Bush-Cheney flip-flops cost America in blood

[Tsu]

I thought this was an interesting article, in light of the Bush's accusations against Kerry...

From a major Seattle newspaper:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/connelly/192828_joel29.html

edit: oops. Bold doesn't work in the thread name, does it? :biggrin: :rolleyes:

[Gokul43201]

Nice find, Tsu !

(titles are automatically bold, it seems)

[Ivan Seeking]

Nice find, Tsu !

I'll second that!

"I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.

"And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties. And while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war.

"And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq." - Dick Cheney on Iraq, 1992.

[kat]

But wait, I thought that Cheney wanted to invade for the oil...and was behind the big push for bush to invade Iraq for all the oil...oh this is just so confusing...head hurts.
OH and earlier today...I was reading about Kerry and Cheney in cahoots...abandoning american lives....oh...head....hurts....

[Ivan Seeking]

Apparently the oil was worth that many lives; just not Saddam.

[Tsu]

OH and earlier today...I was reading about Kerry and Cheney in cahoots...abandoning american lives....oh...head....hurts....
WOW! I'd like to see THAT report linked! :rolleyes:

[russ_watters]

Well, then good thing we're stealing the oil to pay for the war...oh wait, no we aren't....

[Gokul43201]

Well, then good thing we're stealing the oil to pay for the war...oh wait, no we aren't....

russ, no one here said anything about stealing oil....except you.

Just did a quick check :Exxon-Mobil, BP and Halliburton stock have gone up by over 40%, 50% and 70% respectively, since Mar 2003. The Dow has gone up by a little over 25% over that same period.

[kat]

russ, no one here said anything about stealing oil....except you.

Just did a quick check :Exxon-Mobil, BP and Halliburton stock have gone up by over 40%, 50% and 70% respectively, since Mar 2003. The Dow has gone up by a little over 25% over that same period.

So...are you saying that the increase is due strictly to Iraq (of which they have at least one division which they are pulling out and not recontracting) as opposed to...resolution the the asbesto's lawsuit, restructuring, increases in drilling and formation evaluations elsewhere or even that "drilling fluids benefited from higher sales of environmentally friendly fluids and improved contract terms"? Can we get something better then supposition and innuendo here? please? :wink:

[Gokul43201]

I didn't say that the increase was strictly due to Iraq, but I did intend to suggest that that may be one of the factors involved.

I did a "quick check" - meaning, I'm only providing a hypothesis that one or more Oil Companies benefited a good deal from the war. I did not claim to be providing irrefutable proof. I'll keep looking out, and if I find more evidence, I'll be sure to post it here.

And yes, while the points you listed are definitely very probable factors, they on the face of it, do not explain why Halliburton is doing much better than the rest.

And while Occam's razor may not apply everywhere, that's what is in the back of my mind here.

Now, what are you suggesting, that none of the Oil companies have benefited from Iraq ?

[russ_watters]

russ, no one here said anything about stealing oil....except you. Well, not in this thread - but I would like a clarification from Ivan on what he meant by his statement about the oil.

[plover]

Well, then good thing we're stealing the oil to pay for the war...oh wait, no we aren't....
In case you hadn't noticed, Iraq is a mite unstable at the moment. Whatever can or can not be proved about American intentions re Iraqi oil, pointing to the current circumstances as proof requires the assumption that the current mess didn't disrupt those intentions. Ah, if we could only have invaded Ahmad Chalabi's Happy Happy Joy Joy Iraq.

[Mercator]

Good link. So, the childish flip-flop game is turning against them. In fact I have never seen a real Kerry flip-flop, but these Cheney-Bush examples really are. They should be publicized more often. That these facts were not often in the news also shows the right wing bias of the US media. (as if that had to be proven)