Holy smokes! Democraticunderground!

[Glen]

Haliburton was run by Dick Cheney when Clinton awarded them all those contracts, even though they were NOT the low bidder. He does not run the company now. That famous inventor, Al Gore, praised these contracts because Haliburton was and is the best company for the job.

 

[loncray]

He lied about something that no grand jury in the land would've indicted him for. Which means that, in the absence of politics, nobody would've even asked the question.

As to 8 years of farting around - if the right saw a big threat, where was the impetus to declare war? Why didn't the GOP majority in Congress ask the President to declare war on Iraq as a clear and present danger? Before 9/11, do you really think any sane American (and I thus leave the really far-right folks out of the equation) would allow the President to invade Iraq? President Bush attacked Iraq ONLY after he got the excuse to do so. Show me where President Bush, at any time 9/10/01 or before, showed the slightest desire to attack Iraq. Your hero just happened to be the guy in office when the excuse became viable.

 

[loncray]

Not talking about Clinton-era contracts, I'm talking about the Bush $87 billion to rebuild Iraq contracts. Quid pro quo is alive and well in the Bush Administration!

 

[RustyJC]

Originally posted by loncray

Not talking about Clinton-era contracts...

Of course not. Neither, I notice, are you talking about the Clinton-era efforts to gut the military and intelligence capabilities of the U. S. I'm certain these had no impact on 9/11.



Rusty

 

[loncray]

Did you mean the base-closing efforts begun by Congress during the earlier Bush Administration? Those gutting efforts?

 

[KBennett]

Well said Boomer II

"I believe it was lying under oath" You are correct sir. How can anyone support the actions of Billy, most of the good things that happened when he was in office should be blamed on the Republican majority Congress.



What justified Billy to launch cruise missiles into some empty tents? Did he kill some innocent people? Did he have the same incorrect information that Bush had about WMD? I believe Iraq had or has WMD. Did you see the aircraft Sadamm buried or hid under camouflage? He had the tools and the information to create a WMD and still had the missiles to launch them.



I keep hearing "I am glad they got Sadaam but I am not for the war"



How else would we have gotten Sadaam? If the war never happened and an Iraqi terrorist gassed downtown Chicago killing thousands of people how many liberals would be for a war then? I am not happy about losing one American life in this war but we could not let the situation escalate any longer. We fought the war and we WON! The Iraqi peple are now liberated and we can be proud of our soldiers that we have one less threat to the USA.

 

[Rman]

I think he's referring to clinton handing the chinese all of our secrets.

 

[loncray]

Well, some folks just won't see reality, I can't help them. The Iraqi's weren't supporting terrorists. Al Qaeda wasn't operating in Iraq, at least not with govt. support. Saddam's regime didn't want Al Qaeda, nor any Islamic extremists, operating there because they would threaten the regime. So the idea of an Iraqi terrorist 'gassing Chicago' is nonsense. At least it was nonsense, now that we've taken over Iraq what's to stop some Iraqi from buying nerve gas on the black market and getting us now? Saddam wouldn't have supported such an operation because he KNEW (unlike some of these Islamic extremists) that we'd be in Baghdad with B52's in a few hours. Since we DID have 11 Saudi terrorists attacking New York and the Pentagon, where's the call for taking over Saudi Arabia? Saddam hasn't been a threat to America since 1991. There are plenty of other countries that are.

 

[CWebster]

So we are supposed to spend alot of money, lose American lives, liberate a country, and then when it's all safe and the danger is gone, go ahead and let the same people who have been knifin' us in the back since before we were even a country come in and walk off with the money?!!? If these contracts were being bid out, thats EXACTLY what you would be seeing, not to mention the instant creation of logistical and security debacles. Can you say QUAGMIRE?



On another note, shouldn't you guys be at work?

 

[loncray]

If you mean the rules about companies in some nations not being able to be the prime contractor on Iraqi contracts, I don't really have a problem with that - it's MY money too. Since they can still be subcontractors, and prime contractors on plenty of other projects, I see this as symbolism only. KBR and Halliburton shouldn't have gotten their contracts on a no-bid basis - there are other American companies that could've bid as well. And no-bid contracts usually end up wasting my tax dollars!

 

[Rman]

I am webster I am at work... uh oh... busted. Speaking of work, I think i'm outta here... more rubbing elbows with the liberals tomorrow!

 

[Boomer II]

Originally posted by loncray

Well, some folks just won't see reality, I can't help them. The Iraqi's weren't supporting terrorists. Al Qaeda wasn't operating in Iraq, at least not with govt. support. Saddam's regime didn't want Al Qaeda, nor any Islamic extremists, operating there because they would threaten the regime. So the idea of an Iraqi terrorist 'gassing Chicago' is nonsense. At least it was nonsense, now that we've taken over Iraq what's to stop some Iraqi from buying nerve gas on the black market and getting us now? Saddam wouldn't have supported such an operation because he KNEW (unlike some of these Islamic extremists) that we'd be in Baghdad with B52's in a few hours. Since we DID have 11 Saudi terrorists attacking New York and the Pentagon, where's the call for taking over Saudi Arabia? Saddam hasn't been a threat to America since 1991. There are plenty of other countries that are.

Latest new here my friend is Atta trained for 9/11 in Iraq, according to documents discovered recently. But that won't matter to you left leaners. As far as Saudi and the other countries, what do you think they think now that we've taken Iraq? Maybe don't mess with the USA? You know, like they were able to do for 8 years without retribution.

 

[loncray]

If Atta trained in Iraq, why isn't the Administration trumpeting it to the heights? That sort of rumor would help justify the invasion - if it were true and provable. And, how did they mess with the USA before 9/11? The barracks bombing in Lebanon happened on President Reagan's watch. So how many years was that again? Saying the Clinton Administration allowed the Arabs to walk on us ignores the fact that NOBODY saw a threat like 9/11. Not the Clinton folks, not the Bush 41 folks, not the Reagan folks. Not the Democrats in Congress, not the Republicans in Congress. You're looking at things with 20/20 hindsight, but at the times in question, there were no indications that we faced a threat like Al Qaeda.

 

[Sled Puller]

Originally posted by loncray

Well, some folks just won't see reality.



The Iraqi's weren't supporting terrorists.



Al Qaeda wasn't operating in Iraq, at least not with govt. support.



Saddam wouldn't have supported such an operation because he KNEW (unlike some of these Islamic extremists) that we'd be in Baghdad with B52's in a few hours.





.

The first two statements contradict each other, and that is obvious to the most casual observer.



Now the second two.

So, you think Saddam would never order his own boys to attack the US for fear of what might happen.

Then it makes perfect sense to support the nimrods next door, quietly, let them go attack the US, and the repercussins fall on Afghanistan, where they hid out.



I doubt very much Saddam knew even remote details about 9/11. But you can bet he Knew Bin Laden was up to something big, and gave him cash or supplies to help him out. The hatred for the US ran too deep for him just sit there, and argue about sanctions.

 

[CWebster]

Headed to Nashville for a week w/ no 'puter. Ya'll have a Merry Christmas and GO BLUE! (Wolverines that is!)

 

[Boomer II]

It was in the news/radio a couple of days ago. I think the Bush administration will lay it all out when they're ready. It won't matter to you guys though, it would be a full time job countering all the BS the left throws out, blabbing back only give it legitimacy.

BTW loncray, I've got a question for ya, do you think Bush stole the election?

 

[loncray]

Yeah, those nasty liberals, if only they would see things like the Administration wants them too! The Administration is their friend - the Administration tells them so.

No, I don't think Bush stole the election. However, I think there were legitimate questions about the results in Florida that the Supreme Court didn't allow to be answered. That taints the whole decision. The fact that the Governor there is the President's brother adds to the smell factor - as in it all smells bad.

Besides, it's amusing getting the right-wingers all upset by questioning the legitimacy of their hero - esp. when President Clinton won his elections handily, in addition to not getting convicted on impeachment, even with all those tax dollars spent investigating him. Hee hee!

 

[RustyJC]

Originally posted by loncray

Besides, it's amusing getting the right-wingers all upset by questioning the legitimacy of their hero - esp. when President Clinton won his elections handily, in addition to not getting convicted on impeachment, even with all those tax dollars spent investigating him. Hee hee!

Are you, therefore, wanting to debate issues, or just bait other participants? Baiting is a no-no, you know!



Rusty

 

[AKAMAC]

Originally posted by loncray

Saying the Clinton Administration allowed the Arabs to walk on us ignores the fact that NOBODY saw a threat like 9/11.





in addition to not getting convicted on impeachment,



[/B]

World Trade Center 93 ???



"convicted on impeachment"

I thought he was impeached for his conviction of perjury?

 

[loncray]

No, President Clinton wasn't convicted of anything. Impeachment is Congress' version of indictment - it's up to the Senate to convict, which they declined to do.

And what did the Republicans do after WTC 93? Did they call for war then? Did they tell the President that they'd support an invasion of countries that the bombers had trained in? You say Clinton rolled over to the Arabs - but nobody saw the kind of threat that 9/11 became. Nobody. Show me a Republican (or Democrat) lawmaker who knew the threat then, even after 1993. I don't think you can.

As to baiting, I'm just seeking debate. Just because a pretty good proportion of the folks that post to political threads on this board happen to be right of center, it makes it very easy sometimes to elicit loud protests upon announcing that the right isn't. And since nobody worries about baiting when announcing such things as "Howard Dean is a left-wing extremist", why should I? I'd like to think I'm putting up a pretty good argument for the middle of the road position, as opposed to the normal right wing here. That doesn't make it baiting.