Hehehehehehehehe hahahahahahahahahahahahaha......

  It finally comes out!!  What people who do not blindly worship at the alter of this admin knew and suspected all along finally comes out.  Thak god for the internet.   The liars in this admin make Nixon look like and angel from 7th heaven.  Let me just highlight a quote from the article in case the Bush worshippers can't stomach to read the entire article.  Here is what the "honorable" VP Cheney said in an interview w/ Russert.  
  "As vice president, I have absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of in any way, shape or form of contracts led by the Corps of Engineers or anybody else in the federal government," Cheney told NBC's "Meet the Press" in September, Time said.
   If the totally incompetent democratic party has half a brain cell left(which I seriously doubt) this email from Feith would be in every single commercial until the elections.  
   Personally, I just can't wait to hear how Cheney defends this one.  Here is how this one is going to go down--
   "I am the great Cheney, personally appointed by god himself, and if you question why I lied you are unpatriotic and a Bin Laden lover.  You hate america and Saddam was behind 9-11"
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1503&ncid=1503&e=2&u=/afp/20040530/ts_afp/us_iraq_halliburton_040530173749

In any case, we can add corruption to incompetence on Bush's ledger for the Iraq war.  

And the death toll for Bush/Cheney's Iraq debacle is rapidly approaching 800 Brave American troops.

Where the hell was all this concern when you guys were fighting like hell to deny them the right to vote!!

Where the hell was all this concern in 2000 when the left was trying its best to make sure they did not get the right to vote??

When we see any response to this letter.

   Rumsfeld was the one grinning like a joker and shaking hands with his best of friends Saddam in the 80's after Saddam gassed women and children.  Actually, I shouldn't just single him out, after all it was Reagan who send him there to reassure Saddam that we would overlook the gassing of women and children and even wanted to strengthen diplomatic ties with him.  

I've been asking several times why Democrats tried to deny our servicemen the right to vote and no one on the left will touch it with a 10ft poll. If all I hear are attacks amd no responses to my questions, then why should I waste my time responding to anyone's questions about Cheney. If you've got case, press charges, otherwise you're just bitching...

It was sdstud who brought our troops into this debate, so I believe my comment is on subject

And, BTW, I was not a Gore supporter.  I merely voted for him because he was clearly better than Bush.  But my candidate then, and my preferred candidate now, would be John McCain.  Who's resume, and personal character and integrity, I might add, towers over that of both Bush and Gore.

HERE WE GO WITH HALLIBURTON AGAIN

This is turning into a farce, but then again that's a liberal specialty.  The media has once again climbed aboard the Halliburton merry-go-round.  This is the oil services company that Vice President Dick Cheney headed before he took a gigantic pay cut to become President Bush's running mate.  The latest accusation:  Dick Cheney coordinated a huge government contract for Iraq.

The "smoking gun" is apparently an e-mail over a year old stating that the contract for Halliburton was "coordinated with the VP's office."  Cheney's spokesman said the e-mail was sent as a heads-up in anticipation of the controversy over awarding the contract, since he used to head the firm.  That's it. Nothing really to it.

Once again ... Halliburton was awarded this services contract under the Clinton administration.  In the 1990s the Army wanted to get outside help handling the logistics associated with actions overseas.  That's when the Army came up with LOGCAP, the U.S. Army Logistics Civil Augmentation Program.  Halliburton first won the competitive bid for LOGCAP in 1992.  It lost the contract in 1997.  Who was president in 1997?  Someone named Bill Clinton.  Halliburton was out, but Clinton needed help with his logistics efforts in Bosnia.  Who did he turn to?  Halliburton?  He gave another contract to Halliburton with NO COMPETITIVE BIDDING.  Halliburton then won the competitive bidding process again in 2001.  So ... which party seems to favor Halliburton?  In 1992 and in 2001, under Republican presidents, Halliburton wins competitive bids for LOGCAP.   In 1997, under a Democratic president, Halliburton gets the contract without a bid.

So ... Bush haters.  Get over it.  If anyone was showing favoritism to Halliburton, it was Clinton, not Bush and Cheney.

It's interesting that the Bush-haters think Cheney is some sort of evil mastermind ripping off the government and enriching his buddies at Halliburton, while at the same time accusing him of being stupid enough to coordinate a huge contract with a company with which they say he has a conflict of interest.  So..which is it?

The order has been given: get Cheney.

Including many Gore supporters, particularly minority voters in Florida.  The fact is, Bush is President.  He won his court case (whether I or anyone else thinks he won it legitimately, is actually irrelevant, at this point).

Whether or not Cheney committed a fraud on the American Public that is still ongoing, is in fact NOT irrelevant.  So yes, we would like you to answer what we should do about this current, relevant issue, rather than to decry irrelevancies in the past.

And whether or not they were disenfranchised, I should think YOU would care ALOT that our brave troops are PRESENTLY being killed in alarming numbers for a fraudulent mission that they should never have been sent on.  Is it that you care more about irrelevant vote counts in a previously decided election, than about the ACTUAL LIVES of our troops?

I never said that Cheney was stupid.  I said that Bush was stupid.  What I said about Cheney was that he lacked morality and ethics, and this conflict of interest in dealing with Halliburton demonstrates this, NOT that he is stupid, he is not.  He is unethical, but he is smart.

You may not like it, but there is no contradiction here at all.

the only yhing about Florida is that Gore cherry-picked where to count. If you demand hyper-accuracy, you should demand it everywhere, not just where you think it will get you votes. This is why Gore lost his fight in the Supreme Court, equal protection under the law...

Besides, I find it hard to compare recounts for accuracy with leterally throwing out votes on technicalities.

like he is God.  Dubya thinks he's God!

I have no dog in this fight between you and Puck but I think that I know the answer to your question.  The Gore campaign challenged the absentee ballots from soldiers from overseas because they expected the vote from that population to go heavily against them.  This is the same strategy that republicans used in some districts that they anticipated would vote heavily against them and during the recount in Florida.
    So in a nutshell, any challenge that took place was simply politics playing itself out.

to serve the political agenda of the Bushies, that's beyond sickening.  And, just because I don't support the war doesn't mean I don't care for the soldiers who are actually fighting.  On the contrary, I claim it is Bush that doesn't care about the soldiers (certainly, he hasn't a clue about their day to day struggles - If he was so inclined).

Do I know how to best deal with terrorists - Of course not.  However, I do know that we need a President whose only agenda is what's best for the People (naive, I know - but one can hope.  We sure as hell don't have that in Bush).

Do you really believe that Iraq was responsible for the WTC attacks ?

For certain types of Cancer you can cut it out and recover (if detected in time)- I hope that's the case for US.

Yes Sir!!! Let us get Rush on board!

This is what we must do now, and remember, Ding Chavez (I assume under Neal Boortz' advisement) said so.

  One criminal shaking hands with another criminial  You know the old saying, "birds of the same feather flock together."  In fact after Saddam gassed women and children we wanted "strengthen" diplomatic ties with him!!  But Im sure gassing women and children can be overlooked as long as it was in "our national interests."  
  And we simply can't figure out why so many in the Arab world hate us.  Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

There is NO comparison here...

There's a BIG difference between throwing out military ballots that have been counted and there is no question how they voted and RECOUNTING ballots. This is goes back to what I stated earlier, the fact that Gore wanted to cherry pick which counties should be recounted is why he lost in court. It is not fair to the other folks in florida to do one vote in their county and 2 counts in another.

This is not a tit-for-tat and throwing out valid ballots of our folks in uniform is far worse...

What you see as a Bush political agenda I see as acting in the best interest of the United States. I believe that he was a nasty guy who had to go. What I don't get is that it was the Clinton Administration that made regime change in Iraq U.S. policy. If it is such a bad idea, why didn't people bitch about it then and if Clinton was going to make it U.S. policy why did he fail to do anything about it.

In all fairness to Bill, he did not have a 9-11 incident to deal with and its ramifications. My .02 is that after that date, the time for allowing the types of situations which were present in Iraq (10K to suicide bombers, firing on our aircraft, ignoring UN sanctions) could no longer be tolerated.

Please read each of the responses.  Not a single one rebuts anything in the original post.

There is, however, a plethora of personal attacks against me, as well as anyone who dares speak a contrary view.

You Lefties are pathetic.

stilltryin25 asserts that Republicans used the "same strategy" as the Democrats "in some districts that they anticipated would vote heavily against them and during the recount in Florida," to-wit, "challeng[ing] ... ballots ... because they expected the vote from that population to go heavily against them."

Actually, Republicans didn't challenge the counts in Florida.  They merely demanded that selective recounts not be conducted in areas under Democrat control, and where the population had already gone heavily against them.  It was the Democrats who utilized a craven and selective strategy of recounts in heavily Democrat areas, and disenfranchisement of those expected to vote Republican, in an effort to steal the election legitimately won by George W. Bush.

In short, Republicans didn't challenge any ballots.  They simply demanded cessation of a selective recount demanded in an effort to obtain a preferred outcome.

"I was not a Gore supporter....  I merely voted for him...."

Just because you didn't pound the pavement for the Tree doesn't relieve you from responsibility for voting for him.

As for your title, name a single individual, other than military personnel who was "disenfranchised in Florida."  The simple fact is, you Lefties couldn't, and haven't, because it simply didn't happen.  Even the Civil Rights Commission, with Mary Frances Berry and her cloud-cuckoo land of conspiracies couldn't come up with someone.  It simply didn't happen.

Herr Goebbels would be happy to see that his "Big Lie" strategy lives on in sdstud.

And the Bush Administration and all of it's right wing defenders love to obfuscate over this huge distinction.  Clinton instituted a policy stating that regime change in Iraq would be desireable.  But at NO POINT did he ever develop a policy that stated that we should be willing to spend thousands of American lives, and hundreds of billions of American Dollars, and be willing to act unilaterally against the will of the international community to accomplish this.  Making that HUGE leap was ENTIRELY the agenda of the Bush Administration.

The Clinton administration had done the same calculus, and decided NOT to act, unless an expedient, low cost means of regime change was available in Iraq.  It was not, and hence, the Clinton administration never acted on it.  It was the Bush administration, and ONLY the Bush Administration, that decided to go after Saddam AT ALL COSTS.  And in pursuit of this goal, they trumped up the case of an imminent WMD threat, including an imminent nuclear threat, to justify the case for acting.  When that bogus case did not convince the international community to support it, they still went ahead, at great costs to our nation.

But certainly the Clinton Administration NEVER countenanced spending hundreds of billions of dollars, all of our international moral authority, and potential loss of over a thousand american troops in order to overthrow Saddam.  It's a complete misrepresentation of reality to say that this was Clinton's policy and Bush was only carrying it out.  That's simply BS.  Clinton's policy was simply that it would be nice to get rid of Saddam, but certainly NOT worth the cost for us to do it ourselves.

It is EXACTLY an apples to apples comparison.  Both Bush and Gore played hardball with votes to serve their needs.  At the end of the day, it is irrelevant who wanted to do what, because Bush was deemed to win the election by the Supreme Court, irrespective of what the final count actually was, or would have been under any of a variety of re-count scenarios.  

You can demonize Gore if you wish, on this basis, but in fact, Gore is not President, and Bush is, and Bush is thus responsible for what has happened under his watch as President.  Dispising Gore is no reason to give Bush a free pass on squandering the lives of over 800 Brave American troops on a fool's errand in Iraq.

I suggest that you focus on the job Bush has done as President, and stop diverting the argument to irrelevancies about what Gore tried to do, or as other right wingers continue to moan about: what Clinton said about a consensual blowjob.

betwen disenfranchising voters using subterfuge such as putting them on a list for sharing a name with a felon and denying ballots because they weren't turned in on time. There is no more reason to accept a late absentee ballot than there is to allow someone to come in and vote the day after an election because they were too busy to get there on election day.

is about the non-competitive bidding that Halliburton received after March of 2003?  It sounds like you are confused about what the controversy is about.  2003, not 2001 or before.  The dates might not matter to you, but your talking about oranges while the rest of us are talking about lemons.  How come no mention of the 2003 contract to a company that got lots of action from countries banned from doing business with U.S. companies and then was secretly awarded said contract.  I hope that refutes your theory that it has only been Democratic administrations that have awarded non-bid contracts to Halliburton.  Ah, how quickly we forget the facts when we try to confuse the gullable public!

With the method the left wanted to use, he would not be out AT ALL! And remember, before 9-11 this was an option so I don't fault Bill for his course of action. Now his continued exsistence with his payments to terrorist organizations and his attacking US aircraft is unacceptable...

My point was the LEFT, not Gore. And my point is relevant because I keep hearing how GWB is doing our troops wrong (as in your previous post). I simply asked the question, where was all the concern during the 2000 election when the left was trying to throw out their votes. You can't expect to try to screw over a group of people and then complain 3 years later that someone is screwing over the same group of people and not expect to get called on the obvious hypocracy...

Are you really so satisfied with having Sadaaaam out ?  Is terrorism now defeated ?  Have the victims of ``9-11'' received some justice ?  

This is pathetic - GWB has turned Osama into a F'n genius - A sick one, but effective nonetheless.  

The dead of the WTC attacks are turning in their F'n graves.  But as long as you got a tax cut and your hero has beat up Sadaaaam - Who cares.

I've said it before, he was payong 10K to homicide bombers, he was firing on our aircraft during the "peace", and he snubbed his nose at the UN resolutions and the US.

He had to go...

The fight on terrorism is far from over, but I believe removing Saddam was a step in the right direction!

All the opinions you state are yousr and you of course have a right to them, just get over that fact that not eveyrone shares them...

BTW, if the victims of 9-11 are rolling in their graves about anything, it is probably the fact that they would be alive today if Bill Clinton would have taken Osama when he was offered up on a silver platter!!

Because it establishes an historical context for the slander that this is something unique and sinister for the Bush Administration.  You Lefties didn't have a problem with it, though now it's part of your slanders against the Bush Administration.

Double-standards reveal that your real cause is political power, not clean and open government.

9/11 changed NOTHING, with respect to Saddam Hussein and Iraq, except that it gave Bush an opportunity to mislead the American Public into the view that the two items were somehow linked.  

Overthrowing Saddam unilaterally as we did has given us NO BENEFIT with respect to making us safer from Al Qaida terror, and it has quite apparently STRENGTHENED Al Qaida significantly in their recruiting efforts among Arabs.  We also have no evidence yet that the country can ever be made stable.  All this for over 800 Brave American lives and $200 Billion American dollars.  BTW, that's nearly $2000 CASH from EVERY AMERICAN HOUSEHOLD, that you will eventually end up paying for this disaster, which has accomplished NOTHING except to remove a strongman who actually did us (as opposed to his own citizens) little harm.

If the votes were late, they had no business being counted.  Nonetheless, this has nothing to do with caring about their LIVES, and trying not to get them killed for a worthless endeavor.   There is no hypocrisy in that.

Quoting scripture and continuously pronouncing your love of Jesus does not make you moral.  You actions do, and this administration's actions show that they talk the talk, but DON"T
walk the walk.  Part of moral fiber is admitting to your mistakes and taking responsibility for them.  Since Bush himself, in his infamous say nothing press conference last month, admitted he can't think of Any mistakes he's made, he has proven himself delusional, or just plain crazy.  Any sane person admits to past mistakes, and not even Jesus was perfect!

Of course now, ding chavez, you can explain to all of us that Bush HAS NEVER made a mistake and why some of us are stupid to think he has.

Can't wait for this answer.

ABBA

There are over 40 countries in the coalition, this UNILATERAL CRAP is the s**t shoveled by the left. I know another guy in history who said if you repeat a lie enough, it becomes the truth.

Did we do it without the UN, Yep, and THANK GOD!! Sorry we screwed up their lucrative oil contracts. How come everybody on the left wants to bitch about Cheney and Haliburton but not about the UN corruption with the oil contracts. Another double stadard by the left.

I've said it before, he was paying 10K to homicide bombers families and firing on our aircraft during the "peace". If that is an ok guy in your book who is doing no harm, so be it...

The very reason so many people gave their lives was for the right to vote. Don't be so ready to discount the freedom to vote!

And as far as your quote:

"If the votes were late, they had no business being counted"

So basically what you are saying is if someone is serving their country overseas and fills out a ballot and the Pantagon gets those ballots back state side a day late, that soldier has no right to their vote.



-- Modified on 6/4/2004 10:04:54 PM

Are we doing most of the fighting and dirty work? Yes. But what about the precious UN that eveyrong seems to be so in love with. Guess what country supplies the most troops to UN coalition forces, so if the UN were carrying this out, we would STILL be the #1 military force in action. So what is the difference if it is the coalition or the UN, we would still be the majority fighting force...

Not that we were able to pressure them all.  But, other than the U.K., none of our "coalition of the willing" really put skin in the game, nor really wanted to be there to the point of taking a strong stand.  And the U.K. also only did what they did because they valued the benefits of supporting us, more than they valued aligning with France and Germany.