A subsidiary of Halliburton awarded a no bid contact for the rebuilding of Iraq, Something like three months before the invasion. But what use is it to go on about this, half the people will say it is nothing but partisan spin and the other half will focus on it to the distraction of anything else.

Of course that is the problem, if the motivation for invading another country is so straight forward and above board. Why would there be a need to state it was for other reasons? Iraq could be a battle ground for the fight against terrorism. But it is not bleeding dry the terrorist, in fact they can keep it going far more effectively than we can. Their side of this war in Iraq is cost effective and with little use of man power and supply. We are the ones that though the administration is trying to fight it on the cheap, are pouring our military and money down the drain. As at the current point the only stalemate that is occurring is that the stated aim of the administration can not be met as long as their is a civil war and the desire for everyone in Iraq to have their own country. That was another mistake that Bush&Co. made was not understanding the dynamics of the people in Iraq. They have no desire for a centralized government, first under British rule then under Saddam they were force to live together. But they never lost the desire to have their own government and own lands. Even our long time “friends” in the region do not want us to succeed, Egypt, Saudi-Arabia, the U. A. E. fear that to have an American style democracy in Iraq would cause the people of their countries to want it too and over throw them. Also to have an American controlled or leaning government in Iraq would lessen America need for them and their oil. As such they have been working behind the scenes to undermine and hamper our efforts in the country.

That is not to mention Iran and Syria who have used this invasion to farther their own desires. They wish to ignite a region war against the United States and Israel. Driving both from the region once and for all and making it even more difficult for the United States to have any influence within the middle east. Europe would not be too unhappy with their growing need for oil to have the U.S. as one less consumer of middle east oil. China would be happy for us to fail in Iraq as they have become the second largest consumer of oil from the region.

A poster to the message boards finally stated that the invasion was about nothing but oil, but only after she had stood behind the changing reasons the administration gave as a just cause. But her argument became it is a matter of the U.S. to survive so we are entitled to the oil. Taking the common criminal’s view, “You have it and I want it so I am taking it. I am just letting you hold it for me until I need it!”.

Joe I am afraid you may need to remind me as to what is the reason you say you believe in that make it a good cause for Iraq?

But then you “conservatives” are always doing some pretty funny things with the definitions of words! “Right to work”

“Clear skies initiative”"port security”"Healthy forests initiative”"No child left behind”and the ULTIMATE oxymoron “compassionate conservative”!

And that’s just a few.

Oh and Paul? I am now deeply ashamed that I voted for Ronald Reagan. But then I was young and dumb. I did not know that Reagan had sold out everything he used to believe in for money.How he had been a union leader but Nancy convinced him that shilling for GE would get them invited to the “better” parties.

Didn’t you post somewhere that you sold out your union Paul?

What made you sell out Paul?

Um Paul?

You are late to this forum. Would you call border security a “conservative” issue? I’m for shutting the border and deporting illegal aliens. Where is YOUR president on that buttercup? And you?

That’s ok Paul. We all understand. You just are not a very deep fellow. You are a simple shill.

Paul? Why is the GOP the party of deliberately limiting voter turn out? I agree with those on the thread as to polling places. I’ll vote absentee. I’d rather not get my name on the mailing list of a church in order to exercise my franchise. Not that the vote will likely be fairly tabulated. Why should this year be any different.

Paul? If there were potential bush voters in Florida who did not vote I’d say they were MORE than balanced by those in Florida who would have voted Gore if they had not been disenfranchised. I guess bush voters were just not very commited there? No matter. Anyone still clinging to bush should be comitted now!

It’s a losing horse you are racing Paul and it’s fine with me. But you ought consider the divide bush has created in this nation. Do you imagine for one second that I’d raise my kid to grow up and fight for the likes of you? Let me relieve you of any such illusions!

Get used to it Paul and say it with me. I’m already teaching my son to remember that he lived under…

the worst president ever.

Worked yourself up real good for that little screed didn’t ya? Blew off most of your steam in the first paragraph before you degenerated back to shilling.

Let’s take ya to school Paul.

“You were never a conservative….”

Uh yeah Paul I was. I voted for Ronald Reagan and a straight GOP ticket in 1984.

And in the matter of privacy and individual liberty I seem to be more conservative than most of the “conservatives” posting here or running the county!

“seminar liberal” Poor use of a Rushism there Paul.

I didn’t leave the Republican Party Paul. That party doesn’t stand for anything anymore except buisiness and the minding of it in others.”JR, on the FLorida issue, would you give it up?”Not a chance Paul. That election was stolen. I might add to my earlier that the voting rights of thousands were denied by bush’s brother Jeb and his little dog Kat Harris when their names were removed from the voter rolls. Why? Because they were black and black folks have far better sense then to vote for Republicans. Comes now new info that Ohio may have been stolen in the 2004 election.

So no Paul, w will not be forgetting what folks like you are willing to do to win. First thing I taught my kid after “look both ways before you cross the street”? Never trust a Republican!

Oh and Paul please don’t tell me about the Republican Florida pan handle voters who didn’t vote because they though the state had been called. That is just crap. Kansas was a foregone conclusion in 2000 and I stood in line for 4 hours with a 6 year old to vote.

There your post kind of trails off. You didn’t bother answering why it is that bush public appearances are hand picked. Should he not hear the voices and concerns of ALL the people? Or, is he accountable only to the haves and the have mores. YOU know, his base?

What is good to know is that that base is shrinking. Pretty soon bush can meet with you personally maybe!!! Try not to drool on his shoes.

HecklerThanks!(excellent except for the typos) lol

JR, on the Florida recount issue, would you give it up? The “recounts” you speak of were not legal.Just because you don’t like the outcome does not mean that you can, legally, declare and get a recount.Every press story after the Florida election problem shows the same result: Bush won!By the way, if not for the media jumping the gun, the Florida pan-handle, a highly Republican area, would have turned out in higher numbers.In fact, Republican turnout in many areas may well have been “suppressed” by false media projections of a Gore “win” in Florida.

JR, you and Sheehan have a right to speak.We have the right to refuse to listen.You and Cindy do NOT have the right to be heard, only to speak.It is a uniquely leftist tactic to disrupt formal gatherings and speaches.You do not have the right to derail the speach of others, JR, and that is what happens when your heros, like antisemite Shehan thinks what she has to say is more important than what the President has to say.And yes, I would support removing potential hecklers from the gallery during a Democrat’s speach as well.

How many times have conservatives had to put up with liberals disrupting their speaches on college campuses?Again, when your speach violates my right to speak, or my right to listen to someone else’s speach, YOU deserve to be silenced.

Although we do consult and inform Europe on our actions, we don’t need their permission nor their consent.

The real reason why the French and the Germans didn’t want us to invade Iraq, is because some of their business firms were making money off of Saddam and the Oil for Food program, which turned into an International scandal of corruption and massive kickbacks to European connections.

I do however feel we could have handled Iraq and Saddam in a different way, but now that we are there, I think we can make the most of it. We have attracted all the terrorist to battle us in Iraq, and that is a good thing. We get to kill them there and hopefully end this long terrorism bout the world has been living with for the last 30 years.

So I believe what we are doing there. Our orginal intent and reasoning might have been a mistake and flawed (not a lie), but our modified purpose now is a good course of action.

As I sighted, everyone violates the law. Most really have no idea that they are. The Police could come into your home right now and look around till they found something to arrest you for. Any thing you can be cited for you also can be arrested for. Is the tag still on those pillows and mattress? How about the tag on your car, is it dirty? There is a good reason for the forth and fifth amendments.

Absolute power does lead to the abuse of that power, even if DHLS can not use the information gathered about your travel plans. There is some one who can, that information will be shared among every Law Enforcement agency that will be interested. The United States Government has been known to even sale information gathered to marketing agencies! Why would a marketing agency want to know where you go, what you do once you get there and how you pay for it all? But more important why should they know?What has that to do with the fight against terrorism? Nothing of course, but that information is gathered and available to anyone that wants it.

““But in the past few years European privacy concerns have limited the ability of counterterrorism officials to gain broad access to data of this sort,” he wrote. Perhaps if the Bush administration had been more attentive to our European allies’ concerns about Iraq and other issues, they’d be more cooperative about such data sharing.”

As to other Governments and their concerns about Iraq and other issues. Many Governments try to dis-sway the Bush administration from invading. And try to bring about a peaceful end to the concerns about Saddam, but the administration would not hear of it. At one point Turkey actually threatened a shooting war against us. Because the U.S. would not address their concerns about turkman and the Kurds. We would have ended up with the turks on one side and the Iraqis on the other. Turkey amassed 80 thousand troops on their border with Iraq and threaten to have their own invasion to secure turkman and their assets in Iraq.

The real reason that France, Germany and other countries did not join us was they had told the administration several time the invasion was not warranted. But fail to listen so they would have no part in it. List goes on, but it was the U.S. that first strain these relations by its ignoring the worlds concerns.

You did mean dissent I trust?

When bush operatives stormed the Florida recounts and shut them down, that was promoting freedom right?

Or, when bush speaks only in front of hand picked audiences and protesters are kept far away that is in the interest of government being accountable to it’s citizens isn’t it?

When the Capitol police dragged Cindy Sheehan out of the State of the Union speech they were just trying to preserve the decorum of the event weren’t they?

It must be my old conservative beginnings that make me bristle when government starts putting noses in my information or cops on every corner. I shake my head to read what some “conservatives” post here.

Excellent!

Perhaps if the Bush administration had been more attentive to our European allies’ concerns about Iraq and other issues, they’d be more cooperative about such data sharing.Posted by Rhonda Holman

Why, Rhonda, would the Europeans ever want their airplanes or their citizens shot down?The truth is, cooperation on anti-terrorism issues was not affected by the Iraq war much at all.The Europeans are not suicidal, and they don’t ordinarally “cut off their noses to spite their faces.”Also, Rhonda, go back and check out the “oil for food” program run by the corrupt United Nations and Kofi Anan.Germany, France and Russian officials were violating the terms of the cease fire and the terms of the Oil for Food program in what amounted to little more than a bribe.Where the Eurpeans being bribed to vote against a use of force?Rhonda, there is a valid question which should be asked after any armed conflict: “Was it worth the cost.”However, your cheap, politically motivated attacks on Bush and his foreign policy lack any merit when you resort to the “perhaps” garbage quoted above.Again, do you think the European leaders would allow their citizens to get hijacked just to spite Bush, who exposed the French, German and Russian dishonesty in the “oil for food” scam?

You two are threatening to turn this place into a downright thoughtfull and respectable forum.

Stop it.

When I was in Hong Kong, the most capitalist region in the world, with a population of 7 million, it was the most saftest place I have ever been. It wasn’t a police state, but they hard large police presence everywhere and that is why I think it was safe.

There was a police officer in practially every street corner, but they weren’t itemidating at all. They helped old people cross the street, you can go up to them and ask for directions or for a good place to eat and they will kindly respond. You can walk around in the middle of the night and go to an ATM, no problem or fear about being robbed.

It’s just like our Police here in the USA. They’re cool and they help people, even if it isn’t offically police business. And generally we feel safe. But we are far from a police state.

Having a lot of police doesn’t mean a police state. And labeling everybody a criminal because we all break the law isn’t warrented, because criminals are those who commit crimes, which is a gross violation of the law(s). What mostly people do is commit infractions of the law. What mostly doesn’t warrent any prison time at all. Fines or warnings.

A police state would have everything no matter how trivial the small stuff a serious violation of the state. It is basically a command structure of society. You follow the line exactly or you’re in the gulag system.

Saddam’s Iraq was a police state and considered safe, but was it free? Now that the Iraqis are free, it’s more dangerous. What does society want? Which is more valuable to our society; Freedom or Safety?

But a free society can be safe. Freedom requires hard work and tolerance. It even means that sometimes people you disagree with get the reins of our political system sometimes.

Does that mean I want to live in a Police State? No, if I learned anything from being in Law Enforcement for seven years it was that everyone breaks the law. With ten of thousands of laws on the books, Local, States and Federal. No one can go through their day without breaking some law, of course for the most part they are not aware that they are breaking a law. And the violations are often so small that for everyone that breaks a law to be punished the United States would have to be made into a prison.

What the administration would like to do would catch terrorists of that I have no doubt. And it would have to be a matter of trust that the prying would be for that purpose. If not solely used for that purpose then the trust would have to be that only those committing serious crimes would be caught. A saying that often is humorous to a cop is, “Why aren’t you out catching real criminals?” when ever someone is stopped for speeding or some other traffic violation. But the officer did catch a real violator of the law, it is just the criminal does not think they are a criminal.

To the point, yes to violate the trust of free people in the defense of freedom would catch those wishing to destroy that freedom. But if in the defense of freedom those defending it are the ones destroying it. They are a willing pawn of those wishing to destroy the freedom. And of those willing to surrender some of their freedom in order to combat those wishing to destroy it. They are putting little value on the freedom they have. A Police State would be safer to live in, but it would not be free.