I totally agree.

Disbanding the Iraqi army and civil services, then trying to install Chalibi as "dictator", seems to underscore Shultz's point about not putting an Iraqi face on it soon enough. Peace

Ronald Reagan fumbled?

Ask Moamar Ghadafi about that!!

I think Reagan wasn't passive. He went right to the head of the snake and sent a very, very clear message.

We never really heard much from Ghadafi after that. ml

"Terrorists are a group of fanatics which appear powerful because they are ruthlessly willing to murder the innocent - but after all the fire and smoke, the plain fact of the matter is that there aren't many terrorists, and they can only exist because the political structure of the" democrat, liberal,marxist- "world permits them to exist. We are working to change that."

There that is more like the truth here in the USA.

This was a horrible war to start for no reason, and to think that many of Bush and Cheney people have reaped tens of billions in profit off of this while we have done no good sickens me to the core. May your God and my God have mercy on us all.

Bill, did you just say Terrorists exists because of Democrats and Liberals?
Did you really just say that???

Doesn't everyone just want to sit down and have a nice safe dinner with their family? Isn't that what every single person in the entire world wants? What is the problem?

It's not that terrorists exist because of Democrats and Liberals.

Democrats and Liberals ARE the terrorsists.

Get you Republican/Rush/Coulter/Hannity talking points straight there, boy.

Wade

steve,

The problem is that there are those in the world who feel that they must destroy the infidels in order to have a safe dinner with their families. Then there are those that have no family, and wish to make their legacy survive the years by doing something memorable...like destroying the infidels. And then there are those who know that they must be alive in order to have dinner with their families, so they set out for the task of hindering any attempts at destruction. This is all very basic knowledge.

And would you be so kind as to send me a viable reference as to the profits of Bush and Cheney from this war? It's not that I doubt you, but I just want some proof so that I don't accidentally call you a mindless sheep that uses rhetoric as support for his cause.

Did you really just say that???

Can't you read? Yes, he said that. but maybe he meant that terrorists attacked the US because Slicky Blue Dress was great at creating jobs, but a puss when it came to being a real man and defending his country. He blew it.

Well, actually, Monica blew it--Bill just had a good time, that's all...

Omega, don't be a corporate whore. I'm sure you've heard of Halliburton. Dr. Evil used to run things over there, and because of Iraq, they've reaped some pretty sweet benefits:

http://www.alternet.org/story/15445/

Keefer, you're a "real man" with all your tough talk. Funny, but it seems that Republicans are the ones so afraid of everyone:

Gays? check.
Blacks? check.
Arabs? check.

Where do you live, Keefer - Kansas? No terrorist is ever going to attack that place, because there's nothing there! You wingnuts from West Virginia & Alabama have nothing to worry about - nobody's attacking you anytime soon!

maf53,

Ah, but it doesn't say the profit is in the tens of billions. And Bush has no connection to Haliburton. The use of hyperbole is another form of what I consider rhetoric.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but were there any other U.S. companies that could handle the deal? If this was actually profiteering, wouldn't all of the hypotheticals in the article ("Why don't they just have Enron run America? Or have Zapata Petroleum (George W. Bush's failed oil-exploration venture) build a pipeline across Afghanistan?") come true? Hey, if this is blatant profiteering, they might as well go all the way, right?

Bush has no connection to Halliburton? Umm, his *VP* used to be its CEO. You don't call that a connection.

Anyway, you can find these types of articles all over the internet .. if you're actually concerned about knowing the truth:

"According to The Financial Times, Halliburton, the largest recipient of reconstruction contracts in Iraq, has received $18 billion and seen their revenues increase 80% between 2003 and 2004. They has been accused of more fraud, waste, and corruption than any other Iraq contractor -- from allegations of overcharging $108 million for fuel and $24.7 million for meals, to confirmed kickbacks worth $6.3 million. Halliburton is also the only Iraq contractor currently under criminal investigation by the Department of Justice."

http://www.counterpunch.org/parkin05102005.html

maf53,

Right...being associated with someone associated with something automatically makes one associated with that association. My wife is a liberal activist, that must mean I'm doing everything in my power to allow liberals to do whatever they want, right? If you're going to cast guilt just for knowing someone and appointing him, then your procedure of passing guilt isn't very legal.

Very well, I'll concede that the deal is in the tens of billions. But you didn't answer the rest of my questions, did you? You merely told me that they are under investigation, does that mean that there were other companies capable of producing the results that Haliburton does?

I really can't be responsible for pointing out all the coruption, there is just so much of it. Haliburton is a perfect example though, a company with rampant abuses including fabrication entire locations they claim they had rebuilt, has recieved over 18 billion, though under investigation from the federal government. I don't know why you guys are okay with giving our tax dollars to cronies, but I am not.

Omega,

Just so we can be perfectly honest here, Bush asked Cheney to find him a good VP, Cheney told Bush that he was the best person he could find. Think about it. It isn't hard...

Steve,

So you're implying that Cheney's intention from when he was chosen as the running mate of Bush way back almost to the last millenium was to get in a war in Iraq so he could garner an 18 billion dollar contract for the company that he left, which has no visible effect on his severence pay? Thinking about it is hard, it requires me to make assumptions, which are mostly illogical, and I'm not used to doing that.

Pretty much. They talked about invading Iraq way before there was ever a 9/11, that just gave them an excuse. Of course it wasn't perfect, somehow they would have to make the case that Iraq was related to either AQ or terrorism in general(after 9/11), and they did that well enough to hold public support but now that numerous FEDERAL reports have rebuked many of their justifications for this long distance renovation project and their plan has crumbled, we are sitting in this swamp aimlessly. Luckily, we have dumped over 400 billion to build an islamic republic, so I guess it worked out good? Even if Iraq is established we lose, but the probably 7-9 hundred billion spent will have been spent, and kept, by whoever it is who is getting the money. I'd love to think its all honest, but even 20% of my money siphoned off is too much for me. Obviously its not to you, you must be very very wealthy.

For the record Cheney earned 50 million while working at Halliburton, still recieves over 150k a year from them to this day in defered compensation, and the stock options he owns, worth a measily 300k in 2001, are now worth over 8 million. No connection at all. Don't you ever get tired of being a chump. Quit letting him take your lunch money.

Republicans are a tiny group of fanatics which appear powerful because they are ruthlessly willing to murder the innocent.

Hey Mark, your actions are responsible for thousands of deaths each month in Bagdad. I'm sure you think that's great. Forget you, voice of the Anti-Christ.

Steve,

Isn't that stretching it a bit too far? Why would Bush sacrifice 700 billion dollars just so he could give Haliburton less than 2% of it? I'd like to not make any judgment on exactly what Iraq was doing until I've had a chance to review most of these newly declassified documents. So far, although no reason has been 100% proven to be valid, each excuse of the administration is feasible. Assuming that Iraq will become a violent Islamic Republic is the epitome of cynicism.

It's rather naive of you to assume that all Bush supporters are wealthy. This assumption is almost as bad as the one that only blinded Christians follow Bush. I'll have you know that I'm neither wealthy nor religiously inclined.

I'm sure if you investigated all awarded contracts and looked at how many of those recieving knew someone connected with this administration I'm sure its probably somewhere around 70%. That being said I wouldn't expect any less from a democratic Prez, but that doesn't mean it isnt really sad.

I don't think you are wealthy, You missed my point. I said that people are stealing our taxes through outright fraud and you don't care. The only reason I could think you wouldn't care is if you had plenty of money, thats the point. Otherwise, your behavior is queer, as you pointed out so nicely. And for the record again, many blind christians follow Bush. They aren't necessarily blind and dumb, they are just afraid of dieing.

Let me learn you somethin'. Islamic Republics incorporate Islam into guiding their decisions. Islam does not like infidels occupying holy land, basically guaranteeing hostility to our permanant bases in both afghanistan and iraq. It isn't cynicism, its reality, once again you can't tell the difference. And once again you will go ahead and do it, and then come crying back to daddy with your boo boo. One day, Son, you will be a man.

Steve asked: Isn't that what every single person in the entire world wants?

I don't thinks Osama does. But thats just me. I had a great dinner anyway. Nice juicy ribeye from the grill, baked potato, asparagus and a few rolls.

Now thats good eatin!

Be that as it may, I don't think it's actual evidence that most of these deals are somehow connected with Bush. I have faith that our government can employ third parties without having close connections with them. I refuse to assume such things unless there is concrete proof that goes along with the assumptions.

Well, if Haliburton actually is found guilty under the investigation, I would be angry with them. But I still believe that most of the money is going toward a good cause...funding the troops, funding relief programs in Iraq, etc. You are correct in your assessment, however, that I would be angry if I discovered my tax money is being wasted. However, at this juncture I do not believe that it is. I believe more of my tax money is being wasted on social programs, not Iraq.

Your statement about Islamic Republics is a bit...odd for me. In a sense you are saying that all Islamic people oppose the United States and may use violence. In this way, you are concurring with various conservatives here, such as Freedom1. However, I disagree with your assertion that Iraq and Afghanistan will become so blinded by their faith that they will quickly forget the favors that the U.S. has done for its people. I will continue to have faith in the humanity of humans.

Well you have no kind of intelligence to percieve that he is a person. He saw Americans building bases in his home/holy land and so he got pissed off and vowed to attack them until he was dead. Quite similar to America being attacked and then relaunching against him. The only thing Osama wants is for America to remove its bases in Saudi Arabia, that is what he has always said, he fights to expell us from SA. He doesn't want to eat babies hearts or burn Americans alive, he saw what he thought was wrong and fought against it in a horrible ill advised way. He is insane in his justification of killing, but so are we in our killing of Iraqi civilians by the thousands.

I am sorry that you actually think he is evil, its just shows how little you understand. Throughout history, in every instance, every single person on the planet has thought they were they good guy. Even hitler, even Osama. Hitler wanted to see Germany flourish, he didn't want to see Jews be slaughtered or he would have done it himself.

"You merely told me that they are under investigation, does that mean that there were other companies capable of producing the results that Haliburton does?" - Omega.

If by "results," you mean corruption & fraud, then I'm willing to say that yes, I'm sure there are other companies capable of that. But I don't think that's what you were asking. I think you were asking about Halliburton's "good" deeds - to which I'll say, I honestly don't know, so I won't claim otherwise. Do you?

And I think it's funny that this entire part of the discussion started with you saying this:

"And would you be so kind as to send me a viable reference as to the profits of Bush and Cheney from this war? It's not that I doubt you, but I just want some proof so that I don't accidentally call you a mindless sheep that uses rhetoric as support for his cause."

I think you should take back that "mindless sheep" comment you made to Steve, but that's just me.

Omega,

They don't even give em armor man! "You go to war with the army you have, not with the army you want" - Rumsfeld Thats B.S. They knew they might have to attack Iraq, they can give those kids armor, its war profiteering while not even giving our troops the bare necessities. They can give some of that money to armor manufacturors, it doesn't all have to be pipeline reconstruction and the like.

I don't have any problem with Islamic theocracies, but while occupying their holy lands we will be enemies. Its just how it is. Personally though, I would rather not spend my taxes to establish theocracies when we ourselves are not in the business of respecting any particular religion.

How about we get back on topic - which is Schultz' comments about what is going on TODAY and how it relates to the world?

I know you lefty posters are always trying to change the subject, but there is a power the Blogger has to ensure that things stay on subject...

maf,

But you still haven't provided the proof asked...I recall something I heard on the radio just yesterday:

A black minister was relating how he was asked by a fellow black how he can be supportive of things like Focus on the Family because James Dobson, founder of the group, is a racist...the minister replied back with "how do you know?" and after much argument and hemming and hawing, the man couldn't offer up a single piece of evidence that Dobson was racist...he was just mindlessly repeating what was told to him by others.

Unless you can provide proof of your accusations, then you are just mindlessly repeating what others told you.

HAHA Mark I caught you!!! There ARE no black ministers!!! Burn!

Mark,

Omega was asking about "profits," right?

Question: has Halliburton "profited" from Iraq?

Question: does Cheney have connections to Halliburton?

Question: does Cheney still retain stock options and receive deferred compensation from Halliburton?

Now, I'm not sure what proof *you* were just referring to, and I know you're a staunch Bush suppporter (to put it ever so mildly), but just because you're denying yourself the facts doesn't make it any less true.

maf53,

The point is that if no other company has the power to fulfill the administrations desires (not theorized fraudulant ones, but the real ones), then there is no basis for saying that the purpose of Iraq is profiteering.

If you read my statement, you'll see that I never really called him a mindless sheep. I asked him for proof so that I wouldn't call him a mindless sheep, which was provided. However, he did not comply fully, Bush has made very little recognizeable profit personally from the venture, and it has not been proven that that was the sole reason for going to Iraq. However, I apologize for any perceived threat.

Steve,

I'm having trouble following your reasoning. I know it's a sore spot that the troops were underfunded, but that does not mean that most of the money is being used unwisely.

Mark,

You're right. I take responsibility for driving this thread off-topic. I apologize. Perhaps I'm being a bit too forgiving today, entertaining their arguments. Today must be one of my "weak" days.

Oh, do you mean this James Dobson?

James C. Dobson, founder and chairman of Focus on the Family, compared embryonic stem cell research with Nazi experiments conducted on live human patients during and prior to the Holocaust. Dobson also likened proponents of embryonic stem cell research to Nazi doctors while suggesting that the Nazis' experimentation likely resulted in discoveries that 'benefited mankind.'"

http://mediamatters.org/items/200508030007

I'm not sure if he's a racist, but he's a Bible-thumping radical who hates gays as well:

http://www.family.org/docstudy/newsletters/a0021043.cfm

maf,

I believe that Cheney has zero connection to Haliburton - he gave up everything in 2000 due to paranoid, conspiracy-theory mongering on the part of the left...to serve his country, he took a massive financial hit...

Omega,

Thanks - but it was Steve who first drove it off subject.

Just to let everyone know - we allow a great deal of flexibility here, but we would like everyone to try to stay on subject...if there's something you'd like to talk about, then contact us and we'll put up a post about it...this will save me from staring blankly at my computer screen late at night trying to think of a subject to write on...

It is true that he took a massive financial hit.

But it is absolutely untrue that since 2000 he has had no connections to Halliburton.

This is from 2003, not exactly recent, but it's after 2000.

"A report by the Congressional Research Service undermines Vice President Dick Cheney's denial of a continuing relationship with Halliburton Co., the energy company he once led, Sen. Frank Lautenberg said Thursday.

The report says a public official's unexercised stock options and deferred salary fall within the definition of "retained ties" to his former company."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/politics/main575356.shtml

I'd love to hear you spin this one.

Actually, no I wouldn't - for once, I'd like to hear you admit that for once you are, in fact, wrong.

maf,

I don't see how Dr. Dobson's article can be classed as hateful towards homosexuals.

I'll do a post up on the subject this weekend and we can hash it out.

Mark - the difference between right and left is strikingly obvious at B4Bush. Those of us that are GOPers come here for interesting conversation, wondering what each other's point of view is, looking for facts and logic. The left comes here only to argue, post hate, and spew out venom.- only hatred and retread. Why? because they have no decent blogs of their own to post at- There is no such thing as decent conversation at the lefty blogs.

I know that's off topic, but this thread is the perfect example of the difference. I don't know how, or why, you let them continue to slobber all over your good blog.

steve........is certifiable!!!!!!!!!

Annie,

Well, we want to keep a lively debate...though we could use a selection of better lefty posters, from time to time.

We've got a couple good ones - Tom Shipley is all right, as is shortz. There are one or two others.

It is my view that the more exposure the left gets, the worse it is for them...though there have been quite a lot of liberties taken by the lefty posters on the blog of late, and we're not going to have that anymore.

Isn't this what we are doing right now with Iran? Are we not just sitting back and waiting until the hammer falls? I don't really think they have paid for the Hostage ordeal of 1980. If we wait on the UN we will see more death and destruction as far as I am concerned.

What liberties have been taken by steve and maf? How are their arguments off track? I just read through this whole thread in one sitting and it's hilariously obvious that as Omega got taken down piece by piece in a rational manner, the administrators of the site had to step in and act like those who won the argument were in the wrong for debating in the first place. And yes, trying to say that Omega wasn't the person who veered this thread a little bit off course is a little bit ridiculous when the answer is easily readable towards the top of the thread.

Here's my point, Mark: who exactly is this blog for? What is it's purpose? If the answer is for Republicans to pat themselves on the back for every small achievement they make, and to punish those that try to rationally debate in the comments forum, you're doing a great job. If you are trying to convert undecideds to your cause....sorry: you've failed. I especially like all of the conservative dating site ads, which plaster this site. They definitely raise your credibility

I can't really see how I've lost...the only thing I've admitted is that Haliburton has received a contract in Iraq. Perhaps if I were to drop this charade of using relatively non-aggressive debating tactics (save the jab at the beginning), people would agree with me. The more reliable reason would be that people tend to uplift the arguments that they support in their minds, so, by contrast, they lessen the severity or value of things that their ideology opposes.

It takes two to tango, as I always say. It's true that I did contribute to steering this off-topic, but so did the others who contributed to the debate. We should all take responsibility.