BS: Saddams Fortune

Subject: RE: BS: Saddams Fortune
From: kendall
Date: 10 Jan 04 - 06:02 AM

..all so perfect... cheap shot. I'm finished with this thread, you want the last word? take it. adios

Subject: RE: BS: Saddams Fortune
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 10 Jan 04 - 01:59 AM

"Up until then (911), he was an election fraud and a thief. After, a liar and a phoney. Now, convince me otherwise. (With facts, not opinions)"

It would be a pointless exercise kendall as the charges you lay are based on your opinions and having taken that position there is nothing that would convince you otherwise.

One thing that has never ceased to amaze me and others this side of the pond is the insistance of the voting population of the United States of America that their politicians must be as pure as the driven snow - it must be a great comfort knowing that you are all so perfect.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddams Fortune
From: kendall
Date: 09 Jan 04 - 12:16 PM

Sure, he couldn't catch the real culprit, so he pulled a "Pearl Harbor" on a country that wasn't in any way a threat to the USA. He knew it would be a cakewalk because there were no WMDs, and the rest of the Arab world had no use for Saddam.
Moussolini did the same thing in Ethiopia, "To restore the glory of Rome"
The man is a liar and a phoney. The destruction of the towers was the best thing (politically) that could have happed to him. Up until then, he was an election fraud and a thief. After, a liar and a phoney. Now, convince me otherwise. (With facts, not opinions)

Subject: RE: BS: Saddams Fortune
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 09 Jan 04 - 01:57 AM

Hi kendall,

On the Waxman/Army/GAO correspondence I thought that both answered Waxman's questions fully

Haven't read the Carnegie Endowment Report yet, but the content as reported does not surprise me. The decisions taken by your President were still correct.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddams Fortune
From: kendall
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 07:54 PM

I read all of the Waxman reports and saw nothing there that makes me change my mind. I did not see or hear the BBC thing you mentioned.

Did you hear the report from the Carnagie Institute? no WMD's never were still, aint any.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddams Fortune
From: DougR
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 04:35 PM

Waxman is a left-wing nut (IMO of course)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Saddams Fortune
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 12:29 PM

Hell yes kendall, I've read the correspondence, there's loads of it. Google input Waxman Iraq Contracts and you should get to it.

Yesterday BBC ran a couple of good articles detailing what contracts had been awarded in Iraq and what companies had got the work and the value of that work. Hell of a lot more than just Bechtell and Halliburton - but drawing attention to those doesn't help the Democrats cause does it.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddams Fortune
From: kendall
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 06:50 AM

Did you read their answers? are they available to the public?

Subject: RE: BS: Saddams Fortune
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 02:28 AM

Kendall,

Waxman asked the Pentagon a number of questions and they answered them.

Waxman then asked the GAO the same questions and they answered them.

Waxman, then says that those answers are incomprehensible! Can't the man read? They were couched in pretty clear and detailed terms, apparently Mr. Waxman is not a Mudcatter.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddams Fortune
From: kendall
Date: 07 Jan 04 - 04:09 PM

Senator Waxman had one word for the Pebtagon/Halliburton "report" INCOMPREHENSIBLE

Subject: RE: BS: Saddams Fortune
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 07 Jan 04 - 10:08 AM

Selective?

Whatever, kendall that is entirely subjective.

Your intial post foretold of how Mr Tom Allen provided you with a letter going into this in detail - that was your take on it, your subjective opinion, based on the fact that you read it as the music playing your tune.

Having read the letter, expecting (I don't know why) some additional information, I share the same opinion as that of DougR, i.e. "I don't think the Congressman revealed one thing in the letter that hadn't been widely reported in the press, radio and TV (Even CNN and MSNBC!)"

Detailed it was not - for contractural details relating to the assignment of contracts - you would be better advised to go through the Waxman/US Army/GAO correspondence. Quite comprehensive and detailed - you might not like some of those details as they definitely do not play your tune.

One thing is fairly plain though - if these are the "issues" that the Democrats are going to take the current administration on with - the Democrats are going to lose.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddams Fortune
From: kendall
Date: 07 Jan 04 - 09:34 AM

selective deafness?

Subject: RE: BS: Saddams Fortune
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Jan 04 - 08:01 AM

And therein lies the difference. That Dubya and his handlers have been proven time and time again to be liars doesn't signify- to some. "None so blind.." etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddams Fortune
From: DougR
Date: 06 Jan 04 - 07:13 PM

Ebbie: I didn't address Greg F's comments because I don't think it would accomplish anything. He thinks Bush is a liar; I don't. End of story.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Saddams Fortune
From: kendall
Date: 06 Jan 04 - 07:59 AM

Most Mudcatters can read.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddams Fortune
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 06 Jan 04 - 04:48 AM

kendall - "His letter was quite detailed"

Hell as like it was - spin that any way you like.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddams Fortune
From: kendall
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 07:59 PM

I asked a question, he answered it, period. Spin it any way you wish.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddams Fortune
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 10:55 AM

In plain english kendall you asked Tom Allen about money seized from Saddam's palaces by coalition forces.

In plain english Tom Allen expanded the sum the CPA has assumed control of by including Iraqi oil revenues and foreign assests. The former could not have been held in Saddam's palaces and the latter, depending on where they are held may only be frozen, not spent. But for arguements sake let us assume that they are available to the CPA.

In plain english Tom Allen states that the CPA has publicly accounted for $1 billion out of a total of $5 billion. The US military have spent a portion of the funds (portion undisclosed) and $3 billion has gone to "American companies" for reconstruction work that may or may not subcontract work to Iraqi companies. The "may or may not" indicates that he is referring to work that is ongoing and figures can therefore not be available for "public accounting".

Tom Allen's plain english then degenerates to waffle regarding questions about transparency and accountability. His concerns regarding previous/current ties to Bechtel and Halliburton of senior members of the Bush Administration, are based on what exactly. Regarding current ties and conflicts of interest - Do State Governors, representatives of both houses of congress and members of the Presidents Administration not have to declare their interests? Previous ties? Does Mr. Allen seriously support the stand that ones previous employment precludes a person from other jobs? If he does then I may well ask him what jobs he feels he should be precluded from pursuing because of past employment and political interests.

How the current administrations tax cuts come into the equation is somewhat bemusing. Tax cuts generally benefit all and it is a method of "kick-starting" ailing economies that has been used successfully in a number of countries.

Is there a "trend" of awarding "no-bid" contracts? The Halliburton Frame Agreement Contract was awarded as a result of competitive bidding, and it was under the terms and conditions of that Frame Agreement Contract that they were assigned work in Iraq. By the way, the same companies he refers to held similar Frame Agreement Contracts under the previous administration.

Not having a Republican Congressman, or woman for that matter, precludes me from writing to them to ask the same question. However, as stated above I may well write to Mr. Tom Allen.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddams Fortune
From: kendall
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 08:43 AM

One sees what one sees, even if it is in plain English.
Teribus, why don't you write to your republican congressman and ask the same question?

Subject: RE: BS: Saddams Fortune
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 06:55 AM

Hi Amos,

Thanks for posting the text of Tom Allen's letter, which on reading put the thing in perspective. All in all a bit of an anti-climax, as Doug has pointed out it was totally predictable in content and far from being detailed as kendall contended in his opening post.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddams Fortune
From: kendall
Date: 31 Dec 03 - 09:35 AM

Iraqnid...thats funny!

Subject: RE: BS: Saddams Fortune
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 31 Dec 03 - 12:56 AM

There's nothing wrong with the work going to American companies, Doug.

What's wrong is "...that some of these U.S. companies, such as Bechtel and subsidiaries of Halliburton, have previous or current ties to senior officials in the Bush Administration. These connections present serious conflicts of interest... Further, the trend of awarding contracts without a competitive bidding process is disturbing, and runs counter to the kind of democratic government and free market economy that we are trying to build in Iraq."

It ain't whatcha do, it's the way atcha do it.

As a capitalist, would you want an agent of your company to award contracts to his old friends without competitive bids?

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Saddams Fortune
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Dec 03 - 10:55 PM

Greg F: "...the BuShite lies and corruption ". Doug R, you didn't address the charge. Are you truly thrilled at the supposed popularity of Bush no matter what the truth is of this administration??

Subject: RE: BS: Saddams Fortune
From: Amos
Date: 30 Dec 03 - 10:50 PM

Robin:

Groooooooooooooooannnnnn 8 times.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Saddams Fortune
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Dec 03 - 10:25 PM

Q: Why wasn't anyone surprised that Saddam Hussein was found in a spider hole?


A: Because he's an Iraqnid!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Saddams Fortune
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Dec 03 - 10:24 PM

In any facist state, consolidation of power is papamount... Hmmmm? The White House? Check The legislature? Check. The Judiciary? Check.

Hmmmmm? Mussolini might not be too far off the mark, Kendall.

Problem is: most folks who support this consolidation of power don't have a clue where it can lead and by the time they figure it out, it will be way too late...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Saddams Fortune
From: kendall
Date: 30 Dec 03 - 10:18 PM

Mussolini was all but worshipped...for a while.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddams Fortune
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Dec 03 - 04:22 PM

Yon thread and the poll cited are a great deal more telling of the mental acuity of that admiring fraction (29%) of the U.S. population than they are of the character or qualifications of the corrupt and dishonest sack of shit that temporarily occupies the Oval Office.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddams Fortune
From: DougR
Date: 30 Dec 03 - 03:23 PM

Perhaps you should send him a contribution for his campaign, Kendall! :>)

Greg F.: see the thread on who is the most admired man in America. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Saddams Fortune
From: kendall
Date: 29 Dec 03 - 07:28 PM

Tom didn't attack the president, Doug.

Now, the three billion that went to Halliburton, plus the 87 billion from we taxpayers, plus the untold billions that those unopposed companies stand to drag in tells me that being a Bush contributor is a good deal.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddams Fortune
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Dec 03 - 06:27 PM

The man still thinks this is a football game, and that the only individuals opposed to the BuShite lies and corruption are "Democrats".

Sad.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddams Fortune
From: TIA
Date: 29 Dec 03 - 03:29 PM

"...The money went to American companies to help build the infrastructure of Iraq..."

How much money, to which companies, and for what projects?
It's the lack of accounting that is the scandal.
Oh, wait. We must just shut up and trust the President.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddams Fortune
From: DougR
Date: 29 Dec 03 - 02:46 PM

Okie dokie. I have read the letter. It appears to me to be nothing more than a re-hash of criticisms you hear Democrats raving about the Bush administration every day! The money went to American companies to help build the infrastructure of Iraq. So what's wrong with that? Would you rather it have gone to French, Russian, or German complanies to do the same work? American taxpayers, for the most part, are financing the war in Iraq. Why shouldn't the work go to American companies? Even the Congressman admits much of the money has been spent on things that benefit the Iraqi people directly.

I think you folks are reading far too much in this letter. The Congressman reflects your views so you think it's a great letter filled with new news. Don't you read newspapers? I don't think the Congressman revealed on thing in the letter that hadn't been widely reported in the press, radio and TV (Even CNN and MSNBC!)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Saddams Fortune
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Dec 03 - 11:44 AM

mebbe Doug should write HIS congressman for a comparison of views.
I suspect there would be a few differences. *grin*

Subject: RE: BS: Saddams Fortune
From: kendall
Date: 29 Dec 03 - 08:12 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Saddams Fortune
From: kendall
Date: 29 Dec 03 - 04:15 AM

still waiting, Doug.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddams Fortune
From: kendall
Date: 28 Dec 03 - 08:27 AM

Don't hold your breath, I've never heard a republican admit being wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddams Fortune
From: Hrothgar
Date: 28 Dec 03 - 04:56 AM

Let's hope he doesn't get Mad Crow Disease (Corvine Spongiform Encephalopathy) from eating it

Subject: RE: BS: Saddams Fortune
From: kendall
Date: 27 Dec 03 - 07:25 PM

I did send Doug a pm. He is busy, but he will check in later. (Probably looking for a good crow recipe. LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Saddams Fortune
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Dec 03 - 05:53 PM

What/Which election?

Subject: RE: BS: Saddams Fortune
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 27 Dec 03 - 04:28 PM

I read recently that the capture of Saddam may have taken place much earlier in the year. Evidence? There were dates on the palm trees in the background. June-July are date growing months.

Is it possible that the news was delayed in time for the election?

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Saddams Fortune
From: Amos
Date: 27 Dec 03 - 04:15 PM

Have you sent him a PM?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Saddams Fortune
From: kendall
Date: 27 Dec 03 - 02:26 PM

We're waiting Doug.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddams Fortune
From: kendall
Date: 25 Dec 03 - 11:33 PM

come on Doug!

Subject: RE: BS: Saddams Fortune
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Dec 03 - 05:28 PM

Yeah- DougR will say Uncle quickly enough- but it'll be Uncle George, not Uncle Sam. Funny how patriotism has become George's property. You don't suppose that it's George Washington Bush, do you? A god-given inheritance, for sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddams Fortune
From: kendall
Date: 25 Dec 03 - 04:36 PM

refresh until Doug hollers "UNCLE"

Subject: RE: BS: Saddams Fortune
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Dec 03 - 12:27 PM

Oh, Kendall,you bad, bad boy... Going an' hurtin' my poor ol' buddy's punkin' head... And on Christams! Danged!

I'm sorry Dougie. I tried to stop him but youknow how Kendall can get when he's got the goods! They are gonna get delivered.

But, hark, just stay low and yer but, T-Bird, will come along with one of his masterfull, "War-n-Peace" length threads which will actually contain nothing but should be, as per usual, entertaining.

Aww, jus' messin' wid ya', T-zer. I'm sure there will be some little over looked nugget, like misused puncture-ation. But $3B is a lot of dough to go unaccounted for, wouldn't ya' say?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Saddams Fortune
From: kendall
Date: 25 Dec 03 - 11:14 AM

Oh, Dougie...care to respond?

Subject: RE: BS: Saddams Fortune
From: kendall
Date: 25 Dec 03 - 11:03 AM

Ya done good Amos. Now, may we hear from the big business worshippers?

Subject: RE: BS: Saddams Fortune
From: Amos
Date: 25 Dec 03 - 10:57 AM

I have posted the original JPEG graphic of the letter to the web where it can be viewed by clicking on this link.

Regards,

A