George Walker Bush: Corruption buster

[Yonivore]

Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich is only the latest crooked politician and crooked CEO to face the music thanks to the white collar prosecution of this administration.

A little worm named Greg Smith (https://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/2002/07/14/2002-07-14_bad_execs_do_little_time__sl.html) wrote this snark in the New York Daily News on July 14, 2002:


“Chances are, if you’re an executive at Adelphia, AllFirst, Enron, ImClone, Qwest, Republic Securities, Rite Aid or WorldCom — all of which are under active investigation — you probably won’t do any prison time.”
Wrong.

Greg Smith was wrong, wrong wrong.

Every one of those SOBs went to prison thanks to the administration of George Walker Bush.

Every one.

But Smith did report:


“From 1992-2001, a paltry 14% of the 609 cases tagged by the Securities and Exchange Commission for criminal prosecution involved defendants who wound up behind bars, the SEC says.”
That would be President Clinton’s approach to corporate corruption, which was about as effective as his approach to prosecuting terrorism cases.

But hey the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose and that’s all that matters, right?

Under Janet Reno, Justice was harsher on 6-year-old Cubans than it was CEO crooks.

Under Bush, 100% of Smith’s list went to prison:

John Rigas, 15 years.

John Rusnak, 7 1/2.

Ken Lay, died in prison before he served.

Jeff Skilling, 24 years.

Sam Waksal, 7 years.

Joe Nacchio, 6 years.

Martin Armstrong, 5 years.

Martin Grass, 8 years.

Bernard Ebbers, 25 years.

Those are all non-violent crimes. Anyone want to argue that only violent criminals should be imprisoned or that Bush is anything other than an honest, decent, law-abiding man?

Republican politicians like Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney and George Ryan were given a number and sent to prison.

Now it is this miscreant’s turn.

[ChumpDumper]

So when are you going to be prosecuted for stealing Don Surber's intellectual property?

[balli]

:vomit:

[8ft.tall.tejano]

Bush is anything other than an honest, decent, law-abiding man?


:rollin

[Yonivore]

:rollin
Examples of dishonesty, indecency, or law-breaking?

[clambake]

"evidence used to start the war in Iraq was deliberately misleading".

that should cover all three.

[Yonivore]

"evidence used to start the war in Iraq was deliberately misleading".

that should cover all three.
Misleading? As determined by who?

[8ft.tall.tejano]

Examples of dishonesty, indecency, or law-breaking?

dishonesty
- going to war in Iraq to stop a threat that came from a Saudi
- can you say WMD's?
- can you say "mission accomplished"

indecency
- tapping the phone lines of Americans
- dis-obeying the constitution(patriot act) in the name of "national security"
- ignoring the situation in darfur, georgia (you can't play world police in one region and not pretend to do the same all over)
- no child left behind (a system rewarding teaching to a test and not on educational merit)
- allowing his vp to say that he's above the constitution("not executive or legislative")
- doing nothing for 7 min as the country was being attacked

law-breaking
- pardoning Libby
- gitmo, and the other hidden CIA prisons...
- waterboarding




want more?

[clambake]

by the guys on the inside. you know who they are. it's ok, you can say the names. we already know.

[8ft.tall.tejano]

Misleading? As determined by who?


do you really not remember that the supposed real reason for the war was the supposed WMD's?

did we find any?

do you not remember how he sent powell before the UN and gave that plea?

[Yonivore]

do you really not remember that the supposed real reason for the war was the supposed WMD's?

did we find any?

do you not remember how he sent powell before the UN and gave that plea?
Actually, I remember a whole Resolution passed by the United States Congress that listed several reasons the President was authorized to use military force against Iraq. WMD's were just one of them.

By the way, who in March of 2003 believed Saddam Hussein did not have WMD's in Iraq?

[clambake]

By the way, who in March of 2003 believed Saddam Hussein did not have WMD's in Iraq?

i knew the moment they trotted out that grade school animation of mobile weapons labs.

when did you come around?

[Yonivore]

i knew the moment they trotted out that grade school animation of mobile weapons labs.

when did you come around?
Okay, smartass...name a leading world figure, head of state, or Democrat that did not believe Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction in March of 2003.

[8ft.tall.tejano]

Actually, I remember a whole Resolution passed by the United States Congress that listed several reasons the President was authorized to use military force against Iraq. WMD's were just one of them.

By the way, who in March of 2003 believed Saddam Hussein did not have WMD's in Iraq?

but WMD's were the main reason....
if saddam did shouldn't have mattered until the Bush family friend Bin Laden was caught, we should not have lost focus.....even if saddam was a "bad guy" that really should have been put on the back burner until justice was served, hell the guy may have been evil, but he had a secular nation of muslims, something that we haven't since been able to do...so now not only did we not get the extremist that we set out to, but we also created more...thanks mr bush, hope that house in north dallas can also be used as a holding cell...

anyways if he was such a corporate avenger, would he have been able to stop the speculators who drove the price of oil? or the ones who sold bad mortgage securities? too bad his henchwoman mary beth Buchanan is too focused on stopping chong from marketing glass to stop real criminals...

[Yonivore]

but WMD's were the main reason....
if saddam did shouldn't have mattered until the Bush family friend Bin Laden was caught, we should not have lost focus.....even if saddam was a "bad guy" that really should have been put on the back burner until justice was served, hell the guy may have been evil, but he had a secular nation of muslims, something that we haven't since been able to do...so now not only did we not get the extremist that we set out to, but we also created more...thanks mr bush, hope that house in north dallas can also be used as a holding cell...

anyways if he was such a corporate avenger, would he have been able to stop the speculators who drove the price of oil? or the ones who sold bad mortgage securities? too bad his henchwoman mary beth Buchanan is too focused on stopping chong from marketing glass to stop real criminals...
Where did Musab al Zarqawi take al Qaeda after we attacked Afghanistan?

[clambake]

Okay, smartass...name a leading world figure, head of state, or Democrat that did not believe Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction in March of 2003.

thats your problem right there, yoni.

at that time, being a world figure that disagreed with bush would find themselves in a bad place.

if i were a world figure back them, i would have politely asked bush to give something that looked remotely similar to evidence.

not something a kid threw together while he was reading "My pet goat".

[Yonivore]

thats your problem right there, yoni.

at that time, being a world figure that disagreed with bush would find themselves in a bad place.

if i were a world figure back them, i would have politely asked bush to give something that looked remotely similar to evidence.

not something a kid threw together while he was reading "My pet goat".
That's bullshit, that Saddam Hussein had WMD's was conventional wisdom in every western nation and by every western intelligence agency from the Clinton administration forward -- particularly after 1998.

You are full of crap. No one's opinion on Hussein's possession of WMD's changed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration -- right up until President Bush decided to invade.

[clambake]

That's bullshit, that Saddam Hussein had WMD's was conventional wisdom in every western nation and by every western intelligence agency from the Clinton administration forward -- particularly after 1998.

You are full of crap. No one's opinion on Hussein's possession of WMD's changed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration -- right up until President Bush decided to invade.

thanks for providing more evidence of your personal problem.

you desperately need them to lead you. :depressed

[Yonivore]

thanks for providing more evidence of your personal problem.

you desperately need them to lead you. :depressed
And your argument is based on your characterization of what you saw on television?

Nice.

[clambake]

And your argument is based on your characterization of what you saw on television?

Nice.

appalling isn't it, all the fools that were suckered with so little effort.

do you feel dirty because you were one of them?

it's ok. you weren't alone. sure, there is a certain amount of shame associated with it. in time, it will wear off.

unless you keep the delusion alive.

then you will carry it forever. you can cast it away now, yoni. the truth has been revealed.

[Yonivore]

appalling isn't it, all the fools that were suckered with so little effort.

do you feel dirty because you were one of them?

it's ok. you weren't alone. sure, there is a certain amount of shame associated with it. in time, it will wear off.

unless you keep the delusion alive.

then you will carry it forever. you can cast it away now, yoni. the truth has been revealed.
So, you're actually claiming you knew better than all the western governments and their intelligence agencies? Including the British who, to this day, claim to have independent evidence that Hussein was trying to acquire yellow cake uranium?

On what do you base your conclusion?

[Yonivore]

I hope they bust the guilty parties

I wonder if Obama will switch the federal prosecutors mid-case...
If he fires Fitzgerald, he's screwed and he knows it. He's just going to have to hope for the best.

[clambake]

So, you're actually claiming you knew better than all the western governments and their intelligence agencies?
yes. that was all it took. you see, yoni, there was nothing intelligent about that production.

Including the British who, to this day, claim to have independent evidence that Hussein was trying to acquire yellow cake uranium?
i'd make it up like a grade school animation. worked the first time.


On what do you base your conclusion?
on the best intelligence gathering agencies that created instead of provided.

[Yonivore]

...on the best intelligence gathering agencies that created instead of provided.
Huh? And, which are those?

[clambake]

Huh? And, which are those?

you don't like the freeworlds intelligence gathering agencies?

oh, i get it! you think the people responsible for gathering the evidence for war WERE those grade school animators.

maybe you're right.

[clambake]

well. my child, it's time to go.

try to remember everything you thought was proven wrong. nite.

[Yonivore]

you don't like the freeworlds intelligence gathering agencies?
The who? Which "freeworlds intelligence gathering agency" claimed Saddam Hussein did not have WMD's before March of 2003?

[Yonivore]

well. my child, it's time to go.

try to remember everything you thought was proven wrong. nite.
Seems like you're the one with the bedtime, kiddo. Sleep tight, it's been secured by President George W. Bush and the military might of the United Staets of America.

If Obama is smart, he'll continue those policies that have kept us from being attacked again...and, from all appearances, he intends to.

[ChumpDumper]

The who? Which "freeworlds intelligence gathering agency" claimed Saddam Hussein did not have WMD's before March of 2003?The ones that said Curveball was a fraud? There were a couple of those.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Landslide Victory!

[Tully365]

Funny how suddenly no Republicans are talking about how the fiscally conservative ways of G W Bush will balance the budget and make America more responsible with money... What happened to all of those arguments? Now the claim is that Criminals caught red-handed committing crimes actually get punished! Wow, that's quite a legacy.

[Wild Cobra]

Funny how suddenly no Republicans are talking about how the fiscally conservative ways of G W Bush will balance the budget and make America more responsible with money...

When was he called a fiscal conservative? Please refresh my memory. I don't remember such a time. That's been an ongoing complaint about the man from us conservatives.

[bobbybob0]

So, you're actually claiming you knew better than all the western governments and their intelligence agencies? Including the British who, to this day, claim to have independent evidence that Hussein was trying to acquire yellow cake uranium?

Please, Germany, France and many other gvt were saying that this WMDs stories were bullshits.

Only UK, Italy Japan and Spain followed the US in the invasion of Irak and only because their gvts saw it has a political opportunity fitting with their personal agenda.

[Oh, Gee!!]

bush acknowledges now the intel was flawed. the intel was bad--get over it, yoni.

[fyatuk]

bush acknowledges now the intel was flawed. the intel was bad--get over it, yoni.

I think that was Yoni's point.

Not dishonesty/deception on the part of Bush when his intelligence agencies were provided flawed information.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I think that was Yoni's point.

Not dishonesty/deception on the part of Bush when his intelligence agencies were provided flawed information.

His point is we were right for being wrong. That's great. I guess we can just hit the reset button on this one.

[ChumpDumper]

I think that was Yoni's point.

Not dishonesty/deception on the part of Bush when his intelligence agencies were provided flawed information.Actually the Bush administration went out of its way to believe bad intel. When the CIA questioned or outright discredited intel some of the hawks in the administration felt crucial to the case for invading Iraq, they merely invented a new office outside the CIA to review and approve that intel. It was quite convenient.

[fyatuk]

Actually the Bush administration went out of its way to believe bad intel. When the CIA questioned or outright discredited intel some of the hawks in the administration felt crucial to the case for invading Iraq, they merely invented a new office outside the CIA to review and approve that intel. It was quite convenient.

Just pointing out what Yoni's argument seemed to be, and that didn't seem to match up with OGs comment.

Every president is shady, so c'est le vie.

[ChumpDumper]

I know what Yoni's point is -- he has tried to excuse every fuck up Bush ever made.

[fyatuk]

I know what Yoni's point is -- he has tried to excuse every fuck up Bush ever made.

It's a nice counterpoint to the people who refuse to acknowledge the good things Bush has done (or attempted to do but got killed by a stupid Congress).

Both sides are unrealistic, but it's fun to watch the arguments.

[Yonivore]

It's a nice counterpoint to the people who refuse to acknowledge the good things Bush has done (or attempted to do but got killed by a stupid Congress).

Both sides are unrealistic, but it's fun to watch the arguments.
And, that would be all well and good if, in fact, I had never criticized President Bush or if I agreed with every position he hold. I have and I don't.

The predominant reason people think I do is because, I happen to agree with and whole-heartedly support the President on the matter that is most discussedin this forum, the war on terrorism, including the war in Iraq.

From his reaching across the aisle to Kennedy on Education reform (stupid idea) to the continuation of the war on drugs and his lax treatment of illegal immigrants, there are a whole range of issues on which I disagree with the President. But, that means I agree with those in here that always oppose Bush and, therefore, there's no argument and I don't post on those matters.

This is a forum for debating opposing points of view, that's what get's noticed.

[Bartleby]

It's a nice counterpoint to the people who refuse to acknowledge the good things Bush has done (or attempted to do but got killed by a stupid Congress).

He increased funding to fight AIDS in Africa, but other than that both terms have been an unmitigated disaster.

[fyatuk]

And, that would be all well and good if, in fact, I had never criticized President Bush or if I agreed with every position he hold. I have and I don't.

Honestly, I just don't pay attention to who says what. What's being discussed is always more interesting when I don't know what people's political bents are.

That's one of the reason's I don't share much in the way of my own views. I don't want people thinking I'm a loon and not paying attention to what I say because of my general views, I want them thinking I'm a loon because I'm currently saying looney things :lol

[fyatuk]

He increased funding to fight AIDS in Africa, but other than that both terms have been an unmitigated disaster.

He's put more funding into alternative energy research than every President before him combined (and that's after Republican congressmen significantly reduced what he requested).

He's pushed for allowing small groups to bind together across state lines to purchase health insurance.

He's at least attempted to address the broken SS system.

He's removed stop-gap measures in place that prevented the various intelligence and law enforcement agencies from sharing potentially vital information.

He lowered the income tax rates on the lowest income earners.

etc, etc.

I mean, he's done some good things. Some of it was attached to crappy things, unfortunately, but to say the only good thing he did was increase funding for fighting AIDS in Africa is asinine.

[boutons_]

"He's put more funding into alternative energy research"

you mean the $15B dickhead gave the oilcos for "research" as his public part of he still-secret National Energy Policy (part of which was invade Iraq for oil) ? :lol

You mean the $Bs/year to subsidize soy diesel and corn ethanol? :lol

[fyatuk]

"He's put more funding into alternative energy research"

you mean the $15B dickhead gave the oilcos for "research" as his public part of he still-secret National Energy Policy (part of which was invade Iraq for oil) ? :lol

You mean the $Bs/year to subsidize soy diesel and corn ethanol? :lol

Subsidies for wind, tidal, solar power generation.

grants for biomass production (not just soy or ethanol).

loan guarantees for energy production that doesn't produce greenhouse gases.

help geothermal be more competitive.

etc, etc, etc.

Most of the subsidies for the oil industry were put in during committee after his first proposal was scuttled by the Republican controlled congress.

Bush is a technophile. He favors anything that improves technology as long as it doesn't interfere with his christian based moralism (unfortunately like stem cell research).

Not that I ever expect you to pay attention to anything that might possibly reflect well on anyone even remotely related to Bush.

[balli]

Bush is a technophile.
Internets?

[fyatuk]

Internets?

Didn't say he could speak about or use technology well, just that he loves it.

[Yonivore]

Once again the Toughest Department of Justice in Decades nails a corporate crook (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081212/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/siemens_3).

$50 billion at stake after Wall St broker Bernard Madoff is arrested over ‘world’s biggest swindle’ (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article5333901.ece)


Mr Madoff told them that he was “finished”, that he had “absolutely nothing”, and that “it’s all just one big lie”. He said the investment arm of his firm was “basically a giant Ponzi scheme”, and that it had been insolvent for years.

A Ponzi scheme, named after the swindler Charles Ponzi, is a fraudulent investment operation that pays abnormally high returns to investors out of money put into the scheme by subsequent investors, rather than from real profits generated by share trading.

The FBI complaint states that Mr Madoff told his sons that he believed the losses from his scheme could exceed $50 billion. If that is the case, his fraud would be far greater than past Ponzi schemes and easily the greatest swindle blamed on a single individual.

I'm thinking they're going to have to change the name to Madoff Scheme.

[clambake]

:depressed I'm so depressed. Do we have a forum nutcracker I can talk to?

[Winehole23]

By the way, who in March of 2003 believed Saddam Hussein did not have WMD's in Iraq?Hans Blix and Scott Ritter. UNSCOM's ten year regime of inspections concluded that Saddam neither had WMD's nor was producing them. They were denounced as naive for saying so, but they were right.

[Yonivore]

Hans Blix and Scott Ritter. UNSCOM's ten year regime of inspections concluded that Saddam neither had WMD's nor was producing them. They were denounced as naive for saying so, but they were right.
UNSCOM was kicked out in 1998 and, at the time, UNSCOM said there were tons of chemical weapons known to exist -- in Iraq -- but that had not yet been secured and destroyed. Tons. Where did those go?

Hans Blix and Scott Ritter were tools. Just like those in the German and French governments and at the United Nations who were apparently on the take, trading military equipment and money in exchange for oil profits through the OFF program.

Name a significant world leader (Hans and Scott are not that) or western government who believed Saddam Hussein did not have Weapons of Mass Destruction in March of 2003.

[Winehole23]

UNSCOM was kicked out in 1998 and, at the time, UNSCOM said there were tons of chemical weapons known to exist -- in Iraq -- but that had not yet been secured and destroyed. Tons. Where did those go?Reviewing the timeline, I'll cede to your restatement, with this proviso. Since when does the lack of evidence prove the conspiracy?


Hans Blix and Scott Ritter were tools. Just like those in the German and French governments and at the United Nations who were apparently on the take, trading military equipment and money in exchange for oil profits through the OFF program.I suppose this is why Iraq denounced Ritter as a US spy and tried to have him removed from from the inspection team.


Name a significant world leader (Hans and Scott are not that) or western government who believed Saddam Hussein did not have Weapons of Mass Destruction in March of 2003.The caveats in our own NIE might have been enough to inspire skepticism, had policymakers been willing to read them. At any rate, our own government was too busy stovepiping and cherry-picking the evidence to build a brief for war, to even consider the alternative, which in retrospect, turned out to be right.

[Yonivore]

Reviewing the timeline, I'll cede to your restatement, with this proviso. Since when does the lack of evidence prove the conspiracy?
What conspiracy?

And, as the old maxim states, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.


I suppose this is why Iraq denounced Ritter as a US spy and tried to have him removed from from the inspection team.
My understanding is that Ritter wasn't always a tool. People change.


The caveats in our own NIE might have been enough to inspire skepticism, had policymakers been willing to read them. At any rate, our own government was too busy stovepiping and cherry-picking the evidence to build a brief for war, to even consider the alternative, which in retrospect, turned out to be right.
Many reasonable people -- not many of which post here -- disagree on what the intelligence said. And, it wasn't black and white, there were dozens of variations on what the intelligence told us.

[Yonivore]

I don't think people argue about whether the intelligence was heterogeneous. I think they accuse the bush admin of "cherry-picking" which intelligence reports they chose to believe.
You call it cherry-picking, I call it making a hard call, but a reasoned judgement, based on the evidence, and with which no other world leader or western government, at the time, disagreed.


But, hey, a world without Saddam is better than a world with Saddam, right!
Yep. And, I would bet if you asked the Iraqis, today, they'd agree.

[Winehole23]

Yep. And, I would bet if you asked the Iraqis, today, they'd agree.I'll not hold my breath waiting for the expression of gratitude. Iraq was a middle class country five years ago. Now they're a basket case.

Iraq's main ally will be Iran, not the the USA. Unthinkable five years ago. We bear the lion's share of responsibility for collaborating with SCIRI and DAWA.

[Yonivore]

I'll not hold my breath waiting for the expression of gratitude. Iraq was a middle class country five years ago. Now they're a basket case.
The Iraqis have repeated expressed gratitude and the country is not a basket case. They've resumed life; schools, hospitals, government are all working. Hell they've opened amusement parks and go on vacations.


Iraq's main ally will be Iran, not the the USA. Unthinkable five years ago. We bear the lion's share of responsibility for collaborating with SCIRI and DAWA.
Yeah, we'll see. I think we'll have permanent U. S. Military bases in an allied Iraq.

[Winehole23]

The Iraqis have repeated expressed gratitude and the country is not a basket case. They've resumed life; schools, hospitals, government are all working. Hell they've opened amusement parks and go on vacations.I'll believe it when you take a vacation there, YV.


Yeah, we'll see. I think we'll have permanent U. S. Military bases in an allied Iraq. Could be. I thought so myself not too long ago. We'll see.

One question: what do you mean by "allied Iraq"?

[Yonivore]

I'll believe it when you take a vacation there, YV.
I can't afford it. Will you send me? But, only if you go to Greece first.



Could be. I thought so myself not too long ago. We'll see.
Yep, we will.

[Winehole23]

I can't afford it. Will you send me? I'll bet there are enough Spurstalk posters who care enough to send you there. Would you like me to pass the hat around? :p:

[ChumpDumper]

So where are the WMDs that you claimed were an imminent threat to the US, Yoni?

[byrontx]

The Plame incident was a hard call, Yoni?

[clambake]

The Plame incident was a hard call, Yoni?

when you get caught lying about Niger, the logical thing to do is out an agent.

[ElNono]

The Iraqis have repeated expressed gratitude and the country is not a basket case.

Throwing shoes at you and calling you a dog is gratitude?

[Yonivore]

Throwing shoes at you and calling you a dog is gratitude?
The man standing next to the President is an Iraqi and so were the rest of the Iraqi press corp that apologized profusely for the behavior of one.

[ElNono]

The man standing next to the President is an Iraqi and so were the rest of the Iraqi press corp that apologized profusely for the behavior of one.

He had to make a surprise trip and he OBVIOUSLY cannot walk anywhere in Iraq without an army around him. It's like McCain saying he walked in Iraq and everything was fine (when he was wearing a bulletproof vest and had an army around him). That journalist was an exception in that he managed to get in there after the screening the secret service does on everyone attending these places. He was not an exception of how Iraqis feel.

[Anti.Hero]

You are a nobody. You go to Iraq and walk freely without an army.


Those shoe throwing faggots can have their shit country back, Bush brought that near-death experience on himself by starting this pointless war.

Just being redundant to you guys, but I am sick of the middle east.

[ElNono]

You are a nobody. You go to Iraq and walk freely without an army.

Exactly my point. I'll wait for Yoni to show around his American passport at the new amusement parks and report back with how that go...

[Yonivore]

He had to make a surprise trip and he OBVIOUSLY cannot walk anywhere in Iraq without an army around him. It's like McCain saying he walked in Iraq and everything was fine (when he was wearing a bulletproof vest and had an army around him). That journalist was an exception in that he managed to get in there after the screening the secret service does on everyone attending these places. He was not an exception of how Iraqis feel.
If he weren't, there'd be riots in the streets of Baghdad...and, there aren't. Are there Iraqis that hate the U.S.? Sure. Mostly Ba'athists that enjoyed the good life under Saddam Hussein. And, certainly, some who see the war as you do.

From January 2007:

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/01/19/iraqis-speak-to-america/

Undated:

http://www.goodnewsworldcoop.com/images/Iraq02.jpg

[ElNono]

From January 2007:

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/01/19/iraqis-speak-to-america/

Undated:

http://www.goodnewsworldcoop.com/images/Iraq02.jpg

hotair.com? I bet you get a lot of material from there...
And please, it's not hard to find pictures of protesters of the US invasion too.
To say everything is peachy in Iraq is simply not looking at reality...

[Yonivore]

hotair.com? I bet you get a lot of material from there...
Actually, no. I googled and came up with that interview of a an Iraqi Sheik. Why are you knocking the source? Unless, of course, you're inferring the content is faked.


And please, it's not hard to find pictures of protesters of the US invasion too.
You're right. But, it's just as easy to find Iraqis that are grateful for our liberation of their country -- in spite of the hardships.


To say everything is peachy in Iraq is simply not looking at reality...
Neither is saying it is a shambles -- or, even worse off than under the oppressive thumb of Saddam Hussein.

[Yonivore]

And, now, in addition to the MSM accentuating the negative - we know why it is harder to find positive news, on Iraq, in Google's search engine.

THE END OF OBJECTIVITY AT GOOGLE (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/12/googlewashing_revisited/)?


“Google this week admitted that its staff will pick and choose what appears in its search results. It’s a historic statement - and nobody has yet grasped its significance. . . . None of this would matter, if it wasn’t for one other trend: a paralysing loss of confidence in media companies.”
Let's see what Google says...

[ElNono]

Actually, no. I googled and came up with that interview of a an Iraqi Sheik. Why are you knocking the source? Unless, of course, you're inferring the content is faked.

I thought it was a funny name, that's all.


You're right. But, it's just as easy to find Iraqis that are grateful for our liberation of their country -- in spite of the hardships.

We didn't go there to liberate them. We went there to grab their oil. And I'm sure the millions displaced by the war are very thankful of what went down.


Neither is saying it is a shambles -- or, even worse off than under the oppressive thumb of Saddam Hussein.

Oh, really? How many had to flee the country when the war started and even at this point in time? You think all those guys are really happy they lost their houses, family, jobs? Do you have ANY idea of what you're talking about?

[ElNono]

Spurs break... bbl

[ChumpDumper]

And, now, in addition to the MSM accentuating the negative - we know why it is harder to find positive news, on Iraq, in Google's search engine.

THE END OF OBJECTIVITY AT GOOGLE (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/12/googlewashing_revisited/)?


Let's see what Google says...Except that hasn't happened yet, dumbass.

It's astounding how stupid you are.

[Yonivore]

We didn't go there to liberate them. We went there to grab their oil. And I'm sure the millions displaced by the war are very thankful of what went down.
Then, why are they selling it to others?


Oh, really? How many had to flee the country when the war started and even at this point in time? You think all those guys are really happy they lost their houses, family, jobs? Do you have ANY idea of what you're talking about?
That you believe there is only one side to the Iraqi sentiment towards America is more telling of your ignorance. I concede there are Iraqis that feel the way you describe and who have experienced the hardships you talk aboiut but, to completely discount the others is the flaw in your argument.

Even among those who were refugeed during this conflict there are many who blame the insurgents and foreign terrorists for their plight. Otherwise, you wouldn't have 10's of thousands of Iraqis, risking their lives, lining up to serve in their police forces and military to work side-by-side with American troops in trying to bring stability to the nation. No, they'd be standing on the sidelines or joining oiur enemies.

[ElNono]

Then, why are they selling it to others?

They? We are selling it to the same old Oil cartel. Not to mention Haliburton is making a fortune building the rigs. If you think Iraqis are in control of their Oil at this point, you really need to get informed.


That you believe there is only one side to the Iraqi sentiment towards America is more telling of your ignorance. I concede there are Iraqis that feel the way you describe and who have experienced the hardships you talk aboiut but, to completely discount the others is the flaw in your argument.

I believe the vast majority feel the way that journalist described. I don't ignore there might be another point of view. I just believe it's the minority.
If it would be the majority, the government wouldn't need to live walled off from the rest of the city, and we wouldn't have had to pay off the tribal chiefs in order to get some sort of pseudo peace.


Even among those who were refugeed during this conflict there are many who blame the insurgents and foreign terrorists for their plight. Otherwise, you wouldn't have 10's of thousands of Iraqis, risking their lives, lining up to serve in their police forces and military to work side-by-side with American troops in trying to bring stability to the nation. No, they'd be standing on the sidelines or joining oiur enemies.

You're comparing 10's of thousand of Iraqis versus MILLIONS of Iraqis displaced. See where your view is with the minority?

[Wild Cobra]

Throwing shoes at you and calling you a dog is gratitude?

etc.

etc.

etc.


ElNono, usually I think you make some pretty good posts. However, that results of one man, and the ramling that follows are rediculous examples under the conditions.

Right now, I cannot think much more of you than a partisan bitch!

Please, get real.

I figure, what the hell. You call me a aprtisan, I'll return the favor. There's always one in the crowd, and you need to see the larger picture.

[clambake]

whats the larger picture?

the things they'll start throwing when we stop paying them not to kill us?