To all Libs saying Iraqis don't want us there

[remove]

As I said, there are other reports which bear proof on this issue that none but a few will ever have access to.

why are these reports not public? how do YOU know about them? answer those questions.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by easyt65
As I said, there are other reports which bear proof on this issue that none but a few will ever have access to.

How about a report from Iraqis that live in Iraq? Let's get their thoughts about us in their country.

More factions join calls for withdrawal of U.S. troops
By Adnan Hussein Azzaman, December 11, 2005

A pact of honor, calling, among other things, for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, has been signed in Baghdad.

The signatories include “more than 57 political parties and influential tribes in the country,” said Bahaa al-Araji of the Sadr movement which helped drafting the pact.

“The groups agreeing to our pact of honor represent all hues of the Iraqi society,” Araji said.

He said any government assuming power after the December 15 elections will have to taken the signatories’ demands into account.

The Sadr movement, led by the Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, wields tremendous power among impoverished Shiite across the country.

Among the signatories were Ahmad Jalabi, current deputy prime minister and representatives from influential Shiite and Sunni factions.

The pact explicitly calls on the new government to make a clear distinction between “resistance” of foreign troops and “terror.”

Araji said the pact “considers resistance a legitimate right but condemns terror, violence, the killing of civilians and kidnapping.”

He said the pact also demands “the departure of occupation troops in the light of a specific timetable. The legacy of the occupation troops must be removed and no concession be given to them to set up bases whether temporary or permanent.”

On Israel, the pact says any new government must be under obligation no to normalize relations with the Jewish state.

The demands in the pact are not binding. However, the pact shows that pressure for the withdrawal of U.S. troops is building in Iraq as well as in the United States.

The major factions in the current Shiite coalition have signed the pact and al-Sadr movement is reported to have agreed to join the coalition on the understanding that they will implement it if they win the elections.

The pact even calls for the release of what it describes as “the sons of the honorable resistance”, currently raging in Sunni-dominated areas, from both U.S. and Iraqi jails.

http://www.azzaman.com/english/index.asp?fname=news\2005-12-7\123.htm

 

[remove]

this is of course a good point. i bet that fellow will bring up his favorite 65 year old iraqi woman though.


it should be noted that Chalabi (bush's pet) even signed the pact as well.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by remove:
this is of course a good point. i bet that fellow will bring up his favorite 65 year old iraqi woman though.


it should be noted that Chalabi (bush's pet) even signed the pact as well.

It blows my mind how anyone can paint a rosey picture of Iraq. If people think, for one minute things are OK over there, they need to ask themselves this question:

How comfortable would your life be living in the desert with only 8 hours of electricity and running water a day. Estimates that you won't get 24/7 basic utilities for at least 4 years with no (or intermitant) garbage collection.

We should all put ourselves in this scenario and then be asked about our blue finger.

 

[Stace]

It blows my mind how anyone can paint a rosey picture of Iraq.

Yeah, especially when you read stories like this one:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0512140205dec14,1,4022912.story

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Stace:
Yeah, especially when you read stories like this one:

"Campaigning, Iraqi-style!" It almost sounds like a spin-off of Survivor.

 

[easyt65]

i'm begining to think that you're not paying attention to what i'm saying. please take the time to actually read my posts and if you choose to reply, reply to them in an intelligent and relevant manner.

I have responded to you intelligently.

I have brought up the fact that Kerry, the last Dem Pres. Candidate, made the case for WMD and the need to go to war with Iraq, even before Bush Jr took the White House and that HE recently said he believed the vast majority of WMD was moved to Syria. He made that statement because he knows we watched several large convoys move from Iraq into Syria weeks before we went in. 1 convoy went into Syria 2 days before we went in - one of the things he learned from one of the very FEW Defense Intelligence Committee meetings he bothered to go to. Ilike how you have avoided THIS Dem landmine, especially!

Even the Dems 2008 Pres candidate, Hillary, made a strong case against Hussein and still says she believes he moved his WMD to Syria!

I have brought up the uranium, the Sarin, and traces of Bio in other warheads. You would not find traces of the bio that was found if it had been destroyed years earlier when Hussein had told the U.N. it had been.

There was the case of the Iraqi base commander who told how a truck load of Chem weapons showed upon his base days before we went in to be used against us. As base commander, he was required to account for it and personally inspected it. For some reason the truck left 2 days later - he was told simply that there had been a change. We assume that the truck joined the convoy to the north.
- YOU have not even TRIED to acknowledge these facts, let alone discuss any of them 'intelligently', so you can stop with the diversionary tactic of saying I am not addressing your points.

Yes there were WMD found, but, except for the 500 tons of uranium in Baghdad, most of it was in small quantities (small meaning no more than a couple hundred warheads, etc...). The quantity was too small, even by GOP standards, to equate to the amount we believed were there beforehand and to justify to the Dems/World 1 of the reasons we went in. So, instead of standing before the world (and Dems) and announce we found a couple hundred warheads of Sarin (Hussein said he had destroyed), 'traces' of bio, and 500 tons of Uranium (which the Dems were screaming did not equate to be WMD), which would sound weak, Bush has decided to say the Intel was wrong because we did not find what we were looking for, which are HUGE amounts of WMD.

The only facts that matters now is that we are there.
- We are fighting Al Qaeda and other terrorists THERE, not here.
- We have gotten rid of a tyrant who has been to proven to have met with our enemies, who was so sick that he gassed his own people, that the world - and especially us - is better off without.
- Our soldiers continue to fight the enemy and need our support, not Democrats like Durbing, calling them Nazis and genocidal regemists, or Kerry, calling them terrorists, attacking them from the rear! They also don't need leaders emboldening the terrorists with 'We can NOT win this war', we need to immediately pull out our troops now!'

We stayed the course for freedom in WWII, and Germany and Japan are two of our biggest allies today. If we stay the course now as we did then, we will have democracy in that area of the world for the 1st time, as well as new allies. When History looks back on this time, how will they remember us? If we stay the course and succeed, history will remember Bush, our troops, and our nation for bravely spreading freedom and changing the world for the better. How will it see the democrats for demanding to cut and run before the mission is done while attacking our own troops when we are so close to making history, standing beside an ally for freedom.

As I said before, John F. Kennedy once declared to the world that the United States would fight anyt fight, would make any sacrifice, in the cause of freedom and in standing beside any ally in the fight for freedom. What are the Democrats of TODAY, like Durbin, Pelosi, Kerry, and Dean, declaring to the world with their attacks on our own troops and their demands for us to abandon an ally by running away?

 

[oldreliable67]

Billo,

This sounds very much like typical campaign rhetoric:

He said the pact also demands “the departure of occupation troops in the light of a specific timetable. The legacy of the occupation troops must be removed and no concession be given to them to set up bases whether temporary or permanent.”

Most likely, the only part that would find disagreement in Admin circles would most likely be the 'timetable' reference. But as long that timetable is one benchmarked to security conditions in Iraq, I certainly don't know, but would certainly guess that neither the Iraqis nor the Bush admin would object at all.

How comfortable would your life be living in the desert with only 8 hours of electricity and running water a day. Estimates that you won't get 24/7 basic utilities for at least 4 years with no (or intermitant) garbage collection.

Hey, for some of these folks living in the desert, this is an improvement! Under Saddam, some of them had only 1 hour or so of electricity per day and sometimes no running water! They have always had intermittant garbage collection. Don't ignore the fact that with the reconstruction and new projects currently under way, much of the Iraqi population will have more, and more reliable public services than they have ever had before.

To learn more about this topic, go to:

defenselink or SpiritofAmerica.net

 

[Iriemon]

There were mistakes in Intel, but it does not take away from the fact that sarin-filled canisters were found in Iraq. The dems now say that sarin does not count, and does not count in the quantity found. The Dems now say that the uranium doesnt count as WMD. There is more, but why bother?! As I said, there are other reports which bear proof on this issue that none but a few will ever have access to.

How many of the hundreds of tons of WMDs the Admin assured us where there did that constitute?

 

[oldreliable67]

How many of the hundreds of tons of WMDs the Admin assured us where there did that constitute?

Hmmm. Trying to remember...Was the assertion that they were there, or was it that they were unaccounted for? UNSCOM, et al, IIRC, never said that they were there now, they said that the Iraqis would not or could not account for the difference between those that were known to exist versus those that were known to have been destroyed - which was a lot.

 

[remove]

1. don't even bother bringing up kerry or clinton. they don't represent the mainstream of the democratic party.
2. you have not responded to my arguments. below is a list of arguments of mine you have either cheaply dismissed, or ignored al together:

- the leaked official british poll- you said it was "secret" and wholly ignored it's results
- bush's admission yesterday that there never were any wmd. he also made the same admission in 2004 during the third presidential debate
- you have not explained your consistant belief that there are somehow secret reports that back up all of your facts that none of us know about
- you said that the gassing of the kurds in 1988 (which bush sr supported) was not a pretext to go to war, and that nobody even ever claimed it was. i proved you wrong, citing an article which you apparently refused to read. no response.
- you have not responded to my bringing up the truth about your misleading WMD 500 ton claim which is not new, and has been under IAEA seal since 1991, agreed to by president bush sr at the time
- you didn't respond to my bringing up that coulter admitted that the right wing "had" the media now, of which i included an audio clip as proof
- you did not respond to the christian science monitor article which i linked to, as proof refuting your weak sarin claims
- you have not responded to the recent pact made by a large number of iraqi leaders include chalabi which calls for immediate u.s. pullout



do NOT say you have responded to me intelligently, or at all. because it's simply not true.

 

[easyt65]

Okay, maybe my generalization of why he was going into an unauthorized area ... sounds to me like.... And I think .....

Just a few posts ago, you were not making generalizations - you were flat our declaring that your commander was intentionally taking troops into harms way because he wanted to get shot/injured so that he could get a purple heart! Now you try to make the excuse that it was just a 'generalization?!

That isn't a 'generalization'! You were speaking like you were there, had 1st hand knowledge of his thoughts, intentions, actions, and reasons for doing whatever happened! The truth is that you attacked the reputation of an officer by spreading CR@P. You haven't the 1st clue about what you're talking about - THAT is obvious, so spare me the attempted cover by saying, "It was just a generalization, but the rest is true - believe me!"

I wouldn't believe another word you said after making such idiotic statements based on 'it sounds like' and 'I think'! No soldier wants to get shot. I have no idea why he was there or what happened, but it is too obvious that YOU don't either, though you are willing to attack a man's, an officer's, reputation just the same. The only sure thing I can fault him on based on your story is not communicating with his people. Whatever his mission was, you don't put people's lives in harm's way unless you letthem know whatthe mission is and what they are up against. If his men did not know why they were there, then there is a problem...but a commander also doesn't always have to 'check with the enlisted and NCOs' before making a decision, to see if it is OK with YOU!

 

[easyt65]

1. don't even bother bringing up kerry or clinton. they don't represent the mainstream of the democratic party.
-- Kerry just ran for Dem president, Hillary is your main candidate for '08, and Dean is the Chairman of your entire party! Nice try to dodge THAT one - as i said, you refuse to acknowledge/address this one!


- the leaked official british poll- you said it was "secret" and wholly ignored it's results
I addressed this one, even showed/explained how polls can be manipulated to show any side of any argument. Only Democrats lead, or try to, by Polls. Or should i say CURRENT DEMS _ John F. Kennedy had no problem doing what was right instead of waiting for the result of some poll.

- bush's admission yesterday that there never were any wmd. he also made the same admission in 2004 during the third presidential debate
Discussed this one, too. Old argument, amounts we expected not found and not worth arguing about now - time to look to the future instead of lingering in the past (which is what I think is the rabid Dems problem and hatred for Bush - they can't get over the 2000 and 2004 losses).

- you have not explained your consistant belief that there are somehow secret reports that back up all of your facts that none of us know about
Nor will I. I briefed the Combined Forces Air component Commander in charge of the whole AOR throughout the war. Believe me or not, i do not care, but you CAN believe that you - Joe Public - are not privy to EVERYTHING! You would be amazed at how much more there is to so much more.

- you said that the gassing of the kurds in 1988 (which bush sr supported) George Bush Sr NEVER supportedthe gassing of the Kurds - Hussein did that one all on its own, immediately after we pulled out the 1st time. We began assisting them before we went in to Liberate kuwait, promised them we would help them if they helped us...then we cut and run, pulled totally out after Kuwait was liberated (as the dems & others were pressuring us to do, much like today). We abandoned the Kurds, and Hussein took care of his enemies in the wake of our leaving.

- you have not responded to my bringing up the truth about your misleading WMD 500 ton claim which is not new, and has been under IAEA seal since 1991, agreed to by president bush sr at the time
You even posted earlier that the uranium went missing for a time...now you say that the U.N. had it under control the whole time?! (Is this the same uranium joe Wilson said Hussein never bought/received?! I forget, but so what - 500 tons of uranium isn't WMD, according to the Dems now!)



- you didn't respond to my bringing up that coulter admitted that the right wing "had" the media now, of which I included an audio clip as proof
I don't listen to Anne Coulter, but I do know that if it were not for conservatives like her, Rush, Hannidy, and Bill O'Reilly, all we WOULD get from the media would be spin and liberal propoganda...like that Dan Rather queep that came out. He KNEW the documents were forged and still pushed the liberal 'attack-Bush' agenda, and thanks to conservatives ONLY, it came out! The only reason any good news is getting out about what is going on over in Iraq is because of the few conservative media sources. Have control of the medai? Not hardly - that is why Hillary wants control of blog sites, because they constantly expose the liberal media garbage! Conservatives having control of the media in the U.S. is absolute hogwash!


- you did not respond to the christian science monitor article which i linked to, as proof refuting your weak sarin claims
And I could show you the mission reports from the team that found them.....

- you have not responded to the recent pact made by a large number of iraqi leaders include chalabi which calls for immediate u.s. pullout
And I am sure you remember the recent, yet under-reported, reports about how Chalabi has lost favor with the U.S. and host nation for ties and communications with Iran. He was going to be the U.S.'s #1 'golden boy' until we kinda uncovered some proof that he is playing both sides of the fence, having friendship and talking with the 'wrong' people.

Now, continue to cry 'You have not addressed my stuff' but, as I have proven once again, the only one dodging debate on any issue is YOU. Of course, now that I have addressed your issues, you will still dodge mine while focusing the attention on how I did not address your points to YOUR satisfaction, how you disagree, and how I am wrong.

Whatever....

 

[Binary_Digit]

"- bush's admission yesterday that there never were any wmd. he also made the same admission in 2004 during the third presidential debate"

Discussed this one, too. Old argument, amounts we expected not found and not worth arguing about now - time to look to the future instead of lingering in the past (which is what I think is the rabid Dems problem and hatred for Bush - they can't get over the 2000 and 2004 losses).

There's a difference between "lingering in the past" and "holding accountability."

"- you have not explained your consistant belief that there are somehow secret reports that back up all of your facts that none of us know about"

Nor will I. I briefed the Combined Forces Air component Commander in charge of the whole AOR throughout the war. Believe me or not, i do not care, but you CAN believe that you - Joe Public - are not privy to EVERYTHING! You would be amazed at how much more there is to so much more.

Then you should understand if some people don't believe your claims. This is the internet, after all. :2razz:

Assuming what you say is true, do you think it's reasonable to assume that everything you briefed the CInC on was 100% accurate from the origional source it came from? Considering how many faulty sources we actually know about, I'm sure you're correct that Joe Public doesn't know the half of it....heh!

"- you said that the gassing of the kurds in 1988 (which bush sr supported)"

George Bush Sr NEVER supported the gassing of the Kurds - Hussein did that one all on its own, immediately after we pulled out the 1st time. We began assisting them before we went in to Liberate kuwait, promised them we would help them if they helped us...then we cut and run, pulled totally out after Kuwait was liberated (as the dems & others were pressuring us to do, much like today). We abandoned the Kurds, and Hussein took care of his enemies in the wake of our leaving.

If that's true, that we broke a promise to the Kurds, then I'm ashamed of that. But I was under the impression the gassing was done to quell an uprising or attempted coup. That still doesn't make it right, but it wasn't just for revenge.

"- you have not responded to my bringing up the truth about your misleading WMD 500 ton claim which is not new, and has been under IAEA seal since 1991, agreed to by president bush sr at the time"

You even posted earlier that the uranium went missing for a time...now you say that the U.N. had it under control the whole time?! (Is this the same uranium joe Wilson said Hussein never bought/received?! I forget, but so what - 500 tons of uranium isn't WMD, according to the Dems now!)

Iraq had 500 tons of unrefined uranium, which is not capable of making a nuclear weapon, plus 1.8 tons of yellowcake. It takes 10 tons of yellowcake to make one nuclear weapon. Judge that however you want, but the enrichment process is long, expensive, and hard to hide from the world.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3009082.stm

Oh, and the uranium went missing right after the Iraq war started. Up until then the IAEA knew where it was.

"- you did not respond to the christian science monitor article which i linked to, as proof refuting your weak sarin claims"

And I could show you the mission reports from the team that found them.....

It's not disputed that a sarin shell was found. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the CSM article that was linked, but it seems to suggest that it might be an old American artillery shell. If that's the case, then why did it have sarin gas in it? Is CSM suggesting that America uses sarin gas in its artillery? Perhaps remove can help me interpret this? Here's the link again:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0521/p09s01-coop.html

 

[Stace]

Ay yi yi.....

How about this.....right here in the United States, right here in North Carolina in fact, we found mustard gas. Buried right outside of Pope Air Force Base (we were doing reconstruction on our gates and found it, the project had to be halted because they couldn't do anything with it).

Sorry, just had to throw this in, since everyone wants to keep bringing up the WMD crap, even though the sarin found in Iraq was nothing to brag about. :mrgreen:

 

[Iriemon]

Hmmm. Trying to remember...Was the assertion that they were there, or was it that they were unaccounted for? UNSCOM, et al, IIRC, never said that they were there now, they said that the Iraqis would not or could not account for the difference between those that were known to exist versus those that were known to have been destroyed - which was a lot.

I couldn't find the statement to back up that assertion in a quick search in my notes, so I'll withdraw it.

 

[Caine]

Okay, maybe my generalization of why he was going into an unauthorized area ... sounds to me like.... And I think .....

Just a few posts ago, you were not making generalizations - you were flat our declaring that your commander was intentionally taking troops into harms way because he wanted to get shot/injured so that he could get a purple heart! Now you try to make the excuse that it was just a 'generalization?!

That isn't a 'generalization'! You were speaking like you were there, had 1st hand knowledge of his thoughts, intentions, actions, and reasons for doing whatever happened! The truth is that you attacked the reputation of an officer by spreading CR@P. You haven't the 1st clue about what you're talking about - THAT is obvious, so spare me the attempted cover by saying, "It was just a generalization, but the rest is true - believe me!"

I wouldn't believe another word you said after making such idiotic statements based on 'it sounds like' and 'I think'! No soldier wants to get shot. I have no idea why he was there or what happened, but it is too obvious that YOU don't either, though you are willing to attack a man's, an officer's, reputation just the same. The only sure thing I can fault him on based on your story is not communicating with his people. Whatever his mission was, you don't put people's lives in harm's way unless you letthem know whatthe mission is and what they are up against. If his men did not know why they were there, then there is a problem...but a commander also doesn't always have to 'check with the enlisted and NCOs' before making a decision, to see if it is OK with YOU!

Your anger on the issue does not dispute the fact that he was not authorized to be in that area in a convoy of two armored HMMV... and that he was just just "passing through" because it was not on the way to anything.

He was deliberately going into the largest hotbed of action in our area. Because we had such a small mission during this only 4 months long deployment to secure a few polling places for the first elections, he was angry because this was his first deployment in command and couldn't get any "action" he tried SERVERAL times to have us moved out into the city after the elections were over and while we were waiting on more information on when we were going home. But nobody needed our support. He did manage to get my company sent outside of the normal area to SADR City area to help secure a base there (lame ass tower guard). That was as close as he was gonig to get.

Defend him all you want... me and the rest of the men in the 3/325th know why he continued to go into an unauthorized area in unauthorized convoys for no reason.... Strangely... he stopped going into the area once he got his little shrapnel "boo-boo" ....... I wonder why????

 

[Caine]

By the way.....

The Pentagon and Halliburton's main mission in Iraq is to secure oil profits for themselves..... ..... There is a secret report on it...... You the public are not privy to everything......

BWUHAAHAHAHAHA

 

[easyt65]

Egad and Cripes! You found us out! The Pentagonis secretly controlled by Haliburton. Each retiring General, in fact, is given massive stock options and bonuses for every conflict we get into, providing them with more money-making opportunities! And the oil being pumped into 'Turkey' is really, secretly, being pumped into underground tunnels that flow through pipelines directly into waiting cargo ships off the coast, owned by Haliburton, Texaco, and Shell - the evil Triad. The oild is then taken off, sold for high prices...and the Pres and Vice Pres never really go to his 'Ranch' or Camp David, but off to s private island owned by Haliburton, hidden from the world by cloaking devices from technology paid for by stolen oil revenue!

:doh :rofl

 

[The Real McCoy]

Do people still buy into the "Halliburton banked from Iraq" myth?

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/books_entertainment/be_columns/RichardMiniter/2005/11/07/174456.html

 

[Caine]

Do people still buy into the "Halliburton banked from Iraq" myth?

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/books_entertainment/be_columns/RichardMiniter/2005/11/07/174456.html

bwuahahaha... this is funny too.....

http://www.townhall.com/townhall/about.html

 

[oldreliable67]

There is a secret report on it...... You the public are not privy to everything

Its secret but you know about it! Ain't that sweet!

 

[Caine]

Its secret but you know about it! Ain't that sweet!

LOL........

Read the posts of the last couple of pages.... You'll understand the humor and sarcasm...

If you don't, your just playing retard boy partisan retardedness....

 

[remove]

1. don't even bother bringing up kerry or clinton. they don't represent the mainstream of the democratic party.
-- Kerry just ran for Dem president, Hillary is your main candidate for '08, and Dean is the Chairman of your entire party! Nice try to dodge THAT one - as i said, you refuse to acknowledge/address this one!

- kerry does not represent me, or the majority of the democratic party. neither does hillary. dean however does represent the majority.

- the leaked official british poll- you said it was "secret" and wholly ignored it's results
I addressed this one, even showed/explained how polls can be manipulated to show any side of any argument. Only Democrats lead, or try to, by Polls. Or should i say CURRENT DEMS _ John F. Kennedy had no problem doing what was right instead of waiting for the result of some poll.
[/quote]

- kennedy was kind of a crappy president in many ways, in my opinion, not somebody the democratic party really has to be proud of. i'm afraid i really don't understand what you're trying to say with the rest of your sentance "only democrats lead, or try to, by polls". perhaps you could explain what you're trying to communicate.

- bush's admission yesterday that there never were any wmd. he also made the same admission in 2004 during the third presidential debate
Discussed this one, too. Old argument, amounts we expected not found and not worth arguing about now - time to look to the future instead of lingering in the past (which is what I think is the rabid Dems problem and hatred for Bush - they can't get over the 2000 and 2004 losses).

SHOW me where you discussed this, or responded to this AT ALL in this thread.

- you have not explained your consistant belief that there are somehow secret reports that back up all of your facts that none of us know about
Nor will I. I briefed the Combined Forces Air component Commander in charge of the whole AOR throughout the war. Believe me or not, i do not care, but you CAN believe that you - Joe Public - are not privy to EVERYTHING! You would be amazed at how much more there is to so much more.

yeah. not gonna believe anything you can't back up.

- you said that the gassing of the kurds in 1988 (which bush sr supported) George Bush Sr NEVER supportedthe gassing of the Kurds - Hussein did that one all on its own, immediately after we pulled out the 1st time. We began assisting them before we went in to Liberate kuwait, promised them we would help them if they helped us...then we cut and run, pulled totally out after Kuwait was liberated (as the dems & others were pressuring us to do, much like today). We abandoned the Kurds, and Hussein took care of his enemies in the wake of our leaving.

who do you think gave hussein chemical weapons with which to use against the kurds and iran during the iran-iraq war during the 1980s. bush sr. NEVER SAID A PEEP AGAINST HUSSIEN'S USE- and continued to supply iraq with weapons and money during this time. silent complicity and direct monetary and weaponry support and supply. i call that supporting.

- you have not responded to my bringing up the truth about your misleading WMD 500 ton claim which is not new, and has been under IAEA seal since 1991, agreed to by president bush sr at the time
You even posted earlier that the uranium went missing for a time...now you say that the U.N. had it under control the whole time?! (Is this the same uranium joe Wilson said Hussein never bought/received?! I forget, but so what - 500 tons of uranium isn't WMD, according to the Dems now!)

no. you're claiming i said things that i never said. you're either lying, never bothered to read what i said, or horribly confused. what i said i said the following (and you still have not responded): firstly bush never claimed as you seem to that hussien bought uranium. the concept was that he tried to buy it. and secondly this was not that uranium. this uranium was uranium which was known about since 1991, which had been under IAEA lock and seal completely untouched from 1991 until 2003. this uranium was known about for more than ten years. it was NOTHING NEW. once those in charge of guarding the uranium abandoned their post, the area was looted, and the uranium went missing. however very quickly after this, the uranium was recovered from several looters and went BACK under protection.

- you didn't respond to my bringing up that coulter admitted that the right wing "had" the media now, of which I included an audio clip as proof
I don't listen to Anne Coulter, but I do know that if it were not for conservatives like her, Rush, Hannidy, and Bill O'Reilly, all we WOULD get from the media would be spin and liberal propoganda...like that Dan Rather queep that came out. He KNEW the documents were forged and still pushed the liberal 'attack-Bush' agenda, and thanks to conservatives ONLY, it came out! The only reason any good news is getting out about what is going on over in Iraq is because of the few conservative media sources. Have control of the medai? Not hardly - that is why Hillary wants control of blog sites, because they constantly expose the liberal media garbage! Conservatives having control of the media in the U.S. is absolute hogwash!

i really don't want to get into this because i think it's irrelevant. but if you like, (or if you CAN), supply proof that rather and mapes knew that those memos were forged.

- you did not respond to the christian science monitor article which i linked to, as proof refuting your weak sarin claims
And I could show you the mission reports from the team that found them.....

.......i'm waiting.

 

[Iriemon]

Do people still buy into the "Halliburton banked from Iraq" myth?

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/books_entertainment/be_columns/RichardMiniter/2005/11/07/174456.html

This is great stuff, I was cracking up reading it:

"Halliburton earned $85 million from $3.6 billion in Iraqi contracts, a profit margin of roughly 2.4 percent, in 2003. In the second quarter of 2004, Halliburton reported that it earned 1.4 percent profits on $1.7 billion worth of work in Iraq. These are pitifully small rates of return."

LOL! Sure. They are doing Iraq as a public service.

They sank to a record low of $8.70 in 2001. As of August 9, 2005, they trade at $58.

WOW! At a time when the stock market in general went up maybe 10%, Halliburton stock went up 566%! Amazing for a company that made a pitiful return.

Halliburton won the Defense Department’s “super contract,” which covers food, maintenance, construction, and other services worldwide.

With a $8.1 billion no-bid contract. What a shocker.

Halliburton gets about two-thirds of its business in Iraq (which is about $12 billion) ...

Well I had thought it was only $8.1 billion.

Why the secret no-bid contract? Because, as Halliburton CEO David Lesar pointed out, Halliburton was the only contractor the Defense Department “had determined was in a position to provide the services within the required time frame given classified prewar planning requirements.” This was confirmed by Congress’s General Accounting Office.

And the Defense Department and the Congress is controlled by whom?

I'm sure Halliburton was the only company in the world that had the high-tech knowledge base necessary to do "food, maintenance, construction, and other services."

In other words, no one else could do the job, so competitive bidding would not have accomplished much and prewar planning had to be kept secret in order to maintain the tactical advantage of surprise.

Yep. Food preparation. High tech stuff. Only in the military would that be a no bid contract because no one else could prepare food. LOL!

And because "prewar planning had to be kept secret in order to maintain the tactical advantage of surprise" !!!! I think we are on to what that top secret memo referenced in the other thread was about. They were making secret 12 billion no-bid Haliburton contract before we decided to invade!

Wasn’t Halliburton punished for bad service? While there was a blizzard of articles reporting that Halliburton was threatened with financial penalties, there is precious little evidence that those threats ever materialized. As far as I can tell, the only punishment imposed by the Pentagon on Halliburton was by the U.S. Army, which withheld $55.1 million in a food service billing dispute in April 2005—and then one month later awarded Halliburton $72 million in bonuses.

And this guy is supposed to be convincing us that Halliburton is on the up and up? LOL! They withhold a $55.1 million high-tech food preparation bill because of wrong-doing, and a month later they are awarded 72 million in bonuses! I couldn't make this stuff up!

The contract came up for renewal in 1997, and Halliburton lost to DynCorp. In 2001, Halliburton’s KBR division won it back. Unlike previous ontracts, this one ran for ten years.

Huh. They won back their contract the one that only they could do) from another company and it was extended to 10 years. I'm sure it was just coincidence that was the year after the Republicans and Cheney got the white house.

Halliburton has been a bad bet for investors—

Maybe when you are used to working in the defense industry a 566% increase in stock price isn't considered a decent return.

As they say in Texas, that dog won’t hunt.

Hell it doesn't have to, it's got a government no bid contract!