AJWatson3 Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 sure this would come as a surprise to some-- yeah right... that's while it is filed as a part of the "shock and awe" strategy... sure this is just a coincidence. just heard on cnn that vp dick cheney's old oil firm that he worked for just was awarded the oil contracts post gulf war (release 2.0). haven't found a link to it yet, but i will look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 :doh: SO FREEKIN WHAT. :gus: :shootinth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 To the victors go the spoils. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJWatson3 Posted March 25, 2003 Author Share Posted March 25, 2003 Halliburton has received the first contracts, to put out the oil well fires and make emergency repairs to Iraq's oil infrastructure. http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/25/news/companies/war_contracts/index.htm start buying your stocks now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SkinsHokie Fan Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 And Abu of Basra has lived his first day without Saddam as his ruler. That makes me happy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 Cheney divested himself of all interest in Halliburton, the largest U.S. oilfield services company, after the 2000 election. Halliburton is the largest U.S. oilfield services company. Makes sense that they'd get the contract doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 It is stunning to me. Who'd have thought the nation's largest company in the field would have anything to do with rebuilding efforts after a successful conclusion to a war? That's just scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 I don't think in any way that there is any wrong doing.... or I hope not, but anyway, I think the point is being made that were the shoe on the other foot.. ie: if Clinton or any other dem were president and the same thing happened, every right winger would be crying foul... I personally feel like they are all corrupt, but in this case, you have a GOP pres with the conservatives ALWAYS defending EVERYTHING as it being absurd.... Case in point.... every conservative wants to rake Clinton over the coals for lying and just in general, being a weasel.. fine, you will never hear me saying he is not... but if BUSH is accused of being a weasel, no one wants to discuss it, it's absurd, it's too much of a joke to even discuss.... You have all the Clinton scandals..... yet there are Bush scandal's.. but somehow they never get brought up... Let's see what a quick google search brings up: -- Convicted of drunk driving. Lied repeatedly to cover up his arrest. -- Lying under oath. Bush & staff stop investigation of contributor's huge funeral home company. -- Pulled Strings to Avoid Vietnam, & Got Favorable Treatment -- Texas government corruption: State $$ for campaign funders & business cronies -- Cocaine: felony drug use, vile hypocrisy, and a hushed up arrest? -- His "young and irresponsible" behavior: sex, drugs and (gasp!) rock and roll? -- Thin skinned: censors his critics with police, lawyers, $$$ -- Character: Spoiled rich kid living off his family's name and reputation -- Made millions on insider business deals, for little work -- -- Deal #1. Personal Profits from Failing Oil Companies -- -- -- -- Easy Money From Odd Sources -- -- -- -- A Surprise Deal From Bahrain -- -- -- -- Access to the President and National Security Adviser for his foreign business partner -- -- Deal #2. Selling Oil Stocks Just Before Iraq Invaded: lucky guess or illegal insider trading? -- -- Deal #3. A Big Slice of a Baseball Team -- -- -- -- Hypocrisy: using government coercion to make his private fortune Interesting... Some of it is along lines of the things Clinton gets bashed for... Again.... I am NOT a Clinton fan nor supporter, I am only bringing to the table that there are similar accusations that have followed Bush around. Note: The website I found the dirt on has dirt against Gore, Clinton and other politicians as well.... so don't think it's a liberal/conservative or dem/gop thing, it's a politician thing. edit:.... oops. sorry, here is the link... http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 26, 2003 Share Posted March 26, 2003 I've always marvelled at the idiocy it takes to offer an argument that, "Sure, my guy was bad, but what about your guy." Pee Wee Herman lives. Other than that, I think you'd be in a lot of trouble if you wanted to compare Clinton to Bush in terms of character or scandals. But, let's address it in a quick, summation sort of way. When Clinton was asked about his activities with a White House intern, he lied, and denied and attempted to create definitions as to why he told the truth and how it wasn't really so. When Bush, just DAYS before the election, was confronted with his DUI information, he stood before the cameras and took ownership of his mistakes. Beyond that, everything else is trivial. Though, to be honest, I'm willing to bet there isn't a person on this board who is even close to being of age who hasn't gotten behind the wheel after a few drinks. I'm guessing not a single person in this room every perjured himself before Congress. But, Kurp does strike me as a shadowy figure. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted March 26, 2003 Share Posted March 26, 2003 I'm willing to bet there isn't a person on this board who is even close to being of age who hasn't gotten behind the wheel after a few drinks. Well, you'd lose that bet. But I don't disagree with the point you're making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted March 26, 2003 Share Posted March 26, 2003 But Art, your'e only talking about what you want to... What about Bush being asked by ABC if he had used cocaine and his reply was, "not in the last 7 years"..... great... he's a crack head... Also, Bush did not fess up about the DUI's the first time asked.. he changed his story several times. The question I would ask is: Do you really think lying about martial infedelity is worse than using a drug WHILE being the Govenor of Texas that is the hardest on drugs? That's crazy... Clinton hurt himself, he hurt his family.. Bush sent people to prison for doing the same thing he does... Brilliant... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 26, 2003 Share Posted March 26, 2003 Code, Simply put, you are misinformed. When the DUI story broke days before the election, he could have met the story with spin. He didn't. He stood before the media and admitted his actions and if you don't know that, then look it up. I do know what happened. It was a very large discussion at the time because so many of us couldn't believe he showed responsibility for his actions and we ASSUMED he'd take the Clinton route. For the record, I don't care about Clinton not inhaling. I don't care if Bush did or did not use cocaine. What I know is that you need to stop regurgitating what you read on Michael Moore-like sites and start understanding issues. Bush never said what you quoted here. I realize that some very left-wing sites like to extrapolate his comments that he could have probably passed a security check seven years ago to validate the time frame on what REMAINS rumored cocaine use. I've never thought a politican of ANY sort should be raked over the coals for being young and stupid. Even if Bush was the largest cocaine user in the world, it is impossible to justify the statement that Bush sent people to prison for doing the same thing he did or does. First, Bush was never a lawyer prosecuting people. Second, Bush was never a legislator. Bush was the governor of Texas. He signed legislation the state Senate and House passed, but, beyond that, you just seem so easily drawn up in some kid's web site that you've decided it must be true. I realize you are moved by Adam Smith's words, but, do you even know a SINGLE thing about the author of so much of the tripe you've decided to echo here? Or Arianna? Or Michael Moore? Or whichever nut you have decided to defer to. This is not dismissive of any questions of George Bush. Bush is a man who was very likely a pampered kid from a wealthy family. He was likely a person of privilege who may have done some partying and knew his connections would help him out. He also appears to be a man who had a major life change. Perhaps a word as strong as epiphany is appropriate. No matter the case, and no matter how real the change was, the fact is, when ALL you really have are the personal web sites of left-wing lunatics, it is concerning that you seem to be upset when people dismiss you. Here's what you can do though to alter the impression and actually start a conversation. Point out the articles from major news organizations or media research centers that explain each criticism. You don't even know the origins of the Bush cocaine story. The origin was a book that was written and then recalled within a week. The editor and chief of St. Martin's Press, the company that published the book, resigned within 10 days. It turned out that the author of the book was a felon who was on parole for planning to kill his former boss. From THIS book Bush was asked a series of questions about cocaine use, which were met with much the same answer as many questions asked of Bush and his behavior as a younger lad. He was a bit irresponsible. What you need to do is find any reputable source for any conversation on George Bush you want. You WILL educate yourself on any issue you wish. You will not get away with simply repeating the ignorance of someone's Geocities personal page again. You should feel fully free to posting Bush's admission of cocaine use while he was the governor of Texas though. You will point to ONE named witness to Bush's cocaine usage. And I'll be happy to engage you in any character conversation you wish to have. I may even ask you about the eyewitness testimony that Clinton was a cocaine user, since you seem so concerned over the difference in media coverage, and yet, you don't even seem to know that DIRECT testimony was hardly given a mention while the account of Bush and cocaine was a third person story written by a convicted felon who's work was SO impressive the publishing company BURNED 70,000 copies and the editor in chief resigned. You do NOT want to engage in this conversation, Code. Trust me on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted March 26, 2003 Share Posted March 26, 2003 Originally posted by Art You do NOT want to engage in this conversation, Code. Trust me on that. OK, thats it, Art, you have finally gone completely bonkers. I'm now convinced it is just a matter of time before you start attempting to collect "protection insurance" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chunky Salsa Posted March 26, 2003 Share Posted March 26, 2003 OK, thats it, Art, you have finally gone completely bonkers. I'm now convinced it is just a matter of time before you start attempting to collect "protection insurance" Yomar, you crack me up. I also love that post about Barry Sanders celebrating after scoring on the girls team. I true belly laugh from that. A snicker for the one above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 26, 2003 Share Posted March 26, 2003 Yomar, That was funny. But, don't misunderstand, it is embarrassing for a person who has repeatedly admitted he doesn't really follow the news to wind up speaking in a thread about all the issues he has NO REAL idea about as if any tidbit he can glean from my sister's left-wing nut case web site is immediately worth conversation, and any dismissal of it is proof that there's some double standard as to what is worthy of conversation and what is not. It is irksome that there are so many glaringly stupid statements made with precious little resolve or information behind them. In conversations such as this, it's not generally a conversation people really want to have with me because what ends up happening is they are treated like brainless morons, on merit, and they end up resenting that fact and they end up holding a grudge because of it. Since I don't take these types of conversations as seriously, though much more illustratively, it is generally not a conversation someone who has absolutely NO information wants to engage in because the ONLY outcome is they wind up not feeling good about themselves. Again. On merit . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted March 26, 2003 Share Posted March 26, 2003 Ok, Art.. How do you figure that Progress.org or realchange.org is someones "geocities personal website"? Second, go look at my previous comments about Michael Moore on any other thread.. Third, I don't even know who this Arianna person is... Fourth, In my original post, I never said any of it was true, I pointed out that it was accusations... Fifth, I do remember when the whole thing was coming out in the public... and I remember seeing stories about his evasiveness... does this prove anything......no. I didn't say it did. Sixth, No matter how you spin it, when he was asked if he had ever done Cocaine, he DID NOT answer "no".... He only brings up statute of limitations. My point remains NOT that he has done any of these things, but that those who are his ardent supporters don't care if they are true or not. Yet they will bring up many unproven scandal's about Clinton (which are also on one of those websites) and speak of them as truth. Finally, I'm not going to get into an argument with you, it doesn't serve a point, I've said what I have to say, no one else has stepped in with me so I will shut up.... And Art........ I'm impressed... you abstained from the nastyness and namecalling you have previously engaged in..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 26, 2003 Share Posted March 26, 2003 Code, Again, the distinction between what you are speaking about with Bush and what happened with Clinton is that with Bush, the sum total of the background to MOST of the most severe character flaws the man had were unfounded, unsubstantiated, anonymous sources. With Clinton, almost everything of significance had an actual person on the record making charges. From women commenting about his poor treatment of them, or whatever other "scandal" was attached to his name. The reason people don't care about the Bush cocaine issue is because it never rose beyond incredulous rumor-mongering by the press that had no sourced material behind it. Clinton's scandals took life because there were people on the record talking about the things he did. If someone had come out and said what they saw George Bush do, it would have ENDED him. No matter how hard the press tried to create a story out of what was admittedly Bush's coy treatment of questions on the issue, the fact remains they almost totally ignored cocaine stories about Clinton that had people on the record talking about while they treated unsourced, anonymous comments to make entire episodes of television shows to talk about Bush. I, personally, wouldn't care much if Bush had done cocaine depending on the time frame. But, I'm much more forgiving of youthful actions based largely on some things -- though not drug related -- I have done in my past and sometimes my not too distant past . Clinton took an oath of office and he VIOLATED that oath. It wasn't the infidelity that was at issue with Clinton at ANY point in time. It was the fact that he lied directly before Congress. That story could have died in a day had he just said, "Uh, yeah, I did it. My wife is aware of it, and she understands and has forgiven me and that's pretty much all we're going to talk about." But, he NEVER did that. He created the issue not by having that, or other, affairs. He created it by simply breaking his oath as the President and lying to Congress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted March 26, 2003 Share Posted March 26, 2003 Art, Let me shift gears slightly... I'm just curious about your opinion... We know Clinton lied before congress... What about Regan or numerous other presidents regardless of party that have lied to congress about millitary or other issues... Don't we know that Regan lied about the Iran Contra? (I'm asking) (don't assume I'm still beating a dead horse, I'm really not, I just want to know what your stance is on that, to me if you are saying that lying to congress is the major problem you have, does it matter what it's about?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 26, 2003 Share Posted March 26, 2003 To be honest, the Iran-Contra story never has been given too much attention on my part. I suppose it's possible Reagan did lie before Congress, but, I don't know that that's the case. I suspect he did not lie before Congress, though many others attached to the administration did. My recollection is 14 or 15 people were ultimately charged due to their actions stemming from Iran-Contra and many of them were pardoned by the first George Bush. If I'm not mistaken, and this is simply on memory, Reagan was, or claimed, ignorance of much of the divergence here. I think it was mostly a first George Bush activity run by underlings. In any case, I believe the story here broke too late in Reagan's term for him to have gotten much stained. But, I don't know as much about Iran-Contra as many here may so I'll defer to them, or I'd have to look it up before speaking with any true understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted March 26, 2003 Share Posted March 26, 2003 Originally posted by Art To be honest, the Iran-Contra story never has been given too much attention on my part. I suppose it's possible Reagan did lie before Congress, but, I don't know that that's the case. I suspect he did not lie before Congress, though many others attached to the administration did. My recollection is 14 or 15 people were ultimately charged due to their actions stemming from Iran-Contra and many of them were pardoned by the first George Bush. If I'm not mistaken, and this is simply on memory, Reagan was, or claimed, ignorance of much of the divergence here. I think it was mostly a first George Bush activity run by underlings. In any case, I believe the story here broke too late in Reagan's term for him to have gotten much stained. But, I don't know as much about Iran-Contra as many here may so I'll defer to them, or I'd have to look it up before speaking with any true understanding. Fair enough... I don't know for fact, but I was always of the understanding that Regan did claim not to know, but North's testimony claimed he did... I don't know that for fact, but that's what I have always understood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chunky Salsa Posted March 27, 2003 Share Posted March 27, 2003 Actually both may not have been lying. Reagan displayed lapses in concentration in his debates and was showing signs of memory loss before the end of his term. He may have authorized it and then forgot. <P> I remember the All-star Game after he left office and I felt shocked at his attempt at announcing. I think Nancy was in charge and running the shadow government before the end of his term :laugh: . Good thing those horoscopes were giving up good results and didn't say something like : today cancer is feeling frisky today. Time to confront advisaries in the most direct way. All means should be used to achieve your goal (nuclear included). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.