Why did Bush lie about Saddam being connected to 9/11?

[kaz]

True, you the average Citizen haven't benefited at all. You never do in these Interventions/Wars. But many have gotten very rich off the Iraq War. And they continue to. The Elites now control Iraq's Banking System and are plundering its natural resources. And that was the plan all along. They're attempting to do the same thing in Syria and Ukraine right now. They recently accomplished that in Libya and Egypt. So you are right, you didn't benefit at all from the Iraq War. But others did.

I agree, but that's true of all government spending. I know you're against that as well. I'm just saying it's not specific to the military.

If we would focus on energy at home, there would be no need to keep sending troops to the Middle East.

War & chaos is big business. There's much more profit in plundering natural resources around the world. It's always about the money. But only the few Elites make that money. The average Citizen certainly doesn't. They just go on being poor dupes and funding the schemes. It's that fear of the Boogeyman that always convinces them to support another Intervention/War. Fear is the most important tool. It works. It's as simple as that.

Again, agreed, but it's fear on the social side as well. They are going to take your retirement check, you can't get medical care without government, what if you lose your job! OMG!

It's the nature of all government, not just military.

 

[Tuatara]

In 1998, Halliburton's total revenue was $14.5 billion, which included $284 million of Pentagon contracts. Two years later, Halliburton’s DoD contracts more than doubled.

Regarding the Iraq contracts, Halliburton was accused by Democrats of receiving special "no-bid" contracts because of Cheney’s influence. One advertisement by the Democrats charged, "Bush gave contracts to Halliburton instead of fighting corporate corruption."

FactCheck.org an organization which ascertains the validity of political campaign advertisements researched this accusation. According to FactCheck, "The Bush administration is doing a fair amount to fight corporate corruption, convicting or indicting executives of Enron, Arthur Andersen, Tyco International, Worldcom, Adelphia Communications Corporation, Credit Suisse First Boston, HealthSouth Corporation and others, including Martha Stewart. The Department of Justice says it has brought charges against 20 executives of Enron alone, and its Corporate Fraud Task Force says it has won convictions of more than 250 persons to date. Bush also signed the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation in 2002, imposing stringent new accounting rules in the wake of the Arthur Andersen scandal."

An L.A. Times op-ed of April 22 said, "Halliburton Received No-Bid Contracts During Clinton Administration For Work In Bosnia And Kosovo." An October 2003 article in the (Raleigh, NC) News & Observer quoted Bill Clinton's Undersecretary Of Commerce William Reinsch as saying "'Halliburton has a distinguished track record,' he said. 'They do business in some 120 countries. This is a group of people who know what they're doing in a difficult business. It's a particularly difficult business when people are shooting at you.'"

========================================

Why am I even communicating with a hopeless hack like you? Illiterate moron.

Thanks for bolding that part where Bush cracks down on corruption because guess who was caught one year later after that article.

Pentagon Finds Halliburton Overcharged on Iraq Contracts - New York Times
Halliburton unit faces Pentagon inquiry - Mar. 15 2005
http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB107118703457570100
seMissourian.com National News Corps of Engineers changes explanation of Halliburton award 02 10 04
Halliburton Contracts Face New Scrutiny - Los Angeles Times
Center for Corporate Policy Mission

I could add many more

And you could even add more than that if you looked at government contractors in the social spending side. Of course you're not interested in that. Only the ones that fit your agenda.

Yawn, another red herring

 

[kaz]

[Yawn, another red herring

OK, simpleton, that isn't a red herring argument. I said it's all government spending, including defense. But you are only focused on defense. That isn't a red herring argument.

You are not wrong, you are only looking at a portion of the problem. I want to slash military and social spending. The best way to limit government corruption is to limit government spending. There is just less to corrupt. How you get red herring out of that only a brain dead liberal socialist would know.

Actually, you are deflecting. You can Google what that means.

 

[Theowl32]

[Yawn, another red herring

OK, simpleton, that isn't a red herring argument. I said it's all government spending, including defense. But you are only focused on defense. That isn't a red herring argument.

You are not wrong, you are only looking at a portion of the problem. I want to slash military and social spending. The best way to limit government corruption is to limit government spending. There is just less to corrupt. How you get red herring out of that only a brain dead liberal socialist would know.

Actually, you are deflecting. You can Google what that means.

Everything he has posted is utter shit. He, like all left wing hypocrite, thinks he is so smart. He does not even know what a red herring is.

If we are going to talk actual fallacies, they are nothing but bandwagon people. They follow the bandwagon and whatever the popular or politically correct stance, they join that movement.

They yelled and screamed about GTMO being open for 8 years under Booooooosh. It is still open and they hardly say a fucking peep.

They are really pointless to debate. They shift their arguments to fit the hype of the day. They have ZERO principles. Look at them about the war in Iraq (love how they say they are so against torture but wish saddam was still in charge.)

Do they say one fucking word about the no bid contracts awarded to Halliburton under Clinton? Not only did they say anything, they could not possibly care less now. Regardless of the facts. They could not possibly care less if democrats propagated the existence of WMDs by the democrats before BOOOOOSH took office. They could not possibly care less that Gore once crushed the first BOOOOOOSH for not taking out saddam.

They are pathetic and debating them is falling for the myth of Sisyphus.

 

[Tuatara]

[Yawn, another red herring

OK, simpleton, that isn't a red herring argument. I said it's all government spending, including defense. But you are only focused on defense. That isn't a red herring argument.

You are not wrong, you are only looking at a portion of the problem. I want to slash military and social spending. The best way to limit government corruption is to limit government spending. There is just less to corrupt. How you get red herring out of that only a brain dead liberal socialist would know.

Actually, you are deflecting. You can Google what that means.

I was making the argument about Halliburton and the status of their no bid contract. That was the issue. TheOwl32 made a comment about an advertisement that stated Bush gave contracts to Halliburton instead of fighting corporate corruption. I pointed the irony that Haliburton was investigated right after on corruption charges. It didn't mean I wanted to open the floodgates on all government and corporate corruption. That is a great topic to discuss but it deflects from the subject on hand here which is Bush and the Iraq war and ties to al Qaeda.

I also believe the best way to stop government corruption is to put in laws to stop corruption. The thing about limiting government spending is no one agrees which spending should be limited. Where I'm from the provincial government spent a lot of money on the Olympics and rearranging our tax system and then told the health care workers and teachers they couldn't give them raises because they were out of money. The whole issue of people against big government is ridiculous because these same people who are against big government are also yelling for more military intervention or more border security or something that would include more government spending. We are derailing this thread and I usually stay away from gov't spending threads because yoiu get these idiotic tea party people who cannot grasp simple logic.

 

[Tuatara]

[Yawn, another red herring

OK, simpleton, that isn't a red herring argument. I said it's all government spending, including defense. But you are only focused on defense. That isn't a red herring argument.

You are not wrong, you are only looking at a portion of the problem. I want to slash military and social spending. The best way to limit government corruption is to limit government spending. There is just less to corrupt. How you get red herring out of that only a brain dead liberal socialist would know.

Actually, you are deflecting. You can Google what that means.

Everything he has posted is utter shit. He, like all left wing hypocrite, thinks he is so smart. He does not even know what a red herring is.

If we are going to talk actual fallacies, they are nothing but bandwagon people. They follow the bandwagon and whatever the popular or politically correct stance, they join that movement.

They yelled and screamed about GTMO being open for 8 years under Booooooosh. It is still open and they hardly say a fucking peep.

They are really pointless to debate. They shift their arguments to fit the hype of the day. They have ZERO principles. Look at them about the war in Iraq (love how they say they are so against torture but wish saddam was still in charge.)

Do they say one fucking word about the no bid contracts awarded to Halliburton under Clinton? Not only did they say anything, they could not possibly care less now. Regardless of the facts. They could not possibly care less if democrats propagated the existence of WMDs by the democrats before BOOOOOSH took office. They could not possibly care less that Gore once crushed the first BOOOOOOSH for not taking out saddam.

They are pathetic and debating them is falling for the myth of Sisyphus.

Actually when Obama said he was going to close down Gitmo I didn't believe it. As far as foriegn policy goes not a single president is liberal. They all start wars, drop bombs, support Israel, invade countries, support evil regimes, kill political leaders, arrange death squads etc.... Doesn't matter if the President has a R or a D.

 

[Tuatara]

He does not even know what a red herring is.

.

The idiom "red herring" is used to refer to something that misleads or distracts from the relevant or topical issue.

 

[Theowl32]

[Yawn, another red herring

OK, simpleton, that isn't a red herring argument. I said it's all government spending, including defense. But you are only focused on defense. That isn't a red herring argument.

You are not wrong, you are only looking at a portion of the problem. I want to slash military and social spending. The best way to limit government corruption is to limit government spending. There is just less to corrupt. How you get red herring out of that only a brain dead liberal socialist would know.

Actually, you are deflecting. You can Google what that means.

I was making the argument about Halliburton and the status of their no bid contract. That was the issue. TheOwl32 made a comment about an advertisement that stated Bush gave contracts to Halliburton instead of fighting corporate corruption. I pointed the irony that Haliburton was investigated right after on corruption charges. It didn't mean I wanted to open the floodgates on all government and corporate corruption. That is a great topic to discuss but it deflecting from the subject on hand here which is Bush and the Iraq war and ties to al Qaeda.

I also believe the best way to stop government corruption is to put in laws to stop corruption. The thing about limiting government spending is no one agrees which spending should be limited. Where I'm from the provincial government spent a lot of money on the Olympics and rearranging our tax system and then told the health care workers and teachers they couldn't give them raises because they were out of money. The whole issue of people against big government is ridiculous because these same people who are against big gonernment are also yelling for more military intervention or more border security or something that would include more government spending. We are derailing this thread and I usually stay away from gov't spending threads because yoiu get these idiotic tea party people who cannot grasp simple logic.

To you giving a contract to Halliburton automatically means corruption. Is that circular reasoning, a syllogism, or is it an irrelevancy?

Halliburton is the only company (American) that does that type of work. Hence, the reason Clinton granted the contracts to Halliburton.

I never claimed Clinton's appointments to Halliburton was a scandal. The fact that you automatically call it is a scandal is nothing but pure politics. There is nothing more and nothing less.

You people are nothing but hypocritical pawns that look the other way for anything democrats do that republicans do.

The fact is the democrats acquire and retain power by using the ill informed dolts as pawns. Pure and simple.

 

[kaz]

He does not even know what a red herring is.

.

The idiom "red herring" is used to refer to something that misleads or distracts from the relevant or topical issue.

So why did you use is wrong then? When I said the problem is with defense, but it's not just that it's all government spending, you called that a red herring. That made no sense.

 

[kaz]

]Actually when Obama said he was going to close down Gitmo I didn't believe it. As far as foriegn policy goes not a single president is liberal. They all start wars, drop bombs, support Israel, invade countries, support evil regimes, kill political leaders, arrange death squads etc.... Doesn't matter if the President has a R or a D.

You're half way there. You accurately realize that despite the rhetoric, the Democrats are no different than the Republicans using the military.

Now open the other eye. Despite the Republican rhetoric, they aren't threatening Government social spending in the least either. The difference across the board between the parties is microscopic.

 

[Dot Com]

Bush should be held accountable!

That's never gonna happen, get over it. There is no proof Bush lied. At worst, you can say he's an incompetent idiot who took us to war over WMD that weren't there.

 

[kaz]

I was making the argument about Halliburton and the status of their no bid contract.

The term "no bid" is a misnomer. They are one bid. How is it their fault if no one else bids? They do things that only they do. It's a small percentage of expenditures. Also, that they are the only bidder doesn't mean they are unchecked.

- The bid has to be cheaper than government doing it themselves
- The bid can't make the job not worth doing
- The bid can't be so high it attracts other companies to compete with them.

I also believe the best way to stop government corruption is to put in laws to stop corruption. The thing about limiting government spending is no one agrees which spending should be limited.

All of it should be limited. Also, Virginia, corruption is illegal now. The way to limit corruption is to limit government spending, then there is just less to corrupt.

We are derailing this thread and I usually stay away from gov't spending threads because yoiu get these idiotic tea party people who cannot grasp simple logic.

Yes, wow. Government is too big and spends too much money. What a bunch of wackos they are. They're not the ones who can't follow simple logic. Find a mirror for the solution to that poser.

 

[kaz]

Bush should be held accountable!

That's never gonna happen, get over it. There is no proof Bush lied. At worst, you can say he's an incompetent idiot who took us to war over WMD that weren't there.

I hear you. Who thinks that just because he repeatedly used them he had them? Just whacked. Wow.

 

[Dot Com]

Bush should be held accountable!

That's never gonna happen, get over it. There is no proof Bush lied. At worst, you can say he's an incompetent idiot who took us to war over WMD that weren't there.

I hear you. Who thinks that just because he repeatedly used them he had them? Just whacked. Wow.

good thing Reagan (R) supplied him w/ those WMD so that Rumsfeld could mismanage a $1.5 TRILLION + war to find said weapons

 

[kaz]

Bush should be held accountable!

That's never gonna happen, get over it. There is no proof Bush lied. At worst, you can say he's an incompetent idiot who took us to war over WMD that weren't there.

I hear you. Who thinks that just because he repeatedly used them he had them? Just whacked. Wow.

good thing Reagan (R) supplied him w/ those WMD so that Rumsfeld could mismanage a $1.5 TRILLION + war to find said weapons

So now you admit Hussein did have them? You mean you lied?

 

[Steven_R]

This poll shows that Bush & Co. intentionally claimed a connection between Saddam and 911. Many of us saw through his lies. Only those who supported him believed that hogwash. I was on a couple of political forums when the invasion started and every single Bush supporter was claiming Saddam's ties to al Qaeda and 911.

I'm not sure Bush and Co intentionally lied so much as they saw what they wanted to see. Cheney and Rumsfeld wanted a war with Iraq and used any reason to get one, including manipulating the intelligence when they couldn't necessarily get it. They thought they were doing the right thing and convinced the president and Congress they had the goods because they convinced themselves they had the goods.

As far as Saddam goes, he had long since used up any benefit of the doubt he might have had. He screwed around with the weapons inspection process and ignored the cease fire at will for over a decade (not to mention killing Kurds). It wasn't hard to believe that Saddam was up to no good concerning nukes and supplying terrorists.

 

[kaz]

This poll shows that Bush & Co. intentionally claimed a connection between Saddam and 911. Many of us saw through his lies. Only those who supported him believed that hogwash. I was on a couple of political forums when the invasion started and every single Bush supporter was claiming Saddam's ties to al Qaeda and 911.

I'm not sure Bush and Co intentionally lied so much as they saw what they wanted to see. Cheney and Rumsfeld wanted a war with Iraq and used any reason to get one, including manipulating the intelligence when they couldn't necessarily get it. They thought they were doing the right thing and convinced the president and Congress they had the goods because they convinced themselves they had the goods.

As far as Saddam goes, he had long since used up any benefit of the doubt he might have had. He screwed around with the weapons inspection process and ignored the cease fire at will for over a decade (not to mention killing Kurds). It wasn't hard to believe that Saddam was up to no good concerning nukes and supplying terrorists.

Great summary! Another thing to add to this though is Hussein said he played up that he was developing WMDs. He miscalculated that would deter an invasion rather than precipitate one.

 

[Dot Com]

Bush should be held accountable!

That's never gonna happen, get over it. There is no proof Bush lied. At worst, you can say he's an incompetent idiot who took us to war over WMD that weren't there.

I hear you. Who thinks that just because he repeatedly used them he had them? Just whacked. Wow.

good thing Reagan (R) supplied him w/ those WMD so that Rumsfeld could mismanage a $1.5 TRILLION + war to find said weapons

So now you admit Hussein did have them? You mean you lied?

either way, you look silly. BTW- I thought you were a libertarian. You a repub?

 

[Kosh]

That's never gonna happen, get over it. There is no proof Bush lied. At worst, you can say he's an incompetent idiot who took us to war over WMD that weren't there.

I hear you. Who thinks that just because he repeatedly used them he had them? Just whacked. Wow.

good thing Reagan (R) supplied him w/ those WMD so that Rumsfeld could mismanage a $1.5 TRILLION + war to find said weapons

So now you admit Hussein did have them? You mean you lied?

either way, you look silly. BTW- I thought you were a libertarian. You a repub?

Oh my the far left are desperate to cover up for their war monger and chief..

 

[Dot Com]

Bush should be held accountable!

And so should all the Democrats who voted for the war that saw the same intelligence reports as the President.

I assume you'll hold Hilary "accountable" next election right?

I think I have lost my patience with this. Literally 3 and 4 posts above yours shows that not everyone was privy to the same intel as the president. Are we dealing with very young people here or are you all willfully ignorant. This argument had been thrown out years ago.

^ that.

Righties are suffering from Epistimic Closure.