Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
RE: NYTimes.com Article: Halliburton Contracts in Iraq: The Struggle to Manage Costs[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: RE: NYTimes.com Article: Halliburton Contracts in Iraq: The Struggle to Manage Costs
- From: "Dennis Wish" <dennis.wish(--nospam--at)verizon.net>
- Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 22:54:56 -0800
I really did try to stay out of this, but I simply can’t hold back. First of all Keith, I think the longest sentence ever written was in either “Crime and Punishment” or “Tale of Two Cities” – I can’t remember, but I’ll grant you send longest sentence I’ve had to read. One problem is that I think of someone speaking the line and barely able to get up off the floor when he runs out of breath halfway through – I was breathless reading your comments.
Had Mr. Bush told us what you just mentioned (and what probably was the truth at the time) I don’t think the American people would have been unanimous in their support considering the cost in American lives and the effect this will have on our economy – and it will have repercussions. The conservatives on this list appear to be aggressive in revenging the senior Bush failures in 1990 and this is starting to appear to be one reason for such an aggressive act. It didn’t take a liberal press to hear the words from both father and son when Sadam was captured. This was a personal vendetta and a financial opportunity for a company that Cheney was part of and still owns stock which he is suppose to surrenders of the next several years. Still, he can leave as VP and walk back into Halliburton with credos for the great job he did in protecting Halliburton’s contracts.
There is always an agenda – but this agenda is a bias, not lies. I’ve read the National Review as well as Mother Jones and have seen both sides of the coin. Each is presented with strong factual information. The issue is not the agenda but what is the truth. The National Review buried Clinton and in the end, their allegations were correct, but the criminality of the act was not enough to file charges or to remove him from office. The only lives lost, where those below his waist.
I’d rather deal with a morality issue and keep it within the United States than to send brave people in danger and lose nearly a thousand and much more than this in injuries to go into a country based on a set of lies. Although you and others may claim the obvious “agenda” read “The Lie Factory” by Robert Dreyfuss and Jason Vest in the January / February 2004 issue of Mother Jones. The article is substantiated by factual information although the conclusions drawn may represent the “opinions” of the authors. Still, the article contains a flow chart of the administration from the dissemination of CIA information about WMD in Iraq and an office established to “spin” the CIA information so that what was reported as no reported WMD to ties with Al Queida. Those involved in the inaccurate reporting (although in the liberal media the director of the CIA who was placed in office during Clinton has been accused of the inaccuracies) Donald Rumsfeld at the top, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, Newt Gingrich, Abram N. Shulsky, Colonel William Bruner and down to the origination of information obtained from unreliable sources in Iraq and funneled through the Iraq National Congress; Ahmad Chalabi (founder of the INC).
It took me a number of times to read the article as the “intelligence chain” is difficult to follow and intended to be so. The underlying reason was to find a plausible explanation for the American people would substantiate the claims made by the President.
Do I believe it? You bet. The main reason is the physical existence of Halliburton in Iraq, SA, Afghanistan, India and other countries where they have been working since before the Bush Administration. Logistically, they were in an ideal position to benefit from the war and to draw attention away from their use of off-shore banks to avoid paying taxes on their earnings to the United States. Furthermore, the tie to Cheney places a pretty bow on the target.
Now all I expect is to have conservatives yell BS without providing and substantial “plausible” explanation as to just why WMD were not found – proof, not supposition that it was moved to another country. Hell, we can all act on rumor – but then we wouldn’t be much of a united nation.
No, it may be liberal to want to avoid being the aggressor and focusing on the problems that need resolution in the United States, but we are getting ourselves deep into a position of being the aggressor that is turning the European Union against us as well as most of the Middle East. In return, the first country that will take the fall for our aggression will be Israel and the religious state that has been held since 1948 and has been written about biblically for more the 5700 years will finally be lost.
Sorry, I promised to stay out of this one – I wasted too much time and got flamed too many times (a couple by a few of you who suggested I stay away from the arguments with Outsourcing, but when I turn around, you are here expressing equally strong views on other political issues).
Someone asked what happened to my freespeech(--nospam--at)whatever.com address and he was being facetious I believe. For those who are interested, you may do the SEAINT list a service to move these discussions over the freespeech(--nospam--at)structuralist.net Listservice by subscribing at http://structuralist.net/mailman/listinfo/freespeech_structuralist.net . Follow the directions to sign up and move the non-structural related debates over. I paid my $95.00 for the next year to keep my webpage up and the mailing lists are a perk with the service. I get nothing in return and the additional load is taken off this list for those who do wish to discuss these issues.
Dennis S. Wish, PE
Come On! Mr. Fisher, get serious! You really feel a "journalistic" (used loosely here) "FOR PROFIT" enterprise is capable of having an agenda? Very naive, Mr. Fisher.
I was gonna go on about if any of us were to have thought back in March that if we said we were going to invade Iraq; have Saddam in custody; completely dismantle the Bath Party; restore Liberty to 25 million Iraqi's; reopen schools; provide desperately needed food and medical care; reestablish free enterprise; make serious headway into rebuilding infrastructure; (yes of course) open the flow of oil; add valuable history altering stability to a powder keg region of the world, positively influence the posture of Iran in its dealing with the U.S., and yes!, even win over the support of the Sunni religious leaders (the religious minority hardline Saddam loyalists) who have publicly called for the armed insurgents to stop the attacks, turn in their weapons and begin working "with" the US Military because the apparent good they are doing is obvious to the casual observer (except to the NYT); and if we were to say we would have all this accomplished by Christmas with fewer than 500 US Military KIA (God bless everyone of them and their families who have and continue to serve); you and the Times would have said "Impossible!", a completely unrealistic plan, this administration has ......! (yea whatever).
Well, it has happened, and all you and the Times can do now is b*tch about the cost and the Halliburton/Cheney connection. Like I said, I was gonna go on about all this but I better not, someone else might unsubscribe. We wouldn't want that now, would we.
Keith De Lapp, P.E.
- Prev by Subject: RE: NYTimes.com Article: Halliburton Contracts in Iraq: The Struggle to Manage Costs
- Next by Subject: Off topic
- Previous by thread: RE: NYTimes.com Article: Halliburton Contracts in Iraq: The Struggle to Manage Costs
- Next by thread: RE: NYTimes.com Article: Halliburton Contracts in Iraq: The Struggle to Manage Costs