Friday, November 11, 2005

Bush: Blah, Blah, Blah. 9/11, 9/11, 9/11.

GOI: Lame-duck President Bush exploited veterans day to lash out at critics:

Instead of using this day to simply honor the fallen soldiers and those who served he instead chose to use them as a political backdrop for his campaign like rhetoric.

This response to the shameful event from Senator John Kerry:

In a statement, Kerry retorted: "I wish President Bush knew better than to dishonor America's veterans by playing the politics of fear and smear on Veterans Day. Instead of trying to salvage his slumping political fortunes, the commander in chief should honor our men and women in uniform with a clear strategy for success in Iraq."

Kerry charged, "This administration misled a nation into war by cherry-picking intelligence and stretching the truth beyond recognition. . . . Today, they continue the same games hoping Americans forget the mess they made in Iraq that's cost over 2,000 Americans their lives and their failure to find Osama bin Laden."

GOI: Oh yeah and Bush was still trying to make the connection between the war in Iraq with September 11th. Saying that this war was not of our choosing but rather came to our shores on 9/11. All this despite his astonishing moment of clarity when he previously admitted that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and Septermber the 11th. As well as the fact that Iraq was not the breeding ground for terrorists that it is today.

I know, I know the Bush sycophants will retort with the bumper sticker defense that "it's better to fight the terrorists over there then here." Yeah, tell that to the Iraqi's whose backyard is the center of this mess and their family members the victims. Tell them that the life of their loved one isn't as important as an American life. Tell them that they are just canon fodder to protect "superior America" from the terror and nightmares.

And let's not forget that the terrorists can still hit us here at any time. That vulnerability does not change because we are in a war with them "over there." Such statements are naive delusions that the pro-war folks tell themselves to justify this war and to help them believe the lies that everything is going well over there.

---End of Transmission---


Underground Logician said...

I thought Bush was quite forceful against his critics. What's the matter, can't take it James?

You want to post all sorts of innuendo, rumor and blatant attacks and get a little upset when Bush fights back. Maybe his message is the same simply because that is the course we must take.

So, take you medicine like a man and quit whining.

Underground Logician said...

Oh, as an aside. You were aware that Jordanians were protesting against Zarqouwi, not the United States for the bombing of the three hotels in Jordan, right? They weren't chanting, "Get out of Iraq and go to hell, George Bush." Just want to assure you, they, who are closer to the violence, perhaps have a clearer view of things. They were chanting, "Go to hell, Zarqouwi."

Maybe libs need to take heart to this, since they desire for George Bush to go to hell. Liberals anger is so displaced, so out of touch, so ludicrous it simply amazes me. People who apparently without the aide of hallucinagenic drugs and without coercion actually choose insane notions, on their own!

James, try shocking me JUST ONCE where you post something that supports the war effort, and turn your anger towards those who seek to kill you and me. I bet you can't do it. You'll find it totally revolting, and will fear what crimnos, Isabella and co. will say. But if you fight the PC bug just once, you'll feel the exhilaration of standing up for something freely; it'll be more intoxicating than the liberal opium you've been inhaling.

Go ahead...just once.

james said...


I'm not an idiot. I DO watch the news and YES I am aware that the Jordanians are protesting Zarqawi as well they should.

I have stated several times on here that I support the war now that we are there. I DO not support, however, the way it has been planned and carried out.

Yes, I'm a liberal and perhaps from time to time I "drink the liberal cool-aid" but you do the same thing with your righ-wing agenda and friends.

It's called politics. Being the loyal opposition. I'm not going to agree with a lot of what you say because I'm NOT a conservative and I never will be.

As for agreeing with Isabella, Crimnos, etc. Don't you think that is only natural since I am a liberal and they are too (from my understanding?).

Anyway, I want the troops to come home when they have finished the mission. The mission of rebuilding the Iraq.

james said...


As for Georgie being forceful against his critics, "Bring it on" to quote the man himself.

Of course I'm going to get upset when Bush fights back because I feel the man is the WORST PRESIDENT EVER and I oppose most everything he stands for.

That's my opinion and I'm entitled to it. So are you and so is Bush but it doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

If you interpret opposing this President as whining then so be it.

By the way, what is your opinion on Bill O'Reilly's comments? I'd really like to know.

Underground Logician said...


How should the Bush administration have planned the war in Iraq?

After that, let's have a real pro-military posting. I'm up for that. So that the military can get the boost of morale they need to finish the job.

As to you being liberal, yeah, I was about to conclude you were. Thanks for the hand-holding. And yeah, crimnos and Isabella are liberal, so yeah, they would agree. that straight. And, yeah, you have a right to your opinion, and so do I and so does Bush. Okay, got it.

Now as to O'Reilly's comments. I think he's very angry at SF for voting the way they did. It's anti-American, anti-military. It lacks any principle, and if carried out all over the country, the military couldn't carry out it's mission, and we'd be stuck forever in Iraq with no troops...right. SF's move is a collective act of treason. O'Reilly also thinks SF should get no federal dollars. Do I think O'Reilly really wants SF to be bombed? No. He was being absurd to prove a point.

james said...

Oh yeah and let's not forget about the Bushies rewriting history saying the Iraq war war about WMD's and an Iraq-9/11-al Qaeda link. Then they denied that they said Iraq was a direct threat to the U.S.

This from Hardball with Chris Matthews:

"Capital Report (June 19, 04): You have said in the past that it was pretty well confirmed...

Cheney: No. I never said that. I never said that. Absolutely not.

Cut to Cheney on Meet the Press (Dec. 9, 01)

Cheney: It's been pretty well confirmed that (Atta) did go to Prague and did meet with an official in the senior Iraqi intelligence service.

It ends with an observation from David Shuster:

The brutal irony is that while implications about a 9-11 connection innuendo were false claims... that helped take us into Iraq, the Iraq War itself has created real Iraq-Al Qaeda links that may keep us from getting out."

Then when we didn't find the WMD's the reasons for war changed again.

This time they were saying the war was for Iraqi independence, Democracy and for the stability of the region as a whole.

james said...


Well, you're entitled to your opinion on SF and O'Reilly. We disagree and that's fine.


How should the Bush administration have planned the war in Iraq?

Well, my opinion is that they should have never invaded in the first place. If they gave the weapons inspectors more time then they would have found that there were no WMD's and thus, no reason to invade.

Thus they rushed to war (in my opinion) because they desperately wanted this war to give kick-backs to their war profitering buddies and to privatize Iraqi's oil so that they could get a huge cut. Not to mention Bush wanted to pick up where daddy left off and try to make himself look like the hero and one of America's greatest president's.

Well, it has obviously backfired and we are all paying the price for that.

Underground Logician said...


Well, that's one way to fight the war! Don't invade. Give time for inspections. Gee, not even Clinton thought that. You're more liberal than he was!

Well, I'm sure all of Bush's war buddies are making lots and lots of money from Iraq, eh? You got any true blue figures to back your statements? Maybe "blue" is the wrong color. Figures from sources who don't have axes to grind?

Man, James, you actually do believe this stuff!

james said...


WASHINGTON, July 25 ( -- "Halliburton announced on Friday that its KBR division, responsible for carrying out Pentagon contracts, experienced a 284 percent increase in operating profits during the second quarter of this year.

The increase in profits was primarily due to the Pentagon's payment of "award fees" for what military officials call "good" or "very good" work done by KBR in the Middle East for America's taxpayers and the troops.

Despite the scandals that plague KBR's military contracts, the Pentagon awarded $70 million in "award" fees to the company, along with four ratings of "excellent" and two ratings of "very good" for the troop logistics work under the Army's LOGCAP contract.

The Pentagon has provided preferential treatment to Halliburton on a number of occasions, including the concealment from the public of critical reports by military auditors.

Audits conducted by the Pentagon's Defense Contract Audit Agency determined that KBR had $1 billion in "questioned" expenses (i.e. expenses which military auditors consider "unreasonable") and $442 million in "unsupported" expenses (i.e. expenses which military auditors have determined contain no receipt or any explanation on how the expenses were disbursed).

But the top Pentagon brass ignored these audits and rewarded KBR's work anyway.

Halliburton's earnings announcement comes on the heels of new reports showing the Iraq and Afghan wars have already cost U.S. taxpayers $314 billion and that another ten years of war will cost $700 billion.

In another coup for Halliburton, a federal judge this month decided that whistleblowers may not sue U.S. companies for fraud if payment for services was Halliburton announces 284 perce.ems made in Iraqi, not U.S., money. Halliburton was paid over $1 billion in Iraqi oil money during the first 15 months of the occupation. The judge's ruling means the False Claims Act cannot be used to offer large rewards to corporate insiders who reveal wrongdoing or overcharges for services. The law is considered America's most successful deterrent against contractor fraud, but the judge's decision will help Halliburton and other contractors avoid tough scrutiny in Iraq."

This from NPR:

December 12, 2003 · "A senior Defense Department official says a Pentagon audit has found evidence that a subsidiary of Halliburton may have overcharged the U.S. government by as much as $61 million for fuel deliveries in Iraq. The company, formerly run by Vice President Dick Cheney, admits no wrongdoing. Hear NPR's John Burnett."

This from Marketplace:

"The spoils of war add up to more than capturing expansive palaces and luxury cars. As Marketplace reporters have discovered, not all of the $22 billion being spent to rebuild Iraq is going where it should. Who's watching the money as it streams through Baghdad? Just about no one, and bribes and black marketeering are rampant, witnesses say. A leading anti-corruption group claims that at least 20% of U.S. money spent in Iraq is being lost to corruption. From Halliburton subsidiaries charging double for gas, Iraqi officials and Arabic translators unrestrained from pocketing millions of dollars, or even members of the interim governing Council accusing each other of taking tens of millions in bribes."

This from ABC News reporting on a UN audit:

"The United States should reimburse Iraq for $US208 million in apparent overcharges paid to a Halliburton subsidiary, an UN watchdog agency has said.

The International Advisory and Monitoring Board for the Development of Iraq conducted a special audit on Halliburton's Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) unit for the procurement and distribution of fuel products and the restoration of Iraq's oil infrastructure.

The monitoring board cited charges of $US208 million, costs that earlier had been questioned by US military auditors."

James: And I can't believe YOU believe the Conservative propaganda!! So, I guess that makes two of us who do not believe the other, eh? Good old American opposition. ;)