual Bush quotations in their original context arguing the necessity for invading Iraq


Man, don't go there, sir...normalcy has returned here for the last couple days.

Not to worry galt. I refuse to retaliate. I hope everyone takes note of the members who cannot maintain civil discussion and must resort to personal attacks and flaming when they cannot defend their beliefs.

Ahh you mean like you? :)
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: dabuddha
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: Boobdn

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.



Politically astute? Is that how you refer to yourself? lmao!



Please provide actual Bush quotations in their original context arguing the necessity for invading Iraq


Man, don't go there, sir...normalcy has returned here for the last couple days.

Not to worry galt. I refuse to retaliate. I hope everyone takes note of the members who cannot maintain civil discussion and must resort to personal attacks and flaming when they cannot defend their beliefs.

Ahh you mean like you? :)

This is off topic. But to answer your question.

No. Not like me.

Ahh, and just how did you come to that conclusion?
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: Boobdn

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.



Politically astute? Is that how you refer to yourself? lmao!



Please provide actual Bush quotations in their original context arguing the necessity for invading Iraq


Man, don't go there, sir...normalcy has returned here for the last couple days.

Not to worry galt. I refuse to retaliate. I hope everyone takes note of the members who cannot maintain civil discussion and must resort to personal attacks and flaming when they cannot defend their beliefs.

Go away and take your 'cut and paste' nonsense with you...every single thread is the same thing.

Again I refuse to retaliate but I would like to point out you are participating in the very activity you complain about.

Now why not stick to the subject and reply to the remarks in the post as I did?
 
Jan 12, 2003
3,498
0
0
Originally posted by: BOBDN

Now why not stick to the subject and reply to the remarks in the post as I did?



Okay, sir...will do:

"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