Photos of 20,000 Iraqi civilians killed by USA

"P. Tierney" wrote:

BTW, anyone see the Daily Show feature that had a debate,
Bush vs. Bush? They interspersed clips from Bush comments that
he made on the campaign trail and used them as a "debate" with
the Bush of the last few much. Freaking hilarious.

Found it. Site:

http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_show...t/videos.jhtml

Click on any video that pops up, and when the "search video"
option is available, type in "bush vs. bush".


P. Tierney

"P. Tierney" wrote in message news:se_nb.58732$Fm2.37782@attbi_s04...

"P. Tierney" wrote in message
newsRZnb.59995$e01.171114@attbi_s02...

"Tom Enright" wrote in message
http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2000/msg01051.html
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/deb...s/u221003.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/election2000/speeches/

etc.

Let me add a second response to this. While he did make an
occassional side-reference to Hussien and sanctions, it was never a
part of his platform, or the Republican platform, to overthrow
his government. He said he wanted to "support to the groups that are
trying to overthrow Saddam Hussein." Not use our troops to
to it, and build their nation.

Nor were there mentions of how horrible it was the civilians and
children were being murdered there (which is the current popular
rationale for the war) even though it happened just as much in the 90's
as it did in the 00's. The same goes for any "weapons" threat.

It simply wasn't much of an issue for his campaign. And
when it was an issue, the rationale was different.

I guess I am missing your point. It seems to me that you appear to be
stating that the only policies a president can pursue are those stated
prior to his election. I don't recall either candidate stating something
like "if terrorists fly an airplane into the World Trade Center, I will..."

-TOE

"This is the recutio ad absurdum of racial sensitivity: better
dead than rude."
-John Derbyshire


P. Tierney

"Tom Enright" wrote:

Let me add a second response to this. While he did make an
occassional side-reference to Hussien and sanctions, it was never a
part of his platform, or the Republican platform, to overthrow
his government. He said he wanted to "support to the groups that are
trying to overthrow Saddam Hussein." Not use our troops to
to it, and build their nation.

Nor were there mentions of how horrible it was the civilians and
children were being murdered there (which is the current popular
rationale for the war) even though it happened just as much in the 90's
as it did in the 00's. The same goes for any "weapons" threat.

It simply wasn't much of an issue for his campaign. And
when it was an issue, the rationale was different.

I guess I am missing your point. It seems to me that you appear to be
stating that the only policies a president can pursue are those stated
prior to his election.

Then let me clarify my point.

The current popular rationale for the war generally centers on
two reasons: Saddam is evil/dangerous, and he kills families
and children.

Now, since both of things have been true for decades, it is fair
to ask a supporter of the war: If they are a good enough reason
to overthrow and nation build now, then why weren't they three
years ago? Ten years ago?

I don't recall either candidate stating something
like "if terrorists fly an airplane into the World Trade Center, I
will..."

Perhaps you missed the press release, but after many, many
attempts to directly link Hussein to the events of 9/11, even
Bush finally admitted that there is no evidence of such a connection.


P. Tierney

"P. Tierney" wrote:

The current popular rationale for the war generally centers on
two reasons: Saddam is evil/dangerous, and he kills families
and children.

Silly me. I forgot the other main reason for the war.
Who got the most money? Shouldn't be a surprise.

BTW, I would've given you the Fox version of this story,
if they only had it on their website.............



--------------
Report Links Iraq Deals to Bush Donations
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: October 30, 2003

Filed at 11:32 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Companies awarded $8 billion in contracts to rebuild Iraq
and
Afghanistan have been major campaign donors to President Bush, and their
executives have
had important political and military connections, according to a study
released Thursday.

The study of more than 70 U.S. companies and individual contractors turned
up more
than $500,000 in donations to the president's 2000 campaign, more than they
gave
collectively to any other politician over the past dozen years.

The report was released by the Center for Public Integrity, a
Washington-based research
organization that produces investigative articles on special interests and
ethics in
government. Its staff includes journalists and researchers.

The Center concluded that most of the 10 largest contracts went to companies
that employed
former high-ranking government officials, or executives with close ties to
members of Congress
and even the agencies awarding their contracts.

Major contracts for Iraq and Afghanistan were awarded by the Bush
administration without
competitive bids, because agencies said competition would have taken too
much time to meet
urgent needs in both countries.

``No single agency supervised the contracting process for the government,''
Center executive
director Charles Lewis said. ``This situation alone shows how susceptible
the contracting
system is to waste, fraud and cronyism.''

J. Edward Fox, an assistant administrator at the U.S. Agency for
International Development,
took issue with Lewis' statement and aspects of the report.

``It would ... be incorrect to suggest that there is no overall oversight of
this process,'' he wrote
the Center. ``The USAID inspector general's review of all Iraq contracts
which was requested
by USAID Administrator Andrew S. Natsios on April 14th has shown that all
Iraq contracts
to date have been done in compliance'' with federal regulations.

The top contract recipient was the Halliburton subsidiary KBR, with more
than $2.3 billion
awarded to support the U.S. military and restore Iraq's oil industry.

Halliburton was headed by Vice President Dick Cheney before he resigned to
run with
Bush in 2000.

Halliburton's top executive, Dave Lesar, said Wednesday he was offended by
criticism of the
company's Iraq work but believed it was ``less about Halliburton and more
about external
political issues.''

``As a company uniquely qualified to take on this difficult assignment, we
will continue to
bring all of our global resources to bear at this critical time in the
Middle East. We have
served the military for over 50 years and have no intention of backing down
at this point,'' he said.

Bechtel was second with a $1 billion capital construction contract involving
Iraq's utilities,
telecommunications, railroads, ports, schools, health care facilities,
bridges, roads and airports.

The company's Internet site says, ``We do engage in the political process,
as do most
companies in the United States. We have legitimate policy interests and
positions on matters
before Congress, and we express them in many ways, including support for
elected officials
who support those positions.

``We do not expect or receive political favors or government contracts as a
result of those
contributions.''

The Center's analysis of contractor political donations showed:

--The top 10 contractors contributed $11 million to national political
parties, candidates
and political action committees since 1990.

--Fourteen of the companies won contracts in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Those companies,
combined, have given more than $23 million in political contributions since
1990.

--Most contractors, their political action committees and their employees
have contributed
just under $49 million to national political campaigns and parties since
that year.

--In the same time period, contractor donations to Republican Party
committees outpaced
contributions to the Democrats, $12.7 million to $7.1 million.

Many of the companies with large contracts have important political
connections.

Former Secretary of State George Shultz is a member of Bechtel's board of
directors,
although he has no management role, according to the company's Web site.

Riley Bechtel, the chairman and chief executive officer, was named early
this year to the
President's Export Council, which advises the president on programs to
improve U.S. trade.

Jack Sheehan, senior vice president in Bechtel's petroleum and chemicals
business, served
on the Defense Policy Board, which advises the defense secretary on a
variety of issues.

Other contractors also had connections. Among those cited by the Center:

David Kay, head of the Bush administration's search for weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq,
is a former vice president of Science Applications International Corp. He
left the company
in October 2002.

Christopher ``Ryan'' Henry left the same company as a vice president in
February 2003 to
become principal deputy undersecretary of defense for policy.

Scott Spangler, principal owner of Chemonics International, was a senior
U.S. Agency for
International Development official during the first Bush administration. The
company receives 90 percent of its business from USAID.

Sullivan Haave Associates Inc. was founded by Carol Haave, currently the
deputy
assistant secretary of defense for security and information operations.

The Center's findings are based, in part, on 73 Freedom of Information Act
requests
and an analysis of a federal contractor database.

"P. Tierney" wrote in message news:jifob.63594$Fm2.46747@attbi_s04...

"Tom Enright" wrote:

I guess I am missing your point. It seems to me that you appear to be
stating that the only policies a president can pursue are those stated
prior to his election.

Then let me clarify my point.

The current popular rationale for the war generally centers on
two reasons: Saddam is evil/dangerous, and he kills families
and children.

Now, since both of things have been true for decades, it is fair
to ask a supporter of the war: If they are a good enough reason
to overthrow and nation build now, then why weren't they three
years ago? Ten years ago?

Who says they weren't? I didn't. My personal belief in human rights,
individual freedoms have not changed in the last ten years. Unlike,
say, the "human shields" who all of the sudden don't feel the need to
"sheild" the Red Cross/Crescent or UN offices in Iraq.

I don't recall either candidate stating something
like "if terrorists fly an airplane into the World Trade Center, I
will..."

Perhaps you missed the press release, but after many, many
attempts to directly link Hussein to the events of 9/11, even
Bush finally admitted that there is no evidence of such a connection.

Well, I may have missed a press release or two, but you surely didn't
miss my post to which you are responding. I don't see where I link
9/11 and Hussein.

-TOE

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings;
the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
-Churchill

P. Tierney

"P. Tierney" wrote in message news:bhgob.63783$HS4.563945@attbi_s01...

"P. Tierney" wrote:

The current popular rationale for the war generally centers on
two reasons: Saddam is evil/dangerous, and he kills families
and children.

Silly me. I forgot the other main reason for the war.
Who got the most money? Shouldn't be a surprise.

BTW, I would've given you the Fox version of this story,
if they only had it on their website.............



--------------
Report Links Iraq Deals to Bush Donations
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: October 30, 2003

Construtction companies getting construction contracts!?
Petro-Chemical companies getting contracts to handle petro-chemicals!?

What is the world comming to?

Two problems:

The US, and these companies, would have been far better off if Iraq wasn't
invaded and just did business with Saddam.

These companies also gave to Democrats.

yawn

-TOE

snip

"Tom Enright" wrote in message
om...
"P. Tierney" wrote in message
news:bhgob.63783$HS4.563945@attbi_s01...

"P. Tierney" wrote:

The current popular rationale for the war generally centers on
two reasons: Saddam is evil/dangerous, and he kills families
and children.

Silly me. I forgot the other main reason for the war.
Who got the most money? Shouldn't be a surprise.

BTW, I would've given you the Fox version of this story,
if they only had it on their website.............



--------------
Report Links Iraq Deals to Bush Donations
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: October 30, 2003

Construtction companies getting construction contracts!?
Petro-Chemical companies getting contracts to handle petro-chemicals!?

What is the world comming to?

Two problems:

The US, and these companies, would have been far better off if Iraq wasn't
invaded and just did business with Saddam.

Wrong.

1. The US corporatations could no longer have dealings with the ilk of
Hussein due to the more or less common knowledge that he was such a
scoundrel -- bad image.

2. Hussein wouldn't do business with them. Contracts did not include the
U.S.

3. Hussein was the leader in replacing the dollar with the Euro as the
medium of exchange in the petro industry, which would have cause economic
collapse of the United States, particularly bringing down the U.S.
petro-chemical businesses.



These companies also gave to Democrats.

By what comparative amounts?

yawn

Feigning boredom only makes you looks as though you don't understand what's
going on around you.


--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield

"Byron Canfield" wrote in message news:m1vob.53842$275.136332@attbi_s53...
"Tom Enright" wrote in message
om...

Construtction companies getting construction contracts!?
Petro-Chemical companies getting contracts to handle petro-chemicals!?

What is the world comming to?

Two problems:

The US, and these companies, would have been far better off if Iraq wasn't
invaded and just did business with Saddam.

Wrong.

1. The US corporatations could no longer have dealings with the ilk of
Hussein due to the more or less common knowledge that he was such a
scoundrel -- bad image.

The morality of the US government and corporations prevent them from doing
business with Hussein but not to invade Iraq?

Of course this explains why the French and the Germans were so against the
invasion. They have no problem doing business with such a scoundrel.

2. Hussein wouldn't do business with them. Contracts did not include the
U.S.

Hussein would gladly do business with the US. Are actually suggesting
that he would turn down income? "Sure I gas and torture my own people
with impunity, but hey, at least I don't do business with US energy
companies."

3. Hussein was the leader in replacing the dollar with the Euro as the
medium of exchange in the petro industry, which would have cause economic
collapse of the United States, particularly bringing down the U.S.
petro-chemical businesses.

These companies also gave to Democrats.

By what comparative amounts?

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? The Democrats and the
Republicans have recieved money from thousands of corporations sometimes
the Dems get more, sometimes the Republicans. The attention Enron paid
to Clinton is really rather impressive. Is Billy in on this scam as
well?

yawn

Feigning boredom only makes you looks as though you don't understand what's
going on around you.

I guess I should get a tinfoil hat.

-TOE

"Tom Enright" wrote:

Construtction companies getting construction contracts!?
Petro-Chemical companies getting contracts to handle petro-chemicals!?

What is the world comming to?

Fewer critical thinkers, for one.

Two problems:

The US, and these companies, would have been far better off if Iraq wasn't
invaded and just did business with Saddam.

Well, no.

These companies also gave to Democrats.

yawn

You being asleep is the only excuse I can think of if you
think that Dick Cheney's company gave to Gore's campaign
as generously as they gave to Bush.


P. Tierney

"Tom Enright" wrote in message
om...
"P. Tierney" wrote in message
news:jifob.63594$Fm2.46747@attbi_s04...

"Tom Enright" wrote:

I guess I am missing your point. It seems to me that you appear to be
stating that the only policies a president can pursue are those stated
prior to his election.

Then let me clarify my point.

The current popular rationale for the war generally centers on
two reasons: Saddam is evil/dangerous, and he kills families
and children.

Now, since both of things have been true for decades, it is fair
to ask a supporter of the war: If they are a good enough reason
to overthrow and nation build now, then why weren't they three
years ago? Ten years ago?

Who says they weren't? I didn't.

You weren't running for office. Those who were, and
support the war based upon "humanitarian" reasons now
can be fairly asked why they did not push for a war 5, 10, 15
years ago when all of these things were going on then.

I don't recall either candidate stating something
like "if terrorists fly an airplane into the World Trade Center, I
will..."

Perhaps you missed the press release, but after many, many
attempts to directly link Hussein to the events of 9/11, even
Bush finally admitted that there is no evidence of such a connection.

Well, I may have missed a press release or two, but you surely didn't
miss my post to which you are responding. I don't see where I link
9/11 and Hussein.

Then don't bring up 9/11. It has nothing to do with this
discussion.


P. Tierney