Billo_Really said:The UN has already come out and stated they did not give the US authorization to act unilaterally. It wasn't Bush's call.
You win! I have no comeback for a nuetered Congress.Originally posted by akyron:
Ok so bring on the impeachment. I wont hold my breath.
Billo_Really said:You win! I have no comeback for a nuetered Congress.
Like I said, George Bush is al Qaeda's Man of the Year!CIA: Osama Helped Bush in '04
By Robert Parry July 4, 2006
On Oct. 29, 2004, just four days before the U.S. presidential election, al-Qaeda leader Osama bin-Laden released a videotape denouncing George W. Bush. Some Bush supporters quickly spun the diatribe as “Osama’s endorsement of John Kerry.” But behind the walls of the CIA, analysts had concluded the opposite: that bin-Laden was trying to help Bush gain a second term.
This stunning CIA disclosure is tucked away in a brief passage near the end of Ron Suskind’s The One Percent Doctrine, which draws heavily from CIA insiders. Suskind wrote that the CIA analysts based their troubling assessment on classified information, but the analysts still puzzled over exactly why bin-Laden wanted Bush to stay in office.
According to Suskind’s book, CIA analysts had spent years “parsing each expressed word of the al-Qaeda leader and his deputy, [Ayman] Zawahiri. What they’d learned over nearly a decade is that bin-Laden speaks only for strategic reasons. …
“Their [the CIA’s] assessments, at day’s end, are a distillate of the kind of secret, internal conversations that the American public [was] not sanctioned to hear: strategic analysis. Today’s conclusion: bin-Laden’s message was clearly designed to assist the President’s reelection.
“At the five o’clock meeting, [deputy CIA director] John McLaughlin opened the issue with the consensus view: ‘Bin-Laden certainly did a nice favor today for the President.’”
McLaughlin’s comment drew nods from CIA officers at the table. Jami Miscik, CIA deputy associate director for intelligence, suggested that the al-Qaeda founder may have come to Bush’s aid because bin-Laden felt threatened by the rise in Iraq of Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi; bin-Laden might have thought his leadership would be diminished if Bush lost the White House and their “eye-to-eye struggle” ended.
But the CIA analysts also felt that bin-Laden might have recognized how Bush’s policies – including the Guantanamo prison camp, the Abu Ghraib scandal and the endless bloodshed in Iraq – were serving al-Qaeda’s strategic goals for recruiting a new generation of jihadists.
By demanding an American surrender, bin-Laden knew U.S. voters would instinctively want to fight. That way bin-Laden helped ensure that George W. Bush would stay in power, would continue his clumsy “war on terror” – and would drive thousands of new recruits into al-Qaeda’s welcoming arms.
http://consortiumnews.com/2006/070306.html
Billo_Really said:Like I said, George Bush is al Qaeda's Man of the Year!
Get real! You are completely delusional if your trying to infer, up until recently, a hostile Congress towards the President. They have rubber-stamped practically everything he did. With a few exceptions, they were nothing more than "yes" men.Originally posted by akyron:
Get real. Republicans hate his guts as much as anybody for wounding their chances at reelection and voting themselves payraises again.
If they could charge the president with anything they would.
Billo_Really said:Get real! You are completely delusional if your trying to infer, up until recently, a hostile Congress towards the President. They have rubber-stamped practically everything he did. With a few exceptions, they were nothing more than "yes" men.
Congress has let the nation down by letting this rogue President trample all over our Constitutional rights, make this nation the most hated on earth and allowed him to get away with powers his office does not Constitutionally have.
Only within the past few months have they started to wake up. Which you should do as well.
Get real! You are too funny...
I went through a lot of emotions watching 3 Kings. I went from laughing hysterically to getting really pissed off to being very sad and back to laughing hysterically. Some of those scenes are classics.Originally posted by akyron:
If they can find any wrong doing they would and should charge him immediately.
I wont hold my breath waiting.
massive sale at frys today btw. many dvds are 5 bucks or so. I wanted to pick up 3 kings among other things.
Billo_Really said:[*]Or when their driving to that one outpost that thinks it's Saddam that's coming, they all start running for their lives, then the camera goes back to inside the limo and their listening to Chicago!
[/LIST]That movie is a classic.
Even the start of the movie is strangely funny, "Are we still shooting?"Originally posted by akyron:
Sgt. Troy Barlow: Conrad, you've washed your hands like ten times.
Conrad Vig: Lord knows what kind of vermin live in the butt of a Dune Coon.
Chief Elgin: Why do you let this cracker hang around with you, man?
Sgt. Troy Barlow: He's all right, man. He's from a group home in Dallas. He's got no high school.
Conrad Vig: Don't tell people that.
Chief Elgin: I don't care if he's from Johannesburg. I don't want to hear Dune Coon or Sand ****** from him or anybody else.
Conrad Vig: Captain uses those terms.
Sgt. Troy Barlow: That's not the point, Conrad. The point is that Towel Head and Camel Jockey are perfectly good substitutes.
Chief Elgin: Exactly!
Adriana Cruz: I don't want him walking away from me, going to other reporters, and giving away my stories.
Archie Gates: What stories? You don't have any stories.
Adriana Cruz: You don't ****in' tell people that.
That's what I was talking about. Then you back inside the limo and all you hear is Peter Ceteira singing....Originally posted by akyron:
I like the part where they say Saddams coming and is going to kill everyone and the outpost flees too.
"Has Bush honestly done anything worse..."Originally posted by EHatem
I think he's right when he says that Congress would investigate this president if they thought he was doing anything wrong. I mean, look at how they treated the last president. Has Bush honestly done anything worse than say the Travelgate investigation of Hillary Clinton? I mean, that probably cost the government thousands of dollars. So to suggest that this Congress would turn a blind eye to say, just for the sake of argument, handing millions of dollars to a company that was run by, oh I don't know, let's say the Vice President. That works. And let's say that even as the GAO continuely says that this fictitious company is overbilling the government and, in some cases, out right stealing from the government Congress would just continue to smile and write the checks? Never happen. Not with the party that is dedicated to keeping spending down and keeping budgets in check.
EHatem said:just for the sake of argument, handing millions of dollars to a company that was run by, oh I don't know, let's say the Vice President. That works. And let's say that even as the GAO continuely says that this fictitious company is overbilling the government and, in some cases, out right stealing from the government Congress would just continue to smile and write the checks? Never happen. Not with the party that is dedicated to keeping spending down and keeping budgets in check.
Billo_Really said:"Has Bush honestly done anything worse..."
Well, if we are going to be honest with ourselves, yes, he's done a lot worse. Here's the short list:
If were going to look at this honestly, Clinton told a lie about a sex act in the Oral Office and got impeached. Bush told several lies that resulted in the deaths of over 52,500 people and made us the most hated nation on earth.
- Wire-tapping without a warrant seven months before 9-11.
- Disregarding the CIA warning about UBL "determined to strike inside the US."
- Just sitting their reading a childrens book after being notified that our nation was under attack.
- Starting a war 9 months before receiving authorization from Congress.
- Attacking a nation that had done nothing to us.
- Making a nation (that barely has running water and electricity) out to be a threat to the US.
- Saying he knew where WMD's were, when he didn't know.
- Saying he was going to fire whomever outed Valerie Plame, when it was him all along.
- Saying he was just monitoring international calls, when he was obtaining phone records of 200 million Americans.
- Saying he had a right to torture anyone he felt like.
- Saying he could hold people indefinately without charges.
- Invading a sovereign nation while violating every relative international law in existance.
So I ask you, do you really think he hasn't done anything worse?
Hey buddie, what's up, bra!Originally posted by akyron:
Prove it then charge him with wrongdoing if you can.
Good hunting.
That is all.
akyron said:I realize you are attempting to be sarcastic in some way but are you saying The vice president is accepting congressional bribes while fronting a fictitious company at this time?
EHatem said:Yep. Thank God it's not bribery.
The Public Contracts Code states that when you use public money you must have competitive bidding. How about that one?Originally posted by EHatem
...not much we can do about seeing exactly what laws were broken.
Billo_Really said:The Public Contracts Code states that when you use public money you must have competitive bidding. How about that one?
Were in agreement here.Originally posted by akyron:
If only one contractor can do the job we have a serious problem.
Billo_Really said:Were in agreement here.
BTW, my stance on this is a little bitter sweet since I spent four years working for Fluor Corp. ('79-'83) and they are one of the companies Halliburton sub's out too. Sometimes I ask myself the question, "Would I be so against Halliburton contracts if I was still working at Fluor?"
I'm not going to answer that. At least not to you.
akyron said:Haliburton barely made the top 20 contractors btw in terms of money spent. It was #1 in growth however.
Competitive and non competitive bidding were considered on a case by case basis. I think all contracts should be fully competitive and there should be no monopoly contracts whatsoever. If only one contractor can do the job we have a serious problem.
EHatem said:According to your own article that you pointed us to, in 2000 Haliburton was the 28th largest federal contractor earning 763 million dollars. In 2005 it had jumped to the 6th largest federal contractor earning nearly 6 billion dollars. Halliburton is even out performing the defence contractors at this point. So, um, not quite sure where you got the barely making the top 20 in contractors.
I will agree with your second point though. As well as point out that the two biggest government expeditures over the last 12 months have been the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as the Katrina aftermath. And look who got a big portion of both. At some point the sheer volume of coincidences should add up to something.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?