Bush's America

In that case the democrats who let the Bush administration get away with such criminality are no better.

 

More likely the work of a domestic wacko. It took FBI almost 20 years to capture Ted Kaczynski.

I haven't lost any rights, but if any Bill of Rights shredding occured, it was with the approval of Congress. No bid contracts...companies who can take on contruction projects and feed & supply troops in the middle of a warzone don't grow on trees. Only one or two of those in existance.

If 'Criminal' = 'I despise him and oppose his policies', then I guess you're right.

 

So you still believe you have rights huh? :laugh:

Guess you didn't watch this video then.

 

I have as many rights now as I did before Bush was elected.
No, I seldom watch those videos, it is too slow and annoying with my connection. Besides, they can be manipulated in so many ways.

 

Sounds like some pretty lame excuses for staying uninformed to me but whatever.

In Ron Suskind’s recent book “The Price of Loyalty,” former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill charges that Cheney agitated for U.S. intervention well before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Additional evidence that Cheney played an early planning role is contained in a previously undisclosed National Security Council document, dated February 3, 2001. The top-secret document, written by a high-level N.S.C. official, concerned Cheney’s newly formed Energy Task Force. It directed the N.S.C. staff to coöperate fully with the Energy Task Force as it considered the “melding” of two seemingly unrelated areas of policy: “the review of operational policies towards rogue states,” such as Iraq, and “actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields.”

<snip>

The Bush Administration’s war on terror has became a source of substantial profit for Halliburton. The company’s commercial ties to terrorist states did not prevent it from assuming a prominent role. The Navy, for instance, paid Halliburton thirty-seven million dollars to build prison camps in Cuba’s Guantánamo Bay for suspected terrorists. The State Department gave the company a hundred-million-dollar contract to construct a new embassy in Kabul. And in December, 2001, a few years after having lost its omnibus military-support contract to a lower bidder, Halliburton won it back; before long, the company was supporting U.S. troops in Afghanistan, Kuwait, Jordan, Uzbekistan, Djibouti, the Republic of Georgia, and Iraq. Halliburton’s 2002 annual report describes counterterrorism as offering “growth opportunities.”

The Department of Defense’s decision to award Halliburton the seven-billion-dollar contract to restore Iraq’s oil industry was made under “emergency” conditions. The company was secretly hired to draw up plans for how it would deal with putting out oil-well fires, should they occur during the war. This planning began in the fall of 2002, around the time that Congress was debating whether to grant President Bush the authority to use force, and before the United Nations had fully debated the issue. In early March, 2003, the Army quietly awarded Halliburton a contract to execute those plans.



The New Yorker...

 

You may think that you do, but you don't. Have you really looked at what Homeland Security can do to you if they want?

I suggest that you read the Patriot Act and become familiar with its provisions before saying "I have as many rights now as before 9/11."

 

O'Neil later said on the Today Show, "People are trying to say that I said the president was planning war in Iraq early in the administration. Actually there was a continuation of work that had been going on in the Clinton administration with the notion that there needed to be a regime change in Iraq."

Bush said, "The stated policy of my administration toward Saddam Hussein was very clear -- like the previous administration, we were for regime change,"

Yes, Bush had wanted to get rid of Hussein, as did Clinton and most of Congress.

 

You are some piece of work, aintcha? You raised the subject of no terrorist attacks after 9/11 and got called on it with the Anthrax. Again, logic and rational discussion elude you, and all you can do is throw around the ad hominem and insult rather than speaking to facts. Amazing!

 

It was the neocons aka PNACers who hounded Bill Clinton about regime change in Iraq. Yet, the PNACer's themselves admit in their own writings that Saddam Hussein was just an excuse for military action and to gain more control over middle eastern affairs.

Bush should have included "we (PNAC/neocons) hounded my adopted brother Bill Clinton till he went along with us" in his statement.

Congress? Well lets just say it never had much problem looking the other way whilst the CIA dealt drugs (that made their way here to the USA) to pay for "covert" operations overseas before. It's also turned a blind eye to the use of terrorist groups as foreign policy "assets" on the part of both the Clinton and Bush administrations. Some in congress have even been cheerleaders for such blatant hypocrisy.

I put no faith in any of them NS. Congress (both parties) are full (to the brim) with corruption.

Besides Rumsfeld and Cheney were running the exact same scam on congress and "we the people" way back in 1972 to increase military spending. All they did was change the face of the "threat" from the Soviet's (non existent) "silent sonar" to Saddam's (non existent) WMDs.

 

The PNAC document recommends continuing the no-fly zones in Iraq as a means of keeping a US presence in the Gulf. It doesn't say anything about overthrowing Saddam.

Interesting how Bush was able to apply pressure on Clinton when Bill was president and Bush was only governor of Texas at the time. Oh yes, it's the Skull & Crossbones thing.

 

Now read "Rebuilding America's Defenses".

Or just take a look at page 14 where you'll find this...

"In the Persian Gulf region, the presence of American forces, along with British and French units, has become a semi-permanent fact of life. Though the immediate mission of those forces is to enforce the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq, they represent the long-term commitment of the United States and its major allies to a region of vital importance. Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein"

What's interesting is how you're trying to engineer a strawman to knock down. My finger pointed directly at the PNACer's and neocons...not G. W. Bush who seemingly came under their influence after he was "elected".

At any rate this is a picture of "Bush's America".

http://www.cartoons-political.com/NorthAmericanUnionb.jpg


(Edited only to remove oversized image per BB rules.)

 

And again, they noted the desirability of continuing Western presence in the Gulf. They did not suggest invasion of Iraq or regime change. The US did & continues to maintain bases in several countries in the region, not to mention an entire fleet, regardless of Saddam's status. Why upset the apple cart based on a paper written 10 years ago?

You brought up the allegation that Bush "hounded my adopted brother Bill Clinton till he went along with us". If there's a strawman, you set him up there, not me.

 

Justification = excuse. Taken with all else the neocons and their ilk wrote in the past concerning America's use of military power to attain "global hegemony" it's just one little part of the whole picture. Guess one has to be interested in defending the founding principles of the USA instead of a political party to see it.

"It was the neocons aka PNACers who hounded Bill Clinton about regime change in Iraq. Yet, the PNACer's themselves admit in their own writings that Saddam Hussein was just an excuse for military action and to gain more control over middle eastern affairs."

Notice this is separate from...this...

"Bush should have included "we (PNAC/neocons) hounded my adopted brother Bill Clinton till he went along with us" in his statement."

In which I was replying to your...

I also stated Bush "seemingly came under neocon/PNAC control after he was elected, hence the "we" which included Bush in the ranks of neocons after the houding was over. Surely he would be glad to have a part in the actual hounding which he didn't. As far as I know. The fact remains the Bushies and Clintons have been on the same globalist team for a long time.

Nowhere did I allege "Bush hounded his adopted brother". That's something you totally made up in your own mind NS. :smilewinkgrin:

 

But you're leaving out the most interesting statement in this document. It's on page 51:

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions.

We had a "new Pearl Harbor" after these words were written. It occurred on 9/11/2001. It got just the response this document predicted it would have. It got the country behind the invasion of Iraq.


(Edited only to remove oversized image per BB rules.)

 

Yes and the "pretext" they (neocons) and others like Brzezinski were wishing for happened at just the right time. Speaking of transformation here's an overview of how the process is working out now that 9/11 supplied them with the "emphasis" needed to justify endless global $$$ militarism and domestic $$$ repression they so obviously and openly yearned for.

I am amazed at how many are willing to step up to the plate and defend fascism as if it's the only thing that can save us from our own creations. But then from what I've seen most of em couldn't tell the difference between a fascist and a fig tree.

 

Now that's a neat debating technique; deny what you had just said a minute earlier, and say that I made it up!

Well what was Page 51 of the document talking about transforming? Transformation of our military forces. It discussed how the Army and Navy had shrunk drastically, how spending on R&D have been reduced, and the constant deployments had diverted money and attention away from keeping US forces technologically superior to possible enemies, conditions that still exist btw.

If some giant, sinister plan was intended to hurry the progress along, it has failed miserably. The size of the Army & Navy have increased only slightly, and transformation has pretty much stalled out.

*btw that's a really scary cartoon...brrr!

 

What Surplus????

We did not have a surplus. The national debt continually went up under Clinton.

From: http://newsbusters.org/node/5312


Here is another article about the so called Clinton surplus.

http://www.letxa.com/articles/16