Well ironically I'm sure you remember Saddam's early days as a Russian satellite in the region. Care to know Pakistan's closest ally. It's China.
And how would you respond if Putin were arming the insurgency in Iraq on their Jihad to remove the US invaders, the same way we armed Bin Laden and others to help the Mujaheddin on their Islamic Jihad to purge the Russian invaders from Afghanistan? That China is allied with Pakistan is no surprise, and is one reason why Bush has aligned with India. This is one big fucking game of the board game Risk being played with real people, and the profits are going to the America defense contractors (like the Carlyle Group) and the oil contractors (like Haliburton).
Oilmen? How about millions of Mexicans, Venezuelans and working class Arabs who live in nations with nationalized oil companies. Each Saudi receives around 14k a year as his share. Petro-welfare. Why not make the argument, who benefited under Clinton? Shoddy dot-com guys who floated worthless junk into IPO's and made collective billions off the ignorance of trusting investors without hindrance from the SEC. San Diego housing has appreciated by the same 250% under Bush that oil has. Are you a war profiteer. Spurious correlations suit no one. In fact the Saudi's oppose the war, so what makes you think the perception among oilmen is that the war is necessarily bullish for crude?
You are throwing red herrings and strawmen all over the place.... Obvisouly, because you cannot stay focused and deal with the reality of Bush's corporate administration.
"Leaker in Chief" "At a boy", George, keep preaching values and all the other hypocritical nonsense and surely your party will be wall flowers in the coming election. I wonder if the election for pres was held tomorrow how many of the 59 + million fools that voted ONLY for a tax cut would vote again for this loser. Probably a lot because most voters that voted for this clown the last time are still brainwashed and believe any propaganda throw their way...............
The problem is that you have to vote for one of the two candidates the parties put up. Bush has been extremely lucky in this regard, as was Clinton. For a variety of reasons, neither Gore nor Kerry was a credible alternative to many voters. As low as my opinion is of Bush, I would still favor him over either of those two.
Just to prove you are not a partisan hack, why don't you list the democrats that you would have voted for over Bush, the 2 times you voted for Bush in the 2000 and 2004 election.....and no, Zell Miller doesn't count....
Well, obviously Cynthia McKinney. It's not my fault that the Democrat Party has basically expelled anyone not totally drunk on the extreme left kool-aid dished out by moveon.org and the like. Even the iconic JFK's policy positions would place him in the Zell Miller wing of today's Democrat Party. He cut taxes, something no modern Democrat would even consider.