Rumsfeld A Idiot

[auspice]

To: anyone curious about the real reason for the war with Iraq (if you don't believe my follow the money senario above), this is the President's words a few days ago in Israel. You decide.




The Revelation of St. George
"God Instructed Me to Strike Saddam"
By CHRIS FLOYD

So now we know. After all the mountains of commentary and speculation, all the earnest debates over motives and goals, all the detailed analyses of global strategy and political ideology, it all comes to down to this: George W. Bush waged war on Iraq because, in his own words, God "instructed me to strike at Saddam."

This gospel was revealed, appropriately enough, in the Holy Land last week, through an unusual partnership between the fractious children of Abraham. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz was given transcripts of a negotiating session between Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas and faction leaders from Hamas and other militant groups. Abbas, who was trying to persuade the groups to call a ceasefire in their uprising against Israeli forces, described for them his recent summit with Ariel Sharon and George W. Bush.

During the tense talks at the summit, Bush sought to underscore the kind of authority he could bring to efforts at achieving peace in the Middle East. While thundering that there could be "no deals with terror groups," Bush sought to assure the rattled Palestinians that he also had the ability to wring concessions from Sharon. And what was the source of this wonder-working power? It was not, as you might think, the ungodly size of the U.S. military or the gargantuan amount of money and arms America pours into Israel year after year.

No, Bush said he derived his moral heft from the Almighty Himself. What's more, the Lord had proven his devotion to the Crawford Crusader by crowning his military efforts with success. In fact, he told Abbas, God was holding the door open for Middle East peace right now--but they would have to move fast, because soon the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe would have to give His attention to something far more important: the election of His little sunbeam, Georgie, in 2004.

Here are Bush's exact words, quoted by Haaretz: "God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then He instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me, I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."

You can't put it plainer than that. The whole chaotic rigmarole of Security Council votes and UN inspections and Congressional approval and Colin Powell's whizbang Powerpoint displays of "proof" and Bush's own tearful prayers for "peace"--it was all a sham, a meaningless exercise. No votes, no inspections, no proof or lack of proof--in fact, no earthly reason whatsoever--could have stopped Bush's aggressive war on Iraq. It was God's unalterable will: the Lord of Hosts gave a direct order for George W. Bush to "strike at Saddam."

And strike he did, with an awesome fury that rained death and destruction on the mustachioed whore of Babylon, with a firestorm of Godly wrath that consumed the enemy armies like so much chaff put to the flame--and with an arsenal of cruise missiles, cluster bombs, dive bombers and assault helicopters that killed up to 10,000 innocent civilians: blasted to pieces in their beds, shot down in their fields and streets, crushed beneath the walls of their own houses, boiled alive in factories, ditches, and cars, gutted, mutilated, beheaded, murdered, women, children, elders, some praying, some wailing, some cursing, some mute with fear as metal death ripped their lives away and left rotting hulks behind. This was the work of the Lord and His faithful servant, whom He hath raised high up to have dominion over men.

And this is the mindset--or rather, the primitive fever-dream--that is now directing the actions of the greatest military power in the history of the world. There can be no doubt that Bush believes literally in the divine character of his mission. He honestly and sincerely believes that whatever "decision" forms in his brain--out of the flux and flow of his own emotional impulses and biochemical reactions, the flattery and cajolements of his sinister advisers, the random scraps of fact, myth and fabrication that dribble into his proudly undeveloped and incurious consciousness--has been planted there, whole and perfected, by God Almightcy.

And that's why Bush acts with such serenity and ruthlessness. Nothing he does can be challenged on moral grounds, however unethical or evil it might appear, because all of his actions are directed by God. He can twist the truth, oppress the poor, exalt the rich, despoil the earth, ignore the law--and murder children--without the slightest compunction, the briefest moment of doubt or self-reflection, because he believes, he truly believes, that God squats in his brainpan and tells him what to do.

And just as God countenanced deception on the part of Abraham, just as God forgave David for the murders he ordered, just as God blessed the armies of Saul as they obliterated the Amalekites, man, woman and child, so will He overlook any crime committed by Bush and his minions as they carry out His will. That's why Bush can always "do whatever it takes" to achieve his goals. And by his own words to Abbas, we see that he places his election in 2004 above all other concerns, even the endless bloodshed in the Middle East.

So what new crimes will the Lord have to countenance to keep His appointed servant in power?

 

[djv]

In the name of the lord all mighty, always works. Cant believe a few of the US papers did not bang this hard. I always fealt we would be going into a battle with Iraq. Any reason would cover it.
Throw a dart if it sticks that's good enough. I just always asked what the end game and way out was. I want fewest deaths possiable for our troops.

 

[StevieD]

So now he thinks he is talking to God! I hate to say it but a BJ would do wonders for the man! Relieve a lot of stress.
But to get back to the point of this thread about Rumsfeld being an idiot. What is Cheneys claim to fame anyway? I can't seem to find much positive about him. Maybe some of the less cynic than myself could shed some light on this crook.

 

[auspice]

Actually djv, the guy writing the article is way 'over the top' with his writing style and I almost didn't post it because of that. He also seemed to put some words into Bush's mouth that aren't there. He also exaggerated some statistics and used some other one sided journalistic techniques that I just despise.

But the fact remains, Bush said some incredibly outlandish things that weren't even brought up much here in the American press.
They're so outlandish that you have to look for other reasons for the war rather than his talks with God. His employment history and future with Carlyle are much more relevant my way of thinking. You think the Lord would have spoken to him about striking Saddam if his daddy's company wasn't about to make an extra billion bucks? LOL

 

[ferdville]

" Can't help but read some of this stuff in the forum and get my blood boiling when I think about how the ideologies discussed here in the forum and elsewhere 'on the street' have no real significance in the real world on how our foreign and domestic policies are actually arrived at. The ideological discussions are simply what the politicians want us to talk about while they rape and pillage our country right in front of our eyes. " Auspice

I don't really disagree with what you say - but the very fact that we have no control over something is no reason to simply ignore it. In my opinion, this is nothing new. It has been going on for years - before Bush, Clinton, whomever. I have been relatively aware that almost everything I do or say has no real significance on what goes on in the political arena. This is nothing new. Voters in California have had their wishes and votes tossed into the trash can on a variety of issues over the years by one appellate court judge or another.

The average man on the street has no say, ballot or not, over most of what happens here. That is the exclusive right of the very wealthy few that have effectively controlled things for hundreds of years. This should not be news to anyone who has looked at history. Back in the 60's, people thought they made a difference and occasionally they did. But it is abundantly clear that power rests in the hands of a relative few whether it is the Kennedys, Bush family, DuPonts, etc.

The more I find out about Bush, the less I like him. I don't think he is leading us in the directions I would go. I am very interested in the Carlyle Group you discussed and will do some research. It is already clear that Bush will sell out to corporate interests, but once again, this isn't anything new. Personally, I don't find him any more or less corrupt than Clinton, Reagan, Bush Sr., etc. We just seem to take for granted that politicians are self-serving (they are) and corrupt.
I would prefer that people spoke their minds on the issues of the days, even though we have little power to change things. At some point in time, probably long after I am dead, there will no doubt be a revolution of sorts when people finally can't take it any more. What SHOULD make your blood boil is the fact that in the world we live in today, you and I just don't have much of a say in what our policies are and how they are carried out. That is sad, indeed. I promise you a reply on the Carlyle Group but my only real knowledge of it is sketchy and full of innuendo like the infamous Tri-Lateral Commission. Thanks for bringing it up.

 

[Chanman]

As always ferdville: "A Gentleman & a Scholar."

 

[AR182]

boy, by reading all of the posts in the various threads in this forum alone, i'm surprised that bush & his "cohorts" are not behind bars.

but then i remember, similar to what ferdville alluded to in the above post, that even going all the way back to the andrew jackson administration (accused of playing nepotism over ability in his hiring of people for his administraion), past presidential administrations have been accused of unscrupulous activities. so stories like the carlyle group or haliburton don't get major play in the news because the american people are so numb to politicians questionable behavior that they, unfortunately, have come to expect it.

we deserve the right to question bush's or any president's motives in why a decision was made, but the bottom line,imo, that the american voter will ask him/herself, in the post 9/11 era is, which candidate gives us the best chance to win the war on terrorism ? and right now our choices are: howard dean, dick gephardt , john kerry, joe lieberman, or george bush.
my money is on bush.

 

[auspice]

to AR182

I'm not so sure that the 'war on terrorism' isn't just another political catch phrase used by the white house and their co-horts to help them win the minds of the American people, as they themselves continue doing business just as they have over the past 18 or 19 years. After all, the same players, both Bushs, Rummsfeld, Cheney, Baker ..ect are still doing approximately the same thing. Only with different job titles. Per the article, all of them defied the U.S. best interests by doing business with terrorist countries despite laws prohibiting such activity in the very recent past. Terrorism isn't a suddently new issue.

Do you suddenly think these greedy bastards grew a conscience or developed some moral values?

Here's an article that was published a couple months ago when the Iraqi war just began. You have to look at it somewhat skeptically and I'm sure it's not 100% correct, but it does capture the overall texture of the situation.



Helping Iraq Kill with Chemical Weapons:
The Relevance of Yesterday's US Hypocrisy Today

by Elson Boles


You may feel disgusted by the hypocrisy of US plans to make war on Iraq and sickened at the inevitable slaughter of thousands of people. But if you could only vaguely recall the details of how deep the hypocrisy goes, then read on.

The US not only helped arm Iraq with military equipment right up to the time of the Kuwait invasion in 1989, as did Germany, Britain, France, Russia and others, but also sold and helped Iraq to integrate chemical weapons into their US-provided battle plans while fighting Iran between 1985-1988.

According to a New York Times article in August, 2002, Col. Walter P. Lang, a senior defense intelligence officer at the time, explained that D.I.A. and C.I.A. officials "were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose" to Iran. "The use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern," he said. One veteran said, that the Pentagon "wasn't so horrified by Iraq's use of gas." "It was just another way of killing people _ whether with a bullet or phosgene, it didn't make any difference."

Now consider just how deceptive the recent comments from the White House are. In late September spokesman Ari Fleischer said that British Prime Minister Blair's dossier of evidence is "frightening in terms of Iraq's intentions and abilities to acquire weapons." A few days later, while making his case against Saddam, President Bush said "He's used poison gas on his own people." Bush deceives because he hides the fact that US officials, including his father, had no qualms about helping Saddam gas Iranians. What is truly frightening are the US policies toward Iraq, the cover ups of those policies, and the US officials who personally profit in the millions of dollars from those policies. To whatever degree Saddam is a tyrant, he would not be that without the US government.

The question is not whether Saddam is willing to use chemical or other weapons of mass destruction again. The question is whether the US is currently selling and helping countries use weapons of mass destruction.

Details about Iraq killing Iranians with US-supplied chemical and biological weapons significantly deepens our understanding of the current hypocrisy. It began with "Iraq-gate" -- when US policy makers, financiers, arms-suppliers and makers, made massive profits from sales to Iraq of myriad chemical, biological, conventional weapons, and the equipment to make nuclear weapons. Reporter Russ Baker noted, for example, that, "on July 3, 1991, the Financial Times reported that a Florida company run by an Iraqi national had produced cyanide -- some of which went to Iraq for use in chemical weapons -- and had shipped it via a CIA contractor." This was just the tip of a mountain of scandals.

A major break in uncovering Iraqgate began with a riveting 1990 Nightline episode which revealed that top officials of the Reagan administration, the State Department, the Pentagon, C.I.A., and D.I.A., collectively engaged in a massive cover up of the USS Vincennes' whereabouts and actions when it shot down an Iranian airliner in 1987 killing over 200 civilians. The "massive cover up" Koppel explained, was designed to hide the US secret war against Iran, in which, among other actions, US Special Operations troops and Navy SEALS sunk half of Iran's navy while giving battle plans and logistical information to Iraqi ground forces in a coordinated offensive.

In continuing the probe, as Koppel explained in June, 1990, "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush [Sr.], operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into the aggressive power that the United States ultimately had to destroy."

A PBS Frontline episode, "The Arming of Iraq" (1990) detailed much of the conventional and so-called "dual-use" weapons sold to Iraq. The public learned from other sources that at least since mid-1980s the US was selling chemical and biological material for weapons to Iraq and orchestrating private sales. These sales began soon after current Secretary of State, Donald Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad in 1985 and met with Saddam Hussein as a private businessman on behalf of the Reagan administration. In the last major battle of the Iran-Iraq war, some 65,000 Iranians were killed, many by gas.

Investigators turned up new scandals, including the involvement of Banca Nazionale del Lavoro (BNL), the giant Italian bank, and many of the very same circles of arms suppliers, covert operators, and policy makers in and out of the US government and active in those roles for years. The National Security Council, CIA and other US agencies tacitly approved about $4 billion in unreported loans to Iraq through the giant Italian bank's Atlanta branch. Iraq, with the blessing and official approval of the US government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq's missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.

However, the early reports on BNL's activities and the startling revelations that the US government astonishingly knew that BNL was financing billions of dollars of purchases illegally, were rather comical in view of later revelations regarding who was involved. US government officials didn't just know and approve, but some were employees at BNL directly or indirectly. It was Representative Henry Gonzalez (D-Texas) who relentlessly brought key information into the Congressional Record (despite stern warnings by the State Department to stop his personal investigation for the sake of "national security").

Gonzalas revealed, for example, that Brent Scowcroft served as Vice Chairman of Kissinger Associates until being appointed as National Security Advisor to President Bush in January 1989. As Gonzalez reported, "Until October 4,1990, Mr. Scowcroft owned stock in approximately 40 U.S. corporations, many of which were doing busies in Iraq." Scowcroft's stock included that in Halliburton Oil, also doing business in Iraq at the time, which had also been run by current Vice President Dick Cheney for a time. Recall that this year President George Bush Sr. faced suspicion of insider trading in relation to selling his stock in Halliburton. The companies that Scowcroft owned stock in, according to Gonzalez, "received more than one out of every eight U.S. export licenses for exports to Iraq. Several of the companies were also clients of Kissinger Associates while Mr. Scowcroft was Vice Chairman of that firm." Thus, Kissinger Associates helped US companies obtain US export licenses with BNL-finance so Iraq could purchase US weapons and materials for its weapons programs.

Many US business-men and officials made handsome profits. This included Henry Kissinger, the former Secretary of State under Richard Nixon, who was an employee of BNL while BNL was simultaneously a paying client of Kissinger Associates. Gonzalez reported that Mr. Alan Stoga, a Kissinger Associates executive, met in June 1989 Mr. Saddam Hussein in Baghdad. "Many Kissinger Associates clients received US export licenses for exports to Iraq. Several were also the beneficiaries of BNL loans to Iraq," said Mr. Gonzalez. Kissinger admitted that "it is possible that somebody may have advised a client on how to get a license."

Perhaps the most bizarre revelations about the involvement of former US officials concerned a Washington-based enterprise called "Global Research" which played a middleman role in selling uniforms to Iraq. It was run by, none other than Spiro Agnew (Nixon's former VP who resigned to avoid bribery and tax evasion charges), John Mitchell (Nixon's chief of staff and Watergate organizer), and Richard Nixon himself. In the mid-1980s, more than a decade after Watergate, Nixon wrote a cozy letter to former dictator and friend Nicolae Ceausescu to close the deal. Global Research, incidentally, swindled the Iraqis, who thought they were getting US-made uniforms for desert conditions. Instead they received, and discarded, the winter uniforms from Romania.

By late 1992, the sales of chemical and biological weapons were revealed. Congressional Records of Senator Riegle's investigation of the Gulf War Syndrome show that that the US government approved sales of large varieties of chemical and biological materials to Iraq. These included anthrax, components of mustard gas, botulinum toxins (which causes paralysis of the muscles involving swallowing and is often fatal), histoplasma capsulatum (which may cause pneumonia, enlargement of the liver and spleen, anemia, acute inflammatory skin disease marked by tender red nodules), and a host of other nasty chemicals materials.













c

 

[auspice]

(continued)


To top it all off, there is the question as to whether Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was a set up. Evidence indicates that the US knew of Iraq's plans -- after all, the military and intelligence agencies of the two countries were working very closely. Newspaper reports about the infamous meeting between then-Ambassador Glaspie and Iraq officials, and a special ABC report in the series "A Line in the Sand," indicated that, although the US officials told Iraq that it disapproved, they indicated that the US would not interfere.

Bear in mind the attitude of the US policy makers not only regarding Iraq's use of gas against Iranians, but in general. Richard Armatige, then Asst. Sec. of Defense for International Security Affairs and now Deputy Secretary of State, said with a hint of pride in his voice that the US "was playing one wolf off another wolf" in pursuing our so-called national interest. This kind of cool machismo resembled the pride that Oliver North verbalized with a grin during the Iran-Contra hearings as "a right idea" with regard to using the Ayatollah's money to fund the Contras. The setting up of Iraq thus would be very consistent with the goals and the character of US foreign policy in the Middle East: to control the region's states either for US oil companies or as bargaining chips in deals with other strong countries, and to profit by selling massive quantities of weapons to states that will war with or deter those states that oppose US "interests."

The problem that Armatige refers to was the fact that by 1990, the US and allied arming of Iraq had given Iraq a decisive military edge over Iran, which upset the regional "balance." The thinking among the US hawks was Iraq's military needed to somehow be returned to its 1980 level. An invasion of Kuwait would enable the US to do that.

But initially many arms suppliers opposed the war on Iraq because they had been making huge profits from arms sales to Saddam's regime during the 1980s. Indeed, one US official interviewed expressed his disappointment with Iraq's invasion and the subsequent Gulf War because the relationship with Iraq could have continued to be "very profit...uh mutually profitable."

Bush Sr. and others expected that after the war, Saddam would capitulate to US designs on the region. With a heeled Saddam, the interests of arms suppliers, defense contractors, and the many US oil corporations could be renewed. Iraqi would have to re-arm itself and invest in oil drilling and processing facilities that were destroyed by US forces. And to pay for all that, Iraq would have to sell oil cheap, which served the interests both of the giant oil corporations and the American public who had begun buying GM SUVs en masse. It would be good for US business.

The invasion today is, above all, to renew US firm's access to Iraqi oil. As reported recently in the New York Times, former CIA director R. James Woolsey, who has been one of the leading advocates of forcing Hussein from power, argues that, "It's pretty straightforward, France and Russia have oil companies and interests in Iraq. They should be told that if they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent government, we'll do the best we can to ensure that the new government and American companies work closely with them. If they throw in their lot with Saddam, it will be difficult to the point of impossible to persuade the new Iraqi government to work with them."

His views are of course supported by the new Iraqi government-in-waiting. Faisal Qaragholi, the "petroleum engineer who directs the London office of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an umbrella organization of opposition groups that is backed by the United States" says that "Our oil policies should be decided by a government in Iraq elected by the people." Ahmed Chalabi, the INC leader, put it more bluntly and sadi that he favored a U.S.-led consortium to develop Iraq's oil fields, which would replace the existing agreements that Iraq has with Russia and France. "American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil," Chalabi said.

Note also that Bush and company have a personal stake in unilateral action. According to Leroy Sievers and the Nightline Staff at ABC, "Dick Cheney's Halliburton Co. had interests in Iraqi oil production after the [Gulf ] war."

Thus, following the Gulf War, Cheney, Bush Sr. and others didn't expect that Saddam would refuse to abide by US interests and join the so-called "family of nations." This is really what President Bush Jr meant when he said at a cabinet meeting on Sept. 24, 2002 that he intends "to hold Saddam Hussein to account for a decade of defiance."

There is no shock about any of this, nor of the sordid assortment of officials and individuals directly or indirectly involved -- from the infamous US-based international arms dealer Sarkis Songhanalian and former Gen. Secord, to Oliver North and Richard Nixon -- and many others. They had been part of covert US arms and drug deals and Mafia dating back decades. Iraqgate was in fact also part of Irangate, and both are about a shadow government that circumvents domestic and international laws in arming regimes and terrorist organizations to enhance the profits of US businessmen and corporations.

The public learned since the mid-1980s that the shadow government folks played all sides of various wars, and made curious business alliances. Profits were good, but there were also ideological reasons. While arming Iraq and putting proceeds into their pockets, the covert operators also armed Iran. Israel of course, had also been arming Iran since the Ayatollah came into power in order to counter Iraq. The US soon joined these operations after Regan came to power.

Oliver North, Bush Sr., Robert McFarlane, and Gen. Secord, and others purchased from the CIA spare parts for US-made weapons and more than two thousand TOW missiles, which the CIA had purchased at discount rates from the Pentagon. Secord and North sold the weapons and parts to Iran in exchange for cash and the release of US hostages in Lebanon.

In public, Ronnie Reagan repeatedly condemned negotiations with terrorists in principle and even stated on national TV that there had been no negotiations with terrorists. He went back on air a few months later and said that while he still didn't believe "in his heart" that the US had negotiated with terrorists, the facts told him "otherwise." He escaped impeachment because he "couldn't remember" signing detailed instructions for sales of weapons to Iran and for the diversion of money to the Contras.

Insiders considered these trades "business as usual." Former General Secord, for instance, unashamedly told Congressional investigators during the Iran-Contra hearings that his arms-dealing firm, the "Enterprise," which sold the TOWs to other brokers and then to Iran, was a legitimate profit-making business. And as we all know, at the other end of the deal, North channeled a portion of the proceeds from those sales through Swiss banks and to the terrorist Contras in Honduras. Their job was to overthrow the Sandinista regime that overthrew the brutal 43-year Somoza family dictatorship supported by the US.

Again, in legal terms, the scandal was not only that Reagan's administration circumvented the Boland Amendment which outlawed military support to the Contras, but also that the CIA had also mined the harbors of Nicaragua. When the US was taken to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and convicted of violating international laws, President Reagan disregarded this conviction saying the ICJ had no jurisdiction over the United States.

Bush Jr. has stated the following reasons for invading Iraq, all of which are accurate except the last: (1) Iraq used chemical weapons, (2) Iraq tried to build nuclear weapons, and (3) the US tried to bring Iraq into the "family of nations" (said first by Bush Sr). He is correct that Iraq was willing to use chemical weapons and has been trying to build nuclear weapons for years. Of course, he just fails to mention that the US was willing to sell, and to help Iraq use, chemical weapons of mass destruction and that his friends profited handccsomely in so doing. He also fails to note that today Hussein is not seen as an immediate threat by it's Arab neighbors, none of whom have called for his ouster, and that Iraq has only a shadow of the power it had in 1990. There is no evidence to support Bush or Blair's claims that Iraq has and is preparing to use chemical or biological weapons.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Hate to rain on your parade Auspice but seeing as how I had never seen any of these comments anywhere else I did a little reaseach on your writers Elson Boyles a very far left liberal proffesor and Chris Floyd a columnist for the "Moscow Times"
and your info on Carlye Group and ---ALL--- the above are contributers to the far left org counterpunch.
Do you read anything else

For any that like this type of stuff here is their link you can be one step ahead of Auspice next post.
http://www.counterpunch.org/

and here is what this org is in their own words
http://www.counterpunch.org/aboutus.html

P.S. God told me to post this :lol:

 

[StevieD]

DTB, are you disputing anything in the article? It is one thing to name call and brush something off because a Liberal said that but what is it in the article that you dispute?

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Stevie my friend I don't believe you'll ever see me do any name calling,and I don't put any more weight in what a liberal or conservative spin and I have respect for Auspice because he takes time to post his views which are no less or more gospel than my own.

Point I tried to make and always have is common sense goes a long way in interpreting what we read. When I read these articles common sense told me if there was proof of these allegations the media would be burning up the headlines,which lead me to dig a little deeper out of curiousity but did not take much digging to see they were all from same source----and if you go through the articles on their site you can be the judge of their credibilty.

 

[StevieD]

DTB, I did not mean to say that you were calling Auspice names. But you questioned the source. That is like someone saying whatever we hear on Fox news is not to be believed. My question still stands, what points in the article do you disagree with?

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

There are several I disagree with but I think your question might be which I think are in error. I can not dispute that any are not truth as I have no facts to prove otherwise-speculations are difficult to prove one way or another---but that brings me back to common sense.

I would say off hand there is some validity to the Carlyle group issue simply because commonsense tells me where there is smoke there may be fire but more importantly if a person had chance to pass benefits to someone that has supported him over those with no allegiance he would be a fool to do otherwise.
To the victors go the spoils-now if there are illegal activities in the course he needs to pay the piper. eg Get his ass burned.

 

[djv]

We should never be to surprised some of us older ones here. We have watch the money grow and grow in these elections. Then who wins starts the pay back. Even the losers have to work what ever deals they can. I cant believe the money already coming in and the election is over 16 months away. But this ring of fire how Iraq got to where it is. I dont think I need to many news stories to tell me. I watch it go on now for over 20 years. Not many surprises here. But the law if not broken tells us all is ok. But ethics dont matter much anymore.

 

[auspice]

to Dogs that Bark

Yes I do read things other than counterpuncher. Please note in my initial wording before I copied the article, I said to be skeptical. Me myself, I'm very skeptical of the bit in the article which gives the benefit of the U.S. destroying the Iranian navy. Incredibly skeptical. We may have had something to do with it but not on the scale that they clearly suggest.

But the 'texture' of the article was about the 'profiteering' and mixed signals that were sent up by the U.S. current white house staff of Bushs, Cheney, Rummsfeld and company to Iraq and Saddam long before this latest war.

For instance, 1) we had a major part in his assention to power (clearly a 'mixed signal wouldn't you think?) 2) we sold him chemical weapsons as detailed in the Wall Street Journal, clearly knowing what kind of madman he was (again a mixed signal) by none other than Rummsfeld 3) hell, we even arranged financing to purchase weapons from us and other weapon suppliers 4) We may have helped in his naval battle with Iran (note skeptical font on here) 5)This white house crew may have given mixed signals regarding Kawait (no way of really knowing but it does explain a lot 6) Even during the war, Bush sr. could have easily pressed on to oust him but stopped short, leaving him in power (clearly a mixed signal)

This administration, and you can't really differentiate between this white house administration and Bush sr's seeing as they all really work for the same defense contractor and just have worn different hats at different times, has clearly sent out mixed signals AND traded with terrorist countries openly on a huge commercial basis for their own profit. That is what I hoped you would have concluded rather than I am some pinko communist that only reads counterpuncher.(which is quite good most of the time BTW)

Dogs that Bark, as I mentioned, terrorism isn't something new. It's been around for quite some time now. As a matter of fact, the world trade center was bombed on the morning of Feb. 26th, 1993. Wouldn't you agree that was quite the terrorist act. Well keep that date in mind as you read this next piece on Vice President Cheney and Halliburton

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _


Company Chosen By Pentagon To Extinguish Iraqi Oil Well Fires Has History Of Supporting Terrorist Regimes

By Jason Leopold

Kellogg Brown & Root, the company chosen last month by the Pentagon to extinguish oil well fires in Iraq, has a long history of supporting the same terrorist regimes vilified by the Bush administration and on at least one occasion defrauded the United States government to the tune of $2 million, according to public documents.

Halliburton, headed by Dick Cheney before he became vice president, and it?s KBR subsidiary did business with some of the world's most notorious governments and dictators - in countries such as Azerbaijan, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Libya and Nigeria. The company has routinely skirted U.S. sanctions placed on these countries and lobbied the U.S. government to lift sanctions so it could set up new partnerships and create new business opportunities in these countries.

Still, the Pentagon awarded the Iraqi oil well contract to KBR without competitive bidding; a move that some Democratic lawmakers in Congress said was based on favoritism because of Cheney?s ties to the company.

Charges of cronyism led the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on Monday to open the job of putting out Iraqi oil well fires to other firms that will now bid for the multibillion -dollar contract and KBR would have to compete with other companies for the right to finish the job. The Army Corps of Engineers said it would seek new bidders to rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure, considered the key to reviving that country's economy.

KBR and Halliburton have broken U.S. laws on numerous occasions while Cheney was chief executive and as far back as 1978. Moreover, the company inflated the price of some of its military contracts and defrauded the government.

Last year, KBR agreed to pay the U.S. government $2 million to settle allegations it defrauded the military while Cheney was chief executive of parent company Halliburton. KBR was accused of inflating contract prices for maintenance and repairs at Fort Ord, a now-shuttered military installation near Monterey, Calif. The lawsuit, filed in Sacramento, alleged KBR submitted false claims and made false statements in connection with 224 delivery orders between April 1994 and September 1998.

KBR and Halliburton has also paid out settlements to end investigations and lawsuits on half-a-dozen other occasions.

In 1978, a grand jury indicted KBR on charges that it colluded with a competitor on marine construction work. KBR paid a $1 million fine to settle the charges. In 1995, the U.S. fined Halliburton $3.8 million for violating a ban on exports to Libya. Four years later, a Halliburton subsidiary opens an office in Iran, despite a U.S. ban on
doing business in that country. In 2001, Halliburton shareholders lash out at company executives for its pipeline project in Burma, citing that country's human-rights abuses.
Also in 2001, watchdog groups blast Cheney for placing 44 Halliburton subsidiaries in foreign tax havens.

Halliburton's dealings in six countries - Azerbaijan, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Libya and Nigeria - show that the company's willingness to do business where human rights are not respected is a pattern that goes beyond its involvement in Burma. A May 2001 report in the Multinational Monitor identified the following countries in which Halliburton and its KBR unit did business with, despite U.S. sanctions and charges of human rights abuses.


Azerbaijan. Dick Cheney lobbied to remove Congressional sanctions against aid to Azerbaijan, sanctions imposed because of concerns about ethnic cleansing. Cheney said the sanctions were the result only of groundless campaigning by the Armenian-American lobby. In 1997, Halliburton subsidiary Brown & Root bid on a major Caspian project from the Azerbaijan International Operating Company.
Indonesia. Halliburton had extensive investments and contracts in Suharto's Indonesia. The post-Suharto government during a purging of corruptly awarded contracts canceled one of its contracts. Indonesia Corruption Watch named Kellogg Brown & Root (Halliburton's engineering division) among 59 companies using collusive, corruptive and nepotistic practices in deals involving former President Suharto's family.

Iran. Dick Cheney has lobbied against the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. Even with the Act in place, Halliburton has continued to operate in Iran. It settled with the Department of Commerce in 1997, before Cheney became CEO, over allegations relating to Iran for $15,000, without admitting any wrongdoing.

Iraq. Dick Cheney cites multilateral sanctions against Iraq as an example of sanctions he supports. Yet since the war, Halliburton-related companies helped to reconstruct Iraq's oil industry. In July 2000, the International Herald Tribune reported, "Dresser-Rand and Ingersoll-Dresser Pump Co., joint ventures that Halliburton has sold within the past year, have done work in Iraq on contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq's oil industry, under the United Nations' Oil for Food Program." A Halliburton spokesman acknowledged to the Tribune that the Dresser subsidiaries did sell oil-pumping equipment to Iraq via European agents.

Libya. Before Cheney's arrival, Halliburton was deeply involved in Libya, earning $44.7 million there in 1993. After sanctions on Libya were imposed, earnings dropped to $12.4 million in 1994. Halliburton continued doing business in Libya throughout Cheney's tenure. One Member of Congress accused the company "of undermining American foreign policy to the full extent allowed by law."

Nigeria. Local villagers have accused Halliburton of complicity in the shooting of a protester by Nigeria's Mobile Police Unit, playing a similar role to Shell and Chevron in the mobilization of this 'kill and go" unit to protect company property. Dick Cheney has been a strong advocate for preventing or eliminating federal laws that place limits on Halliburton's ability to do business in these countries.

Before it awards the contract this time around, the Pentagon ought to consider that KBR, which the Army Corps of Engineers says is most qualified to extinguish Iraq?s oil well fires, supports the same terrorist regimes we?re at war with.


*******

Cheney received a $34 million deal from Halliburton, as a severence package when he left to run for office as vice-president.

Dogs that Bark, could you explain why all these Republican White House prima donnas ALL have defense contractors as their mentor/employer relationships? I'd really like to hear your explanation. Thank you.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Very valid points Auspice

DJV Somehow there should be a law that each side gets to spend equal amount on campaign,I can not see it as fair that the rebublicans have such a huge adv when it comes to campaign finances. If they had an equal pool you won't have the rebs having such a distact adv and have equal time on air waves and others wouldn't have to turn white house into bed and breakfast club.

 

[djv]

DTB your idea is a very good one. Do you think you and I will ever see it in our life time.

 

[ferdville]

I haven't had the time to do some research on the Carlyle Group. But I called a dear friend of mine whose opinions I respect as much or more than anyones. He is an interesting case, as he has only a high school education. However, his voracious reaading and a desire to learn has given him far greater knowledge of what goes on in the world than most of the ms. and phd's I see on a daily basis. I know his knowledge surpasses mine by a long shot. Keeping in mind that he is a long time Republican and conservative to boot, he feels the assessment of the Carlyle Group is accurate and they are similar to if not the same as Tri-Laterals. He thinks bottom line is they endorse the concept of one world government in order to maximize wealth and power. I don't know if I would go that far, but in light of the events of the day, I wouldn't rule it out.

 

[auspice]

to ferdville:

The Carlyle group doesn't endorse one world order. They're simply an equity firm that beleives in political influence and monetary rewards.

I'd like to apologize in one of my prior ramblings as I said they had $16 billion in assets. Per the piece below it's $12 billion. MY deepest apologies. The gray matter keeps sliding around so much from the beatings. It's not what it used to be.

_________________


Carlyle's way
Making a mint inside "the iron triangle" of defense, government, and industry.
By Dan Briody
January 8, 2002

Like everyone else in the United States, the group stood transfixed as the events of September 11 unfolded. Present were former secretary of defense Frank Carlucci, former secretary of state James Baker III, and representatives of the bin Laden family. This was not some underground presidential bunker or Central Intelligence Agency interrogation room. It was the Ritz-Carlton in Washington, D.C., the plush setting for the annual investor conference of one of the most powerful, well-connected, and secretive companies in the world: the Carlyle Group. And since September 11, this little-known company has become unexpectedly important.

That the Carlyle Group had its conference on America's darkest day was mere coincidence, but there is nothing accidental about the cast of characters that this private-equity powerhouse has assembled in the 14 years since its founding. Among those associated with Carlyle are former U.S. president George Bush Sr., former U.K. prime minister John Major, and former president of the Philippines Fidel Ramos. And Carlyle has counted George Soros, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdul Aziz Alsaud of Saudi Arabia, and Osama bin Laden's estranged family among its high-profile clientele. The group has been able to parlay its political clout into a lucrative buyout practice (in other words, purchasing struggling companies, turning them around, and selling them for huge profits)--everything from defense contractors to telecommunications and aerospace companies. It is a kind of ruthless investing made popular by the movie Wall Street, and any industry that relies heavily on government regulation is fair game for Carlyle's brand of access capitalism. Carlyle has established itself as the gatekeeper between private business interests and U.S. defense spending. And as the Carlyle investors watched the World Trade towers go down, the group's prospects went up.

In running what its own marketing literature spookily calls "a vast, interlocking, global network of businesses and investment professionals" that operates within the so-called iron triangle of industry, government, and the military, the Carlyle Group leaves itself open to any number of conflicts of interest and stunning ironies. For example, it is hard to ignore the fact that Osama bin Laden's family members, who renounced their son ten years ago, stood to gain financially from the war being waged against him until late October, when public criticism of the relationship forced them to liquidate their holdings in the firm. Or consider that U.S. president George W. Bush is in a position to make budgetary decisions that could pad his father's bank account. But for the Carlyle Group, walking that narrow line is the art of doing business at the murky intersection of Washington politics, national security, and private capital; mastering it has enabled the group to amass $12 billion in funds under management. But while successful in the traditional private-equity avenue of corporate buyouts, Carlyle has recently set its sites on venture capital with less success. The firm is finding that all the politicians in the world won't help it identify an emerging technology or a winning business model.

Surprisingly, Carlyle has avoided the fertile VC market in defense technology, which now, more than ever, comes from smaller companies hoping to cash in on what the defense establishment calls the revolution in military affairs, or RMA.  Thus far, Carlyle has passed up on these emerging technologies in favor of some truly awful Internet plays. And despite its unique qualifications for early-stage funding of defense companies, the firm seems to have no appetite for the sector.

Despite its VC troubles, however, the Carlyle Group's core business is set for some good times ahead. Though the group has raised eyebrows on Capitol Hill in the past, the firm's close ties with the current administration and its cozy relationship with several prominent Saudi government figures has the watchdogs howling. And it's those same connections that will keep Carlyle in the black for as long as the war against terrorism endures.

For the 11th-largest defense contractor in the United States, wartime is boom time. No one knows that better than the Carlyle Group, which less than a month after U.S. troops began bombing Afghanistan filed to take public its crown jewel of defense, United Defense, a company it has owned for nearly a decade. That this company is even able to go public is testament to the Carlyle Group's pull in Washington.

United Defense makes the controversial Crusader, a 42-ton, self-propelled howitzer that moves and operates much like a tank and can lob ten 155-mm shells per minute as far as 40 kilometers. The Crusader has been in the sights of Pentagon budget cutters since the Clinton administration, which argued that it was a relic of the cold war era--too heavy and slow for today's warfare. Even the Pentagon had recommended the program be discontinued. But remarkably, the $11 billion contract for the Crusader is still alive, thanks largely to the Carlyle Group.

"This is very much an example of a cold war-inspired weapon whose time has passed," notes Steve Grundman, a consultant at Charles River Associates, a defense and aerospace consultancy in Boston. "Its liabilities were uncovered during the Kosovo campaign, when the Army was unable to deploy it in time. It is exceedingly expensive, and it was a wake-up call to the Army that many of its forces are no longer relevant."

But the Carlyle Group was having none of that. While it is impossible to say what U.S. secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld was thinking when he made the decision to keep the Crusader program alive, people close to the situation claim to have a pretty good idea. Mr. Carlucci and Mr. Rumsfeld are good friends and former wrestling partners from their undergraduate days at Princeton University. And while Carlyle executives are quick to reject any accusations of them lobbying the current administration, others aren't so sure. "In this particular effort, I felt that they were like any other lobbying group, apart from the fact that they are not," said one Washington, D.C., lobbyist with intimate knowledge of the Crusader negotiations, noting the fine line between lobbying and having a drink with a old friend.

According to Greg McCarthy, a spokesperson for Representative J.C. Watts Jr. (R: Oklahoma), whose district is home to one of the Crusader's assembly plants, the Carlyle Group's influence was indeed felt at the Pentagon. "Carlyle's strength was within the DoD, because as a rule someone like Frank Carlucci is going to have access," says Mr. McCarthy. "But they have other staff types that work behind the scenes, in the dark, that know everything about the Army and Capitol Hill."

Perhaps even more disconcerting than Carlyle's ties to the Pentagon are its connections within the White House itself. Aside from signing up George Bush Sr. shortly after his presidential term ended, Carlyle gave George W. Bush a job on the board of Texas-based airline food caterer Caterair International back in 1991. Since Bush the younger took office this year, a number of events have raised eyebrows.

Shortly after George W. Bush was sworn in as president, he broke off talks with North Korea regarding long-range ballistic missiles, claiming there was no way to ensure North Korea would comply with any guidelines that were developed. The news came as a shock to South Korean officials, who had spent years negotiating with the North, assisted by the Clinton administration. By June, Mr. Bush had reopened negotiations with North Korea, but only at the urging of his own father. According to reports, the former president sent his son a memo persuasively arguing the need to work with the North Korean government. It was the first time the nation had seen the influence of the father on the son in office.

But what has been overlooked was Carlyle's business interest in Korea. The senior Bush had spearheaded the group's successful entrance into the South Korean market, paving the way for buyouts of Korea's KorAm Bank and Mercury, a telecommunications equipment company. For the business to be successful, stability between North and South Korea is critical. And though there is no direct evidence linking the senior Bush's business dealings in Korea with the change in policy, it is the appearance of impropriety that excites the watchdogs. "We are clearly aware that former President Bush has weighed in on policy toward South Korea and we note that U.S. policy changed after those communications," says Peter Eisner, managing director at the Center for Public Integrity, a watchdog group in Washington, D.C., which has an active file on the Carlyle Group. "We know that former President Bush receives remuneration for his work with Carlyle and that he is capable of advising the current president, but how much further it goes, we don't know."