Bin Laden Played Bush Like a Pigeon

[Joe Steel]

The only western journalist to interview al Qaeda's leader says the US invasion of Iraq "fulfilled Osama bin Laden's wish."

In a recent interview with Australian television, Al Quds editor Abdul Bari Atwan claimed that the terror leader had sought to draw US troops into a fight in the Middle East.

"He told me personally that he can't go and fight the Americans and their country. But if he manages to provoke them and bring them to the Middle East and to their Muslim worlds, where he can find them or fight them on his own turf, he will actually teach them a lesson," Atwan said. "It seems the invasion of Iraq fulfilled Osama bin Laden's wish. That's why the Americans are losing in Iraq."

Author claims US invasion of Iraq 'fulfilled Osama bin Laden's wish' (http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Author_claims_US_invasion_of_Iraq_0824.html)

This is pretty much what I've always suspected. Bin Laden found that Clinton was too smart but knew that Bush was even dumber than the slugs who voted for him.

[avatar4321]

This is pretty much what I've always suspected. Bin Laden found that Clinton was too smart but knew that Bush was even dumber than the slugs who voted for him.

So you just prattle off the terrorist propaganda like its gospel truth? Maybe one of these days youll think for yourself.

[Dilloduck]

Al Quds editor Abdul Bari Atwan

now there's a "western journalist" if I ever heard one :laugh2:

[jimnyc]

Bin Laden found that Clinton was too smart

Something must be wrong with my browser as I can't seem to find anything about this in the article you linked. Can you please quote from the article for us so I can read Bin Laden's comments on this? Do you think maybe Bin Laden would maybe be paying back a favor to 'ol Willy for not taking him in when he had the chance handed to him on a silver platter?

[Joe Steel]

So you just prattle off the terrorist propaganda like its gospel truth. Maybe one of these days youll think for yourself.

Like I said, the author is saying pretty much what I've always suspected. It's the only thing which makes sense.

Bin Laden had no hope of causing real damage to the U. S. by destroying the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The attack only makes sense as a provocation but, as a provocation, it was only as good as the American president's willingness to be drawn into a fight. Clinton was too smart. He was a Rhodes scholar, you know, and can read. He understood the political forces at work in the world. Bush is just a dumb frat boy who admitted he never even reads newspapers. All he knows is what is fed to him by neofascist nutcases and zionist thugs.

Bin Laden must have thought Allah was smiling on him when he saw the results of the 2000 election; his enemies had been delivered to him. All he had to do drop the package in front of the pigeon.

[Gunny]

Like I said, the author is saying pretty much what I've always suspected. It's the only thing which makes sense.

Bin Laden had no hope of causing real damage to the U. S. by destroying the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The attack only makes sense as a provocation but, as a provocation, it was only as good as the American president's willingness to be drawn into a fight. Clinton was too smart. He was a Rhodes scholar, you know, and can read. He understood the political forces at work in the world. Bush is just a dumb frat boy who admitted he never even reads newspapers. All he knows is what is fed to him by neofascist nutcases and zionist thugs.

Bin Laden must have thought Allah was smiling on him when he saw the results of the 2000 election; his enemies had been delivered to him. All he had to do drop the package in front of the pigeon.


Stunningly stupid. Are you old enough to play with mommy and daddy's computer?:laugh2:

[NightTrain]

This is pretty much what I've always suspected. Bin Laden found that Clinton was too smart but knew that Bush was even dumber than the slugs who voted for him.

Your hero, Abdul Bari Atwan, is quite a character. A Palestinian editor of a pro-Jihad paper in Britain that received financial support from that poor martyr Saddam.

Abdul Bari Atwan met with Bin Laden in 1996 and was very impressed with him.

After doing a small amount of research on Abdul Bari Atwan, I can see he is quoted & cited endlessly on fruitloop liberal sites endlessly. Which one did you copy and paste it from?

The fact that you admire this guy speaks volumes. You should try a little harder to find someone to idolize.

[truthmatters]

Its amazing just how little facts mena to these people.

Our own intell comminity has said that the Iraq war is creating terror yet they refuse to see it played right into OBLs hands to walk into Iraq and prove OBLs claims about the US true to his prospective followers.

He told them the US wanted to destroy Islam and that they were fighting for the exsistance of their religion and would be rewarded in heaven for it.

So how does Bush react?

He leaves the real fight in Afganistan and goes into Iraq (which was no threat to us and at a time when there were REAL threats to worry about) which is the one secular nation in the area which doesnt harbor these nutbag Islamic OBL followers.

He takes the shit cork out of the bottle of hornets which is Iraq in doing allowing AQ to come in because there was NO attempt to secure the Iraq borders after "shock ad Awe".

Now we have MORE Muslims to join the AQ forces and He makes sure they hate us by tearing their country to shredds and kills hunderds of thousands of Iraqis to make sure they will hate us for generations.

But hey those Haliburton profits were worth it , for generations to come they will hire Bush relatives for sweet do nothing jobs with great travel perks.

Then some more fools can vote for the next Bush they run for office.

[NightTrain]

But hey those Haliburton profits were worth it , for generations to come they will hire Bush relatives for sweet do nothing jobs with great travel perks.


It is simply amazing to me that there are idiots still running around claiming Haliburton was the reason for the war.

[truthmatters]

No Haliburton was not the reason for the war it was oil.

Why dont you say something instead of offering nothing but mindless insults?

[Gaffer]

Let's see now. bin laden wanted to fight America on his own turf? He wanted America to come to him? Ok, we did. It's called Afghanistan. bin laden promptly headed for the hills of pakistan. Iraq had nothing to do with his plans. Baghdad would be a good central point for continuing his war, but it was never a part of his overall plans. He never really expected the US to mobilize and come after him as hard as it did. He was expecting the usual reaction he had seen from clinton. clinton set the precedence for bin ladens war plans.

That so called reporter is nothing but a bin laden propaganda tool. And the libs salivate over him because he says bad things about Bush.

The terrorist are fighting a war of world conquest.

Bush is fighting a war against terrorism. It should be against islam.

The libs are fighting a war against Bush. Everything else be damned.

[diuretic]

Let's see now. bin laden wanted to fight America on his own turf? He wanted America to come to him? Ok, we did. It's called Afghanistan. bin laden promptly headed for the hills of pakistan. Iraq had nothing to do with his plans. Baghdad would be a good central point for continuing his war, but it was never a part of his overall plans. He never really expected the US to mobilize and come after him as hard as it did. He was expecting the usual reaction he had seen from clinton. clinton set the precedence for bin ladens war plans.

That so called reporter is nothing but a bin laden propaganda tool. And the libs salivate over him because he says bad things about Bush.

The terrorist are fighting a war of world conquest.

Bush is fighting a war against terrorism. It should be against islam.

The libs are fighting a war against Bush. Everything else be damned.

That was actually not a bad analysis in the beginning. bin Laden obviously didn't expect the reaction of the US and the West in attempting to hunt him and his gang down. He didn't think for a moment that the West would invade Afghanistan to take him out.

But when Bush went into Iraq as well, bin Laden and his cohorts couldn't believe their luck.

[NightTrain]

No Haliburton was not the reason for the war it was oil.

Why dont you say something instead of offering nothing but mindless insults?

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then most likely it's a friggin duck. :)

Perhaps you can explain to me how this was all about the oil? Seems to me that I'm paying more now for gas than I ever was. 'Splain it to me.

[truthmatters]

The whole reason he attacked us was to engauge us in a protracted war in the middle east where he could recruit Muslims from all over the world to come and fight to protect their holy lands.

You see the radical Mulims believe they are doing Gods bidding and sending themselves to paradise.

They know they will fight forever and they know we wont.

He drew us in this stupid game and Bush fell for it.

[diuretic]

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then most likely it's a friggin duck. :)

Perhaps you can explain to me how this was all about the oil? Seems to me that I'm paying more now for gas than I ever was. 'Splain it to me.

It wasn't about giving you cheap oil. It was about securing oil reserves so that the price could be manipulated upwards. Jeez, get with the programme.

[NightTrain]

It wasn't about giving you cheap oil. It was about securing oil reserves so that the price could be manipulated upwards. Jeez, get with the programme.

I see.

I didn't know that Bush, Cheney and Haliburton controlled OPEC.

[5stringJeff]

Bin Laden had no hope of causing real damage to the U. S. by destroying the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

3,000 people dead is not "real damage?" WTF is wrong with you?!? :mad:

[truthmatters]

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then most likely it's a friggin duck. :)

Perhaps you can explain to me how this was all about the oil? Seems to me that I'm paying more now for gas than I ever was. 'Splain it to me.

Oh so you actutally think it was to give you cheap oil?

Wow you really cant figure this thing out can you?

here are some facts you should know.

The counting mechanisms on the oil pumps in Iraq were broken in the first days of the war and to this day they have never been repaired.(this means no one knows how much oil is flowing out of Iraq and who its going to)

The Bush admin has been pressuring the Iraqi congress to pass a bill that would in effect give the rights to 70% Iraqi oil fields profits to western oil companies for the next 30 years.

We have built permanent bases in Iraq which include the largest in the world.


You see this is not for YOUR benifit you just get to pay for it.

[NightTrain]

The counting mechanisms on the oil pumps in Iraq were broken in the first days of the war and to this day they have never been repaired.(this means no one knows how much oil is flowing out of Iraq and who its going to)

So you're telling me that oil pipelines are pumping oil and they have no idea how much is going through it? Or where the other end of that pipeline goes?

Are you serious? Let's have a look at your links, please. And, please, not from Moveon, let's try to use credible resources.


The Bush admin has been pressuring the Iraqi congress to pass a bill that would in effect give the rights to 70% Iraqi oil fields profits to western oil companies for the next 30 years.

I missed this, too. Got some backup for that?

[truthmatters]

I will go get this for you so hang on

[NightTrain]

I will go get this for you so hang on

I'm heading out to the cabin for the weekend to teach my sons proper gun control whilst shooting animals, I will check back Sunday evening. Thanks in advance.

[truthmatters]

http://tinyurl.com/y5r3yf


the oil law

[MtnBiker]

http://tinyurl.com/y5r3yf


the oil law





The Bush admin has been pressuring the Iraqi congress to pass a bill that would in effect give the rights to 70% Iraqi oil fields profits to western oil companies for the next 30 years.



Post a quote from the linked article that states the Bush admin is pressuring the Iraqi for effective rights to 70% of the the oil field profits.

[OCA]

http://tinyurl.com/y5r3yf


the oil law

And the problem with this law is?

I mean we do all the repair work therefore we should get a bigger piece of the pie.....thats the way it goes.

[Abbey Marie]

No Haliburton was not the reason for the war it was oil.

Why dont you say something instead of offering nothing but mindless insults?

Actually, he said a lot in his previous post about the bin Laden apologist you chose to idolize. You have just chosen to ignore it. I can see why.

[MtnBiker]

And the problem with this law is?

I mean we do all the repair work therefore we should get a bigger piece of the pie.....thats the way it goes.

What is the state Iran's oil industry infrastructure right now?

[truthmatters]

http://tinyurl.com/22j5bl


The missing oil

[truthmatters]

http://tinyurl.com/y5r3yf


the oil law




Critics fear that given Iraq's weak bargaining position, it could get locked in now to deals on bad terms for decades to come. "Iraq would end up with the worst possible outcome," said Greg Muttitt of Platform, a human rights and environmental group that monitors the oil industry. He said the new legislation was drafted with the assistance of BearingPoint, an American consultancy firm hired by the US government, which had a representative working in the American embassy in Baghdad for several months.

"Three outside groups have had far more opportunity to scrutinise this legislation than most Iraqis," said Mr Muttitt. "The draft went to the US government and major oil companies in July, and to the International Monetary Fund in September. Last month I met a group of 20 Iraqi MPs in Jordan, and I asked them how many had seen the legislation. Only one had."

Britain and the US have always hotly denied that the war was fought for oil. On 18 March 2003, with the invasion imminent, Tony Blair proposed the House of Commons motion to back the war. "The oil revenues, which people falsely claim that we want to seize, should be put in a trust fund for the Iraqi people administered through the UN," he said.

[Gaffer]

Oh so you actutally think it was to give you cheap oil?

Wow you really cant figure this thing out can you?

here are some facts you should know.

The counting mechanisms on the oil pumps in Iraq were broken in the first days of the war and to this day they have never been repaired.(this means no one knows how much oil is flowing out of Iraq and who its going to)

The Bush admin has been pressuring the Iraqi congress to pass a bill that would in effect give the rights to 70% Iraqi oil fields profits to western oil companies for the next 30 years.

We have built permanent bases in Iraq which include the largest in the world.


You see this is not for YOUR benifit you just get to pay for it.

You actually believe this crap? You really are gullible aren't you.

You have no concept of the war, or of history, or even reality for that matter. It's all about your hatred of Bush and nothing else matters. We already know it's your only priority in life.

So what if we have permanent bases in iraq. We have permanent bases throughout the world. As the middle east is a hotbed it only seems reasonable that we have bases in the region to act from as necessary. Or does your hatred of Bush extend to the military as well?

[truthmatters]

http://tinyurl.com/22j5bl


The missing oil


Mr. Ebel said the lack of modern metering equipment, or measuring devices, at Iraq’s wellheads made it especially difficult to track smuggling there. The State Department official agreed that there were no meters at the wellheads, but said that Iraq’s Oil Ministry had signed a contract with Shell Oil to study the possibility of putting in the meters.

The official added that an American-financed project to install meters on Iraq’s main oil platform in the Persian Gulf was scheduled to be completed this month.

Note this is a may 2007 article.

I have heard nothing about if they have finnaly installed the meters but it took Six years for them to even look into it?

[MtnBiker]

Critics fear that given Iraq's weak bargaining position, it could get locked in now to deals on bad terms for decades to come. "Iraq would end up with the worst possible outcome," said Greg Muttitt of Platform, a human rights and environmental group that monitors the oil industry. He said the new legislation was drafted with the assistance of BearingPoint, an American consultancy firm hired by the US government, which had a representative working in the American embassy in Baghdad for several months.

"Three outside groups have had far more opportunity to scrutinise this legislation than most Iraqis," said Mr Muttitt. "The draft went to the US government and major oil companies in July, and to the International Monetary Fund in September. Last month I met a group of 20 Iraqi MPs in Jordan, and I asked them how many had seen the legislation. Only one had."

Britain and the US have always hotly denied that the war was fought for oil. On 18 March 2003, with the invasion imminent, Tony Blair proposed the House of Commons motion to back the war. "The oil revenues, which people falsely claim that we want to seize, should be put in a trust fund for the Iraqi people administered through the UN," he said.


This is your claim to an effective right to 70% oil profits to forgein companies?

[truthmatters]

You actually believe this crap? You really are gullible aren't you.

You have no concept of the war, or of history, or even reality for that matter. It's all about your hatred of Bush and nothing else matters. We already know it's your only priority in life.

So what if we have permanent bases in iraq. We have permanent bases throughout the world. As the middle east is a hotbed it only seems reasonable that we have bases in the region to act from as necessary. Or does your hatred of Bush extend to the military as well?

Still nothing to offer but personal insults?

I went and got proof of my claims.

Try adding information to the conversation for a change.

[OCA]

What is the state Iran's oil industry infrastructure right now?

Don't know offhand but i'd lay a sizeable bet that its dogshit.

[OCA]

Still nothing to offer but personal insults?

I went and got proof of my claims.

Try adding information to the conversation for a change.

The link posted said nothing about a grab for 70% of Iraq's oil and profits although if that were true we certainly deserve at least that much.

You obviously don't even read your own links.

[MtnBiker]

Don't know offhand but i'd lay a sizeable bet that its dogshit.

Yup, God forbid that outside profit motivated companies can help Iraq surpass Iran and make their oil industry much more efficent.

[MtnBiker]

Still nothing to offer but personal insults?

I went and got proof of my claims.

Try adding information to the conversation for a change.

I'm still waiting for the 70% claim.

[OCA]

Yup, God forbid that outside profit motivated companies can help Iraq surpass Iran and make their oil industry much more efficent.


But according to libs like Truth companies should be doing this work pro bono.

[truthmatters]

http://tinyurl.com/34cp55


Here is an assessment of the law.

ask yourselfs why the oil companies ad our goverment get to see the law well bofore the Iraqi parliment members get to look at it?

[MtnBiker]

Still nothing to offer but personal insults?

I went and got proof of my claims.

Try adding information to the conversation for a change.

I'm still waiting for the 70% claim.

[OCA]

http://tinyurl.com/34cp55


Here is an assessment of the law.

ask yourselfs why the oil companies ad our goverment get to see the law well bofore the Iraqi parliment members get to look at it?

As well we should see the law before them, its our blood being shed for each group's independence over there, not our fault that they are too ignorant to see this.

[truthmatters]

What you cant read a PDF file?


Here is a draft of the law

http://tinyurl.com/2ayokt

[truthmatters]

As well we should see the law before them, its our blood being shed for each group's independence over there, not our fault that they are too ignorant to see this.


So we can invade their country , destroy their infrastructure and then take 70% of their Oil revenues for the next thirty years( well actually it will just be the oil cos profititng from it Americans just get to pay the costs) and that is prefectly fine with you?

Now remind me again whos blood and treasure are beig shed ad who is profiting?

You do realise the the oil companies and the American government are two differnt things dont you?

[OCA]

What you cant read a PDF file?


Here is a draft of the law

Nice draft, where the hell is the link slick?

[OCA]

So we can invade their country , destroy their infrastructure and then take 70% of their Oil revenues for the next thirty years( well actually it will just be the oil cos profititng from it Americans just get to pay the costs) and that is prefectly fine with you?

Now remind me again whos blood and treasure are beig shed ad who is profiting?

You do realise the the oil companies and the American government are two differnt things dont you?


Capitalism and business, in other words a roaring economy are what really makes America great. I support all efforts of any capitalist to make a profit and do not judge a man on how he makes it. In this case if American companies, the only companies who are able to fix the infrastructure, are profiting then the Iraqi's will profit along with them.

Americans will see the results of profits in reduced prices at the pump but other than that we have no right to seek a share of the profits if we didn't have a part in producing them.

What you seek is wealth reapportionment......very unAmerican.

[truthmatters]

wealth reapportionment?

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!

who wealth is getting reapportioned in Iraq to whom?

I guess you like it when the mines collapse and the miners get to die for the mine owner too?

What you are proposing is just how the scum like OBl get poor Muslims to kill themselves (and us) in terror attacks.

You see when we march into countries on LIES about them being dangerous and then take over the only profitable businesses in the country and give the Oil Cos (which all the Bush admin worked for ) 70 % of the profit for the next 30 years it looks like we are Stealing the wealth of the country.

This is why hey hate us and started resorting to terror, Yes they are assholes for doing so but it is pretty easy to stop terror without Killing our own soldiers and spendingTrillions of our dollars if we just stop doing the biddig of the corporations.

[MtnBiker]

What you cant read a PDF file?


Here is a draft of the law

Let's review

A claim you made



The Bush admin has been pressuring the Iraqi congress to pass a bill that would in effect give the give the rights to 70% Iraqi oil fields profits to western oil companies for the next 30 years.



from the linked pdf file


Oil in Iraq

115 billion barrels of known
reserves – 10% of world total.
70% of GDP; 95% of
government revenue.
71 discovered oilfields, of
which only 24 have been
developed.



A contract between a multinational oil company and a
host government, in which the corporation provides capital
investment, in exchange for operational control over an
oilfield, and access to a share of the revenues from it.



The first quote establishes the current state of oil in Iraq the second does mention operational control and access to a share of revenues in exchange for investment. Where in the pdf file do you find any support to your claim that the Bush admin will have rights to 70% Iraqi oil fields profits to western oil companies for the next 30 years?

[truthmatters]

That is just one portion of one draft and I posted it to show the law was truely kin the works.

Here is the assessment of someone who knows WTF hes talking about on the subject Professor Thomas Wälde, an expert in oil law and policy at the University of Dundee, describes them as:

“A convenient marriage between the politically useful symbolism of the production-sharing contract (appearance of a service contract to the state company acting as master) and the material equivalence of this contract model with concession/licence regimes in all significant aspects…The government can be seen to be running the show - and the company can run it behind the camouflage of legal title symbolising the assertion of national sovereignty.”

[Gaffer]

A law in the works and a law being passed are two different things. See amnesty bill.

[manu1959]

This is pretty much what I've always suspected. Bin Laden found that Clinton was too smart but knew that Bush was even dumber than the slugs who voted for him.

that sure was smart of "the man that smells cigars" not to respond to OBL +Co's......

declaration of war
wtc I bombing
the uss cole bombing
the nigerian embassy bombings
the killing an mutilation of US soliders in the streest of darfur

what a brillaint man.....

his withdraw from rawanda was pure genius

and his appthy towards darfur is the thing gods are made of

total inaction and your a genius.....

a dollar say this will all be justified cuz bush is worse and iraq didn't attack us on 911....blah blah blah

but the part i really like is the left likes being complimented by a terrorist....

[nevadamedic]

Like I said, the author is saying pretty much what I've always suspected. It's the only thing which makes sense.

Bin Laden had no hope of causing real damage to the U. S. by destroying the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The attack only makes sense as a provocation but, as a provocation, it was only as good as the American president's willingness to be drawn into a fight. Clinton was too smart. He was a Rhodes scholar, you know, and can read. He understood the political forces at work in the world. Bush is just a dumb frat boy who admitted he never even reads newspapers. All he knows is what is fed to him by neofascist nutcases and zionist thugs.

Bin Laden must have thought Allah was smiling on him when he saw the results of the 2000 election; his enemies had been delivered to him. All he had to do drop the package in front of the pigeon.

You cant possibly be this dumb.

[truthmatters]

declaration of war
wtc I bombing
the uss cole bombing
the nigerian embassy bombings
the killing an mutilation of US soliders in the streest of darfur


What declaration of war?

The WTC1 bombing took place on Feb 26th 1993
Clinton took office on Jan 20 1993.

Tell us what Clinton could have done to prevent the Cole bombing or the Nigerian bombing?

Are you aware of who took us into the Sudan?

Now do you want talk about the things that Bush failed to stop like 911 its self?

[hjmick]

How, exactly, does one "play a pigeon"?

[manu1959]

declaration of war
wtc I bombing
the uss cole bombing
the nigerian embassy bombings
the killing an mutilation of US soliders in the streest of darfur


What declaration of war?

The WTC1 bombing took place on Feb 26th 1993
Clinton took office on Jan 20 1993.

Tell us what Clinton could have done to prevent the Cole bombing or the Nigerian bombing?

Are you aware of who took us into the Sudan?

Now do you want talk about the things that Bush failed to stop like 911 its self?

you owe me a dollar

[truthmatters]

I never agreed to the bet and you did not even win it.

You never did answer any of the questions either, but then again you never do.

[avatar4321]

No Haliburton was not the reason for the war it was oil.

Why dont you say something instead of offering nothing but mindless insults?

You people who keep claiming this war is for oil are just plain naive. Do you believe every slogan the Democrats come up with without thinking about it?

This seems like an awful lot of work to go through just to give the oil reserves to the Iraqi people. Especially when we could have gotten all the oil we wanted simply by lifting the embargo on Saddam and let him sell us all the oil we wanted. He would have gotten more money. Oppressed his people more. Restarted his weapons programs. And we would have gotten all the oil we wanted.

Yet despite the fact This President and administration, whom you think are oppressive evil men, could have gotten oil with absolutely no trouble and oppressed just as many people, what possible motivation did they have to use the more difficult invasion, and rebuilding Iraq simply to let them keep the oil and still having to buy it at significant prices? What possible motive would it be to go through all that work and lose political standing when all they had to do is end the embargo, look like they we reaching out to enemies, and recieve all the oil they wanted through oppression and corruption?

but youll never really ask yourself the question because you don't care about the answer. According to you Bush and Company wanted to invade Iraq for oil and no evidence could possibly prove otherwise. You refuse to even think beyond the party slogan. Really seeking the truth huh?

And tell me, what is so bad about not having dictators control the oil supply? Isnt saving the lives that would be lost without the oil a noble cause?

But then I guess you dont really care if the elderly freeze or the poor starve do you?

[avatar4321]

3,000 people dead is not "real damage?" WTF is wrong with you?!? :mad:

What's wrong with him? He hates Bush. and hatred has clouded his vision of reality.

That is why its pointless to hate. It blinds you from the truth.

[avatar4321]

And the problem with this law is?

I mean we do all the repair work therefore we should get a bigger piece of the pie.....thats the way it goes.

What's wrong is its capitalism. She doesnt believe in Capitalism. She thinks people should work for nothing. She believes her party should get everything they want for nothing. Basically she is a modern day slaver.

[avatar4321]

You actually believe this crap? You really are gullible aren't you.

You have no concept of the war, or of history, or even reality for that matter. It's all about your hatred of Bush and nothing else matters. We already know it's your only priority in life.

So what if we have permanent bases in iraq. We have permanent bases throughout the world. As the middle east is a hotbed it only seems reasonable that we have bases in the region to act from as necessary. Or does your hatred of Bush extend to the military as well?

i doubt she has any problem with us having bases in Germany or Japan despite the fact that we've been there for over 50 years.

[truthmatters]

What's wrong is its capitalism. She doesnt believe in Capitalism. She thinks people should work for nothing. She believes her party should get everything they want for nothing. Basically she is a modern day slaver.

Telling lies about what I believe does not an arguement make

[avatar4321]

Yup, God forbid that outside profit motivated companies can help Iraq surpass Iran and make their oil industry much more efficent.

dont you know? making money is evil. Everyone should be slaves.

[avatar4321]

declaration of war
wtc I bombing
the uss cole bombing
the nigerian embassy bombings
the killing an mutilation of US soliders in the streest of darfur


What declaration of war?

The WTC1 bombing took place on Feb 26th 1993
Clinton took office on Jan 20 1993.

Tell us what Clinton could have done to prevent the Cole bombing or the Nigerian bombing?

Are you aware of who took us into the Sudan?

Now do you want talk about the things that Bush failed to stop like 911 its self?

I dont believe anyones mentioning that he could have prevented that. They are arguing that he failed to respond to them.

However, had he appropriately responded he might have prevented most of them.

[manu1959]

I never agreed to the bet and you did not even win it.

You never did answer any of the questions either, but then again you never do.

i am rubber you are glue.......

bill is great george is a liar even though they both did the same thing....

[truthmatters]

You people who keep claiming this war is for oil are just plain naive. Do you believe every slogan the Democrats come up with without thinking about it?

This seems like an awful lot of work to go through just to give the oil reserves to the Iraqi people. Especially when we could have gotten all the oil we wanted simply by lifting the embargo on Saddam and let him sell us all the oil we wanted. He would have gotten more money. Oppressed his people more. Restarted his weapons programs. And we would have gotten all the oil we wanted.

Yet despite the fact This President and administration, whom you think are oppressive evil men, could have gotten oil with absolutely no trouble and oppressed just as many people, what possible motivation did they have to use the more difficult invasion, and rebuilding Iraq simply to let them keep the oil and still having to buy it at significant prices? What possible motive would it be to go through all that work and lose political standing when all they had to do is end the embargo, look like they we reaching out to enemies, and recieve all the oil they wanted through oppression and corruption?

but youll never really ask yourself the question because you don't care about the answer. According to you Bush and Company wanted to invade Iraq for oil and no evidence could possibly prove otherwise. You refuse to even think beyond the party slogan. Really seeking the truth huh?

And tell me, what is so bad about not having dictators control the oil supply? Isnt saving the lives that would be lost without the oil a noble cause?

But then I guess you dont really care if the elderly freeze or the poor starve do you?


Why do you ignore every bit of evidence I give you?

We have oil pumps in Iraq pumping oil with no gauges to measure the oil beig pumped.

We have an oil law which the Iraqi parlament is not allowed to see until right before the vote YET The admin and the oil companies got to see it long before.

We have Haliburton ripping off our own government.

We have pallets of hundered dollar bills shipped to Iraq and no one knows where it went.

We have people trying to stop fraud and our admin is throwig them in prisons without trails for months AMERICAN CITIZENS.

We have JAG Lawyers telling us Bush laws are leaving room for torture.

and all you can respond is an attack on me personally?

When do you stop being a Republican and start being an American?

[nevadamedic]

I dont believe anyones mentioning that he could have prevented that. They are arguing that he failed to respond to them.

However, had he appropriately responded he might have prevented most of them.

September 11th would never have happened if President Clinton would have had the balls to take action against Bin Laden. We him several times where we could have killed him or grabbed him but Clinton said no. He was a coward and afraid to use our Military to get one of the worst and most wanted terrorists out of the picture.

[avatar4321]

Why do you ignore every bit of evidence I give you?

We have oil pumps in Iraq pumping oil with no gauges to measure the oil beig pumped.

We have an oil law which the Iraqi parlament is not allowed to see until right before the vote YET The admin and the oil companies got to see it long before.

We have Haliburton ripping off our own government.

We have pallets of hundered dollar bills shipped to Iraq and no one knows where it went.

We have people trying to stop fraud and our admin is throwig them in prisons without trails for months AMERICAN CITIZENS.

We have JAG Lawyers telling us Bush laws are leaving room for torture.

and all you can respond is an attack on me personally?

When do you stop being a Republican and start being an American?

You know little girl, I am getting really tired of your self righteous attitude. You can insult everyone but someone points out the flaw in your logic and you consider it a personal attack.

You claim this war was for oil. You have no evidence. None of the things you cite show that this war was for oil. YOU are the one completely ignoring the fact that if the administration only wanted oil all they had to do is END the sanctions and Saddam would have given them as much as they wanted.

So whats the point of going to all this work just to let the Iraq people remain in control of the oil?

Oh you dont really care about that. you just want to pretend that big bad me is trying to insult you by pointing out where you are wrong. Completely ignore the facts and attack the messenger.

You dont give a damn about the truth. You dont give a damn about peoples lives. All you want is to continue hating the President and Republicans.

Why dont you bother thinking for yourself sometime instead of parroting whatever the DNC tells you to?

[nevadamedic]

The Embassy bombings and the attack on the USS Cole is considered an act of war and we had every right to hit them back. Clinton should have done exactly what we did right after September 11th, take the Taliban out and go after Bin Laden and AQ. After the first bombing Clinton should have signed an exexcutive order ordering the capture or assassination of Bin Laden and any other leader or member of AQ. Clinton was scared of him and to much of a coward to do that. If he would have September 11th would never have happened and over 3,000 people would still be alive today.

[truthmatters]

You seem to have forgotten that Clinton had been going after OBL by bombing his known whereabouts.

The date of the Cole bombing was Dec 12th 2000.

You see Clinton had the decency to realise it was a path he could not take to fruition.

He knew in a couple of weeks he would to be President anymore.

He left it for Bush (who was going to be able to take a course of action to fruition) to determine what path would be best.

Bush was briefed by the Clinton people on OBL and was often very dissmissive to his briefers.

Do you think Bush should have declaired war on OBL right after becoming pres?

[manu1959]

We have oil pumps in Iraq pumping oil with no gauges to measure the oil beig pumped.


but wait in another thread you said the output was down and that was why gas prices were high......

how can we not know how much oil is being pumped but know that low output is casuing the prices to rise......

please enlighten us oh wise liberal knower of all things....

[truthmatters]

nope never said it

[manu1959]

nope never said it

whatever you say.....

[Joe Steel]

How, exactly, does one "play a pigeon"?

I used pigeon, as in "pigeon drop," instead of the more generic "mark" to describe Bush as the victim of confidence scheme. It was bit of license. Think of a pigeon as someone who is manipulated for gain.

[jimnyc]

I used pigeon, as in "pigeon drop," instead of the more generic "mark" to describe Bush as the victim of confidence scheme. It was bit of license. Think of a pigeon as someone who is manipulated for gain.

And what would you call someone who cannot be manipulated, that can only regurgitate talking points of others, and slither away when called to the mat on their inaccuracies?

[hjmick]

I used pigeon, as in "pigeon drop," instead of the more generic "mark" to describe Bush as the victim of confidence scheme. It was bit of license. Think of a pigeon as someone who is manipulated for gain.

Okay, I got ya. Personally, I might have gone with violin or perhaps some sort of puppet reference(I'm just simple that way), but with your explanation the opening post definately makes sense. For some reason I didn't make the pigeon/mark connection initially. Must have been ashort in the brain.

Thanks for the explanation.

[diuretic]

I see.

I didn't know that Bush, Cheney and Haliburton controlled OPEC.

They don't.

[MtnBiker]

That is just one portion of one draft and I posted it to show the law was truely kin the works.

Here is the assessment of someone who knows WTF hes talking about on the subject Professor Thomas Wälde, an expert in oil law and policy at the University of Dundee, describes them as:

“A convenient marriage between the politically useful symbolism of the production-sharing contract (appearance of a service contract to the state company acting as master) and the material equivalence of this contract model with concession/licence regimes in all significant aspects…The government can be seen to be running the show - and the company can run it behind the camouflage of legal title symbolising the assertion of national sovereignty.”

Sigh

Ok let's review again;


The Bush admin has been pressuring the Iraqi congress to pass a bill that would in effect give the rights to 70% Iraqi oil fields profits to western oil companies for the next 30 years.

You have posted two links, one to a New York Times article and one to a PDF file. It has been established that western companies will provide investment in capital assests and services to bring the Iraqi oil industry in an efficient and modern capacity, in exchange for a share of the revenues. You have yet to show support for your claim that 70% of the profits(a very specific number) will be the right of such companies for the next 30 years. A share of the profits does not equate to 70%.

[truthmatters]

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1177491868824

17 of 80 know oil fields in Iraq would be under her control the rest would be bid out.

[MtnBiker]

You have yet to support your claim of 70% of revenue would be the right of western companies. Can you do so? 70% is a specific number, where did it come from?

[truthmatters]

What's really new about the law is that it would open the Iraqi oil industry's doors wide open to foreign investment. Under Saddam Hussein, foreign investment was strictly limited, as it is in most major Middle Eastern oil-producing countries. Under the new law, the Iraq National Oil Company would have exclusive control of only about 17 of Iraq's approximately 80 known oil fields.

The law would also allow the government to negotiate different kinds of exploration and production contracts with foreign oil companies, including Production Sharing Agreements, or PSAs. Energy lawyers favor these because they allow oil companies to secure long-term deals and book oil reserves as assets on their company balance sheets. A report on the future of Iraq's oil industry from the International Tax and Investment Center, an industry organization whose board includes senior officials of the world's largest publicly held oil and oil services companies, as well as partners from five Global 100 firms, confirms that's exactly what the energy industry has been pressing for.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1177491868824


are you slow at math?

[MtnBiker]

Control of 70% of revenue, you still have not supported your claim!

[truthmatters]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue

The oil companies will control the revenue of 63 of the 80 known oil fields adn it gives them a huge in onto future fields also.

Why do you think they did not let the Iraqis even have a draft of the bill until recently and then made it a bench mark to sign this law into action?


Who wrote this law?

[MtnBiker]

Ah yeah, I know what revenue is. There is no evidence that the revenue from forgein controled oil feilds would give them exclusive profits from such fields, rather a share of profits. Your 70% claim still does not hold up.

[truthmatters]

They control the oil fields which mean they control the revenue.

They will get the contracts which will last decades and will be making the decisions on the revenue from these endevors.

That means they will control the revenue get it?

[Dilloduck]

A report on the future of Iraq's oil industry from the International Tax and Investment Center, an industry organization whose board includes senior officials of the world's largest publicly held oil and oil services companies, as well as partners from five Global 100 firms, confirms that's exactly what the energy industry has been pressing for.

There's you're chance ! You could take your profits and donate it to the Al qeada relief fund and make Americans look good.

[truthmatters]

Well at least you are exposed to the facts even if you cnat process what they mean Dillo.

[Dilloduck]

Well at least you are exposed to the facts even if you cnat process what they mean Dillo.

You mean corporations --global corporations are making a profit? I guess the bazillion dollars hasn't been a total loss---In fact it's sorta like an investment. Now if a terrorist succeeds in creating and exploding and E-bomb I bet our economy might tank out really badly----no food and stuff like that.

[truthmatters]

Dillo those pills your dr gave you are not MnMs , only take them as prescribed OK?

[Dilloduck]

Dillo those pills your dr gave you are not MnMs , only take them as prescribed OK?

thats a really really old evasive maneuver-- not even funny anymore--care to address my post?

[Dilloduck]

thats a really really old evasive maneuver-- not even funny anymore--care to address my post?

I enjoy these pauses while you IM the DNC to find a talking point about E-bombs and the economy and stuff. :laugh2:

[truthmatters]

You mean corporations --global corporations are making a profit? I guess the bazillion dollars hasn't been a total loss---In fact it's sorta like an investment. Now if a terrorist succeeds in creating and exploding and E-bomb I bet our economy might tank out really badly----no food and stuff like that.


It does not make sense hence my response to you.

[Dilloduck]

It does not make sense hence my response to you.

It makes perfect sense. You speak of America losing zillions of dollars yet Americans are quite comfortable and free to take part in sharing the wealth. Bin Laden is attacking capitalism and he's failing. Americans are profitting from the war. When the terrorists figure out a way ( E- Bomb ) to destroy our economy and infrastructure we're screwed.
We are a capitalist society--we NEED profits.

[truthmatters]

I said trillions which is what this war is costing us.

No what the corporations mentioned are doing is harming the furnace of the economy which is the middle and lower class.

You see the corporations you coddle dont give a rats ass about this country.

The are not US companies they are global companies.

You want to worship global companies for what reason now?

[avatar4321]

Dillo those pills your dr gave you are not MnMs , only take them as prescribed OK?

And you are complaining about personal attacks?

[Yurt]

Like I said, the author is saying pretty much what I've always suspected. It's the only thing which makes sense.

Bin Laden had no hope of causing real damage to the U. S. by destroying the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The attack only makes sense as a provocation but, as a provocation, it was only as good as the American president's willingness to be drawn into a fight. Clinton was too smart. He was a Rhodes scholar, you know, and can read. He understood the political forces at work in the world. Bush is just a dumb frat boy who admitted he never even reads newspapers. All he knows is what is fed to him by neofascist nutcases and zionist thugs.

Bin Laden must have thought Allah was smiling on him when he saw the results of the 2000 election; his enemies had been delivered to him. All he had to do drop the package in front of the pigeon.

You are a fool if you think that us not responding to that provocation would be in America's best interest. You are a fool if you think Bin Hiden has "won" anything.

You're probably one of those people who sit by while their friend is being beaten to death because you don't want to upset the attacker and cause him any grief. :poke:

[truthmatters]

And you are complaining about personal attacks?

come on I get much worse than that joke all day long.

It was a fricking joke dude.

[truthmatters]

And you are complaining about personal attacks?

Hey BTW where have I complained?

[Dilloduck]

I said trillions which is what this war is costing us.

No what the corporations mentioned are doing is harming the furnace of the economy which is the middle and lower class.

You see the corporations you coddle dont give a rats ass about this country.

The are not US companies they are global companies.

You want to worship global companies for what reason now?

Do you live in the street or are you able to afford food, clothing and a place to live ? Oh--and how much of what you have and eat was provided by a global corporation ?

[avatar4321]

Hey BTW where have I complained?

pick a thread, any thread.

[Pale Rider]

You're probably one of those people who sit by while their friend is being beaten to death because you don't want to upset the attacker and cause him any grief. :poke:

- - - - - :lmao: - - - - - You just described one of the most identifiable traits of a liberal.


You must spread some reputation around before giving it to Yurt again.

[nevadamedic]

You are a fool if you think that us not responding to that provocation would be in America's best interest. You are a fool if you think Bin Hiden has "won" anything.

You're probably one of those people who sit by while their friend is being beaten to death because you don't want to upset the attacker and cause him any grief. :poke:

Are you kidding me? Little Josie would be to afraid he would break a nail...........

[Yurt]

- - - - - :lmao: - - - - - You just described one of the most identifiable traits of a liberal.

It is astounding how so many libs have/are starting to defend and almost revere bin hiden. Apt word underlined, easily describes most of them: traitors.

[Psychoblues]

Let's get back to the original topic. Bush got played like a piano. How are you getting played?

[Joe Steel]

It is astounding how so many libs have/are starting to defend and almost revere bin hiden. Apt word underlined, easily describes most of them: traitors.

You're premise is false. Liberals don't love bin Laden. We hate Bush. At least, any who love America hate George Bush.

[Joe Steel]

You are a fool if you think that us not responding to that provocation would be in America's best interest. You are a fool if you think Bin Hiden has "won" anything.

You're probably one of those people who sit by while their friend is being beaten to death because you don't want to upset the attacker and cause him any grief. :poke:

Bush should have treated the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon as what they were, crimes. Treating them as acts of war gave Bin Laden what he wanted and alienated most of humanity. The plan was doomed to failure from the start.

[avatar4321]

You're premise is false. Liberals don't love bin Laden. We hate Bush. At least, any who love America hate George Bush.

The enemy of your enemy is your friend.

And countrary to your assertions, people who love America dont hate George Bush and they arent going to undermine him on stopping terror. They are going to complain about his refusal to secure the border. but thats a separate issue

[Gaffer]

Bush should have treated the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon as what they were, crimes. Treating them as acts of war gave Bin Laden what he wanted and alienated most of humanity. The plan was doomed to failure from the start.

Bush treated the attacks exactly like what they were, and at of war. This is not a law enforcement action. It is a war. A war with islam. The only reason it doesn't feel like a war to you is that it has not come home to your door step. But you undermining liberals are working real hard to insure that occurs.

You only see one war. The war on Bush. Nothing else in the world matters accept getting him in any way you can. If you people weren't so goddam dangerous to this country you would be a laughing stock.

[truthmatters]

A WAR WITH ISALM?

Please show us a quote from Bush saying we are at war with Islam?

[Gaffer]

A WAR WITH ISALM?

Please show us a quote from Bush saying we are at war with Islam?

Bush never said it. He's too politically correct to say that. But the simple fact is we are at war with islam. You really need to read up on islam. It's not the peaceful little religious cult its been made out to be over the years. The threat of islam is far greater to you and your rights under the constitution than Bush could ever be.

[truthmatters]

Bush never said it. He's too politically correct to say that. But the simple fact is we are at war with islam. You really need to read up on islam. It's not the peaceful little religious cult its been made out to be over the years. The threat of islam is far greater to you and your rights under the constitution than Bush could ever be.

You may want us to be at war with Islam but you are alone in those thoughts

[Gaffer]

You may want us to be at war with Islam but you are alone in those thoughts

It has nothing to do with what I want. And I am definitely not alone.

[OCA]

You may want us to be at war with Islam but you are alone in those thoughts

No, he's not alone. Even Muslims here that I know recognize that fact and that its a neccessity to war with Islam. As my Paki friend with whom I share music says "the radicals are the majority in the Muslim world and there is negotiating with them, you will have to kill each and every one including women and children.

Now Loose are you going to tell me you know better than an actual Muslim born in the Muslim lands?

[hjmick]

You may want us to be at war with Islam but you are alone in those thoughts

It doesn't matter what we want, the fact of the matter is, radical Islam has declared war on the west, the U.S. primarily. And they did so years ago.

The roots of militant/radical Islam can be traced to the 1920's, when a few Arab academics borrowed secular, totalitarian ideologies such as Communism and Fascism from Europe. In the 1970's, secular totalitarian regimes began to be replaced with Islamic totalitarian regimes, a prime example of this is the rise of the Ayatollahs in Iran in 1979.

The hostage incident at the American embassy in Iran in 1979 was the first salvo, it marked the beginning of the Islamist war against the United States.

Subsequently we had more attacks against America. The bombing of the marines in 1983, the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, and the bombing of American embassies in 1998, the attack on the Cole, all were signs of the growing threat of radical Islam.

Throughout all of this, as opposed to calling them acts of war, each of these events was seen as a crime. The actors were seen as perpetrators to be tried under a penal code. Even though the 1993 WTC attack was said to be a "wake up call," there was no serious change in policy, and anti-terrorism efforts remained under the umbrella of law enforcement.

On 9-11 we finally declared war on terrorism, using the civilian authorities as well as the military and intelligence communities to help fight it. The war in Afghanistan was our first attempt to go after the force that caused the crime, and our transportation and immigration laws have undergone some changes, but not enough.

The Bush administration and the media have been too politically correct to correctly identify America's enemy. The enemy is not terrorism. It is not Islam, per se. The enemy is militant Islam, ideological Islam. Everybody knows this, or they should. The media refuse to tell us this. Calling this conflict "the war on terrorism" is like saying World War II was "the war against sneak attacks."

[truthmatters]

there is a differance between radical Isalm and Islam people

[Dilloduck]

there is a differance between radical Isalm and Islam people

excellent--you're learning !

[hjmick]

there is a differance between radical Isalm and Islam people

You are absolutely correct. I, for one, have never argued otherwise, at least not that I can remember.

I'd say that lumping all Muslims into the same group as Islamists is the equivalent of lumping all Republicans into the group as neo-cons. It just isn't true. The same can be said of Democrats.

[truthmatters]

Bush treated the attacks exactly like what they were, and at of war. This is not a law enforcement action. It is a war. A war with islam. The only reason it doesn't feel like a war to you is that it has not come home to your door step. But you undermining liberals are working real hard to insure that occurs.

You only see one war. The war on Bush. Nothing else in the world matters accept getting him in any way you can. If you people weren't so goddam dangerous to this country you would be a laughing stock.


some think it is a war with Islam

[truthmatters]

Bush never said it. He's too politically correct to say that. But the simple fact is we are at war with islam. You really need to read up on islam. It's not the peaceful little religious cult its been made out to be over the years. The threat of islam is far greater to you and your rights under the constitution than Bush could ever be.

and

[truthmatters]

No, he's not alone. Even Muslims here that I know recognize that fact and that its a neccessity to war with Islam. As my Paki friend with whom I share music says "the radicals are the majority in the Muslim world and there is negotiating with them, you will have to kill each and every one including women and children.

Now Loose are you going to tell me you know better than an actual Muslim born in the Muslim lands?

here

[Yurt]

Bush should have treated the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon as what they were, crimes. Treating them as acts of war gave Bin Laden what he wanted and alienated most of humanity. The plan was doomed to failure from the start.

I don't often personally call people FOOLS, but I'll take exception this time.

You have called Bush's acts in Iraq and Afgan crimes of WAR. Why is Bin Hiden's act simply a "crime?" It was an act of WAR. Only a fool would call it simply a crime. It was an act of war by any definition that has ever existed.

This is WHY I said libs love bin hiden. You diminish his crimes BUT exaggerate your president's actions into crimes of war.