Has any nation ever pulled off a more successful covert operation than Iran's Chalabi plot? American blood and American treasure, all going to buy Iran a friendly neighbor. History will not be kind.
Posted by Matt Davis at August 2, 2005 08:39 AMAny publisher's editor would have rejected a tale like the one we see unfolding in Iraq, unless it were submitted by a titan like Le Carre or Clancy. An enemy power plants a mole so devious in the enemy's sources that it converts the enemy's policies to further the regional power's own aim. That would make it almost a foreign policy AIDS virus, which destroys its hosts own defenses. Even Clancy would have hestitated at submitting something this outrageous.
Posted by PrahaPartizan at August 2, 2005 10:08 AMyou've done a wonderful job getting rid of those secularists. may allah bless you infidels! ha ha, i seem to have developed a sense of humor in the afterlife!
Posted by ayatollah khomeini at August 2, 2005 10:13 AMBush note? Will note what? That maybe his trike has a flat tire before his vacation? Don't forget, to Bush "no coffins = no guilt". He is a pathetic President and Americans should hang their heads in shame for allowing his gang to come close enough to fix another election win.
if it were 18,000, he'd still go on vacation with a smile on his face.
Posted by T2 at August 2, 2005 11:52 AMWatch this drive!
Posted by dj moonbat at August 2, 2005 12:01 PMWill John Kerry or any other Democrats? They are going on vacation too.
Posted by at August 2, 2005 12:30 PMThe Christian base that supported Bush is/are as much radical extremists as those in Iraq. Just a different level of acceptance in the level of punishment and violence. The belief and level of ignorance is quite the same. Bush leave little room in his consciousness for intelligent reasoning. "Burma Shave"
Posted by yodiedog at August 2, 2005 12:36 PMYour post seems to indicate that Bush leaving on vacation is insulting or injurous to American soldiers who have died in Iraq.
On the contrary, I believe that using the sacrifice of soldiers to make a trite point is the insult.
Our army is all volunteer
...
The Democrats have already noticed, troll too ashamed to give themselves a name. How many of those coffins has Putsch seen lowered into the ground again? Oh, that's right - none.
Posted by (: Tom :) at August 2, 2005 12:39 PMOn the contrary, I believe that using the sacrifice of soldiers to make a trite point is the insult.
Posted by Mike at August 2, 2005 12:37 PM
You mean, the way the Chimperor did by murdering them so he can stuff more oil money into his cronies' pockets?
Posted by (: Tom :) at August 2, 2005 12:42 PMIf you can provide a single statistic that shows that the US - or George Bush Jr. - have benefited financially from the Iraq War then I will personally come over to your house and do a little dance of shame.
Oil is barely flowing in that country. No one is making any money. We are continuing to make a sacrifice at our own expense.
The insult is the use of a strong, volunteer, professional army for the robbing of the USA's treasury, the invasion of a sovereign nation based on a Pack O' Lies, the appeasement of the Saudis & bin Ladens, and, ironically, the creation of an Arab/Persian Fundamentalist Islamic State.
Posted by old crone at August 2, 2005 12:50 PMOil is barely flowing in that country. No one is making any money. We are continuing to make a sacrifice at our own expense.
So, that's the sacrifice? Paying more at the pump? Good God, no wonder this country is so fucked.
No one is making any money.
Halliburton and a bunch of other defense contractors beg to differ.
Posted by Dick Cheney at August 2, 2005 01:13 PMI will personally come over to your house and do a little dance of shame.
Oh, that's just great--now I have to gouge out my own eyes.
Posted by dj moonbat at August 2, 2005 01:18 PMMike's right - the US has not benefitted at all with this war. We're less safe, our treasury is depleted, our military has been hobbled, not to mention the world now knows the limits to our military's readiness, as well as the accuracy of our intelligence services. And that's a good thing, right, Mike?
Posted by iamcoyote at August 2, 2005 01:45 PMI said that we have not "benefitted financially" from this war, Wily E. Coyote.
Your comment is designed to detract from the current discussion.
Posted by Mike at August 2, 2005 01:53 PMsome people have done quite well in this war. whoever has my missing $8B, to start
Posted by paul bremer at August 2, 2005 01:57 PMi really hate it when you say "the bin ladens." many of them are legitimate businessmen and good friends and business associates of mine. of course, there are a few bad apples, but that's to be expected in any family.
Posted by dubya at August 2, 2005 02:00 PMdid i say "a few bad apples"? i meant one bad apple, you know, the tall one. the rest are right as rain.
Posted by dubya at August 2, 2005 02:02 PMMike After your first comment: "On the contrary, I believe that using the sacrifice of soldiers to make a trite point is the insult." I felt that perhaps you were a wee bit dim, however, after you stated "Oil is barely flowing in that country. No one is making any money. We are continuing to make a sacrifice at our own expense."...it became poignantly obvious that you are in fact a moron....just because oil isn't flowing in Iraq (hence the 60 plus dollar per barrel price) doesn't mean it's not flowing out of Louisiana, Texas and Oklahoma...where dumbya's pals' businesses are domiciled.....give it up Mike...no making this fiasco into a positive!
We are the patriots Mike because we actually care about our dead and injured in Iraq....Dumbya going on holiday is simply a metaphor for his presiduncy...no defending the indefensible.
Posted by Goyo at August 2, 2005 02:05 PMYour comment is designed to detract from the current discussion.
Jesus, mike, you're a fooking troll; your whole life's goal is to detract from any "discussion" you pollute with your presence! But thanks for the chuckle, idjit. I just love the "I know you are, but what am I?" defense you bushie butt-boys keep dishing out. It's so cute!
Posted by iamcoyote at August 2, 2005 02:11 PMI think it's interesting that there are still no statistics that have emerged to contest my origninal point: that the United States and G-Dub have not benefited financially from the Iraq war.
There sure are a lot of personal insults, though.
I suggest that when you encounter an opposing viewpoint, you attempt to contest it with an alternate set of data.
This is called debate.
Coyote, your approach is called "losing your temper in public."
Posted by Mike at August 2, 2005 02:30 PMwho is George Bush, Jr.??? stupid trolls - how can Mike even operate a computer?
Posted by T2 at August 2, 2005 02:30 PMMike,
Do you think that our national security does not in a large way have to do with the security of our national economic interests? Do you think this war would have happened if our national economic interests were not involved. The stated goal of this war is to stabilize a vital region of the globe. It's vital because of its oil. Why do you think no one is gung ho to invade North Korea? Hence the nation will benefit, at least in the eyes of the administration, from the war in the long run.
And how long do you think it will be after Bush leaves office before he officially signs on with the Carlyle Group? George Bush is going to die a much wealthier man than he is today. About that there is very little doubt.
Posted by at August 2, 2005 02:46 PMGee, mike, wrong again, huh? I'm not losing my temper, I'm laughing at you. Next time I'll add the bwahahaha so you know, 'kay?
Now, anyone here could dig up all the statistics for you about who's making the money in this war, I'm sure there are several people right now doing so. But since you haven't educated yourself so far, there's no reason to believe any new data will distract you from fondling yourself while thinking of bush's manliness. You know full well that the US is losing billions daily for this fiasco; you know there are people out there connected to Bush's family receiving those billions, but you keep right on with your clever semantic "debate." We all need a good laugh, and you're it, baby.
Posted by iamcoyote at August 2, 2005 02:56 PMGeorge Bush is not making any money off this war and all his laws favouring his pals? Give me strength! And, how could anyone investigate, anyways ... every action of that puppet and his ringleaders reeks of corruption. George Bush is living in a fantasy world and needs serious psychological counselling and Rove/Cheney/Rice deserve long prison terms for intentionally leading the country to war on LIES and they should be acountable for each and every death.
I should as hell hope he's good in bed, because he makes one lousy President.
An interesting point, anonymous, and you got me on the CG.
I agree with you: the point of this war is to stabilize a vital region. The question is this: Vital because of oil or vital because of the implications of a bin laden-style Islam permeating national governments in that region?
Could it be both?
Mike - instead of coming here and trying to take control of the thread, or frame the debate which Mary originally set up, you could just google or yahoo Cheney + Haliburton stock, Rice + Chevron stock, Lockheed Martin + war profiteering, Dynacorp + war profits, Kellogg, Brown, Root + Iraq contracts, Iraq + no-bid contracts, etc.
You youngsters just tax me so.
Lunaville is reporting the SIX marines were killed by hostile fire in Haditha - this wasn't a car bomb or IED - it was hellish close combat. I'd like to know what size force we had there, and how many "insurgents" rose up and fought with such force. I thought Haditha had been routed out of "insurgents" months ago.
This is such a fucking Wack a Mole nightmare.
My heart just aches for the Ohio families who are receiving the tragic news today.
I'm sure CookooBananas will be looking forward to all of that "lovin'" he will need to do to the widows.
Gawd. How will this end?
Posted by old crone at August 2, 2005 03:27 PMSo, let me get this straight, mike, you forgot about the carlyle group? Until someone mentioned it? You're not a good liar, are you? Because, as you know, the point of this war was not to stabilize the region. It was to stop saddam's mushroom cloud, remember? No wait, it was to liberate the Iraqis. Hang on, it was to close the rape and torture rooms - oops. So we're up to at least reason 37 - "the stability of the region." Not only do you keep falling for the excuse du jour, you actually run around repeating it. Priceless!
I told you, you're a bad liar, but you sure are funny.
Posted by iamcoyote at August 2, 2005 03:36 PMthe point of this war is to stabilize a vital region.
Oh it was not.
Don't try to rewrite history, Mike.
Go read your PNAC documents. Look up the history of Zionism. Read up on a nice war-profiteering war, WWI maybe?. Look up what the oil industry was chatting about back in the 1990's (Peak Oil). Google Cheney's secret Energy Task Force and the partitioning of its oil fields.
It took a strong-arm Stalinist figure like Saddam to prevent the Wahabi-style Islam from taking over.
Yeah, we were really trying to stabilize Saddam's secular Iraq.
We've done such a fantastic job.
for you, Mike, from Bartcop:
Halliburton announced on Friday that its KBR Pentagon War Contracts division experienced
a 284 percent increase in operating profits during the second quarter of this year.
The profits were due to the Pentagon's payment of "award fees" for "very good" work
done by KBR in the Middle East for America's taxpayers and the troops.
Despite the scandals, the Pentagon awarded $70 million in "award" fees to the company,
for their "very good" 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.
Posted by at August 2, 2005 03:51 PMThe sound of liberals gloating....it's an ugly thing.
Posted by Al at August 2, 2005 03:58 PMget used to it, al
Posted by benjoya at August 2, 2005 04:54 PMThe sound of liberals gloating...
The sound of Al goat-fucking is even worse.
Posted by dj moonbat at August 2, 2005 05:35 PMbaaaaaah
Posted by al at August 2, 2005 06:02 PMGeorge W. Bush, approved by only 42% of America, takes a month vacation. Just think, trolls, it was only four years ago when he took another vacation, deaf to the screams of his own Intelligence services of impending attacks by BinLaden on America. Poor trolls, hanging on to a loser as only loser's can.
Posted by T2 at August 2, 2005 06:39 PMMike wrote: I think it's interesting that there are still no statistics that have emerged to contest my origninal point: that the United States and G-Dub have not benefited financially from the Iraq war.
Certainly, the United States as a whole has not benefited financially from the Iraq war. Quite the opposite, in fact. But of course, no one asserted that it did; you just percieved this in order to have a nice little strawman in your mind that you could attack.
Now, the comment that the oil money was goint to Bush's buddies -- sure, I'll agree that that money has not been forthcoming -- so far. But I do recall a recent report that a number of American oil companies have been given contracts to use (or even ownership of?) a significant portion of Iraq's oil resources. If the environment there ever settles down enough for the oil to flow -- and a totalitarian Islamist Iraq has not snatched the ownership back for itself -- "Bush's buddies" will be getting their money.
Mike wrote: I agree with you: the point of this war is to stabilize a vital region. The question is this: Vital because of oil or vital because of the implications of a bin laden-style Islam permeating national governments in that region?
Could it be both?
I can see that, pre-Iraq debacle, some people would have seen ousting Saddam as a way to stabilize the region in terms of oil. But I don't quite understand your point about the "bin laden-style Islam permeating national governments in that region"? You do understand, don't you, that the most likely result of all this will be exactly that? And it will be because of Bush: as a result not only of the illegitimate invasion of Iraq in the first place, but especially due to the utter ineptitude with which the occupation has been managed, to date?
I do have to give this to Bush, though: he has definitely kept his promise of "no Nation Building." Destroying, yes; building, hell no.
Posted by Doug at August 2, 2005 07:38 PMAl wrote: baaaaaah
I thought that goats made more of a "nyeheheheha" sound.
Oh, but then, I have no idea of what they sound like while mating. I'll defer to your expertise.
Posted by Doug at August 2, 2005 07:44 PMThe sound of liberals gloating....it's an ugly thing.
You've got that stanza from the National Anthem messed up.
If you can provide a single statistic that shows that the US - or George Bush Jr. - have benefited financially
Along with everything else, they fucked that up, too! But there is still $1.2 trillion missing in Iraq...
Posted by phihpides at August 2, 2005 08:15 PM
does anyone else find it ironic to hear Bush discuss "intelligent design?"
http://martinirepublic.com/item/2019
Posted by at August 2, 2005 08:44 PMim trying to start a little campaign to get us all to focus on "americans killed in iraq", rather than "dead soldiers".
there was a new report released late last week (of course) saying that there are 131 dead american contractors - which means that there are now 1935 dead americans. given that the media loves milestones with round numbers - if we can focus on the total dead americans, we should be hitting the 2000 number just as bush finishes his holiday (at the current rate). a poignant juxtaposition?
T2, yeah, and I get nervous when Bush goes to Crawford for an extended period of time.
Posted by Judith at August 2, 2005 09:04 PMggb, "good in bed"? I suspect he has a 1 incher and the duration of about 5 seconds. That's what all this blustering and walking around like he has a pole up his ass is all about. Mr. Macho man has got to be a terrible lover. He thinks of know one's needs but his own. He proves that daily.
Posted by Judith at August 2, 2005 09:20 PMHey, did you guys win that Ohio election, I haven't heard yet...
Posted by Al at August 2, 2005 09:42 PMInteresting. Now, one could argue that Haliburton is an American company and, thus, the US has made money (through it's businesses) during the Iraq war. It's not enough to outweigh the overall loss for taxpayers (unfortunately).
Side note: The trouble that I find with some commentary that I've read here today is that the reasoning seems to automatically equate money with evil-doing. Money isn't bad or good.
Using the power of a nation for personal profiteering at the expense of humanity would be evil but consider the opposite: A nation attempts to increase security and during the course of said activity a company (within the country) makes a profit from assembly and redistribution of goods. Now that just indicates that the nation ascribes to capitalism.
Haliburton, by the way is the only game in town. If a company came along that could do it better they would get the contract and receive the standard awards from the defense department (as dictated - via budget - by the congress).
Old Crone: The fact that you are older does not make you wiser. Dismissing an opposing viewpoint with "you youngsters" is another way of saying, "I'm better than you and I don't need to listen." Also, your google search scenario proves nothing except that these individuals once worked or were otherwise affiliated with said companies.
Would you then advocate that no aspiring politician should be allowed to have worked in the private sector? Perhaps you think that congress should draft a law stating that prospective politicians can not have worked for certain industries (oil, denfense). Perhaps in your view only University folk (academia) are to be trusted?
Posted by Mike at August 2, 2005 10:34 PMMike, a simple question: accepting part of your argument (which I am only doing for discussion purposes) do you really believe that if another company could do the work better than Halliburton that they would really have a shot at the business?
Posted by Steve Soto at August 2, 2005 10:42 PMSure, but I think it's an incredibly difficult industry to enter. (The overhead alone being a factor, also insurance)
If they had cornered the market and were actively discouraging competition then you and I would have seen an anti-trust lawsuit.
Posted by Mike at August 2, 2005 11:45 PMNice try, Mike, but the bid was awarded to Halliburton with no competition. Other companies, in particular Bechtel, complained loudly (in certain circles, that is) about how the Pentagon thinks Halliburton is the only game in town. They were thrown a small bone to keep them quiet.
In addition, only American companies need apply. Firms from the "Coalition" attempted to win contracts, only to be told the cupboard was bare. And Americans wonder why so many nations have dropped out of Bu$hCo's Oil War!
What you are seeing in Iraq is "free enterprise" at work - make a deal with the ruling power to prevent any competition from any source, no matter how much better it might be.
But I guess that for people like you, Mike, anything goes as long as some conservative "American" wins the rigged bid.
Posted by pessimist at August 3, 2005 12:23 AMHaliburton, by the way is the only game in town. If a company came along that could do it better they would get the contract and receive the standard awards from the defense department
Not as long as Cheney is in the White House.
Posted by Judith at August 3, 2005 04:39 AMMike, I assume you understand the Cheney/Haliburton connection.
Posted by Judith at August 3, 2005 04:58 AMMike, my age does give me the perspective of saying with complete authority that I have never seen a more corrupt, cronyistic, filthy, evil, dishonest, Gilded-Age bunch of Robber Barons and complete idiots running my beloved USA straight into a jingoistic Hell which average Americans can't even figure out because our Goebbels-like Pravda is spewing out misinformation, disinformation, and diversionary pablum.
Last night I flipped through the cable & Broadcast nooze - the news of the marine deaths was squashed or sidelined by a plane crash where no one died and Missing White People in Peril.
This morning, FAUX, CNN, MSGOP brought me coverage of the plane crash and a space walk.
The only place which headlined the deaths of FOURTEEN marines this morning, SEVEN yesterday, & one US journalist today, was Katie & NBC.
So that's at least TWENTY ONE US military DEAD in two days, and who's deaths mean nutin' to the Chickenhawks who went after power and riches, only to find they have created an Islamic-fascist state which will probably become great military and oil trading pals with China.
Unfuckinbelivable.
Mike, I assume you understand the Cheney/Haliburton connection.
I don't think Mike understands much.
Posted by dj moonbat at August 3, 2005 07:44 AMoops - that's twenty TWO US military killed in two days.
Probably more.
The marines killed Monday were overrun and gunned down by "insurgents."
If the "insurgents" have overwhelming forces, then it seems doubtful the US can make any withdrawals soon.
1,680 more reservists were mobilized this week.
Posted by old crone at August 3, 2005 08:01 AMthe news of the marine deaths was squashed or sidelined
How can this be as interesting as some drunk co-ed missing in Aruba?
Posted by phidipides at August 3, 2005 08:25 AMMike, How in the World did all those schools, oil rigs, power plants, sewerage and water plants, get built in the first place in Iraq? YOu know the ones Hussein had back up and running within 6 months of them being bombed back after Gulf War I. I mean those things didn't just sprout up from the ground by themselves. Yes Mike believe it or not the Iraqi's had the workforce and the ability to build these types of things on their own. Wouldn't it be wiser and maybe even cheaper to help the very capable and unemployed Iraqi workforce rebuild them on their own instead of lining the pockets of the much disliked and highly symbolic US company of the US occupation.
Posted by emal at August 3, 2005 01:51 PMOld Crone: "corrupt, cronyistic, filthy, evil, dishonest...complete idiots...jingoistic Hell"
Given your filthy mouth, Crone, I would be shocked if you are a day over 30. And by the way all your post does is indicate the medias tendency to under-cover the Iraq war. Geez. You people really are stupid.
And by the way, your points about Haliburton are weak. If there was a monopoly there would be a break-up. there are many good reasons why Bech-tel didn't get the bid (primarily because they're wasteful and incompetant).
"the perspective of saying with complete authority that..."
You're also arrogant.
emal: you make the false assumption that Iraqi companies aren't contributing to reconstruction. Do your research.
Posted by Holly at August 3, 2005 03:59 PMHolly,
Wow, you make many wrong assumptions in your effort to lecture me to do my research. Perhaps if you weren't so self righteous and arrogant yourself you would have realized what I did say.
You assumed that I said NO Iraqi companies were doing anything. Where did I ever say that? Please show me in my comment???
I said Halliburton is not the only company that is capable of doing many things and that MORE(many) Iraqi companies could do and for a lot cheaper. Never mind the added benefits of improving the employment situation for the average Iraqi. Yes I have read that the umemployment rate is now somewhere around 25%-35%. I also would think that having more Iraqi's working would be a good thing to get the country back on its feet quickly. Yes Holly, how did the Iraqi's ever manage to provide many of those basic services BEFORE our invasion for all those years and even after the first Gulf WAR when we attacked them?
Do some research yourself and you will discover that the Iraqi's are actually a quite educated capable country. Yes it was/is very capable of providing those essential things such as clean water, working sewer and power plants, and yes even building schools. Can you imagine Holly, the Iraqi's even had working schools buildings before we invaded and bombed the country that wasn't a threat into oblivion? Yes if they built them before then why aren't we letting them have more of a chance and stake in rebuilding them again for themselves? Having the US company of Dick Cheney doing much of the reconstruction just fuels the idea of an occupation for many of those unemployed citizens who 2 years later still have no consistent safety, and basics such as electricity and water.
Posted by emal at August 3, 2005 07:01 PM