Haliburton ContractPosted by Leon S. on 3/25/03 at 19:21 (114583)
Ok, back to some serious stuff. Is anyone else offended at the news that Haliburton just won (?) the contract to clean up the oil wells in Iraq? Is there no shame? If Clinton was president and one of his associates had a related connection to a company like this, he would be skewered by all the screaming talk show people. Or is it too early? Let the barbeque begin. Is there an appropriate face for this one?
Re: Haliburton Contractmarie on 3/25/03 at 20:44 (114593)
I am having a major brain fart....who is associated with Halibuton?
Re: Haliburton ContractBGCPed on 3/25/03 at 20:47 (114594)
I would be more worried about the 25 or so icbm nuclear missles that can hit us. Tip -o- the hat to the Clintonistas and Loral Space for their treason for campaign funds deal. That should make you sweat more than Michael Moore climbing 2 flights of stairs
Re: Haliburton ContractMason on 3/25/03 at 20:55 (114595)
It's Dick Cheney, Marie, our vice-president. He has been in continued hot water over this connection (although one does not read much about it), which is not a clean connection, and now this.
I would like to say I am surprised. But I am not.
Re: Haliburton Contractmarie on 3/25/03 at 21:21 (114602)
I thought it may be him but wasn't sure. He is our quiet leader.....kinda like George was the quiet Beatle. I've read most of his doctrine from 91. If I was him I'd be hiding out too. He pretty much set the current plan in action all those years ago. And the countries we are having the most trouble in the world right now saw it coming when he was selected as a running mate. They have also read the doctrine. I don't think the average American has taken the time to find his doctrine. It was over ten years ago....and written towards the end of Bush Seniors term. I happened to read somerhing about it at the time but then Clinton was elected and it was set aside......way aside.
Re: Haliburton ContractMason on 3/25/03 at 22:45 (114606)
It would probably be a good thing if Cheney were something like George the Beatle (I think - I wasn't all there).
A few people have referenced the document you just mentioned, Marie, without offering a specific link to what was in it, a link to click on. I will do so now. Unfortunately, it highlights and details two of our main priorities in the Middle East as being dominance and oil, and it was written by our own officials while the first Bush administration was still in place. Most of the people involved back then put the current President Bush in office and are part of his administration.
Clarification: I don't think the revelation is unfortunate. I think the ideology behind this document is unfortunate.
I urge everyone to read it as given to the New York Times back in 1992, by a Pentagon official who believed the public had a right to know what was being planned. I believe it was Steve P who posted recently that this plan was drawn up only as a response to the Clinton administration's handling of these matters. But here you will see that this plan was drawn before Clinton even was elected.
Re: Haliburton ContractBGCPed on 3/25/03 at 23:42 (114609)
'Most of the people involved put the current President Bush in office' Mason may I ask how those few people got to vote thousands of times? Maybe they made paper mache life size puppets of the electoral college, drugged the real ones, then had a false election?
So what about the chinese nuc/loral connection? Whisn makes a pacifist feel safer. Some rich guys that want to be the boss of the middle east( even though we NEVER claim a country after we beat it)
Or have the bain of the anti war crowd, nuclear bombs, aimed at us and able to get here due to actions of YOUR President Clinton and THE GUYS THAT PUT HIM THERE?
Can you answer that
Re: Haliburton Contractpala on 3/26/03 at 00:55 (114615)
i was not surprised either mason. i have been follwoing that story for months. was just wondering when they would get the contract. i read today a special law was cast aside so that there would not have to be any bids from the company.
Re: Haliburton ContractLeon S on 3/26/03 at 09:07 (114638)
That was the company that our esteemed vice president was with before he took his present job.
Re: Haliburton ContractLeon S on 3/26/03 at 09:13 (114639)
Maybe not papier mache puppets of the electoral college but maybe the supreme court.
Re: INCORRECT, MASON!Steve P on 3/26/03 at 09:21 (114642)
'Rebuilding America's Defenses' was published in September 2000, not 1992. You can read it on the Internet if you wish.
Re: You misunderstood me, Steve P.Mason on 3/26/03 at 10:08 (114647)
I have read 'Rebuilding' on the Internet, Steve P., and I know that it was published in 2000. The document I refer to here is a precursor, part of the original plan that was hatched/published in 1991/1992.
Anyone can see this for himself at the link I provided. The date that the plan was published -1992 - in the New York Times is right on that linked document. And again, please note: This document was provided in 1992 by a Pentagon official who was sufficiently concerned to believe that the American public should be informed of what was being planned. That alone makes it worth reading, and I hope people are paying attention.
'Rebuilding' is a wordier version of this earlier, pre-Clinton global plan. I have read both, and I see no fundamental difference between the goals published first in 1992 and then in 2000. And as all can see, those goals are now actively being pursued. Invasion, for the reasons stated therein, was a primary goal. Liberation was not even mentioned. I am seriously concerned about that.
Re: Smile on Dudemarie on 3/26/03 at 10:30 (114652)
Sorry we weren't refering to that document steve. I can understand how you may have thought that. We were discussing the 'Defense Planning Guidence'. It is often referred to as The Cheney-Wolfowitz Doctrine and was written in 1991. We were refering to an article published in the NY Times 3-8-1992 by Patrick E Tylor titled 'A One-Superpower World'. If you read the article you may better be able to follow our conversation. It's not biased it just addresses the objectives of the document. I will not copy or paste the article as that is a copywrite enfringement.
Thanks for your time and input,
Re: Haliburton Contractmarie on 3/26/03 at 10:36 (114656)
Gotcha. How long was he VP at that company? Before or after the original Defense Planning Guidance was written? Curious minds want to know.
Re: Haliburton Contractmarie on 3/26/03 at 10:42 (114657)
I don't follow your question Brian. Have you read the document that Mason and I are discussing? Please clarify how your question relates. Maybe I'm just slow this morning. I won't quote from the document because I feel it should be your choice to read it. As a typicl busy American I can't keep up with everything but as Bush was selecting his cabinet and VP the document from 1991 came to my mind. So I have made an effort to reaquaint myself with it. It has nothing to do with being conservative, moderate or liberal. It has to do with being informed.
Re: Wolfowitz-Cheney Doctrinemarie on 3/26/03 at 10:49 (114662)
Thank you Mason. It all makes sense.
Re: Quoting vs. complete copy & pasteSharon W on 3/26/03 at 11:01 (114665)
My understanding was that it is OK to quote from an article from the interntet, but not to copy and paste the whole article. Am I mistaken on that?
Re: Quoting vs. complete copy & pastemarie on 3/26/03 at 12:19 (114674)
I am sorry I mis stated that. Sometimes my fingers move faster than my brain. Quotes are ok. I just didn't want to get in a debate with steve or brian. We are having a simple discussion. And if they want to participate actively they may want to read the article. It is strictly their decision. I meant to write the next sentence that copy and pasting is a copywrite infringement. As an artist I kinda don't like that. I myself have been guilty of it since Ed and I had a little copy and paste war...a while back. It didn't bother Ed or I but I think it hurt some other posters for which I am sorry.
Re: Quoting vs. complete copy & pasteSharon W on 3/26/03 at 14:16 (114686)
Sorry, I didn't really mean it as a comment on the topic of the thread -- I was just clarifying a point of what's appropriate or not and (no offense) I figured a teacher would be a good person to ask!
So, thanks for the info -- that's what I thought, but I wasn't sure.
Re: Quoting vs. complete copy & pastejohn h on 3/26/03 at 16:11 (114707)
About pasting: I generally read the short paste but when one is page after page I jus do not read them. Not just here but anywhere. Sort of like reading War and Peace.