"DSK" wrote in message
...


"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...


Bush went to war with Iraq over the threat to our oil supply, so that
should show how serious he takes any threats to US oil supply.


There is no evidence that President Bush takes anything seriously except
playing golf... in video games, not for real...

A breath of fresh air! You're finally admitting that the skank lied to
this country. You get extra cookies today.

Where were my cookies 2 years ago when I said that oil was a major
factor?



Doug Kanter wrote:
Two years ago, you were still backing up the childish reasons he was
feeding half the country (the morons who need pablum 3 meals per day, and
voted for him). Now, you're suggesting that if he were asked for the real
reason during a press conference, he might come right out and say "Oil.
Period".

And please note that in quoting his own post, saying that oils was the
reason, he did NOT put oil as the first reason. And his other reasons,
such as using Iraq as a base for launching attacks against Iran and/or
Syria, have proven to be pipe dreams.

Patience. He's not even 6 full months into his second term. It took 2
years in his first term before finally attacking Iraq and ousting Saddam.


Also notice that NOBBY (along with
his Krause-obsessed claque of fascist pea-brains) has *never* acknowledged
the basic fact that there were never WMDs and no ties to Sept 11th.

Because that's not a fact. As Cheney said "the absence of evidence is not
the evidence of absence". Even Duelfer admitted that "we just can't say for
sure that no WMD's or WMD-related material were shipped to Syria".



Cheney got the horse laugh a while back when he claimed 'the insurgency is
on it's last legs' and was immediately contradicted by the CIA, Pentagon,
State, etc etc. Since it looks like about 40% of the public will swallow
*any* lie from Bush, no matter how ridiculous, one wonders why he's even
trying.

Maybe for the slow folks in the class...like yourself. Consider this the
equivalent of being left back in class, and you're now getting a second
chance to learn the material.

one wonders why he's even trying.



Doug Kanter wrote:
Because the idiot thinks a "poll" is what you tie your dog to in the yard.


But hey, *this* President leads from conviction, he doesn't pay
attention to polls! That's why he's giving speeches attempting to
bolster support for his Iraq war, becase he doesn't care about polls!

Every time you think Bush & Cheney can't possibly sink any lower in
mendacity & hypocrisy, they invent a new way of dropping the bar.

DSK

.... Since it looks like about 40% of the public will swallow
*any* lie from Bush, no matter how ridiculous, one wonders why he's even
trying.


NOYB wrote:
Maybe for the slow folks in the class...like yourself.

Ooohh, NOBBY's calling na-ames, NOBBY's calling na-ames!

... Consider this the
equivalent of being left back in class, and you're now getting a second
chance to learn the material.

What, that Cheney will try to pull off blatant lies? I knew that years
ago when he was singing along with his former buddy Lehman.

DSK

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...


Cheney got the horse laugh a while back when he claimed 'the insurgency
is on it's last legs' and was immediately contradicted by the CIA,
Pentagon, State, etc etc. Since it looks like about 40% of the public
will swallow *any* lie from Bush, no matter how ridiculous, one wonders
why he's even trying.

Maybe for the slow folks in the class...like yourself. Consider this the
equivalent of being left back in class, and you're now getting a second
chance to learn the material.

So, you're saying the insurgency is NOT on its last legs, and that the
agencies whose people are in Iraq (as opposed to a golf course in Virginia)
are completely wrong?

"Red Cloud©" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 15:13:56 -0400, DSK wrote:

.... Since it looks like about 40% of the public will swallow
*any* lie from Bush, no matter how ridiculous, one wonders why he's even
trying.


NOYB wrote:
Maybe for the slow folks in the class...like yourself.

Ooohh, NOBBY's calling na-ames, NOBBY's calling na-ames!

... Consider this the
equivalent of being left back in class, and you're now getting a second
chance to learn the material.

What, that Cheney will try to pull off blatant lies? I knew that years
ago when he was singing along with his former buddy Lehman.

DSK

Pentagon Auditors Flag up to $1 Billion in Overcharges by
Halliburt-HEY, LOOK IT'S THAT ARUBA GIRL!

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&e=1&u=/nm/20050627/pl_nm/iraq_halliburton_dc

rusty redcloud

Good article, but as in the past, nothing will change, and we all know why.

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 17:41:20 +0000, NOYB wrote:


You don't think he'll see CNOOC's control of a US oil company as something
that potentially "affects the capability and capacity of the U.S. to meet
the requirements of national security"? I do.

I saw more of a threat from China's purchase of IBM's PC business
(Lenovo), or the technology transferring from Boeing. Frankly, I don't
like seeing American assets leaving, but unfortunately, the flag of
multi-national corporations is green, not Red, White, and Blue.



Much of the trade surplus is because their currency is pegged. The
Chinese are starting to **** off Europe, Japan, and Canada...who,
combined, do as much trade or more with China than we do. China has no
choice but to relent on this issue, or face harsh tariffs all over the
place.

I just don't see it. Tariffs are a two edged sword. I would expect to
see a revaluing of the yuan, but not a float. Time will tell.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Red Cloud©" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 15:13:56 -0400, DSK wrote:

.... Since it looks like about 40% of the public will swallow
*any* lie from Bush, no matter how ridiculous, one wonders why he's
even
trying.


NOYB wrote:
Maybe for the slow folks in the class...like yourself.

Ooohh, NOBBY's calling na-ames, NOBBY's calling na-ames!

... Consider this the
equivalent of being left back in class, and you're now getting a second
chance to learn the material.

What, that Cheney will try to pull off blatant lies? I knew that years
ago when he was singing along with his former buddy Lehman.

DSK

Pentagon Auditors Flag up to $1 Billion in Overcharges by
Halliburt-HEY, LOOK IT'S THAT ARUBA GIRL!

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&e=1&u=/nm/20050627/pl_nm/iraq_halliburton_dc

rusty redcloud

Good article, but as in the past, nothing will change, and we all know
why.

Because there's no substance to it?

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...


Cheney got the horse laugh a while back when he claimed 'the insurgency
is on it's last legs' and was immediately contradicted by the CIA,
Pentagon, State, etc etc. Since it looks like about 40% of the public
will swallow *any* lie from Bush, no matter how ridiculous, one wonders
why he's even trying.

Maybe for the slow folks in the class...like yourself. Consider this the
equivalent of being left back in class, and you're now getting a second
chance to learn the material.

So, you're saying the insurgency is NOT on its last legs, and that the
agencies whose people are in Iraq (as opposed to a golf course in
Virginia) are completely wrong?

Those people are wrong in referring to the people blowing up car bombs as
"insurgents". The "insurgency" (Saddam's Fedayeen henchmen) is certainly in
its final throes. What you're seeing now are foreign-born terrorists.

Prime Minister al-Jaafari explained it best in an interview with David
Gregory the other day:


GREGORY: Vice President Cheney said a few days ago that he thinks the
insurgency is in its final throes. Do you agree with that?

AL-JAAFARI: Indeed. It's true. We do not call them insurgents. We call them
terrorists. Because that's what they do. They carry out acts of terrorism
against innocent people, men, women and children and it is true that with
the help of friends and with the support of our friends and with our
securing our borders, we will very soon defeat terrorism.

GREGORY: Well, here's a different view. The top military commander in the
Persian Gulf actually disagrees with the vice president, saying that the
insurgency is as strong today as it was six months ago. This after
successful elections in January. This after a political process that's
moving toward a constitution in August. Why hasn't the insurgency been
brought to its heels?

AL-JAAFARI: I certainly, again, would not call this an insurgency. I would
call it a group of terrorists who are out to kill as many people as
possible. That is easy to do. Anyone can come in and blow himself up and
choose the softest targets possible and carry out acts of terror.

And all of them come from outside Iraq and they admit this freely on TV when
they are interrogated.

"Insurgents" only refers to people who have a social base and have support.
They carried out either armed uprising or peaceful uprising like Gandhi but
these are no such thing. They are terrorists.

"DSK" wrote in message
...
... Now, you're suggesting that if he were asked for the real reason
during a press conference, he might come right out and say "Oil. Period".


NOYB wrote:
But it's not "oil. Period". It's oil...and a whole list of other
reasons. But oil is the biggie.


If that's the case, then why all the smokescreen about using Iraq as a
strategic base, keeping terrorists at arm's length, and of course WMDs?

Because those things are all true...and a lot easier for the average
American to understand.

Wolfowitz admitted as much when he said that there were several reasons we
went to war with Iraq, but the administration "chose the one area issue
everyone could agree on" (ie--WMD).



We both know the reason, I'm just curious as to whether or not you can
admit it publicly.

Admit "what" publicly? That there were several reasons for going to war?

Was Pearl Harbor the only reason we went to war with Japan *and* Germany?
No. But it was the catalyst mixed in with a bunch of other ingredients.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 17:41:20 +0000, NOYB wrote:


You don't think he'll see CNOOC's control of a US oil company as
something
that potentially "affects the capability and capacity of the U.S. to meet
the requirements of national security"? I do.

I saw more of a threat from China's purchase of IBM's PC business
(Lenovo), or the technology transferring from Boeing. Frankly, I don't
like seeing American assets leaving, but unfortunately, the flag of
multi-national corporations is green, not Red, White, and Blue.



Much of the trade surplus is because their currency is pegged. The
Chinese are starting to **** off Europe, Japan, and Canada...who,
combined, do as much trade or more with China than we do. China has no
choice but to relent on this issue, or face harsh tariffs all over the
place.

I just don't see it. Tariffs are a two edged sword. I would expect to
see a revaluing of the yuan, but not a float.

Initially, a revalue. Eventually, a float. China would going into a severe
depression if they floated their currency over night.