 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A swindle of the American people, that is.
Documents have surfaced that months before the invasion of Iraq, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) held closed-door bidding by companies to determine who would get fat contracts to rebuild Iraq, though such bidding processes are traditionally open to public scrutiny.
Shades of Dick Cheney's clandestine Energy Task Force!
What's more, USAID restricted the number of companies elegible by half, with favored positions automatically given to Republican crony-corporations Bechtel (George Schultz's old stomping grounds) and Halliburton which, as you all may remember, is still sending Dick Cheney platinum parachute severance checks totalling tens of millions of dollars.
Besides bilking the American taxpeyers out of tens of billions of dollars -- the overages incurred by not making this a true competitive-bidding process -- perhaps the most shameful aspect of all this is that in return for getting even tighter with these corporations -- which also include Fluor and The Washington Group and Parsons -- and reaping their massive campaign contributions come election time, USAID has, in the name of "security," barred British corporations from bidding, despite the fact that their sons are dying on the battlefield alongside Americian troops.
Finally, among the companies excluded from the bidding are those which traditionally engage in reconstruction of war-damage infrastructures in Third-World countries because they work with the locals to re-build that infrastructure from the bottom-up, winning the respect of the locals and contributing to political stability in the region.
Shameful. Write your Senators and members of Congress and demand an investigation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deny it all you want; the evidence is out there in black and white. And exactly how many shares of Halliburton, Bechtel, etc. do each of you corporate apologists own whose value will be adversely affected by their adherence to the law, anyway?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Mar 23, 2003 - 3:31 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Dana Wilcox
(Member)
|
A source for this information, please. No offense, but I'm not simply taking your word for this. Thanks in advance.
Funny, you've never posted this much about the swindle Saddam has pulled on his people...
You'll get no argument from me or anyone else on that, though that seems to be continually thrown out, as if someone here ever proposed it was otherwise. Maybe some of the European Marxists that Paddon keeps trotting out would say such a thing, but I don't believe anyone on either side of the aisle here in the USA believes that Saddam is anything but a fat sack of shit.
As regards the election...what planet did you happen to be on during the months following the general election of 2000, that you didn't hear what was going on with counts, recounts, the popular vote, hanging chads, suspiciously closed voting locations in heavily Democratic precincts, absentee ballot irregularities in heavily Republican counties, Jeb Bush's bitch-on-the-side Kathryn Harris, the Florida Supreme Court, the U. S. Supreme Court, etc. etc. etc.? It was big fun to watch, and ended with a new low even for the Republicans, a Supreme Court coup awarding the election to GWB. Hey man, it's just history, even Paddon knows it's true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Mar 23, 2003 - 3:44 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
JohnSWalsh
(Member)
|
Funny, you've never posted this much about the swindle Saddam has pulled on his people...
You'll get no argument from me or anyone else on that, though that seems to be continually thrown out, as if someone here ever proposed it was otherwise.
Yet your anger is simply carried over from your previous hatred of Bush. You don't have to propose that you give Saddam a slide--your silence simply shows he doesn't get you as riled up as Bush does.
Maybe some of the European Marxists that Paddon keeps trotting out would say such a thing, but I don't believe anyone on either side of the aisle here in the USA believes that Saddam is anything but a fat sack of shit.
So why all those "Bush is" whatever signs, and no "Saddam is a Socialist Dictaro Murderer"?
As regards the election...what planet did you happen to be on during the months following the general election of 2000, that you didn't hear what was going on with counts, recounts, the popular vote,
What was going on with the popular vote? Gore won it. He's also taller than Bush, and that's got as much to do with who wins as does the popular vote.
hanging chads,
Bush did that. Made 'em hang. Oh, wait, democrats run those areas, where Gore chose to recount. (I guess he didn't think there were hanging chads in the heavily Republican districts....or in the panhandle.....or on the military ballots.)
suspiciously closed voting locations in heavily Democratic precincts,
All kidding aside, I'd like to see some URLs on this if anyone knows any.
absentee ballot irregularities in heavily Republican counties,
The "irregularities" were printing irregularities. Funny, when it comes to republican areas (no democratic voters there), dems don't seem to want every voice to be heard, every vote to be counted, etc.
Jeb Bush's bitch-on-the-side Kathryn Harris,
A lie. And why a wman who simply follows the rule of law is considered a bitch I don't know.
(No complaints about Al Gore's Florida campaign advisor--the attorney general? Oh, he's not a bitch.)
the Florida Supreme Court,
Heavily biased to the left--what;s your problem there? In fact, so biased that the chief justice said he expected their findings to be thrown out.
the U. S. Supreme Court,
You may have an argument there, but it's certainly not clear cut. NO decision would have been seen as unbiased. I guess your argument is that if it were biased in YOUR way it would be ok?
etc. etc. etc.?
What, what, what?
No mention of the New York Times recounts which found that Bush won.
It was big fun to watch, and ended with a new low even for the Republicans, a Supreme Court coup awarding the election to GWB. Hey man, it's just history, even Paddon knows it's true.
That's the mantra, but it doesn't match the facts. It wasn't a coup, especially in light of the recounts, which showed Bush the winner under the established counting standards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Mar 23, 2003 - 4:36 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Dana Wilcox
(Member)
|
Funny, you've never posted this much about the swindle Saddam has pulled on his people...
"You'll get no argument from me or anyone else on that, though that seems to be continually thrown out, as if someone here ever proposed it was otherwise."
Yet your anger is simply carried over from your previous hatred of Bush. You don't have to propose that you give Saddam a slide--your silence simply shows he doesn't get you as riled up as Bush does.
I know that's supposed to mean something...help me out here, will you?
"Maybe some of the European Marxists that Paddon keeps trotting out would say such a thing, but I don't believe anyone on either side of the aisle here in the USA believes that Saddam is anything but a fat sack of shit."
So why all those "Bush is" whatever signs, and no "Saddam is a Socialist Dictaro Murderer"?
First of all, Saddam is a Fascist whatever you said, and secondly, huh????
"As regards the election...what planet did you happen to be on during the months following the general election of 2000, that you didn't hear what was going on with counts, recounts, the popular vote,"
What was going on with the popular vote? Gore won it. He's also taller than Bush, and that's got as much to do with who wins as does the popular vote.
Yeah, he's also been successfully employed in the private sector (unlike Bush), he's never been an alcoholic, and he speaks the English language. None of which are of any significance to the Republican Party, of course...
"hanging chads,"
Bush did that. Made 'em hang.
Damn! I knew it all along! Thank you for confirming it for us!
"absentee ballot irregularities in heavily Republican counties,"
The "irregularities" were printing irregularities. Funny, when it comes to republican areas (no democratic voters there), dems don't seem to want every voice to be heard, every vote to be counted, etc.
The Republicans can obviously take care of themselves in such matters. Funny thing about those "printing irregularities"...
"Jeb Bush's bitch-on-the-side Kathryn Harris,"
A lie. And why a wman who simply follows the rule of law is considered a bitch I don't know.
(No complaints about Al Gore's Florida campaign advisor--the attorney general? Oh, he's not a bitch.)
Who says it's a lie? Harris was a notorious Bush groupie (bootlicker), you know, and the rumors persist... No John, Butterworth may be a bastard (as an example of an alternative slur), but anatomically I believe it would be difficult for him to be a bitch, under just about anyone's terminology. Unless you happen to be an escapee from "To Wong Foo..."
"the Florida Supreme Court,"
Heavily biased to the left--what;s your problem there? In fact, so biased that the chief justice said he expected their findings to be thrown out.
Any why not, given the composition of the U. S. Supreme Court, what with Bush bootlicker and sexual harasser Mr. L. J. Silver, Scalia (the Bork lookalike) and company. Was there ever any doubt?
"the U. S. Supreme Court,"
You may have an argument there, but it's certainly not clear cut. NO decision would have been seen as unbiased. I guess your argument is that if it were biased in YOUR way it would be ok?
Hard to say. No U.S. Supreme Court ever stole a presidential election from a Republican.
"etc. etc. etc.?"
What, what, what?
No mention of the New York Times recounts which found that Bush won.
The New York Times is the least credible of all possible sources of information, according to your pal Eric Paddon in repeated references. Better not let him catch you quoting it as an authoritative source!
"It was big fun to watch, and ended with a new low even for the Republicans, a Supreme Court coup awarding the election to GWB. Hey man, it's just history, even Paddon knows it's true."
That's the mantra, but it doesn't match the facts. It wasn't a coup, especially in light of the recounts, which showed Bush the winner under the established counting standards.
That's the mantra.
By the way, if you want to do this right, you block off the stuff you want to quote by putting startquote in squared brackets at the beginning of the excerpt and endquote at the end, also in squared brackets [ ]. Then you say your piece, then you block off the next section. No need for all those empty lines.
You're much nicer than Paddon, by the way, John. Thank you for replying to the points and not just slinging insults. Consequently I respect your point of view (though I don't agree with it) and I don't picture you as a mouthbreather with low-slung ears (as I do Paddon).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
