Today's Terrorists

What a joke that is, Bush is talking about taking old folks money to invest social security retirement funds in the stock market that is crashing, sort of sounds like the same thing his friend Key Lay did when he stole the retirements of Enron workers and shareholders.

Please Debunked, find a real reason why Bush could be considered good for this nation, surely having Cheney in the administration could never be considered doing good

 

Gtech "Halliburton's activities in Iraq for the first three quarters of 2003 yielded just $46 million in operating profits on $1.3 billion in sales, a margin of about 3.5%. (When Cheney took office, Halliburton was trading around $50; in 2002 it traded around $10; it is now trading about $28, tracking approximately with the rest of the stock market the last twelve months.)"
Not including hundreds of millions that Conrad Black swindled. These events had dramatic effects on stock prices.
Course I could always provide examples to back that up LOL!

Now, though, let's consider that corruption, pay-offs, special consideration when awarding contracts to companies.... it has been pointed out many times that many or all of these situations are likely because there is big funding for the Republican party through 'donations' and these people get the choice contracts, and are introduced people in position of influence.
It is these people that profit, it is the republicans because they get elected through financial backing, advertising, lobbying, etcetera.
Then, it is pointed out, these people are the ones who profit when the contracts are awarded as a 'return favor' for the campaign contributions.

Haliburton, may really be worth 15$ on the market without help or preferential treatment getting contracts in Iraq and places in the first place.

The pay-offs, back scratching, etc., etc., are hardly going to show up on the books, it is a few people in the company who benefit the most due to weekly, monthly 'performance bonuses' on top of salaries that are obscenely high to begin with.
And they get these bonuses, and obscenely high salaries because they are promoted high levels for getting contracts (return favors from the Republicans in power) in the first place.

It all adds up on the books, they are hardly going to announce that Haliburton got the contracts as a return favor.

There is a widening gap between the haves, and the have nots. Fewer people controp more money than ever. That is ulimately fatal for the economy.
But it is happening, and the 'richest people' keep accumulating larger shares of the wealth, and these are ones that profit by the situations by the US being involved in the availability of contracts by invading Iraq in the first place.

The effects are not reflected in individual numbers by comparing comany worth and stock market performance against the 'norm', they are reflected by the widening gap in distribution of wealth, and the buddies who are the ones getting the riches in the end.

The US doesn't necessarily profit, other than insuring the Iraqi oil is now available to them, but the individuals who are getting richer faster in all this are the ones profitimng most.

This is what the 'Liberals' point out time and again, the press does, time and again.

So, when that very biased (how do I know? All the labels and judgements the labels imply in the 'articles) say this:
"Despite the fact that Democrats had charged Halliburton with profiteering, the company made a 3.5% profit on all its business in Iraq for the first three quarters of the year and wasn't guilty of "gouging the taxpayer" on the infamous gasoline deal."



They are not addressing the real point behind these accusations from the Democrats. That is, that individual people make millions and billions of dallars as the end result.

 

Mik, I can only hope by your last response that you are kidding?

I'll admit, from most of your posts, I'm not able to ascertain what you are talking about. As Mia has pointed out, it may be that English is not your first language. But this latest response is focused, and I can understand what you are saying.

So it's fair to say that it's still an assumption? Likely? Those are not facts we can work with. Those are "well, I believe that..."

There are as many special interest groups for funding republican candidates as democrats. Lest we forget how George (I hate America) Soros tried in vein to buy an election and failed. Lest we forget how Kerry said he would go after special interest funding, only to have the record reflect he took more special interest funding than any Senator in Washington.

In terms of performance bonuses, etc, who are "we" to say they are too high? I take no objection to anyone getting paid what they are worth or making good money. That includes the George Soros of the world, the Bill Gates, the Larry Page's, etc. I'm not for socialism, where we take from the rich and give to the lazy.

I don't defend Haliburton. They are a company, they've made mistakes. I have no stock in that company (though John Kerry did). Haliburton was awarded the contracts the same with Bush as they were with Clinton. Because they are the ONLY company capable of handling such a monumental task. What I find most striking is, Haliburton made a LOT more money when Dick Cheney ran the company during the Clinton years, yet Democrats whine about using them under Bush? Double standards? I say yes. Haliburton is making relatively pennies on the dollar today, compared to what it was during the Clinton years, yet there is never any outrage when a company profitted under the Clinton years. Why? Beats me.

This contrast deeply with Anthony's position that the world economy is crashing, everyone is poor, there are no jobs (even though we're at 5.6% unemployment - which is exceptionally well).

I have no problem with the rich. The rich hire people. The rich put people to work. The rich make our economy go around. I've never been hired by someone who is poor. And I certainly don't think lazy people that won't get off their duff and go to work, deserve handouts, just because. It doesn't work that way. In "this country" we all have equal opportunity. No one holds my hand and tells me what I can, or cannot be. If I want to take a student loan, I can go to college and become a doctor if I choose. I can become an investment banker, if I choose. Or, I can sit around and moan and complain how a job didn't come knocking on my door today. "I" have that choice. But no one owes me a dime. Just because someone worked harder or smarter than me, doesn't mean I'm suddenly owed a share of their success. Case in point...one of my former business partners/friends got funding for a software idea he had, after we lost our company. He did it on his own. Two years later, he's making 60k per month with next to no overhead and the numbers keep rising. Does he owe me anything? No! I'm very happy for him, and it's inspired me to do even better.

You mean those rich democrats like John Kerry, John Edwards, Ted Kennedy, Hilary Clinton, et al, who take money from special interests groups while making promises that they will take care of the average working American?

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/7/7/150106.shtml

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/2/10/135320.shtml

Pretty sad when Democrats have to take campaign contributions from the enemies of our own country.

Perhaps the Democrats do not have any real issues? The certainly do not have any real solutions. If Haliburton is the most qualified to do the job under Clinton (when Dick Cheny ran the company), why are they not the most qualified under Bush? And what company is the most qualified?

Again, I'll never understand the "perceived" outrage based on assumptions, yet we have clear evidence that the United Nations, our allies, and 270 influential businessmen and world leaders were bought off with oil money. All profiting from corrupt oil money, and the silence of the outrage is deafening. If that's not a self-serving special interest unto itself, I don't know what is.

 

No, wrong.. He is suggesting that we "young folk" KEEP OUR MONEY, and take a portion of that and put it into private retirement funds where it can earn a higher rate of return, and is not sucked dry by the system.

One of the biggest problems with SS is that fact that "old folks" who are the ones that are supposed to be benefiting from the system, are getting the money sucked dry by FAT PEOPLE, LAZY PEOPLE, and people that claim to have some type of disability. LUZERS, in my book. It's a retirement fund folks, not an entitlement fund, though that is what happened to it. More useless people are receiving the benefits. The system is broken. Let's fix it. I'm all for taking my money and putting it somewhere else. At the moment I do not pay in anything. I stopped a long time ago. It's pointless as it offers no return at the moment. All it does is fund people who do not deserve it. That is wrong.

What the hell does Bill Clinton's friend (oh yes, they were friends too you know) have to do with SS? Bilking a company for all its resources, and Social Security have nothing to do with one another. Easy on the sauce.

We could certainly do a lot worse.

 

If this is a response to the democrat's letter I posted then you must not have read it at all. This has no relation to the letter what so ever, I won't tell you what the letter is about because it is a simple and quick read.

 

That is very well stated. No administration is ever going to be perfect. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

 

GTech said:

You, sir, are correct! I mostly wanted to point that out for consideration.

As for the democrats, they are actually saints, I'll have you know LOL

I think Lobbying, back scratching and all applies to both, you are right there.

It comes down to trying to determine the motives behing any decision they make.

But in all fairness, that does not render the decisions or aims as equal.

BTW Anyone that keeps bookmarks for stuff like that article you linked to (as you stated it was older), let's just say "How do you keep track of them all? Can you give any hints for me to use?"

I am reading your other links, for purpose of the 'Open Mind Policy'

Another BTW: I think anthony sees a lot others don't. Maybe we both just need to work on our delivery

 

Sorry, everyone or thing can 'always be worse'. A serial killer could be worse, the terrorists could be worse. Of course 'they could be worse'. That would also apply to the Democrats, and all criticizers. Doesn't mean any particular action is therefore 'good'.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions is just as true as what I quoted above, which is "It is irrelevent"

There is a lot of that around here. See this page:

---------------------------------------
There is also much use of this:

As in "you ramble, are boring, don't make sense, are acting childish, is childish" as an arguement.

Less judgement, more reasons for your statements.

 

Mik, I have debated politics for the past few years. I did a lot of debating on the presidential elections. Unfortunately, I was not here then, but was able to go back and read some of Anthony's posts. I have well over a hundred bookmarks on Kerry (mostly dealing with his treason to our country), another 50-60 on Bush, more on other typically related subjects.

I try to work with facts. If facts are documented, then "I believe" rarely comes into play. Unlike some, I have a difficult time debating on personal feeling/opinions. For me, something either IS, or ISN'T. Sure I have my beliefs, but if they cannot be backed up with fact, then someone can easily put a hole in the debate. Sure there are times when evidence isn't all in to make a final conclusion, such as the case when CBS purposefully tried to sway our elections with bogus forged documents.

And we do agree on a few things. Special Interests are not just a Republican or Democrat issue. Although I cannot think of much lower "special interests" than taking money from our enemy (Chinese Army). Kerry was caught with his foot in his mouth when he talked about how hard he would fight special interest groups, only to have published that he took more than any other Senator in Washington.

Right and wrong holds no political boundaries. If a Republican is wrong, does something wrong (that is proven), he/she should pay the same consequences as a Democrat. I don't support blind loyalty to any party. If a Republican is wrong, boot him out. Same with a Democrat. We need people of morales and values, on both sides of the isle.

Most of the links I store, I do so that I may be able to engage in debate with facts that debunk a certain belief. For example, "Bush stole the election in 2000." That's been debunked a thousand times and the Miami Herald put forth considerable resources to that theory and found that Bush still would have won. But there are some that simply do not want to accept it. They are entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.

Bush and Cheney steal Iraqi Oil. This a baseless accusation and if it were true, no media organization in the world (before ours) would hesitate for a moment to make it headline news and keep it there for wees (even months). But such is not the case. Cheney profits from Haliburton? Facts show that Cheney receives a deferred salary that he negotiated prior to leaving Haliburton. Meaning - I don't need this much salary today, instead, break out over x number of years. Very normal. But instead, he donates that deferred salary to charities. As well, that deferred salary is fixed, meaning that whether Haliburton stock goes way up, or way down, he receives no more, or no less. It's a salary deferment. Of which he doesn't even have to donate.

It's not that I necessarily want to defend these people, but I want the facts. It's not fair to lob baseless accusations at ANYONE without some foundation to back them up. I think any of us, in the same circumstance, would ask the same if were us being accused.

It's not fair to lob "oil thieves" at Bush/Cheney when there is absolutely no evidence of this, while we have clear and overwhelming evidence that the UN, some of our allies, and 270 influential businessmen and world leaders were bribed by saddam which effectively swayed the UN vote to go to war. We have clear evidence of "real oil thieves" before us, and yet some still try to fabricate conspiracies that Bush and Cheney are oil thieves. I can't rationale that kind of reckless hatred. There are plenty of reasons to dislike Bush/Cheney without having to make things up to do so. I take issue with Bush's immigration policy, I take issue that more resources are not being put on our borders and volunteers are doing so because they love their country.

If we convict everyone on motive alone, then we do an injustice to everyone.

 

I still do not really see any cognitive thoughts. The post does fill up space nicely though. Kudos for that anyway.

 

GTech said:

I agree with you 100%! It is refreshing. I also have dozens of bookmarks to sites about critical thinking, hoax exposing, etc. on top of my burgeoning political collection. There is much fodder here in BC lately as well (there always is, sigh) for our provincial election.

However, as to this, not all assumptions are unwarranted, just like opinions, all assumptions are not equal, some are more likely than others, because in politics there is much behind the scenes that we only speculate upon.

It sure seems that a lot of these arguements seem to degrade into battles of attrition with the exchanging ever more and farther from the topic 'facts'.

Many times what seems most likely right, is right, and that is the point of this debate,is not that both 'sides' have their good points, and both their bad. That is irrelevant to whether the Iraq war is just.

The point is made that Bush was unusually interested to go into Iraq, the reasons given were suspect, and what remains has more to do with destablising the most important area for Muslims, and a critically strategic placed one geographically and politically.

We are trying to decide if arguements for a humanitarian excuse fail, and if political reasons best explain it.

Sometimes, I am saying, you have to step back and see the forest. The details and fact's that are important to one view may not be the same as the ones important to the opposing view, and it degenerates into an arguement over what are the most relevent 'facts'.

And no matter how hard we try to be objective, it is impossible to assure that any view is not biased, as I notice in my own arguements, and everyone elses. It leads to 'my facts are more important than your facts'.
We cannot ever be sure why the US went into Iraq, what exactly went into the decision, what was in the decision makers minds.

It eventually has to come down to 'which is the most likely explanation'.

See Occams Razor.
IE. What is most likely, humanitarian reasons, or political ones, for the war.

When you start a war with fabricated, or even 'not well established reasons', it is highly suspect, and the original reasons never about freeing Iraq, it was about WMD and weeding out terrorism (a very secondary reason at that).

What I am trying to say (along with slip some 'campaigning for my viewpoint in) is that just being factual is not enough many times. This is my opinion, what I said above are my reasons, and I respect people who can even see that much.

Grasping facts still seem far beyond many peoples understanding(I hold that opinion!). Hence, links to sites and explanations about what constitutes valid arguement.

Because facts can be used invalidly.

 

This article was linked is in post # 148 in this thread, but since GTech still thinks this is a UN problem and the war is not over oil I wanted to post it again for his benefit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm

Last Updated: Thursday, 17 March, 2005, 15:41 GMT

Secret US plans for Iraq's oil


By Greg Palast
Reporting for Newsnight


The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks, sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed.


Iraqi-born Falah Aljibury says US Neo-Conservatives planned to force a coup d'etat in Iraq
Two years ago today - when President George Bush announced US, British and Allied forces would begin to bomb Baghdad - protesters claimed the US had a secret plan for Iraq's oil once Saddam had been conquered.

In fact there were two conflicting plans, setting off a hidden policy war between neo-conservatives at the Pentagon, on one side, versus a combination of "Big Oil" executives and US State Department "pragmatists".

"Big Oil" appears to have won. The latest plan, obtained by Newsnight from the US State Department was, we learned, drafted with the help of American oil industry consultants.

Insiders told Newsnight that planning began "within weeks" of Bush's first taking office in 2001, long before the September 11th attack on the US.

We saw an increase in the bombing of oil facilities and pipelines [in Iraq] built on the premise that privatisation is coming

Mr Falah Aljibury
An Iraqi-born oil industry consultant, Falah Aljibury, says he took part in the secret meetings in California, Washington and the Middle East. He described a State Department plan for a forced coup d'etat.

Mr Aljibury himself told Newsnight that he interviewed potential successors to Saddam Hussein on behalf of the Bush administration.

Secret sell-off plan

The industry-favoured plan was pushed aside by a secret plan, drafted just before the invasion in 2003, which called for the sell-off of all of Iraq's oil fields. The new plan was crafted by neo-conservatives intent on using Iraq's oil to destroy the Opec cartel through massive increases in production above Opec quotas.


Former Shell Oil USA chief stalled plans to privatise Iraq's oil industry
The sell-off was given the green light in a secret meeting in London headed by Fadhil Chalabi shortly after the US entered Baghdad, according to Robert Ebel.

Mr Ebel, a former Energy and CIA oil analyst, now a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, told Newsnight he flew to the London meeting at the request of the State Department.

Mr Aljibury, once Ronald Reagan's "back-channel" to Saddam, claims that plans to sell off Iraq's oil, pushed by the US-installed Governing Council in 2003, helped instigate the insurgency and attacks on US and British occupying forces.

"Insurgents used this, saying, 'Look, you're losing your country, you're losing your resources to a bunch of wealthy billionaires who want to take you over and make your life miserable,'" said Mr Aljibury from his home near San Francisco.

"We saw an increase in the bombing of oil facilities, pipelines, built on the premise that privatisation is coming."

Privatisation blocked by industry

Philip Carroll, the former CEO of Shell Oil USA who took control of Iraq's oil production for the US Government a month after the invasion, stalled the sell-off scheme.

Mr Carroll told us he made it clear to Paul Bremer, the US occupation chief who arrived in Iraq in May 2003, that: "There was to be no privatisation of Iraqi oil resources or facilities while I was involved."


Amy Jaffee says oil companies fear a privatisation would exclude foreign firms
Ariel Cohen, of the neo-conservative Heritage Foundation, told Newsnight that an opportunity had been missed to privatise Iraq's oil fields.

He advocated the plan as a means to help the US defeat Opec, and said America should have gone ahead with what he called a "no-brainer" decision.

Mr Carroll hit back, telling Newsnight, "I would agree with that statement. To privatize would be a no-brainer. It would only be thought about by someone with no brain."

New plans, obtained from the State Department by Newsnight and Harper's Magazine under the US Freedom of Information Act, called for creation of a state-owned oil company favoured by the US oil industry. It was completed in January 2004 under the guidance of Amy Jaffe of the James Baker Institute in Texas.

Formerly US Secretary of State, Baker is now an attorney representing Exxon-Mobil and the Saudi Arabian government.

View segments of Iraq oil plans at www.GregPalast.com

Questioned by Newsnight, Ms Jaffe said the oil industry prefers state control of Iraq's oil over a sell-off because it fears a repeat of Russia's energy privatisation. In the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, US oil companies were barred from bidding for the reserves.

Ms Jaffe says US oil companies are not warm to any plan that would undermine Opec and the current high oil price: "I'm not sure that if I'm the chair of an American company, and you put me on a lie detector test, I would say high oil prices are bad for me or my company."

The former Shell oil boss agrees. In Houston, he told Newsnight: "Many neo conservatives are people who have certain ideological beliefs about markets, about democracy, about this, that and the other. International oil companies, without exception, are very pragmatic commercial organizations. They don't have a theology."

A State Department spokesman told Newsnight they intended "to provide all possibilities to the Oil Ministry of Iraq and advocate none".

 

"BBC's Newsnight". The holy grail of reporting for me. NOT.

Nothing like making up news

Thanx for the laugh. It's been a long day. I needed some more satire/humor.

 

Mia, we all know you live in a world of your own and if Bush stole your baby you would say he did it for a good reason

 

Gee, a breaking story by...Greg Palist? pfft! You must be kidding?

Nut job, moonbat, spreads hatred and vile at every avail.

Figures you'd put stock in a nut like Palist. No wonder you are so intentionally misinformed about everything.

Palist...heh, that was too funny

 

I would much rather use his information than the bias and fairy tale world you and Mia live in GTech.

The stock market is crashing, the dollar is worthless, the nation is in debt up to its neck, record trade deficits, the Houston Oil Men (Nixon Boys) are robbing all consumers and ruining the world economy ripping us all off on world record oil prices, yet GTech says the economy is strong and all is good

PS: Who will the readers believe GTech

 

I'm not in this for a popularity game Anthony. That's what your role is. So I'll leave the concern with who they will believe in your hands. It's important to you to build your popularity by hating on your country. What's the word we call people like that?

I think if rationale readers put some thought into it, and say "hmm, who is this Greg Palast? and do some searching on his "credible articles," and see he is featured at places like Indy Media, BuzzFlash, Marxist websites, Democratic Underground and other places that have little credibility, then they might be able to judge for themselves.

Further, they might say "hold it, CBS, NBC and ABC news dislike Bush and virtually gave Kerry free reign of the networks. I bet if it were true, these places that cannot stand Bush would have some info. Oh wait, the NYT, the most liberal "daily" paper in America would surely have something on this?

Nothing? Not a peep? Hmm...

But, hate mongering Palist is just what Anthony is looking for

You stick with the junior high school popularity contest Anthony, and leave the debating to others more qualified

 

Well, duh! It suits your blame/hate America first mentality. Just because you would betray your country doesn't mean everyone would

"Is there not some chosen curse, some hidden thunder in the stores of heaven, red with uncommon wrath, to blast the man who owes his greatness to his country's ruin!" -- Joseph Addison.

 

I don't hate my country, but you do or you would not support corrupt leaders, I remember folks that voted for Nixon twice that used to say the same about folks that wanted him out, face it GTech, Bush is the worst President in the history of this nation, worse than Nixon, at least Nixon did not have a VP who was a viper

 

Blah, blah, blah Nixon. Blah blah blah oil. Blah blah blah Haliburton.

And never anything to back it up with.

When people stoop so low that they make up their own version of truth to put their country down, that's about as low as you can get.