Carter holds forth at book signing
by The Panda Man · 11/12/2005 11:16 amWhile hawking his new book, Our Endangered Values: America’s Moral Crisis, at a signing, former president “Jimmah” Carter let slip the dogs of malaise.
President Jimmy Carter says President Bush’s policies conflict with American values.
Carter says he wrote this book reluctantly, but did so because he just couldn’t stay silent anymore. "In the last 5 years there’s been a dramatic and disturbing and radical change in the values of this country," Carter said.
Apparently Mr. Carter preferred the intern-and-cigar values of the Clinton Administration. The acknowledged expert then gives military/foreign policy advice.
For example, he says peace is an American value, not pre-emptive war: "we don’t wait until our country is threatened," Carter said, "we publicly announced our new policy is to attack a country, invade a country, bomb a country."
Ever heard of September 11, 2001, Mr. Carter? It was in all the papers. Obviously we should have taken guidance from the master’s handling of the Iran hostage crisis and waffled about it. How about some more homespun wisdom?
For decades the US has supported the Geneva Convention saying we won’t torture prisoners, but he says now "our senators are voting to keep torture. It’s inconceivable this would happen in the United States of America."
Must be the fault of those Bible-thumpers.
Carter also says American politics is being infused with what he calls "fundamentalist" religion. Carter, who is a born again Christian, says blurring the line between church and state is dangerous.
Right on target. How about wrapping up the story with a joke?
Carter’s own presidency was controversial, but since then his humanitarian efforts in the world earned him a Nobel Peace Prize.
The Carter Administration is remembered for failure, not “controversy.” From the Iran hostage crisis to the “malaise speech,” positive accomplishments are decidedly not Carter’s one-term presidential legacy. There is also little prestige in winning the Nobel Peace Prize these days when the likes of Yasser Arafat are on the roll of recipients. Stick to hammering nails, Mr. Carter.
E-mail the author or leave a comment below.
Filed Under Uncategorized · · · · 
Print This Post
··
Comments
214 Responses to “Carter holds forth at book signing”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...
If you are going to consider yourself a journalist, Mr. Weidenhof, you need to at least attempt to live in the real world. By invading Iraq, we are doing nothing to avenge 911 as we know Iraq had very little if anything to do with the attack. The only people who still say they did are stubbornly trying to justify the actions of an incompetent President. If we had committed more troops to Afghanistan we may have caught Bin Laden by now. Now that the public realizes the war in Iraq is a mistake, pray tell me what will this president be remembered for?
David Limbaugh has a couple of good writings on his web page. Read his Nov. 7th. & 10th. Articles. It really does address this kind of treasonous garbage well.
Here is his link.
http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/
Being against the war is one thing, but the Democrat leaders and the Media are being out and out anti-American. I do not know how they can sleep at night, because this is causing more of our brave soldiers to be harmed and killed.
There is so much good that is going on over there. (This is coming from soldiers) but our God forsaken mainstream press refuses to report it.
“While hawking his new book, Our Endangered Values: America’s Moral Crisis, at a signing, former president “Jimmah” Carter let slip the dogs of malaise.”
Where was Carter when Clinton was doing the moral downfall of Americans? I don’t care that he had sex but he lied under oath thinking he is above all other Americans.
Come on Gad, (#1) nobody is saying that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. I mentioned it in response to Carter’s complaint about “pre-emptive war.” He speaks as though the President simply woke up one morning and decided to bomb someone, rather than invading Iraq as part of a larger global war on terror. Obviously you disagree with that response to 9/11, but that puts you in fine company. Cindy Sheehan, Jimmy Carter, and many liberal Democrats share your view.
Foamer Pres. J. Carter was on a recent epsiode of PBS “NOW” with David Bragadaccio where the two liberal slugs smiled back and forth. Dave is of course a paid wimp-hit-man for the powers, but Jimmah has deeply confused roots over what America was, should and could be. All in all, an especially worthless episode, yet with a special guest. This KrappaRoni is typical of why I no longer give to PBS. Agenda shows like that wipe out the value of their better shows. Close them down, NOW.
The problem is most Americans believe anyone famous–it’s the star system. In ye olden days, if it was in the paper it must be the news; now if it’s on TV, etc., it’s with what most people go.
The saddest irony of all is with modern medicine (free for the famous and politicians) we may be stuck with the sick twisted old presidents and figureheads for many more years.
Mr. Jimmy could very well be correct that the US has supported the Geneva Convention saying we will not torture prisoners. Best I recall, during and at the end of the successful battle of Iwo Jima, the marines did follow the Geneva Convention. There is no official record of the Marines torturing a single Japanese prisoners. Because they simply killed them all. Killing the enemy eliminates any possibility of Torturing Prisoners. Am I wrong?
Jim Bo
As impressed as I was when witnessing Mr. Carter’s adept handling of the first crisis this nation had at the hands of terrorists when our embassy in Tehran was taken over and hostages held for over a year. As impressive as his military response was, when he ordered a rescue mission using troops and equipment that had not been funded properly for maintenance and training since the beginning of his term. As happy as I was paying 19% mortgage interest rates during his presidency and watching my paycheck dwindle as inflation ate the whole thing up…..
I shall ignore the advice of an incompetent boob, how happens to be a good person.
My enduring mental image from Carter’s Presidency is from the debate with Reagan when he informed us that he had consulted his daughter Amy for foreign policy advice (that is the very moment I decided that it might indeed be safe to vote for a Republican after all).
My enduring mental image of Reagan will be “Mr. Gorbachev TEAR DOWN THIS WALL!”
My enduring memory of the present occupant of the White House was when one of my Presidents finally had the Gonads to say “If you are not with us, you are against us.
And the enduring mental image I have of the other Democrat who has occupied the White House since I became eligible to vote is of him spanking his wanker into his hanky while having phone sex with the fat chick he met at work.
Thank GOD we have a Presidnet who gets that we are in a war for the survival of every Religion practised by the peoples of the planet.
Jeremy, here’s a NEWSFLASH for you: 68% of the country is DISSATISFIED with the direction we’re going in.
Stop defending the indefensible by attacking the irrelevant.
You wonder why I shake my head.
Despite concerns about our border situation (which I share) and low poll numbers, I believe GWB will be remembered in favorable terms. It may take some years before we see the big picture, however. It’s easier to see that picture in retrospect, as we now do with Carter and Reagan. A stark contrast has been shown between these two Presidents in retrospect.
Why is Carter now irrelevant? Because he’s no longer President, or because people who have lived through his tenure remember him for what he truly was?
History will show whether or not President Bush was truly incompetent. History has already proven Mr. Carter was incompetent beyond the shadow of a doubt. No offense there Headshaker, but I’ll take Sarge’s grasp of history over yours all day long. I think all the headshaking is beginning to take its’ toll on the cognitive processes.
In Sarge’s post, he dedicated a single sentence to President Bush. How is saying one single thing in support of President Bush defending the indefensible? Besides, I expect that Bush’s flash poll numbers are so low because of nimwits like Carter spouting off so much, understanding that what people see on TV is sometimes the entire basis of whether or not they support a given politician.
jimb, I wasn’t referring to Sarge.
And there you go again! Thanks for validating my point (again).
HS
While conservative Republican support of the Preseident has remained consistent, let’s take a moment to check the pulse of the moderate Republicans who typically get lumped in with the media’s black/white portrayal of our current political climate.
30% of moderate Republicans have remained strong backers of the President, down from 85% in August. 54% of moderates think Republicans in Congress are doing a good job, down 22 points from summer. A third of moderates think the Republican Party is leading them in the wrong direction. 44% believe conservative religious groups have too much influence on the President.
Interestingly enough, 80% of moderates still would stick with the GOP if midterm elections were help now.
Those figures, I believe, leads me to summise that the numbers have little to with Democrats leading them away, but genuine displeasure and distrust of how things have transpired in the past few years.
I doubt their disguising themselves and going to Internet Cafes incognito to read Common Dreams to have their views changed.
Until stoneless GWB stops trying to be pals with Carter,Clinton and rips them for the failures they were they will continue to slam him and this country.
GWB has had a terrible second term. I think he is out of touch. Maybe riding around on AF-1 and living the good life makes that happen to all Presidents.
#11 - Notwithstanding my mistaken reference to Sarge’s post, my point still stands. Don’t just quote poll numbers, attempt to understand what is behind them…
#12 - that’s one way to put it - another theory is that many ‘moderates’ are those who just kind of go along and don’t invest much effort into validating what they hear on TV or read in the papers. Since they get most of their information from liberal sources, they’ll naturally tend to believe what they hear.
The above theory could be wrong, but it is at least as valid as what is being said in #12.
My only point is that polls are at best indicators of which way the wind happens to be blowing at the time (and we all know the wind changes constantly).
And just for reference, I feel the same way when a Democrat is in the White House.
jimb, you’re out of touch with the majority of your fellow citizens in America. Sorry pal, but Bush hasn’t needed any help from Carter et al to cause these kinds of poll numbers.
I really enjoy studying selective memory. There is an abundance of it when it comes to Reagan and Carter. What was the great Mr. Raygun’s response to the killing of 220 Marines and 21 other U.S. service members in Beirut in October 1983? He pulled our troops out of Lebanon. How many more would have died had he adopted the Bush II Doctrine and stayed until we had victory? And the Lebanese seem to finally be throwing off the Syrian yoke in spite of, not because of, our meddling in Iraq.
For a good refresher course on the whole sordid mess from the Desert I debacle to Iran-Contra see: http://www.donhopkins.com/drupal/node/104
Many seem to forget that the hostages in Iran were released, not by military action but rather through a political maneuver that put Reagan in the White House.
I am at a loss here:
Headshaker says we should dislike somebody because most everybody else does.
Didn’t we stop acting like this in junior high?
For my part, I can tell you I stopped making judgements on ANYTHING based on what “everybody else” says.
I do remember other people of Headshakers political strip telling me things like “Everybody says that “The Thin Red Line” will be a good movie.”
#18
Oh, God…..
A New Left REvisionist has entered our midsts. Not ONLY a New Left Revisionist, but a Conspiracy Theorist as well.
The October Surpise has been sooooooo discredited by respectable historians AND Conjgressional investigation.
At it’s core, the October Surprisists relied on the testimony of Gary Sick, who claimed that GHWB had been seen in Paris meeting with Iranian Representatives in order to insure that the hostages NOT be released until after the Election.
This held some credence, as it was difficult to disprove (or prove) until it was revelead that Bush was giving a speech in Chicago 4 hours after Sick claimed that Bush was seen in Paris. Now, the Concorde is fast, but not fast enough to get any human from Paris to Chicago in less than 4 hours (one has to allow for the time in transit from the places where he was seen to or from the airport) There then came the claim that the Reagan Camp had so “infiltrated” the Carter White House that they had arranged a flight for him on the FREAKING SR71!!!!!
Now, for some reason, all of this is left out of the reportage of the affair.
As Hermann Geobels once said: “When the facts do not support you, change the facts.”
And at the risk of being accused of taking over the Board, let me add one cautionary note:
During the rise of the Left during the 1960s and 70s, there came a shift in curriculum for our tiny skulls full of mush. Done at the behest of Teachers Unions and Liberal Politicians, History became deemphasized, along with the critical thinking and strengthening of memory that goes along with it’s study.
We now find ourselves in a society where most young people’s knowledge of history begins with the date of their birth, and any context for current events is interpreted using that database, rather than the lessons of history. The same thing happened in nations taken over by the Soviets and, not surprisingly, the Nazis.
This is what allows them to trot out Jimmie Carter to dispense advice on how to deal with Muslim Terrorists and think they can get away with it…and I fear that there will not be enough of us who remember the events correctly to enlighten them of the true danger of his and other Left Wing Politician’s approach to the problem.
One of the best things we can do for the children now under our care is to bring History back into their lives. Not the Left Wing Poltically Correct Evil White Man, Evil Military, Evil American History that we have seen since the ’70s, but the true “warts and all” history that aloows the stdent to come to his own conclusions, rather than toes the political line put forward by his instructor.
Hermann Geobles? Are you sure that wasn’t Joseph Goering?
I personally know of a trip Bush the 1st made to New Orleans at the height of Iran-Contra to coordinate with the brother of Contra front man Adolfo Calero. And yet Bush was “not in the loop”. He was but sarge you weren’t. Revise that!
sarge,
I wonder about your history education. It sure seems to be tilted to the far right. New information is constantly factored in to what we were taught based on information available at the time. New information is not a revision.
Wil, you’re talking to a wall. It’s hopeless.
#22/23 Wil, there are “some” “Historians” whose history is filtered thru their political leanings. They use resources that don’t engage a full spectrum of events. They verify their interpretations of this filtered view, by reading sources that wont disappoint. Hence the lessons we are offered here.
Speaking of history, isn’t this the first time in our history that we changed the rationale for going to war after the war started. Clueless George said we had to invade Iraq to find and destroy the WMD’s. When everyone realized there were no WMD’s to destroy we were then told we had to depose Saddam. After Saddam was deposed we were then told that we invaded Iraq because regime change was important to the stability of the Middle East. It looks like that is going to happen, yet we still have no viable exit plan. I am very confused.
26, Gadboy, unfortunatley for us GWB is very confused as well. That is the scary part of this whole thing. GWB needs 3×5 cards to keep the rationale for the war straight, but he dropped them one time, and now….. no one knows.
I can’t wait until his library opens. I am going to donate the first coloring book.
#25 as long as you acknowledge that your theory is not limited to the Right.
I don’t claim to know the whole history of the Iran Hostage Crisis, but I think that Sarge has made some valid points that you guys are just dismissing as ‘the right looking at history thru colored glasses’. Methinks you guys ‘the pot’ are calling the kettle black.
I notice that nobody addressed Sarge’s statement re: we should dislike somebody because most everybody else does. I think he has a valid point there, too.
I am ‘out of touch with the majority of my fellow citizens in America’ because I don’t swallow flash poll numbers without question? I don’t think so. At worst, I disagree with the majority (in some cases). Notice that I am not speaking in direct support of Bush more than I am speaking out against these polls and their methodology. I don’t by nature trust polls, even when their results coincide with my own beliefs.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics, and all that rot…
It is my contention, based only on my opinion, that that library may serve those that are, how can I say it…….. serving time for crimes committed. I have always maintained this is a corrupt administration. So you may be sending that coloring book to a federal institution.
Jim, I have always disliked Mr. Bush. No one should dislike him because everyone else does. they should be horrified and offended for what he has done in ‘Our’ name. It seems that they are. In numbers that increase with every count.
Jim, you dismiss polls, you always have. Tell me something. Why is it every poll shows the same thing. They ask different questions of different people, yet get the same response. 57% of the people think Mr. Bush is dishonest. Different polls, same number give or take a few points. How, mathematically speaking, does that happen ?
Feagan-conservatives never let facts get in the way of their opinion on issues. As far as polls, they are usually taken by dreaded “Liberal Media” so if they reflect badly on the president or other republicans, they surely must be fabricated.
Feagan
Can you show us a poll that indicates dissatisfaction with Bush translates into support for the opposition party?
It certainly isn’t where it really counts:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101833_pf.html
I’ve already offered some explanations for that. I have also stated that Bush is far from perfect.
My main point would be that true leadership comes not from reading polls, but from doing what you feel is right under the circumstances. Let History be the judge, not flash polls. I felt the same way when Clinton is president. Polls are only useful in their proper context.
Am I convinced that Bush is consistently exhibiting the leadership qualities I am looking for? No. However, constant harping on polls is not the answer. Aside from my already stated reservations re: polls, something could happen tomorrow that would dramatically change the poll results. The American people can be very fickle when it comes to such things, as you well know…
There goes sarge again twisting another post.
NEWSFLASH FOR SARGE: I don’t care about support for the opposition party! I’m opposed to liars of all parties. Geez, can you ever make an argument on point?
jimb, the reason we “harp” on polls here is because there is a contingent who keeps saying that all the polls against Bush are polling mainly Liberals and Democrats. It’s a bunch of crap.
#37 re-read my post in 35…
Shaker, come on man. I have had more “discussisions” than I can count with Sarge. He will say, Prove your point. So I do, but that just does not compute with his ability to reason away the politics of it all so he will dismiss the point that was proven at his request. So he will through out some “magical” thinking. I will ask for proof, cuz it just sounds a little off. But whoa, that sets him in a tizzy. “Proof” how dare you ask for proof…… and so it goes.
#22
Yes, Joseph Geobbels and Herman Georing.
To quote Steve Martin:
“Excuuuuuuse Meeeeeeeeee!!!!!”
I was up until the wee hours of the morning protecting the Compound against an onslaught of coyotes and was in the midst of the morning coffee when I wrote that.
You’re the guy who introduced the “October Surprise” web site, right?
And before it happens, I’ll correct another technically injcoorect statement I made, lest someone point it out and offer it as moot eveidence that my entire thesis is incorrect:
It was William Casey, not GHW Bush who was “seen” in Paris talking to Iranian officials, and who was also seen in Chicago four hours later. Unfortuantley for the conspriacy Theorists, Casety was on video tape in Chicago.
The October Surpise is the first instance in my memory of the use of a tactic we now see used by the Left:
“Accuse them of doing something sooooooo evil, people will hate them.”
Like…lying us into war.
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1048
Shaker see post 40 for an example of which I speak.
#23;
Accusing me of a faulty history education, titled to the right, is pretty much disproved when you offer up the “October Surprise” as being history WITHOUT a political salnt, or at least offered as incontravertible fact.
My personal analysis of history, my constant challenging of my beliefs and conclusions, and constant research has, unfortunately it seems, led me to conclusions that do not fit the poltical view of history you would prefer people attest to. so much so that you feel you must discredit them, rather than provide alternative eveidence.
jimb, I re-read your post. I agree with you for the most part. My point is that there is a faction here that will continue to defend the indefensible, and claim that current polls are invalid because they are skewed by Liberals/Democrats. I think we both know it’s a bunch of crap. You yourself are not happy with Bush overall, as is most of the country. That’s all.
Shaker/Gadboy, I agree with both of your re. the MSM and liberal media being the rationale for dismissing the polling data.
But then something like the Fox news poll comes along showing Mr. Bush at 36%. How in the world do they dismiss this ?
http://www.pollongreport.com
Sorry.
http://www.pollingreport.com
Feagan, you are about to see the subject matter changed and the attacks begin anew, because they cannot defend the indefensible and when they are faced with hard, cold facts, this is what they do. And then you also get the doublespeak, blabbering jibberish.
I have this vision of Britt Hume. His mind spinning, trying to figure a way not to release the poll. How will he explain this to Murdoch, Rove and the Whitehouse.
#26;
No, it is not the first time in history that the rationale the pbulic understood for going to war was changed in it’s midst. And it is not the first time that a right and morale reason for conductiong the war was not the original rational give.
Lincoln, the first President of the Republican Party, went to war with the Confederacy in the beginning to “preserve the Union.” This was popular at the time, as going to war toend slavery was not popular among Democrats especially. Slavery as an issue did not become the rationale until support for preserving the Union started to wane.
The fact that Lincoln’s supporters in the Northeast, especially, and among many of his own advisers original intention in supporting “preserving the Union” did so only as a way of achieving their more moral goal of ending slavery, roughly paralells, in my opinion, the rationale’s given for the present conflict.
I’ve stated before in this forum that I think the biggest shame here is not that WMD was used as a rational. but that it HAD to be because there was so little support among the Left Wing for liberating a nation from a dictator who had killed 400,000- of his own people.
Apparently, the political expediency is the primary motivation among those of the President’s opposition. Thousands of dead Iraqui babies was not enough to have them support a war to oust their murderer, nor was the need to prevent the unification of Muslim Nations under one banner by occupying a base in the middle of the sb-comtinent.
These “defenders of the little guy” had to be convinced that taking bold offensive action in a war for the preservation of Religious Freedom on the entire planet was the right thing to do.
Of course, it’s not surprising that these people also are supporters of Mr. Carter’s approach to the problem……..
I hereby challenge Feagan and Headshaker to provide the posts that they based the following on:
“My point is that there is a faction here that will continue to defend the indefensible, and claim that current polls are invalid because they are skewed by Liberals/Democrats.”
“Shaker/Gadboy, I agree with both of your re. the MSM and liberal media being the rationale for dismissing the polling data.”
Note, I have NOT made a challenge to a technical error of fact.
Which right and Moral reason are you choosing for the Iraq war. The WMD’s, no wait, maybe the Nukes, no ?…… oh freeing the millions that had been raped and murdered under Saddam. No….. oh I know establishing a democracy in the middle east driven by Ahmed Chalabi. Which one fits the menu as the “flavor of the Day.”?
Sarge, First I thought you had put me on “permanent ignore” secondly as I said on Friday. Do you own homework man.
Sarge, try to follow this:
1. You say we should have gone to war no matter what, even if we knew (which we did) that Saddam did not have WMD’s, because he was a dictator who killed over 400,000 people.
2. Cheney/Halliburton obviously knew this and still chose to do business with him and his regime.
3. How do you reconcile that? Despite being repeatedly asked, you haven’t. Why? Because it’s defending the indefensible.
You wonder why I shake my head.
Another typical tactic used by neocon supporters - answer a question with an off-topic question. Hmmm….
$50;
The Right and Moral Reason I have stated again and agai was the liveration of an oppressed people whose leader had murdered 400,000 of them.
Do you think this is NOT moral?
Is your aversion to Mr chalabi’s lawful election, which is at this point only a possibility, enough to make you say that these people have not right to polticalo self determination?
I reconcile the Halliburton episode by doing the requistie homework to discover that the business was relegated to a 23.8 million doallr deal to provide water and sewage treatment to those same oppressed peopel. I cannot villify this kind of business without also castigating those people who provided food, medicine and other support.
You apparently belive that this business somehow hep Saddam kill his people…please explain.
BTW…the person who introduced the change of subject were those that were losing the discussion about whther Jimmie Carter is someone who’s opinion on how to deal with Terrorists is anything anyone with any sense should be listened. It wasn’t going your way, so you’ve changed it to posting poll numbers and trying to make this a discussion about Bush…
So much for “permanent ignore” nice while it lasted.
My aversion to Mr. Chalabi is his conviction for embezzelment, his passing secrets to the Iranians, and his lies to the U.S. and Congress.
Sarge, what you fail to realize is that the citizens of our country were persuaded we should go to war based upon the WMD threat - PERIOD. Not “well if we don’t find any there are still other good reasons to go.” Don’t you get it? The war would not have been approved and accepted based upon the other “reasons” you are claiming.
You’re clearly trying to rationalize and justify at this point, and it won’t fly. Most people believe, now that they know there were no WMD’s, that we should not be in a war with Iraq.
Geez.
Thats ok Sarge, never let a simple conviction for Embezzelment get in the way of a good leader.
#65
That ws not my question…but it is typical of you to avoid an opportunity to make what could be an embarassing answer.
Again I ask it:
Do you think that the possibility of Mr. Chalabi’s election is enough for you to say that the Iraquis have no right to political self determination?
And the other:
do you think it immoral to liberate a country that was under the thumb of a brutal dictator who had killed 400,000 of them.
ry not to change the sbject, or provide us with a straw man or a misdirection..
Just answer those two questions….
“Sources have told CBS News that Chalabi tipped Iran to the fact that the codes have been broken, saying he had gotten the information from an unidentified American”.
“Several news organizations, including CBS, The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times learned of the alleged betrayal from U.S. intelligence agencies weeks ago. But the news organizations agreed to withhold reporting it until recently because of U.S. attempts to shore up the intelligence losses”.
“In 1992, he was sentenced in absentia by a Jordanian court to 22 years in prison with hard labour for bank fraud after the 1990 collapse of Petra Bank, which he had founded in 1977. “
Headahker;
My point is that there was a moral reason for going to war before WMD was brought up. But it took that threat to get some people to agreethat the step was required.
Next question Sarge ? Seems as if this answers your question nicely.
Also how about that “permanent ignore”? Or what that a “conservative” reading of the word permanent?
No Sarge, you answer the questions: did we or did we not go to war based upon the claims of WMD’s?
Would Bush have had the support of the American people to go to war based upon the killing of 400,000 people from years past?
By the way, there’s a Hitler show on the History channel right now. Are you watching it?
OK…if I agree that Chalbi is a very bad man, will you answer my question as to whther the possibility of his election means that Iraquis should not have that right?
Sarge, which dictator shall we overthrow next. There are many, who is next in the name of the U.S. based on “morals”?
Feagann ignores the embarrasing answer again by making funof Sarge
Sarge, if “Moral” reasoning was the basis for war, why Iraq? Why not the other countries where atrocities are being committed every single day, including today? What about North Korea?
Why Iraq? Hmmmm….
Ok then Sarge, why is Condi Rice having private meetings with this “very bad” man.
Why did the Pentagon fly this “very bad” man to Iraq after Saddam was overthrown.
FEagan;
Were I in charge, it would be the Syrains because they not only oppress and kill their own people with a powerful secret police under the banner of Baathism, but they also assinate people in other countries with car bombs.
Nice try sarge. Questions on the floor. Please try to remain focused.
Ohh wait Sarge better tell Dick Cheney to alert Halliburton to get its workers out of Syria before the bombs fall.
Ladies, Gentelmen, and Childre….
What you are seeing here is an excellent example of the intellectual dishonesty of the left, coupled with their desire to maintain that the current occupant of the White House is an EvilMan…without actually coming right out and saying it.
They cannot or will not answer simple questions beacuse if they did so they would have to admit that there are and were moral reasons for going to war in Iraq.
There are also very sound tactical reasons as well. I have said beofre that the thing we must fear the most is the unification of the Middle Estern subcontinent, for then we would be fighting a nation with vast reserves of cash and resources. Therfofre, the occupation of a base of operations in the heart of the continent is necessary to conduct a Global War on Terror.
They prefer that yoj and others stay focused on an idea which has NOT YET BEEN PROVEN AS FACT: that Bush “lied” to get us into war.
OH feagan…
I took you off ignore because it is so friggen easy to show how full ofcrap you positions are…and it’s Sunday, so I’m taking the day off from Captialist Corner to enjoy the bounty of the Compund and the company of the Little Colonel and the Canine Brigade.
Sarge, still waiting for my answers?
Newsflash: I’m not LEFT! How do you explain that one also?
Sarge, there are a number of questions asked of you. Why do you not answer them.
Why is Condi Rice meeting with Chalabi ?
Why is the Pentagon paying Chalabi 300,000. per month ?
Why did the Pentagon fly Chalabi to Iraq on a U.S. plane after Saddam was overthrown ?
Lets start with those easy questions.
Feagan, the more he posts the more he validates what we said.
If it is so easy to prove I am full of c..p please please answer the simple questions I have posed.
So does that mean on Monday I am back on “permanent Ignore”? A man can dream
Shaker, I know, but as Sarge says. “its so friggin easy”.
Shaker, be careful, you might find yourself on “permanent ignore”. Not to worry though, it lasts only a day or two, or until the following Sunday. Kind of like GWB, it shifts with the mood, proof, whatever.
Why is Condi Rice meeting with Chalabi ?
It’s her job…she has to meet withn people who are leaders of countries no matter who they are. Chalbi’s postion in Iraq reuires it. This is like saying that Clinton is bad because he hugged Arafat…..
Why is the Pentagon paying Chalabi 300,000. per month ?
I don’t know…please provide me with the source documents where then information came from.
Why did the Pentagon fly Chalabi to Iraq on a U.S. plane after Saddam was overthrown ?
Beause he was the leader of one of the Expatriate Resistance movements against Saddam.
Now I answered yours, you answer mine:
1. Is it immoral to liberate a nation froma dictaor who has killed 400,000 of his own citizens?
2. Is the fact that Mr. Chalabi is an unsavory character enough to make you say that the Iraqui people do not have a right to vote for him?
Sarge, please do you own homework. Its not hard. There are many sources. Simply type Chalabi into google. It pulls up all sorts of nice info on Mr. Chalabi.
Why did Ms. Rice not deport Mr. Chalabi to Jordan where he had been convicted ?
I have to agree with Headshaker and Feagan. If we truly invaded Iraq because of the brutal and oppresive reigime, why don’t we have tropps in Africa? Why do we trade with China. George Bush articulated our reason for going to war in Iraq early on in his presidency when speaking about Saddam , he said “That’s the man who tried to kill my daddy”. If you are willing to sacrifice the lives of our fine young soldiers to settle a grudge then I have to ask you Sarge -Do you have any respect for our military?
1) yes it is immoral to lie about pre emptive military action.
2) yes it is immoral to prop up a convicted felon, pay him 300K a month.
#83
Feagan;
In the academic world, as in the business world, it is the persona making the assertion who must provide proof of it. It’s kind of like in court, where the burden of proof is on the person who makes the accusation.
But making an assertion, then claiming I an somehow derelict in not “doing m own hoemwrk” is just plain lazy as well as being intellectually dishonest.
So is avoiding some very, very simple questions. ESPECIALLy after you challenged me and I abided.
Conoleeza Rice does not have the power to deport anybody.n This is like asking “Why didn’t Jimmy Carter arrest Arafat for all those bombings?”
I find it interesting that the left bemoans Chalibi’s election, yet if the United States had simply installed another “ruler” holy crap the outcry would have been deafening. The point is that the Iragis chose Chalibi, period end of discussion. Every country has a right ot be stupid. Look at us we elected Carter once.
Can’t have it both ways.
Thats it Gadboy, you are on permanent ignore. Sarge will no longer respond to you, until tomorrow, or maybe later today.
headshaker Says:
November 13th, 2005 at 12:06 pm
Another typical tactic used by neocon supporters - answer a question with an off-topic question. Hmmm….
I LOVE Irony
Feagan #88 That was not called for.
Feagan, I want you to be a moderator on my new website (check it out).
What?
Squawk, sorry, but the Iraqis “choose” chalabi because he was propped up with the 300,000 from the U.S. What other Irqi candidate received the un bridled support of the U.S. Military ? you really think it is a fair election if one candidate received the support of the U.S. and others do not ?
#84
That’s an easy one…
Nobody in Africa is trying to stamp out all other releigions other than their own.
We have limited resources, especially military, after 8 years of Democrats bragging about reducing them. By deposing the leader of Iraq we achjieve not only the moral goal of liberating an oppressed people, but the tactical one of preventing the unification of the Middle Easter Subcontinent under the banner of Baathism and Global Islam
I’m joking Gadboy. Sarge put me on “permanent Ignore” because I disagreed with him on Friday. But today he engages me.
#93 Feagan
Prove it
Sarge, correct me if I am not right here but did not Dick Cheney advocate a samller armed forces ? Do I have to show you this too ?
#94 - Sarge, that was actually something logical for a change. However, it was not the reason the American people were given for going to war.
It’s not up to Bush to decide what our moral obligations are.
Squawk, you really question the U.S. support of Chalabi ? really.
The fact that Ceny advocated a smaller military in no way excuses the way it was decimated in the Clinton years…..Cheny was no where near those decisions…
How about them answers guys….got the guts to answer them and THEN debate what those answers might mean?
Ok Squawk.
From UPI
As the bearer of good “cakewalk” news, Chalabi collected almost $40 million from U.S. taxpayers before the plug was pulled on his ambitions to succeed Saddam. Even though the CIA and the State Department certified Chalabi as a super con man, the Defense Intelligence Agency decided he was on the level and went on paying him $340,000 a month until early May. ”
Squawk, which other Iraqi received this support.
headshaker Says:
November 13th, 2005 at 12:06 pm
Another typical tactic used by neocon supporters - answer a question with an off-topic question. Hmmm….
Condi Rice
Chalabi
Cheney…
There’s enough Irony here to buld a battleship
Sarge, I answered your questions. they were easy. You just don’t like the answers.
NIce, Cheney says as Sec Def. we need a smaller force and actively lobbies to reduce the size and scope of the armed forces. You blame Clinton. Nice.
#101
Hmmm Feagan…watch out….
The article says the aid was terminated…how many years before the elction did this happen…
And how about the answers to those two questions you seem very, very afraid to answer
Squawk ?
Sorry sarge, that won’t fly; we’re only changing the subject because you’ve failed to defend the indefensible. On to the next enlightening!
#99 Feagan
Prove “the Iraqis “choose” chalabi because he was propped up with the 300,000 from the U.S.”
Chalibi put his name on the ballot just like everyone else. Prove to me where he received any inordinate amount of support from th United States in the elections.
Sarge, Chalabi was convicted in a Jordanian court. Jordan is an ally of ours. Why is this convicted felon welcomed in our Sec of States office.
Why are there no photos of Chalabi and Rice.
Squawk, I think 40 million bucks can buy and Iraqi election. Maybe its just me.
RE: 101 Feagan, yeah and it had been how many years since the plug was removed for that support before the elections?
Looking through the posts I don’t find any answers to my two questions….let’s try again, it looks like you missed them:
sargevining Says:
November 13th, 2005 at 12:02 pm
I hereby challenge Feagan and Headshaker to provide the posts that they based the following on:
“My point is that there is a faction here that will continue to defend the indefensible, and claim that current polls are invalid because they are skewed by Liberals/Democrats.”
“Shaker/Gadboy, I agree with both of your re. the MSM and liberal media being the rationale for dismissing the polling data.”
Note, I have NOT made a challenge to a technical error of fact.
1. Is it immoral to liberate a nation froma dictaor who has killed 400,000 of his own citizens?
2. Is the fact that Mr. Chalabi is an unsavory character enough to make you say that the Iraqui people do not have a right to vote for him?
shaker, missed the link to your site.
#46 - I just hope you aren’t lumping me in with this crowd…
#52 - I’ve answered at that question quite clearly. As a matter of fact, I regard it as sort of a dead horse we keep dragging out. Am I defending the indefensible, too?
#64 - No Sarge, you answer the questions: did we or did we not go to war based upon the claims of WMD’s?
Yes, we did, but EVERYBODY and their brother for years and years believed he had them. Now all of a sudden, Bush knew better? Another dead horse for the beating. Besides, I seem to remember several reasons being advanced at the same time for his removal. Either way, the biggest mistake we made was to not remove him back in 1992.
#108
One might also ask “Why is a known terrorist welcome in the White House?” I speak of course of Mr. Arafat….
But what I want to know is…what in the cornbread hell does it have to do with anything at all?
I bet you answer that one…..
Sarge, asked and aswered.
Nice change of subject Sarge. I don’t defend Arafat, never have.
Feagan, just click on my name
Besides he is dead, time to move on Sarge. Clinton is not president. Arafat is dead.
jimb:
The Adminsitration decided to go to war based on the following:
1. Tactical necessity in order to prevent hegemony in the Middle East. This was Saddams goal in invading both Iran and Kuwait. he desired, as does Bin Laden and Zarqawi, to be the next “Saladin” to unite the Muslim world and kill all infedels. This was the primary impetus, as recommended by military personnle and Nationa Security Staff.
2. The removal of the Leader of a Nation that was supporting Terroism, as promised by the Presdident in speechesmade after 9/11/01. Saddam was providing between $20,000 and $30,000 to the families of suicide bombers in Isreal.
3. The Intelligence of this countires Intelligence service, as well as those of 4 other nations determined that Saddam still maintained Weapons of Mass Destruction, and/or the capability to produce them. To ignore the “worst case scenario” when you are defeding the planet against evil people who want to destroy all other nations on earth is irresponsible.
jimb said …”Either way, the biggest mistake we made was to not remove him back in 1992.”
Bravo! And now you know…the rest of the story!
shaker, nothing there
OK…
Feagan you also seem to ignore the 8 years that the Clinton administration supported Chalibi.
We agree on one thing though, the guy is as crooked as the day is long. He played the middle between two ends for just this day. The Bush administration is between a rock and hard spot here.
OKI…anybody at all:
1. Is it immoral to liberate a nation froma dictaor who has killed 400,000 of his own citizens?
2. Is the fact that Mr. Chalabi is an unsavory character enough to make you say that the Iraqui people do not have a right to vote for him?
Feagan, it’s headshaker.com; cost me a bundle to get it also!
#119 - agreed.
#124 -
1. Nope
2. Nope
Although with #2, it is disappointing that the Iraqis would choose this guy - definitely causes me concern.
sarge, there you go again, doing the twist. No one is saying it’s immoral to liberate Iraq. But that’s not why we were told we were going to war. Forget the Cheney/Halliburton issue for now.
You just don’t get it, so I’m putting you on ignore (temporary).
No Squawk, I hate the fact that Clinton supported this idiot. No excuse from me on that. He, Chalabi, should be in jail.
Why we as a country continue to support these people is beyond me.
Shaker, got it.
Gee…
You’d think calling the entire thing “Operation Iraqui Freedom” would be enough to get that point across….
Now that you have answered that it was NOT immoral to go to war, let me ask the following:
1. If the aim or result of the war is in itself moral, how does on judge the means with which the moral result was accomplished?
2. If assumptions were made in pursuit of a moral course of action, and they later turn up as being in error, is the original intent rendered immoral?
Sarge, it’s your turn.
If we have a moral obligation to the rest of humanity, why Iraq first?
Squawk, re.#90. I know. But you did not donn your “moderator” cap, so am I in the clear. I consider myself “reminded”
For those keeping score; Sarge has now occupied the Moral High Ground…
I sure hope the President starts doing it now, too
#131
I’ve already answered that:
The biggest threat to the planet is hegemony in the Middle East. Occupying Iraq effective prevents that
Unless, of course, you can provide us with a higher moral imperative than protecting the diversity of reliosn on the planet and the death of those who practice.
#131 - because Hussein, in addition to being a brutal, sorry excuse for a human, was thumbing his nose at the rest of the world in a way matched by few in the latter half of the 20th century?
Feagan #128
Me too. I think I read, but cannot cite, where Chalibi was around pre President Bush #1. I have been critical about many of the people the gubment has supported in the past. I have never been a proponent of the old adage of the “enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
132 Feagan
Ahhh dude I wanted to keep it low key. Heck I had to moderate myself the other day. That was really embarrassing.
I missed the main part of the argument, but I’m sure it involved much in the way of “where is the proof”, “Bush lied to us”, and “I gave you the proof and you ignore it”.
The above quote says enough for me to support the war in Iraq, regardless of the party affiliation of the President who got us there. A strategic presence in the Muslim world is its’ own justification.
BTW Feagan, how was your trip to CA?
#137
Squawk;
The point being made is not whther Chalabi is a bad man, or that we deal with bad men. It’s that the Iraqui people were endowed by the Creator of their choice with certain unalienable rights.
One of these is the rights, intellectually at least, is the right to political self determination. While we can criticize them for electing someone we think is not worthy, they do have the right.
In my observation, Chalabi’s name was brought up in order to intimate that the freedom Iraquis now enjoy is somehow not desirous because in the exercise of that right the elected Mr. Chalabi.
Much in the same way the Palestinians elected a known terrorist when they finally got that right……
#139
Mike;
The problem is not really the justification of a presence in Iraq. When pressed, the opposition always ultimately agrees that it was needed and moral, they just want to make an issue of “How we got there.”
This of course is only a path to a political end, not one designed to protect the peoples and religions of the palnet.
My personal opinion is that when one attempts to paint an ultimately moral act as being immoral for purely political ends, he is the one committing the truly immoral act.
These are the people who are truly “defending the indefensible” IMHO. They create an atmosphere which prtrays us a weak while engaged in a Global Struggle, one which develoves to the aid and comfort of a group who is a sworn enemy to all peoples on the planet save those who beleive as they do, and will rsult in our premature withdrawal from Iraq.
Unless, of course they get elected…then they wll claim that the victory is theirs, not those who put them on the corse.
sarge wrote: “My personal opinion is that when one attempts to paint an ultimately moral act as being immoral for purely political ends, he is the one committing the truly immoral act.”
You know sarge, I think you’re way out of line here and I take tremendous offense to your comment.
I wrote earlier that I didn’t think what we’re doing in Iraq (the “liberation from a brutal dictator part”) is immoral. I merely question “why Iraq?”, and “where do we draw the line on enforcing our “moral” obligations?”.
You sir, consistently exhibit the same type of behavior you claim to loathe.
You wonder why I shake my head.
#140 Sarge
I think I alluded to that in my post #87.
#91 headshaker
Now I’m upset, sniff pout pout.
LOL squawk, I want you too
I’m an Equal Opportunity Blogger!
145 headshaker
That cracked me up. I thought you might get a giggle out of that.
Mike, Its always good to visit the “Homeland”. The talk ,among those that follow politics as we all do here, in California is certainly Ahnold. It seems among most in California he has worn out his welcome. Even among those that I speak to
that count themselves in the conservative catagory.
Other than that the trip was way too short. But good news I get to go back again in a couple of weeks.
BTW Mike, thanks for asking.
Sarge, I find it interesting that in your opinion what we are doing in Iraq is moral. Moral becuase we are deposing a murderous brutal dictator. But doing business with him, helping him hold his power and making a profit is not. Now I am shaking my head.
Sarge, if in your opinion what we are doing is moral. Than why did GWB not “lead” with that reason. Why did he feel the need to “lead” with the WMD’s, Nuke arguments ? Why not tell it like it is. Just think of the “moral” high ground he would hold now had he said.
“It is the moral thing to do to liberate these people. So I advocate war to overthrow him.”
Then he would not be in the pickle he is in now. Seems he really did not care about the morals of it all.
Secondly, is it moral to take anothers country and fight your wars there, killing innocent civilians ?
“We fight them there so we don’t have to fight them here”.
Which is it. We did the right thing and liberated the people. Or we are turning their country into a battleground so we don’t have to fight them here.
#142
I take by the opening line of your post, that you admit to taking your stand on purely politcal grounds and are offended that have an opinion on that.
#149
If you can show me where providing Water and Sewage Treatment is immoral business, I may join you in shaking of a head.
But I bleive that it is not, regardless of who it is provided to…just as I do not think that the selling of food and medicine is immoral.
Apparently, you would leave the people of Irag to drink impure water and live in filth so long as you can crow about your own high morals in not dealing with the man oppressing them.
The fact that you left that little piece of information out in your original excoriation of the “business” tell many things.
And…to get the jump on this one…
No it is NOT immoral to make a profit on Water and Sewage treatment, just as it is not so to make a profit on food and medicine. We do that in this country and more people in this country are fed and healthy than anywhere else on the planet.
#150
“Sarge, if in your opinion what we are doing is moral. Than why did GWB not “lead” with that reason. Why did he feel the need to “lead” with the WMD’s, Nuke arguments ? Why not tell it like it is. Just think of the “moral” high ground he would hold now had he said”
My personal opinion is that the people of the left don;t care about brown babies being killed by dictators. Ghey only spring to action when the “correct” babies are threatened.
As I said, and it is in total keeping with my moral stand, is that the real shame is that so many people had to be convinced that this was the right thing to do.
And, of course, you still have to actually PROVE that
“he lied us into war”
Which I do not beleive is true to begin with
Sarge-this issue is very simple. He said we needed to go to war because saddam had WMD’s. He didn’t. That means one of two things
1)He lied
2)The administration is bumbling and incompetent.
You chose which one applies
#155
Gadboy;
Simply not true. It is NOT the ONLY reason given. I have stated the three reasons why it was important to go to war with Iraq, and who took the various positions. And they are not bumbling and incompetent in doing so, in my opinion.
The WMD thing had been around since Clinton used it as an excuse to bomb Iraq several times. It was the one thing that would get people who do not give a fig about how many Iraqui babies die, if Islamists succeed in uniting the Mideastern subcontionent, or who don;t care if other people are gven the means with whcih to exercise the rights en dowed upon them by thier creator.
It was beleived by everybody, including 4 other nations, and the person most resonsibe for maintaining that beleif was Saddam himself because he was making oodles of money off of the Oil for Food program.
It is roughly akin to me getting your cooperation in saving a baby from a burning building by saying yours is inside. If my telling you the moral implications of allowing the baby to die, describing the death, or any other means of persuasion failed.
In the end, if we succeed in saving the baby, you can cry all you want about the lie I told you, you may even be succesful in getting people to hate me by doing so…but the baby will still be safe, and I will take comfort in that being the ultimately moral act.
sarge, I’ve told you a million times I’m not a liberal, so the answer is no, I’m not admitting that I’m taking my stand on purely political grounds.
Let me know when the Pope beatifies you.
And, of course, you are damning someone by mere accusation. It still remains to be proven that hen lied. In fact, it has become so apparent to those in charge of the effort that “he lied” has now morphed into “He told the truth, but he manipulated it.”
You need to read the memos
#157
I don’t recall calling you a Liberal. I do think you are poltically against the war, not morally against it.
It is also interesting that just a few days agio you were championing “containment” and then just now, in response to one of jimb’s posts stated:
headshaker Says:
November 13th, 2005 at 1:07 pm
jimb said …”Either way, the biggest mistake we made was to not remove him back in 1992.”
Bravo! And now you know…the rest of the story!
You are either FOR removing the dspot from power, or AGAINST it. If you are FOR it, then the means taken to do it become rather moot, don;t you think?
If it was the right thing to do, the it was the right thing to do.
Unless of course, you’re going to go back to saying “containment” was the right thing to do….
Sarge, I’m morally opposed to killing, period. I have stated that many times on here before.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t have taken out Saddam. I think we should have done it the first time around.
For the millionth time, I’m against LIARS. If Bush had said we needed to take him out for the reasons you stated, I support that! Are you shocked? But I struggle with the fact innocent Americans and Iraqis are dying to achieve that goal no matter the justification. I understand the concept of sacrifice for the greater good, I just don’t like it.
OK?
I beleive that it’s the Democrats who are actually in the most political trouble over this issue. They are in deep danger of losing thier Left Wing base, as evidenced by Cindy Sheehan’s promise not to support Hillary or any other candidate.
Democrats, in order to satisfy those people, ABSOLUTELY HAVE to make the case that they were duped into supporting the war, or they will not only lose that support, but be faced with the specter of an organized and well financed arm of thier own base openly speaking agains their most prominent candidates.
#162
If that is the truth, then I can respect it. However, when one brings in all of the other things that you do to support your position:
Chalabi
Cheney
Halliburton
bad polls for Republicans, etc., etc., I just don’t buy it
And again…you still habe to prove that any lie was made.
And again…the fact that the impetus is now “He manipulated the truth” proves that there is no proof of a lie.
Sarge, I never left any peice of “evidence” out. If memory serves me, I provided you with the link to the Haliburton dealings with Iraq, after you repeatedly said none existed. It is you sir, that seems to gloss over the fact that they sold them oil field equipment to “Line the pockets” (according to the article) of Mr. Cheney.
so you seem to have highly selective morals.
Sarge, GWB had ALL the intel. The congress did not. In the final analyis only one person “pulled the trigger” and sent the troops. GWB. Although he takes NO responisbility for any failings. The buck does stop with him.
BTW you never answered my questions. Don’t like to have to answer them do you ? They are tough.
I will correct you sir
I did not “repeatedly say that none existed” and challenge you to prove that accusation.
I immediately asked you for proof as soon as you made the statement, and then waited for it. Once it was provided I read it, garnered the truth of the matter, that the services provided were Water and Sewage Treatment facilites and the amount was 23.8 Million dollars (which you had left out of your original post) and then came back to you with my opinion.
The story did NOT say that oilfield equipment was sold. It stated that the susidiary company (based in FRance and only recently purchased by Halliburton) attempted to get a contract to repair a facility destroyed by the US in the war, and that contract was blocked by the government.
Please repeat the questions I have not answered, and I will glady do so immediately
Sarge-If you really think we are on the moral high in the case of the Iraq war, then we are so far apart on that issue that further discussion is pointless. Let’s talk about how this administration has chosen to fight this war. When you commit troops to war, you make sure 3 things are done:
1)You go into battle with a clear purpose
2)You make sure you commits enough troops to allow your army to achieve this purpose.
3)You have a well defined exit strategy.
This administration has done none of the above.
I am not anti military. I believe people in the military have expressed frustration over these issues. The fact that they were not given the number of troops they asked for has frustrated the military much more than any demonstrators have
Actually, those whom I know in the military, and there a many, all express to me that they have a definiet and clear knowledge of the pupose of thier mission
As to not committing enough troops in the beginning, I agree. Eisenhower made the same mistake at El Guettar. We still won the war.
As to Exit Strategy, we have always had one:
1. Establish a Democracy
2. Ensure that we do not leave until the people can protect it on their own.
3. Maintain a presence that ensures that the unification of the Middle Eastern Subcontinent is prevented.
I;ve know this for three years..how copme you haven’t paid attention?
Have any of you fellows every Read or thought about Reading THE RESOLUTION ON IRAQ - Passed by a Bipartisan CONGRESS authorizing President Bush to USE MILITARY FORCE, ACTING ALONE IF NECESSARY. There are many many reasons other than just FINDING MWD’S.
Sarge, see #150
169, yes I have. I suggest you read it again.
Feagan
See #153
Sarge, selective memory affects you. From my origianl post providing proof of Cheney’s dealings. Seems you did not like this paragraph did you ? Him….. I’m a nice guy so I won’t question your integrity.
“Oil industry executives and confidential U.N. records showed, however, that Halliburton held stakes in two companies that signed contracts to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq while Cheney was chairman and chief executive officer, the Post reported”
Once again Sarge decides not to answer the tough questions.
How about #173. Some water treatment equipment. Poor “brown babies”.
Sarge says;
“The story did NOT say that oilfield equipment was sold. It stated that the susidiary company (based in FRance and only recently purchased by Halliburton) attempted to get a contract to repair a facility destroyed by the US in the war, and that contract was blocked by the government.”
Article says;
“Oil industry executives and confidential U.N. records showed, however, that Halliburton held stakes in two companies that signed contracts to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq while Cheney was chairman and chief executive officer, the Post reported”
Hmmmmmmm……..What am I to think?
You would make a great politician, Sarge. Ignore the questions you can’t answer while attacking the motives of anyone who opposes you.
Yes, and it stated that they had just purchased those companies…and then divested themselves of the projects, except the Water and Sewage Treatment. The signed contracts were signed before Halliburton bought them and the government blocked them.
The total received by Halliburton for business in Iraq was 23.8 million dollars for a Water and Sewage Treatment facility, about 33% of the quoted $73 million total.
I assume the remaining the remaining 49 million was for the cancelled oil contract. Both amounts being about right for the scope of the projects.
Who said
Hints
1996
President Clinton had just finished taking out more of Iraq’s air defenses
No it was not President Clinton
Tom Daschle was a co-speaker at he time and agreed whole heartedly
Similar statements were made through 2000 by other high profile democrats
(Don’t make me post them all)
While you (whoever you may be) are at it, why was this type of saber rattling acceptable during President Clinton’s term and not President Bush’s. Oh yeah if any argument that it was said in 1996 is presented I will personally take away your birthday and Tinkertoys. What was good for the goose is good for the gander.
Sarge, seems you have been caught in another……shall I say “selective fabrication”. Damn if the truth does not always get in the way.
#176
Please point our which question I have ignored, post it, and I will answer it….
I’m still waiting for Feagan and Headshaker to come up with the posts I asked for in #49
Sorry Sarge, once again I have proven that you cannot be trusted to argue honestly. No sense in going further. You don’t answer the questions, you omit things that don’t serve you. It really is frustrating.
#179
Please provide the source of this accusation…
Gee…all I’m doing is asking you to prove what you say about me, Feagan
If you say it has been proven that I am a liar, I ave faled to see that proof….
Please provide it
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Some people make accusations without providing proof….
We are now approaching enough Irony to build an entire fleet
Sarge please, you said it was not moral to sell water treatment equipment. You said it was not oilfield equipment. see 175. You have been caught dude. Give it up. Shall I post your “contradiction” again
How about this quote from the article that you missed.
“The firms traded with Iraq for more than a year under Cheney, however. They signed nearly $30 million in contracts before he sold Halliburton’s 49 percent stake in Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co. in December 1999 and its 51 percent interest in Dresser Rand to Ingersoll-Rand in February 2000, the Post quoted U.N. records as saying.”
Maybe this one is better. I see no mention of water or sewage treatment equipment. You might remember I sourced more than one article when we first had this “debate”
“In a July 30, 2000, interview on ABC-TV’s “This Week,” Cheney denied that Halliburton or its subsidiaries traded with Baghdad”
Ok Sarge you want proof again…….. Geez is this not just a little humiliating for you ?
Sarge says;
“The story did NOT say that oilfield equipment was sold. It stated that the susidiary company (based in FRance and only recently purchased by Halliburton) attempted to get a contract to repair a facility destroyed by the US in the war, and that contract was blocked by the government.”
Article says;
“Oil industry executives and confidential U.N. records showed, however, that Halliburton held stakes in two companies that signed contracts to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq while Cheney was chairman and chief executive officer, the Post reported”
Hmmmmmmm……..What am I to think?
Go back and read #165, and then say “you got me”
Contracts get signed, and then cancelled. When contraqcts are cancelled, nothing is sold.
Are you two playing NIGYSOB?
Ok from 165
Sarge says in 165
“The story did NOT say that oilfield equipment was sold. It stated that the susidiary company (based in FRance and only recently purchased by Halliburton) attempted to get a contract to repair a facility destroyed by the US in the war, and that contract was blocked by the government.”
Squawk, nope not playing that game. Just don’t like dis-honesty.
That being the case, then, your claim that Halliburton sold oilfield equiopment is a lie. The contracts were signed by…
shoot, this would be a LOT easier if you would have the balls to post the article instead of picking the paragraphs you want us all to read.
Please don’t post the blog that describes this as a “greasy deal” that kind of rhetoric is biased and will not provide the truth. Post the one that mentions the Water and Sewage Treament facilities, the fact that the contracts were signed beforer Halliburton bought them, and that the contracts were cancelled and Halliburton divested themselves of those projects.
Squawk
I HAVE TWICE NOW BEEN ACCUSED OF LYING…..
Okay let’s backoff for awhile and take a breath. I have not monitored all the post but I see it is getting tense. I’m not placing blame either guys. Take a step back OK?
What I would like is proof, or an apology.
Sarge I gave you the links in the original “debate” there were numerous articles cited. You choose the information that fit your argument, while leaving out the information that caused you to admit Cheney was dealing in Oil field equipment. You said in post 165;
“The story did NOT say that oilfield equipment was sold.
When in fact the article clearly said.
‘to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment”
I might be pursuaded it was just a slip of memory, but you continued to argue that the article did not say what it clearly says. What am I to think?
Squawk, no tension here. I’m quite cool, and enjoying a nice fall evening, debating Sarge, waiting for some paint to dry in the living room. Drinking a nice cool soda.
Okey dokey Sarge, nary a mention of Mr. Cheney’s greasy dealings.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/24/80648.shtml
I posted this many moons ago.
Time for ya’ll to move on.
Moving right along. On my way. Enjoying the journey
“The firms traded with Iraq for more than a year under Cheney, however. They signed nearly $30 million in contracts before he sold Halliburton’s 49 percent stake in Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co. in December 1999 and its 51 percent interest in Dresser Rand to Ingersoll-Rand in February 2000, the Post quoted U.N. records as saying.”
This from the article you posted. I find it telling that you did not post the other.
I would say that $23.8 million could be construed as being “nearly $30″
Please post the other one which states the price of the Water and Sewage Treatment facility.
Now it should be more than obvious what is happening to President Bush. Accusations of lying, with no real proof. Exaggeration of fact, and deltion of others.
I am glad we had this little expercise.
Of course, you could prove me wrong by posting that other article.
The Little Colonel calls me for dinner. Of course, Feagan will calim that I am running from the power of his wit, but I assure you, the Little Colonel is not to be trifled with.
Sarge I have been asked to move along. And I will willingly oblige. I don’t want squawk to have to go get some headware. No sense in continuing this anyway. You will never acknowledge this. I have told you many times. Its ok. But the truth remains the truth. Have a nice dinner. I will be dinning myself. Squawk, hope you enjoy a nice respite as well.
I asked both to move along.
Wow. This thread has been hard to keep up with…
Good thing Dinnertime came around.
Death and Dinner:
The great equalizers.
I’m mentally exhausted
#207 and taxes
#209,
Ahhh yes, glaring omission on my part (especially in these RINO-ridden times).
BTW, has anyone seen the commercials from the Kurds, thanking the America for helping?
It starts out reminding us just what Sadam did to them, with his WMD’s.
One thing is for GD sure, he ain’t gonna get ‘em again and use them, is he?
No thanks to James Earl Carter and his leftwing peckerhead buddies, though.
[ Correction above, that's "thanking America" for helping, and of course it's "Saddam" not Sadam. It's just hard to think of Saddam without thinking of Sodom. And my eyes are tired. ]
Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy…..
if Carter was “one of our best Presidents”… ?
…then why isnt Carter the main or a key note speaker at the Democrat conventions of late
…then why wasnt he reelected
…then why such low apporval ratings of 21 percent, three points lower than Nixon’s during the height of Watergate
…why was his bid for relection one of the most humiliating defeats in American political history
Reagan…43,901,812 Votes (50.7%)…489 Electoral Votes
Carter …35,483,820 Votes (41.0%)…49 Electoral Votes
…why did he let the 16% inflation rate and 20% interest rate get out of control
…why did he allow for the deepest recession since the Great Depression.
….why did Carter let one of his senior aides pass out leaflets at a Ku Klux Klan rally, smearing the incumbent for allegedly paying tribute to Martin Luther King, Jr.
Nobel “Peace” Prize ?
…All Carter did was serve beverages and snacks at Camp David
…It was more of a politcal statement by the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize Committee than anything Carter deserved.
Committee chairman Gunnar Berge said it “should be interpreted as a criticism of the line that the current [Bush] administration has taken. It’s a kick in the leg to all that follow the same line as the United States.”
The prize was intended not to honor Jimmy Carter so much as to insult and slap in the face the current American President George W. Bush for not following Carter’s policies of weakness, vacillation, and appeasement towards Leftist and other anti-American forces in the world and not out of merit.
..what about Jimmy Carter and the killer rabbit
…a fitting a metaphor for Carter’s hapless, enfeebled presidency
…Carter was taking a few days off in Plains, Georgia fishing when he spotted a rabbit swimming toward him.
“It was hissing menacingly, its teeth flashing and nostrils flared and making straight for the president” and he hit the rabbit with his paddle.
(The Washington Post put the bunny story on page one complete with a cartoon takeoff of the famous “Jaws” movie poster entitled “Paws.”)