LOL ... in all seriousness, I think your right! A more cogent theory that the original poster anyway ...
Ha Ha ! Denial, little lies, slander, Denial...... DESPERATION !!! LOL.....its getting funnier by the minute !
There are some more pictures here The shots are from Reuters. "If there is one thing this war has taught us all, it's that we can't believe what we're told. For Donald Rumsfeld these were "breathtaking". For the British Army they were "historic". For BBC Radio they were "amazing".... The masses are no doubt glad to see the back of Saddam Hussein, but was this a US Army propaganda coup." Without the net we would never see any of this....
Max, I ask because the "facts" seem to stand on the merit of those who claim to make them. I truly don't know quite what to think, but I figured I could depend on you to shed a little light. I know it's off topic, but your remark (which I realize was said in jest...you are NOT Hapaboy) made me remember Pollard's life sentence, and all the controversy about it. Obviously there are two sides to this story, and arguments both strong and weak on both sides. But still, it does seem a bit severe a sentence. He was not convicted of treason, and he was promised a pardon, and he was vouched for by Sharon or Netanyahu, or whoever was the guy then...Barak? Too lazy to look now. But on the other hand, there are those that claim his information led to the deaths of CIA agents. So I don't really know what to think about it.....just wanted your take. You always seem so decisive, and this is one that truly has me stumped!!! Peace Max, Rs7
What Is it Good For? By BOB HERBERT Somewhere George Shultz is smiling. Mr. Shultz, whose photo could appropriately appear next to any definition of the military-industrial complex, was secretary of state under Ronald Reagan and has been a perennial heavyweight with the powerful Bechtel Group of San Francisco, where he previously reigned as president and is now a board member and senior counselor. Unlike the antiwar soul singer Edwin Starr â who, in an ironic bit of timing, went to his eternal reward early this month just as American ground forces were sweeping toward Baghdad â Mr. Shultz knows what war is good for. And he wanted this war with Iraq. Oh, how he wanted this war. Mr. Shultz was chairman of the fiercely prowar Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which was committed to moving beyond the mere political liberation of the oil-rich country to the all-important and conveniently profitable "reconstruction of its economy." Under the headline "Act Now; The Danger Is Immediate," Mr. Shultz, in an op-ed article in The Washington Post last September, wrote: "A strong foundation exists for immediate military action against Hussein and for a multilateral effort to rebuild Iraq after he is gone." Gee, I wonder which company he thought might lead that effort. Last week Mr. Shultz's Bechtel Group was able to demonstrate exactly what wars are good for. The Bush administration gave it the first big Iraqi reconstruction contract, a prized $680 million deal over 18 months that puts Bechtel in the driver's seat for the long-term reconstruction of the country, which could cost $100 billion or more. Bechtel essentially was given a license to make money. And that license was granted in a closed-door process that was restricted to a handful of politically connected American companies. When the George Bushes and the George Shultzes were banging the drums for war with Iraq, we didn't hear one word from them about the benefits that would be accruing to corporate behemoths like Bechtel. And we didn't pay much attention to the grotesque conflict of interest engaged in by corporate titans and their government cronies who were pushing young American men and women into the flames of a war that ultimately would pour billions of dollars into a very select group of corporate coffers. Now the corporations (not just Bechtel by any means) have a lock on Iraq, and U.S. taxpayers are obliged to pay the bill. Among those in Congress who are beginning to challenge this loathsome process is Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat who is one of the lead sponsors of a bipartisan bill that would require a public explanation of any decision to award Iraqi reconstruction contracts without a "fully open, competitive bidding process." In an interview, he said, "You look at this process, which is secret, limited or closed bidding, and you have to ask yourself: `Why are these companies being picked? How's this process taking place, and is this the best use of scarce taxpayer money at a time when seniors can't afford medicine, kids are having trouble getting access to a quality education and local communities are just getting pounded? The administration has been keeping the taxpayers in the dark with respect to how this money is being used, and that information ought to be shared." The blatant war-mongering followed immediately by profiteering inevitably raise questions about the real reasons American men and women have been fighting and dying in Iraq. President Bush told us the war was about weapons of mass destruction and the need to get rid of the degenerate Saddam. There was also talk about democracy taking root in Iraq and spreading like spring flowers throughout the Arab world. The two things that were never openly discussed, that never became part of the national conversation, were oil and money. Those crucial topics were left to the major behind-the-scenes operators, many of whom are now cashing in. The favoritism, the secretive method by which the contracts are being awarded and the arrogant and unconscionable exclusion of the United Nations and even close U.S. allies from significant roles in the administration and reconstruction of Iraq all contribute to the most cynical interpretation of American motives. The men and women who fought bravely in Iraq, for reasons they felt were noble and unassailable, deserve better.
Very interesting article, it's becoming pretty clear who is (and will be) making money off the Iraq war, and who paid for it in lives and tax dollars.
Someone has to do the work and someone had to get rid of the oppressive regime. The first posts were all about Halliburton, so it doesn't matter who gets the contracts, the winner will somehow be percieved as supposedly being "connected" in some insidious way. You have been noticing the grpahic reports of Saddam's building of over 50 oppulent palaces while his people lived in drought conditions on $3 per month income, haven't you? Or maybe you were moved by the footage of one of Saddam's torture chambers?
No need for your typically nasty tone max401. I wasn't referring to whether Saddam needed to be removed, nor his palaces or his torture chambers. But it's, shall we say, a mild conflict of interest when some of the strongest corporate backers of the war receive humongous contracts in secrecy. There's no "supposed" connectiveness, Vice President Cheney ran Halliburton until 2000. Anyway, all I'd like to see is open and fair bidding on the reconstruction, not secret awards behind closed doors.
The real left wing issue seems to be the "supposed connectiveness" of the "real" reasons for the war. First it was oil, now it's the "contracts." You call an article "interesting" when it directly implies our men dying in battle just so Bechtel et al can make a profit. I disagree.