Lie....or Incompetence? [Archive]

tecoyah

07-03-2008, 10:09 PM

Oversight Committee: Despite Denials, Administration Knew About Bush Donor’s Oil Contracts»

The Bush administration has repeatedly claimed that it plays no part in contract negotiations between Western oil companies and Iraq. But the New York Times reported last week that the State Department actually had an “integral role” in the awarding of no-bid contracts to develop Iraq’s oil fields.

Today, the administration received another blow to its credibility, as the House Oversight Committee released documents further connecting it to Iraqi oil deals, this time through Dallas-based Hunt Oil. Hunt Oil is owned by Ray L. Hunt, a former Halliburton board member who has donated $35 million to the Bush presidential library.

In September 2007, Hunt Oil signed a contract with the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) to develop oil fields in the Kurdish region of Iraq. At the time, the State Department criticized the deal, calling it “counterproductive,” and saying that “these contracts have needlessly elevated tensions between the KRG and the national government of Iraq.”

President Bush denied knowledge of the contract, saying that he “knew nothing about the deal” and was “concerned”:

I knew nothing about the deal. I need to know exactly how it happened. To the extent that it does undermine the ability for the government to come up with an oil revenue sharing plan that unifies the country, obviously if it undermines it I’m concerned.

However, the documents released by the Oversight Committee today include ample evidence that officials in the State Department and Commerce Department “knew about Hunt Oil’s interest in the Kurdish region months before the contract was executed”:

- Hunt sent two letters to the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board “making clear his intentions to pursue oil exploration in Kurdistan.”

- Hunt Oil’s general manager informed the Regional Reconstruction Team (RRT) that “Hunt is expecting to sign an exploration contract,” a warning that was sent to the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and to the State Department.

- Hunt Oil officials met with the RRT to inquire about U.S. policy towards oil contracts with the KRG, and were told that the “U.S. has no policy, for nor against.”

- In an internal company e-mail, Hunt’s general manager said that there was “no communication” from the State Department that Hunt should not make the deal, despite “ample opportunity to do so.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/02/bush-hunt-oil/

OK....so the buck stops with the POTUS, which means whoever holds the office is responsible for the executive actions.

Would this situation be acceptable foe any government?
Is it proof of the ephemeral "Lie"?
Is the President just really bad at the Job?

heyjude

07-03-2008, 10:55 PM

Of course he knew. The whole Bush/Cheney administration has been about oil. We are fighting a war for it. That along with selling America to foreigners, and illegal immigrants getting the jobs that remain here. The only problem the Dems have with it is they aren't getting what they think is their fair share. But Obama will fix that. 55% of Obama's contributions are coming from cooperate money.

Buck Laser

07-03-2008, 11:14 PM

That should be another lie.

Milton Bradley

07-04-2008, 12:31 AM

Bush is just being loyal to the establishment that got him there, just like McCain, or Obama will be.

When you vote for the media sanctioned candidates, that's what you get, establishment candidates content with the systematic dismantling of the United States.

Rage

07-04-2008, 12:37 AM

I just think it was because he was retarded.

Pookie

07-04-2008, 12:40 AM

Well, I have to agree with my fellow posters. Oil is crucial to the US and our government knows it. I am sure they were aware of it. Bush feigning surprise is nothing new.
Purrs,
Pookie

GhostintheMachine

07-04-2008, 12:40 AM

I refuse to answer on the grounds I can't read the poll with my head so far up......

Milton Bradley

07-04-2008, 01:17 AM

I refuse to answer on the grounds I can't read the poll with my head so far up......

Hehehehehe

That sounds like something Colbert himself might say.

Pookie

07-04-2008, 01:26 AM

LOL!! Sounds to me like someone's actually telling the truth LOL!!
Purrs,
Pookie

lily

07-04-2008, 01:41 AM

I just think it was because he was retarded.

Rage, I have a sister who is mentally retarded.........she is smarter than Bush. That is an insult to mentally retarded people everywhere!

ptif219

07-04-2008, 03:17 AM

The NY Times what a leftwing scandal rag.

so now Bush knows everything every department of government does.

If they said Condi it would be more believable

TurnBackTheClock

07-04-2008, 07:40 AM

Bush is an oil man. What did you expect? He's laughing all the way to the NWO Bank!

tecoyah

07-04-2008, 10:27 AM

The NY Times what a leftwing scandal rag.

so now Bush knows everything every department of government does.

If they said Condi it would be more believable

Let me get this straight. The Times is a rag for reporting the findings of the Federal Governments own investigation? The President is no longer required to actually "Know" whats going on in the Government he is in charge of, and the Secretary of State has now been given the power of the POTUS, thus is responsible and accountable for what transpires in the executive branch.

Dayum, I need to take a politics course at my local Community College to catch up on all these changes.

ptif219

07-04-2008, 01:28 PM

Let me get this straight. The Times is a rag for reporting the findings of the Federal Governments own investigation? The President is no longer required to actually "Know" whats going on in the Government he is in charge of, and the Secretary of State has now been given the power of the POTUS, thus is responsible and accountable for what transpires in the executive branch.

Dayum, I need to take a politics course at my local Community College to catch up on all these changes.

Nice spin and twist.What is a secretary needed for if the President is in charge of all things.

So the President knows and keeps up with everything that goes on in all depatments of Government.

Must be a better man then anybody I know.

tecoyah

07-04-2008, 01:47 PM

Nice spin and twist.What is a secretary needed for if the President is in charge of all things.

So the President knows and keeps up with everything that goes on in all depatments of Government.

Must be a better man then anybody I know.

No Spin or Twist....merely inferring from the comment you posted, if I was in error...please explain what you "Actually" meant.

The President will never know what transpires in all aspects of every Dept., But this ones was kind of a Biggy, and one would hope the President might just be informed enough to comment accurately, or if he could not...then to refrain from any comment at all.

And...The President NEEDS TO BE a better man/woman than anyone you know!

ptif219

07-04-2008, 01:54 PM

No Spin or Twist....merely inferring from the comment you posted, if I was in error...please explain what you "Actually" meant.

The President will never know what transpires in all aspects of every Dept., But this ones was kind of a Biggy, and one would hope the President might just be informed enough to comment accurately, or if he could not...then to refrain from any comment at all.

And...The President NEEDS TO BE a better man/woman than anyone you know!

So if Condi goes to Israel does she call Bush everytime she is asked a question?

The secretary is given authority and Bush may not know all things.

This is a biggy yet Iraq's decision.

Is it a biggy because you think so?Or is it a biggy because you want to slam Bush?

So we should not try and get some of the oil after all we have done there to try and get these people freedom.

We should get nothing back for all the money and lives spent in Iraq.

Funny how you want to play both sides.

No matter what Bush did you would find a way to slam him.

tecoyah

07-04-2008, 02:38 PM

So if Condi goes to Israel does she call Bush everytime she is asked a question?

She likely (at least I hope so), would be in contact daily....yes.

The secretary is given authority and Bush may not know all things.

Then, the Secretary is not doing the Job I pay them to do.

This is a biggy yet Iraq's decision.

The decision is not the issue, the denial is.

Is it a biggy because you think so?Or is it a biggy because you want to slam Bush?

It is "A Biggy" for the exact reason I posted the poll to inquire about...deceit or incompetence.

So we should not try and get some of the oil after all we have done there to try and get these people freedom.

We should get nothing back for all the money and lives spent in Iraq.

Funny how you want to play both sides.

No matter what Bush did you would find a way to slam him.

Yes, I am slamming Bush, by pointing out something he stated that is untrue, and asking what people think...If I wanted to attack the man, there is ample ammunition to do so with.

Now, please do not accuse me of spinning your comments, and then refuse to reply to my defense (either out of an inability or a choice to ignore). Particularly when you then go on to twirl around the tread topic until we all get dizzy.

ptif219

07-05-2008, 04:57 PM

Yes, I am slamming Bush, by pointing out something he stated that is untrue, and asking what people think...If I wanted to attack the man, there is ample ammunition to do so with.

Now, please do not accuse me of spinning your comments, and then refuse to reply to my defense (either out of an inability or a choice to ignore). Particularly when you then go on to twirl around the tread topic until we all get dizzy.

It is you that spins.

You avoid questions or give general answer that are not really answers to the question.

For example you say she should be in contact daily which is not what I asked. You act like these secretaries have no authority to make decisions so then why have them?

No deceit or incompetence. Were the US companies given the contracts because they are the best for the job?If so it is you who are decieving.

Who drilled the wells and set up pipelands in other ME countries like Saudia Arabia?

Burning Giraffe

07-05-2008, 08:58 PM

Sounds like a lie to me. Contradictions do not exist. Somebody is telling an untruth.

lily

07-07-2008, 04:12 AM

[QUOTE=ptif219;208076]

For example you say she should be in contact daily which is not what I asked. You act like these secretaries have no authority to make decisions so then why have them?

I'm not sure how this works in ptifville.........does the Secretary of State do what she wants, or does she go to other countries to do what the President wants?

Who drilled the wells and set up pipelands in other ME countries like Saudia Arabia?

In Saudi Arabia? They did.

ptif219

07-07-2008, 05:50 AM

[quote]

I'm not sure how this works in ptifville.........does the Secretary of State do what she wants, or does she go to other countries to do what the President wants?

Whats your point she is given authority to do certain things.

In Saudi Arabia? They did.

I notice you don't show proof.
Here is a history of how the US and Great Britain started the Middle East oil fields.

http://www.post-gazette.com/businessnews/20030316mideast2.asp

namguy

07-07-2008, 05:40 PM

Deadshot

07-07-2008, 05:46 PM

and .45% of Obama's $$ is from people like me. I'd rather it be 55/45 instead of the GOP 90/10.

potter

07-07-2008, 06:53 PM

I just think it was because he was retarded.

:lmao:

I suppose that's a good enough defense.....except somehow I can't believe he wasn't in on the ground floor.

Wndrtch

07-07-2008, 07:26 PM

That should be another lie.

Thanks for memorializing me in your sig-line, Buck! :thumbsup:

I didn't think you loved me that much, but you do, you do care! :love:

Wndrtch

07-07-2008, 07:32 PM

Well, I have to agree with my fellow posters. Oil is crucial to the US and our government knows it. I am sure they were aware of it. Bush feigning surprise is nothing new.
Purrs,
Pookie

At $4/gal, many Americans are starting to relize that as well.

Oil was one of many reason for going to the ME, and IS a vital national interest, dispite the Left's unwillingness to accept it. Do you think we would allow the killing in Darfour if they were a large supplier of oil?

Wndrtch

07-07-2008, 07:36 PM

and .45% of Obama's $$ is from people like me. I'd rather it be 55/45 instead of the GOP 90/10.

So, less than one-half of one percent is a non-rich donor?

That would be 99.55%/.45%, not 55%/45%.

Wndrtch

07-07-2008, 08:04 PM

[quote=lily;208949]

I notice you don't show proof.
Here is a history of how the US and Great Britain started the Middle East oil fields.

http://www.post-gazette.com/businessnews/20030316mideast2.asp

She might want to brush-up on these as well

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haj-Ali_Razmara

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mosaddeq

Haj-Ali Razmara was attempting to negotiate better terms for the sale of Iranian oil to the Brits, but he was assasinated by Mosaddeq's supporters before he could finish the deal (imagine that! :shock:). Razmara was against nationalizing the oil, because the Brits were already one of the largest consumers of oil in the World at the time. Pissing them off, would have chased away their largest customer (generally, it's not a good idea to piss-off your largest customer).

Deadshot

07-07-2008, 08:08 PM

So, less than one-half of one percent is a non-rich donor?

That would be 99.55%/.45%, not 55%/45%.

No, about 45% of Obama's supporters are in the lower tax brackets, the same can't be said for Big John

Wndrtch

07-07-2008, 08:14 PM

No, about 45% of Obama's supporters are in the lower tax brackets, the same can't be said for Big John

That may be, but you wrote .45%, not 45%.

I was just calling you on it. :evil:

Deadshot

07-07-2008, 08:20 PM

That may be, but you wrote .45%, not 45%.

I was just calling you on it. :evil:

okey dokey

potter

07-07-2008, 08:33 PM

At $4/gal, many Americans are starting to relize that as well.

Oil was one of many reason for going to the ME, and IS a vital national interest, dispite the Left's unwillingness to accept it. Do you think we would allow the killing in Darfour if they were a large supplier of oil?

So would you agree then that because oil is "vital" to our national interests, it's OK to make up a reason to go to war, decimate a country and kill tens of thousands of innocent people to gain control of that oil?

After all...it appears that's exactly what we've done.

Wndrtch

07-07-2008, 09:24 PM

So would you agree then that because oil is "vital" to our national interests, it's OK to make up a reason to go to war, decimate a country and kill tens of thousands of innocent people to gain control of that oil?

After all...it appears that's exactly what we've done.

It wasn't just about THAT oil. Iraq invaded Kuwait, another oil producing country. They also wanted to invade Saudi Arabia, another oil producing country. So long as Saddam was in power, all his neighbors were in jeopardy, and therefore, a large part of the Global oil supply was also in danger.

And less ye forget, Saddam was offered several opportunities to avoid a conflict, and he chose to stick everybody in the eye.

Even Hillary acknowledged that, at one point.

Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
During a meeting with "Code Pink" at the US Capitol
March 6, 2003
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#Cuf1SojhAy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_KEWUU33Lg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYATbsu2cP8

"There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm, and I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I have followed for more than a decade.

For now nearly 20 years, the principal reason why women and children in Iraq have suffered, is because of Saddam's leadership.

The very difficult question for all of us, is how does one bring about the disarmament of someone with such a proven track record of a commitment, if not an obsession, with weapons of mass destruction.

I ended up voting for the Resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision, and it is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution. That is not my preference, it would be far preferable if we had legitimate cooperation from Saddam Hussein, and a willingness on his part to disarm, and to account for his chemical and biological storehouses.

With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I do not believe that given the attitudes of many people in the world community today that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems were it not for United States leadership. And I am talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo, where my husband could not get a Security Council resolution to save the Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. And we did it alone as the United States, and we had to do it alone. It would have been far preferable if the Russians and others had agreed to do it through the United Nations -- they would not. I'm happy that, in the face of such horrible suffering, we did act."

Buck Laser

07-07-2008, 09:41 PM

Lessee, if I'm not mistaken, that statement from Senator Clinton was before we invaded Iraq, wasn't it? More than five years ago now? Good goin' Wndr! And thanks for the sig line!

ptif219

07-08-2008, 06:39 PM

potter

07-08-2008, 08:43 PM

So when is the oil coming here?

Prove that comment.

How do you know it's not already here?

Let's face it, The American public really didn't give a shit about the Iraqi's before Bush targeted them. They were contained. Americans didn't give a shit if they had democracy or not...we're just not that benevolent of a society. They weren't a threat even by our own intelligence. What other reason is there?

Now we can control their oil. We attack Iran, we can control their oil too.

IMO a pretty shallow reason for killing tens of thousands of innocent people..but hey, we're a shallow nation.....

ptif219

07-08-2008, 08:54 PM

How do you know it's not already here?

Let's face it, The American public really didn't give a shit about the Iraqi's before Bush targeted them. They were contained. Americans didn't give a shit if they had democracy or not...we're just not that benevolent of a society. They weren't a threat even by our own intelligence. What other reason is there?

Now we can control their oil. We attack Iran, we can control their oil too.

IMO a pretty shallow reason for killing tens of thousands of innocent people..but hey, we're a shallow nation.....

Show proof the oil is here.We went there because of Kuwait first and because of the useless UN second that refused to enforce 16 resolutions.

Don't forget the oil for food corruption of the UN.

potter

07-08-2008, 09:02 PM

Show proof the oil is here.We went there because of Kuwait first and because of the useless UN second that refused to enforce 16 resolutions.

Don't forget the oil for food corruption of the UN.

Like you care about the oil for food crap. You don't even care that Haliburton is bilking the US taxpayers out of billions of dollars.

Get me the oil company manifest records and you will have "proof"

WTF other reason is there?

The attack on Kuwait was justified. The were slant drilling into Iraqi fields. And if you're going to use UN sanction to justify killing so many people, lets just do a little shock and awe on Israel too, they have dozens of UN sanctions they're flouting.

ptif219

07-08-2008, 09:20 PM

Like you care about the oil for food crap. You don't even care that Haliburton is bilking the US taxpayers out of billions of dollars.

Get me the oil company manifest records and you will have "proof"

WTF other reason is there?

The attack on Kuwait was justified. The were slant drilling into Iraqi fields. And if you're going to use UN sanction to justify killing so many people, lets just do a little shock and awe on Israel too, they have dozens of UN sanctions they're flouting.

Another words you have no proof.More liberal spin and propaganda

potter

07-08-2008, 09:27 PM

Another words you have no proof.More liberal spin and propaganda

Yea...because I'm so "liberal".....:bye:

tony mitra

07-08-2008, 10:52 PM

Both : Lie and incompetence.

lily

07-09-2008, 12:39 AM

Another words you have no proof.More liberal spin and propaganda

Let me know if you want more proof........somehow I think you're just going to ignore it anyway.

Link (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1816599,00.html)

Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html?ref=weekinreview)

Link (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article4228258.ece)

Link (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/03/africa/03kurdistan.php)

Link (http://www.iraqoilreport.com/2008/06/06/us-negotiators-say-iraq-must-sign-a-bi-lateral-security-deal-or-lose-billions-in-oil-revenue%E2%80%A6/)

cronic

07-09-2008, 12:45 AM

Let me know if you want more proof........somehow I think you're just going to ignore it anyway.

Link (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1816599,00.html)

Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html?ref=weekinreview)

Link (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article4228258.ece)

Link (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/03/africa/03kurdistan.php)

Link (http://www.iraqoilreport.com/2008/06/06/us-negotiators-say-iraq-must-sign-a-bi-lateral-security-deal-or-lose-billions-in-oil-revenue%E2%80%A6/)

Wo0tzzz..
put that in your pipe & smoke it...:clapper:

ptif219

07-09-2008, 12:58 AM

Let me know if you want more proof........somehow I think you're just going to ignore it anyway.

Link (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1816599,00.html)

Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html?ref=weekinreview)

Link (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article4228258.ece)

Link (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/03/africa/03kurdistan.php)

Link (http://www.iraqoilreport.com/2008/06/06/us-negotiators-say-iraq-must-sign-a-bi-lateral-security-deal-or-lose-billions-in-oil-revenue%E2%80%A6/)

You mean all these years and don't have any oil yet?

Seems to me that means the oil wasn't much of priority.

Is Iraq doing this more to get the technology rather than anything Bush has to do with it?

lily

07-09-2008, 02:04 AM

You mean all these years and don't have any oil yet?

What are you talking about? Exxon, Mobil, Shell, Total, BP were all kicked out by Sadaam. Thankfully we had this war.....oh and Bush's main donator has his own private deal with the Kurds........sweet!

Seems to me that means the oil wasn't much of priority.

Well, if you're going to go to war for oil, then I guess it's best not to tell the public.......not too many would have been for it.......but if you tell them mushroom cloud, and WMD........well, then you got a whole 'nother ball game.

Is Iraq doing this more to get the technology rather than anything Bush has to do with it?

Er......um.........they were drilling about 2 million barrels a day......they seemed to be doing just fine.

How come all of a sudden you don't want to discuss the proof you demanded?

ptif219

07-09-2008, 02:35 AM

What are you talking about? Exxon, Mobil, Shell, Total, BP were all kicked out by Sadaam. Thankfully we had this war.....oh and Bush's main donator has his own private deal with the Kurds........sweet!

But yet they have been producing oil where did it go?

Well, if you're going to go to war for oil, then I guess it's best not to tell the public.......not too many would have been for it.......but if you tell them mushroom cloud, and WMD........well, then you got a whole 'nother ball game.
There is no proof we went there for oil.That is nothinhg more then a conspiracy theory.Are you wearing a tinfoil hat and seeing black helicopters. :madlaugh:

Er......um.........they were drilling about 2 million barrels a day......they seemed to be doing just fine.

How come all of a sudden you don't want to discuss the proof you demanded?

The proof was where is the oil we are getting we don't have any yet.I would say they want our technology.Just because the were peoducing 2 million barrels doesn't mean we can't help them get more.

Besides them selling us oil is a small price for their freedom and an end to mass graves.

tecoyah

07-09-2008, 10:41 AM

The proof was where is the oil we are getting we don't have any yet.I would say they want our technology.Just because the were peoducing 2 million barrels doesn't mean we can't help them get more.

Besides them selling us oil is a small price for their freedom and an end to mass graves.

..........And you accuse others of wearing tin foil hats?

You were wrong, proof of the error is sitting here for all to see, and so as seems an ongoing tactic you attempt a subject change....way to go there Sparky...Smooth.

ptif219

07-09-2008, 05:03 PM

..........And you accuse others of wearing tin foil hats?

You were wrong, proof of the error is sitting here for all to see, and so as seems an ongoing tactic you attempt a subject change....way to go there Sparky...Smooth.

How did that post change the topic?

tecoyah

07-09-2008, 07:32 PM

How did that post change the topic?

I rest my case...but it will not work.

ptif219

07-09-2008, 07:43 PM

I rest my case...but it will not work.

That does not answer my question.

piratemonkey

07-09-2008, 07:47 PM

The proof was where is the oil we are getting we don't have any yet.

So here's ptif's argument:

1) We (supposedly) went in for oil.
2) We don't see any oil yet (because Bush & Co. f'd things up so much).
3) Therefore, we didn't go in for oil.

tecoyah

07-09-2008, 07:49 PM

That does not answer my question.

No, it does not. Obviously the concept of admitting error is beyond your capability to grasp...so I might as well help you change the subject, by pointing out that you changed the subject by not addressing the Data provided that exposed your error in the first place.

In the above is the answer to your question, but as it is likely you cannot see it I will rephrase in a way that places it within your abilities to think:

They called you out, and you lost. So, you tried to talk about something new.
I called you out on that, so, you are trying to talk about something new.

ptif219

07-09-2008, 08:30 PM

No, it does not. Obviously the concept of admitting error is beyond your capability to grasp...so I might as well help you change the subject, by pointing out that you changed the subject by not addressing the Data provided that exposed your error in the first place.

In the above is the answer to your question, but as it is likely you cannot see it I will rephrase in a way that places it within your abilities to think:

They called you out, and you lost. So, you tried to talk about something new.
I called you out on that, so, you are trying to talk about something new.

No I showed if the war was about oil why have we not been getting oil the last 5 years.

This discussion now shows oil was not the priority but freedom and getting Iraq to the place she can defend herself was the reason.

Are these the same companies Saddam kicked out in 1972?

namguy

07-09-2008, 09:10 PM

No I showed if the war was about oil why have we not been getting oil the last 5 years.

This discussion now shows oil was not the priority but freedom and getting Iraq to the place she can defend herself was the reason.

Are these the same companies Saddam kicked out in 1972?

Iraq, defend themselfs, cool let's get the hell out of there now.

ptif219

07-09-2008, 09:55 PM

Iraq, defend themselfs, cool let's get the hell out of there now.

We have to wait even Obama knows that.

IndieVisible

07-09-2008, 09:58 PM

Let me see, Bush lied about Iraq, lied about WMD, he and Cheney are oil guys, hmmm. :madlaugh:

ptif219

07-09-2008, 10:24 PM

Let me see, Bush lied about Iraq, lied about WMD, he and Cheney are oil guys, hmmm. :madlaugh:

Show proof of your accusations.

IndieVisible

07-10-2008, 12:04 AM

Show proof of your accusations.

Iraq was not a threat or involved in the 9/11 plot, there was no wmd, and I'm betting they pander to oil companies too. What else can you expect from lieing cheating money hungry crooked Bush and Cheney? Peace love and honesty?

lily

07-10-2008, 02:13 AM

The proof was where is the oil we are getting we don't have any yet.I would say they want our technology.Just because the were peoducing 2 million barrels doesn't mean we can't help them get more.

Besides them selling us oil is a small price for their freedom and an end to mass graves.

Ptif.......you asked for proof.......I gave you 5 links of proof. You are now still asking the same question you asked before, and not only that, but changing the subject while you are doing it. Do you even know how to debate or are you just here to type?

ptif219

07-10-2008, 02:44 AM

Ptif.......you asked for proof.......I gave you 5 links of proof. You are now still asking the same question you asked before, and not only that, but changing the subject while you are doing it. Do you even know how to debate or are you just here to type?

So the companies Saddam kicked out in 1972 are going back what changed?

So I guess the oil companies have control of the military and the Iraq government. :madlaugh:

lily

07-10-2008, 03:14 AM

Ptif as a mod I can't put you on ignore.......but don't expect any more responses from me........I tried my hardest to have discussions with you.:shame:

ptif219

07-10-2008, 03:24 AM

Ptif as a mod I can't put you on ignore.......but don't expect any more responses from me........I tried my hardest to have discussions with you.:shame:

What? The oil companies are going back.Are you saying that Bush was using the military to get these oil companies back to Iraq?

tecoyah

07-10-2008, 09:53 AM

What? The oil companies are going back.Are you saying that Bush was using the military to get these oil companies back to Iraq?

As a Non- Mod...I CAN put you on ignore, but am having way too much fun watching you make a fool of yourself. Basically, Lilly just pointed out you are not intelligent enough to be considered a viable debate partner, and is unlikely to bother with you much anymore.

Oh....and by the way. We just used our military to get our oil companies back into Iraq. I am not claiming that was the primary reasoning, but it is the result.