George Bush: Worst American president in history

[Morsaille 4]

Since we're now talking oil, I thought I'd post this article. If you want to move on to 'wealth re-distribution through military spending' I'd be happy to post an even better one.

War on Terror looks like a fraud

by John Gleeson

April 14, 2007

Winnipeg Sun

Editor's Note

The following report, which acknowledges that the war on terrorism is a fraud, was published in one of Canada's mainstream daily newspapers, The Winnipeg Sun. Canada's military involvement in Afghanistan largely rests on the shaky premise that Canadian troops are fighting a "war on terrorism".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contrary to the "patriots" who try to use the deaths of our soldiers in Afghanistan to stifle debate on Canada's involvement in the War on Terror, I would say that as new evidence presents itself, we would indeed be cowards to ignore it simply because we've lost troops in the field and are therefore blindly committed to the mission.

And new evidence is piling up around us, arguably strong enough to declare the whole War on Terror an undeniable fraud.

Virtually ignored by mainstream media, the Americans showed their hand this year with the new Iraqi oil law, now making its way through Iraq's parliament.

The law -- which tens of thousands of Iraqis marched peacefully against on Monday when they called for the immediate expulsion of U.S. forces -- would transfer control of one of the largest oil reserves on the planet from Baghdad to Big Oil, delivering "the prize" at last that Vice-President Dick Cheney famously talked about in 1999 when he was CEO of Halliburton.

"The key point of the law," wrote Mother Jones' Washington correspondent James Ridgeway on March 1, "is that Iraq's immense oil wealth (115 billion barrels of proven reserves, third in the world after Saudi Arabia and Iran) will be under the Iron rule of a fuzzy 'Federal Oil and Gas Council' boasting 'a panel of oil experts from inside and outside Iraq.' That is, nothing less than predominantly U.S. Big Oil executives.

"The law represents no less than institutionalized raping and pillaging of Iraq's oil wealth. It represents the death knell of nationalized Iraqi resources, now replaced by production sharing agreements, which translate into savage privatization and monster profit rates of up to 75% for (basically U.S.) Big Oil. Sixty-five of Iraq's roughly 80 oilfields already known will be offered for Big Oil to exploit."

While the U.S. argues that the oil deal will give Iraqis their shot at "freedom and stability," the International Committee of the Red Cross reported this week that millions of Iraqis are in a "disastrous" situation that continues to deteriorate, with "mothers appealing for someone to pick up the bodies littering the street so their children will be spared the horror of looking at them on their way to school."

Four years after the invasion, it's becoming pretty clear that Iraq has been "pacified" solely for the purpose of economic aggression. Humanitarian considerations are moot. The awful plight of Iraq's one million Christians, who have no place in the new Iraq, underscores this ugly truth.

Afghanistan, meanwhile, has given the U.S. a strategic military beachhead in Central Asia (which "American primacy" advocates called for in the '90s) and it was quietly reported in November that plans are being accelerated for a $3.3-billion natural gas pipeline "to help Afghanistan become an energy bridge in the region."

With many Americans (including academics and former top U.S. government officials) now questioning even the physical facts of 9/11 and seriously disputing the "militant Islam" spin, with the media more brain-dead than it's been in our lifetimes, now is not the time for jingoism and blind faith in the likes of Cheney, George W. Bush and Robert Gates.

Our young men are worth more than that -- aren't they, Mr. Harper?

[reqgoddess 0]

Bush himself announced (finally) that there was no link between 911 and IRAQ. Lord, just listen to the man's speeches. and Yes, we have been bombing IRAQ for all those years which is why any idiot would know that there were NO WMDs. We have UAVs all over the place there and intel aplenty. Common sense even plays into to this. We ruined the infrastructure back in 1991. Children there have been dying from having diarrhea thanks to the polluted Water and no antibiotics thanks to the sanctions imposed all those years. And lets not forget the types o Cancer that is rampant in the kids since 1991 that they never had those types of cancers before. Oh, and BTW we are a long way to go before we are done in Afghanistan. I have no problems with us being in Afghanistan but we shouldn't be in IRAQ. Now we created such a situation, we are in a catch 22. Bush has failed in EVERY job he has ever held. He shouldn't have been allowed to add this one to the list. I don't just blame him though. I blame the wimpy, congress that was in there at the time. How DARE they screw with our constitution.

[TommyO 5]

Hey Gailannr, why would you post that. I don't understand, if you don't want to participate or if you are not interested in the topic why would you choose to insult anyone who is. What is wrong with you, why are you so unkind?

[Carlene 12]

So you are saying that profits don't go to arabians?

Of course Arab oil-producing countries share in the profits, as well they should. It is, after all, THEIR oil.

But Exxon, Mobil, Shell and the rest have posted HUGE profits since Bush took office. Their "share" as middlemen has gone way, way up from what it used to be. So when we start paying $4.00 per gallon for gas, it won't be the Democrats' fault, as you claimed, but the fault of greedy, Republican, big business, oil retailers. You know....the guys Bush doesn't want "burdened" with big corporate income taxes.

[Carlene 12]

Lady we were at war with Iraq for over 15 years off and on.

President Clinton in 1998 droped more bombs on iraq in 4 days than in the first gulf war. and the only proof you need that iraq harbored terroist.

Is that look where they all are right now we spent 16 week in afgan. And cleaned it up. but we are still in Iraq. maybe that is where thay were to begin.

And this would have what to do with my post - the one pointing out that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11?

You think Afghanistan is "cleaned up"? That's interesting. My youngest son was just offered 30K MORE than he was paid working in Iraq to go to Afghanistan. They want my kid to sign on for a year, minimum. Working at a US air base. With US servicemen/women. So I'd say we're still in Afghanistan.

Have you checked out the biographies of the 9/11 terrorists? Fifteen of the attackers were from Saudi Arabia, two were from the United Arab Emirates, one was from Egypt, and one from Lebanon. NONE were from Iraq .But we never considered invading Saudi Arabia, did we? Maybe because Bush has his head stuck so far up the Saudis' butts, and has for years.

[396power 2]

Green you must not get out much also. when you pull up to a gas pump and fillup w/ $3-$4 gallon gas. Where do you think that money goes. I believe it goes to those middle east poor un techno types that just happen to fly planes(our planes) in to major bulidings here in the States just 6 yrs ago.

You see this is what is wrong with people. You do not read anything you just threw your own spin on this. I stated the above post to rebut what Green had said which is this. "Dudes - are you idiots? Do you really think that the raggedy-ass third-world Islamic forces of the Middle East have the wealth, the technology, and the man-power to cross the Atlantic Ocean and overrun a continent whose manpower numbers more than three hundred million indivduals? "

And so when you accuse me of blaming the libreals or whatever for the gas costing so much. Where do you get that from??????????? My suggestion is that you don't put your own spin on this.

[396power 2]

And this would have what to do with my post - the one pointing out that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11?

You think Afghanistan is "cleaned up"? That's interesting. My youngest son was just offered 30K MORE than he was paid working in Iraq to go to Afghanistan. They want my kid to sign on for a year, minimum. Working at a US air base. With US servicemen/women. So I'd say we're still in Afghanistan.

Have you checked out the biographies of the 9/11 terrorists? Fifteen of the attackers were from Saudi Arabia, two were from the United Arab Emirates, one was from Egypt, and one from Lebanon. NONE were from Iraq .But we never considered invading Saudi Arabia, did we? Maybe because Bush has his head stuck so far up the Saudis' butts, and has for years.

I never said it is cleaned up we are for the most part out of there.

there will always be some remnant of our existance there. Just like there is still remnants in Germany, Japan, Cuba, Korrea and the list could go on. We have not been at war with Germany since wwII.

[Morsaille 4]

Hey Gailannr, why would you post that. I don't understand, if you don't want to participate or if you are not interested in the topic why would you choose to insult anyone who is. What is wrong with you, why are you so unkind?

It's alright TommyO. Thanks, I love when smart guys rush to my defense.

Although Gailannr's post was rude and unintelligent, I was not personally offended.

Gailannr - "get a life", for the record, is Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument. You are going to have to do better if you want us to see your side of things.

[396power 2]

It's alright TommyO. Thanks, I love when smart guys rush to my defense.

Although Gailannr's post was rude and unintelligent, I was not personally offended.

Gailannr - "get a life", for the record, is Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument. You are going to have to do better if you want us to see your side of things.

I don't think she was attacking you. she quoted your statment and obviously did not agree. It's funny that any time someone on the right argue's with someone on the left. we are attacking you. You wrote it, she did not agree. It's that simple!!!

[Ron Cusano 0]

Iraq was a major threat to the stability of the Middle East, the flow of oil to our country and was a safe haven for terrorist training camps. Sadam committed genocide against his own people, was unstable and a terrorist to his own country.

The best intelligence available indicated that he was producing weapons of mass destruction and had nucular ambitions. He had previously used chemical weapons against the Kurds, and there was not reason not to believe that he was stockpileing these weapons and could make them available to our enemys. The fact that these weapons were not located is of little consequence since he had ample time to export them to another Arab neighbor. This intelligence not only came from the CIA, but from the British and other western governments.

Regardless of weather or not he was connected directly to 911, he needed to be dealt with. Fortunately for us, President Bush took descisive action, and has managed to keep the war on terror away from our shores.

I had a discussion with a person who is part of a government agency that tracks and exposes terrorists within our country, and from his professional experience and based upon the facts he works with, the policys in place now, under Bush, are directly responsible for the prevention of attacks here at home.

Those who are so overwhelmed and possessed with their hatred for Prrsident Bush and the Liberal Socialist agenda, have their heads up their butts and have lost touch with politically reality with regard to the terrorist threat against out country. Perhaps if they were to actually support their own nation and government, we would only have to deal with one enemy.

[Morsaille 4]

So she was telling the author of the article to 'get a life'? Same ad hominem.

I did not feel attacked, but the statement was not constructive in the least.

Neither is this one, or yours, actually. Sheesh, you've got me doing it.

[396power 2]

Iraq was a major threat to the stability of the Middle East, the flow of oil to our country and was a safe haven for terrorist training camps. Sadam committed genocide against his own people, was unstable and a terrorist to his own country.

The best intelligence available indicated that he was producing weapons of mass destruction and had nucular ambitions. He had previously used chemical weapons against the Kurds, and there was not reason not to believe that he was stockpileing these weapons and could make them available to our enemys. The fact that these weapons were not located is of little consequence since he had ample time to export them to another Arab neighbor. This intelligence not only came from the CIA, but from the British and other western governments.

Regardless of weather or not he was connected directly to 911, he needed to be dealt with. Fortunately for us, President Bush took descisive action, and has managed to keep the war on terror away from our shores.

I had a discussion with a person who is part of a government agency that tracks and exposes terrorists within our country, and from his professional experience and based upon the facts he works with, the policys in place now, under Bush, are directly responsible for the prevention of attacks here at home.

Those who are so overwhelmed and possessed with their hatred for Prrsident Bush and the Liberal Socialist agenda, have their heads up their butts and have lost touch with politically reality with regard to the terrorist threat against out country. Perhaps if they were to actually support their own nation and government, we would only have to deal with one enemy.

That also reminds me if Bush is so bad. Then why does he have the support of all that are under his chain of command 87% +-4% Aproval rating in the Military Generals all the way down to E1

[Morsaille 4]

Perhaps if they were to actually support their own nation and government, we would only have to deal with one enemy.

Perhaps... Is the US going to remove it's military presence in all the other countries?? I might slide right - if they follow through. Wait, you didn't state which one was the enemy. Iraq? or the non-Iraqi insurgents? Maybe Iran? I got it N Korea, right?

It's kind of like we said, hmm... "We don't want to fight the insurgents on their own soil, or ours for that matter. Lets hold the war in Iraq and clean up while we are at it."

Facetious spin, sorry.

[Morsaille 4]

That also reminds me if Bush is so bad. Then why does he have the support of all that are under his chain of command 87% +-4% Approval rating in the Military Generals all the way down to E1

Actually it's sad. People have to take sides. Misplaced hostility from the civilians has polarized the loyalties of the troops.

Either that or, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

[396power 2]

Wait, you didn't state which one was the enemy. Iraq? or the non-Iraqi insurgents? Maybe Iran? I got it N Korea, right?

Actually that is funny.