Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 27

Thread: Our supposed "allies" outed as the

  1. #1
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    [url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105357,00.html]White House Backs Limiting Iraq Reconstruction[/url]

    [quote][b]Zees ess not fair! Zhust becuse we shed no blood liberating a countree doezz not mean we can not make zee profit.[/b][/quote]

    Blood for oil, my a$$. So only America is in it for the do-rey-me, huh?

    You libs wanted America to bend over and invite these self centered, self important greedy ba$tard$ to steer our foreign policy.

    Instead of open arms, I'm glad their getting what they deserve -- A FINGER!

    [SIZE=3][b]GEORGE W. BUSH IS DA MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/b][/SIZE]

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Just look what a little bid rigging can accomplish.

    December 10, 2003
    [b]High Payments to Halliburton for Fuel in Iraq[/b]
    By DON VAN NATTA Jr.

    The United States government is paying the Halliburton Company an average of $2.64 a gallon to import gasoline and other fuel to Iraq from Kuwait, more than twice what others are paying to truck in Kuwaiti fuel, government documents show.

    Halliburton, which has the exclusive United States contract to import fuel into Iraq, subcontracts the work to a Kuwaiti firm, government officials said. But Halliburton gets 26 cents a gallon for its overhead and fee, according to documents from the Army Corps of Engineers.

    The cost of the imported fuel first came to public attention in October when two senior Democrats in Congress criticized Halliburton, the huge Houston-based oil-field services company, for "inflating gasoline prices at a great cost to American taxpayers." At the time, it was estimated that Halliburton was charging the United States government and Iraq's oil-for-food program an average of about $1.60 a gallon for fuel available for 71 cents wholesale.

    But a breakdown of fuel costs, contained in Army Corps documents recently provided to Democratic Congressional investigators and shared with The New York Times, shows that Halliburton is charging $2.64 for a gallon of fuel it imports from Kuwait and $1.24 per gallon for fuel from Turkey.

    A spokeswoman for Halliburton, Wendy Hall, defended the company's pricing. "It is expensive to purchase, ship, and deliver fuel into a wartime situation, especially when you are limited by short-duration contracting," she said. She said the company's Kellogg Brown & Root unit, which administers the contract, must work in a "hazardous" and "hostile environment," and that its profit on the contract is small.

    The price of fuel sold in Iraq, set by the government, is 5 cents to 15 cents a gallon. The price is a political issue, and has not been raised to avoid another hardship for Iraqis.

    The Iraqi state oil company and the Pentagon's Defense Energy Support Center import fuel from Kuwait for less than half of Halliburton's price, the records show.

    Ms. Hall said Halliburton's subcontractor had had more than 20 trucks damaged or stolen, nine drivers injured and one driver killed when making fuel runs into Iraq.

    She said the contract was also expensive because it was hard to find a company with the trucks necessary to move the fuel, and because Halliburton is only able to negotiate a 30-day contract for fuel. "It is not as simple as dropping by a service station for a fill-up," she said.

    A spokesman for the Army Corps of Engineers, Bob Faletti, also defended the price of imported fuel.

    "Everyone is talking about high costs, but no one is talking about the dangers, or the number of fuel trucks that have been blown up," Mr. Faletti said. "That's the reason it is so expensive." He said recent government audits had found no improprieties in the Halliburton contract.

    Gasoline imports are one of the largest costs of Iraqi reconstruction efforts so far. Although Iraq sits on the third-largest oil reserves in the world, production has been hampered by pipeline sabotage, power failures and an antiquated infrastructure that was hurt by 11 years of United Nations sanctions.

    Nearly $500 million has already been spent to bring gas, benzene and other fuels into Iraq, according to the corps. And as part of the $87 billion package for Iraq and Afghanistan that President Bush signed last month, $18.6 billion will be spent on reconstruction projects, including $690 million for gasoline and other fuel imports in 2004.

    From May to late October, Halliburton imported about 61 million gallons of fuel from Kuwait and about 179 million from Turkey, at a total cost of more than $383 million.

    A company's profits on the transport and sale of gasoline are usually razor-thin, with companies losing contracts if they overbid by half a penny a gallon. Independent experts who reviewed Halliburton's percentage of its gas importation contract said the company's 26-cent charge per gallon of gas from Kuwait appeared to be extremely high.

    "I have never seen anything like this in my life," said Phil Verleger, a California oil economist and the president of the consulting firm PK Verleger LLC. "That's a monopoly premium — that's the only term to describe it. Every logistical firm or oil subsidiary in the United States and Europe would salivate to have that sort of contract."

    In March, Halliburton was awarded a no-competition contract to repair Iraq's oil industry, and it has already received more than $1.4 billion in work. That award has been the focus of Congressional scrutiny in part because Vice President Dick Cheney is Halliburton's former chief executive officer. As part of its contract, Halliburton began importing fuel in the spring when gasoline was in short supply in large Iraqi cities.

    The government's accounting shows that Halliburton paid its Kuwait subcontractor $1.17 a gallon, when it was selling for 71 cents a gallon wholesale in the Middle East.

    In addition, Halliburton is paying $1.21 a gallon to transport the fuel an estimated 400 miles from Kuwait to Iraq, the documents show. It is paying 22 cents a gallon to transport gas into Iraq from Turkey.

    The 26 cents a gallon it keeps includes a 2-cent fee and 24 cents for "mark-up costs," the documents show. The mark-up portion is intended to cover the overhead for administering the contract.

    Ms. Hall of Halliburton said it was "misleading" for the corps to call it a mark-up. "This simply means overhead costs, which includes the general and administrative costs like light bulbs, paper and employees," she said. "These costs are specifically allowable under the contract with the Corps of Engineers, are defined by detailed regulations, and are scrutinized and approved by U.S. government auditors."

    In recent weeks, the costs of importing fuel from Kuwait have risen. Figures provided recently to Congressional investigators by the corps show that Halliburton was charging as much as $3.06 per gallon for fuel from Kuwait in late November.

    If the corps concludes that Halliburton has successfully administered the gas contract, it could be paid an additional 5 percent of the total value of the gas it imported.

    Halliburton's Kuwait subcontractor was hired in May. Halliburton and the Army Corps of Engineers refused to identify the company, citing security reasons. Aides to Representative Henry A. Waxman, the California Democrat who has been a critic of the fuel contract, said government officials had identified it as the Altanmia Commercial Marketing Company. Several independent petroleum experts in the Middle East and the United States said they had not heard of Altanmia.

    Copies of the Army Corps documents were given to Mr. Waxman's office, which provided them to The Times.

    Iraqi's state oil company, SOMO, pays 96 cents a gallon to bring in gas, which includes the cost of gasoline and transportation costs, the aides to Mr. Waxman said. The gasoline transported by SOMO — and by Halliburton's subcontractor — are delivered to the same depots in Iraq and often use the same military escorts.

    The Pentagon's Defense Energy Support Center pays $1.08 to $1.19 per gallon for the gas it imports from Kuwait, Congressional aides said. That includes the price of the gas and its transportation costs.

    The money for Halliburton's gas contract has come principally from the United Nations oil-for-food program, though some of the costs have been borne by American taxpayers. In the appropriations bill signed by Mr. Bush last month, taxpayers will subsidize all gas importation costs beginning early next year.

    In an interview on Tuesday, Mr. Waxman responded to the latest information on to costs of the Halliburton contract. "It's inexcusable that Americans are being charged absurdly high prices to buy gasoline for Iraqis and outrageous that the White House is letting it happen," he said.

  3. #3
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Yeah, yeah, yeah...Haliburton threatens America - Haliburton killed millions of Iraqis - Haliburton funds terrorism - Haliburton spelled backward is ancient Greek for Satan (I just made that up, but I sure the Dean campaign will use it too)...

    Stop getting all your propaganda from Terry "Global Crossing" McAuliff.

    Sorry if this post offends you. Sorry if it upsets you that American companies are making profit and the French are getting le shaft.

    Last time I checked, America was founded on capitalism. Liberals haven't fully converted us to a communist/socialist country -- yet.

  4. #4
    the really offensive thing is that this whole war was and is nothing but a scam so that campaign contributing companies like Halliburton can get hooked up by their white house connections.

    oh no wait i forgot Weeb we are fightin terrorism by bombing afghani children. My bad. :blink:

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Dec 10 2003, 04:31 PM
    [b]

    oh no wait i forgot Weeb we are fightin terrorism by bombing afghani children. My bad. :blink: [/b][/quote]
    So we shouldn't be in Afganistan?

    Bitonti has never met a conspiracy theory he didn't like! ;)

  6. #6
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Dec 10 2003, 05:31 PM
    [b] the really offensive thing is that this whole war was and is nothing but a scam so that campaign contributing companies like Halliburton can get hooked up by their white house connections.

    oh no wait i forgot Weeb we are fightin terrorism by bombing afghani children. My bad. :blink: [/b][/quote]
    So now we're not even fighting terrorism in Afghanistan -- I see.

    It just wouldn't be a thread without both of the liberal twins chiming in. I'm sorry, the MODERATE liberal twins.

    Hey bit, maybe you should logoff before the black helicopters track you down. And don't forget to wear your tin foil hat when you watch PBS tonight.

  7. #7
    yeah yeah weeb -

    meanwhile this war is going along swimmingly - so much progress!!!

    Iraqis murdering other Iraqis that help the coalition, SAMS being shot at planes at Bagdhad airport, car bombs galore, the resistance is clearly strengthening its resolve

    oh and lets not forget about that huge amount of rogue WMD they recovered and are now in trustworthy hands!!! ;)

    The world feels safer already - democracy in Iraq is within sight&#33; Thanks George Bush you are my hero - All we have to do is kill all the "terrorists" and the world will be a happy smiley place&#33; That shouldn&#39;t take long, ya know they will kill all the evil ragheads wrap it all up, the boys should be home by xmas... in 2050&#33; <_<

    there&#39;s nothing that makes me feel as good as knowing that my tax dollars are working for all those Iraqis out there that appreciate it so very much. Im just waiting with baited breath for the first Bagdhad mcdonalds... so they can CAR BOMB IT&#33;

    Saddam? chillin in Syria. Osama? hanging out in Pakistan.

    yeah really bang up job boys - this was totally worth 250B and counting. Great ****ing work.

    ps- 5ever the only thing that going to war in Afghanistan changed was the price of Heroin. George will definately get the junkie vote in 04, cause that Taliban thing was brutal for lovers of Lady H.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Spirit of Weeb[/i]@Dec 10 2003, 04:48 PM
    [b] Sorry if this post offends you. Sorry if it upsets you that American companies are making profit and the French are getting le shaft.

    Last time I checked, America was founded on capitalism. Liberals haven&#39;t fully converted us to a communist/socialist country -- yet. [/b][/quote]
    What offends me isn&#39;t American companies making decent profits, what offends me is well placed companies being awarded non-bid "emergency" government contracts and then turning around and fleecing the American people. Talk about ungrateful bastards&#33;&#33;

    weebie...Perhaps you like wasteful government spending, but I sure as hell don&#39;t.

    Don&#39;t you find it obcene that 40,000 American veterans of the United States Armed Forces are forced to be on a waiting list to get into the VA because the VA lacks the funds to register them, yet that man in the White House allows Haliburton to charge the federal government almost twice the amount that gasoline sells for on the open market?

    It&#39;s an F-ing sick joke, and there ought to be an investigation by the Government Accounting Office.

    I guess in weebie&#39;s world an embezzler is also a capitalist.

  9. #9
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Dec 10 2003, 05:31 PM
    [b] the really offensive thing is that this whole war was and is nothing but a scam so that campaign contributing companies like Halliburton can get hooked up by their white house connections.

    oh no wait i forgot Weeb we are fightin terrorism by bombing afghani children. My bad. :blink: [/b][/quote]
    You libs are pathetic...so now the war was a scam to get corporations to give campaign donations?? No wonder howard dean is you top candidate and Al Sharpton is the only who makes sense during your debates&#33;

  10. #10
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators[/i]@Dec 10 2003, 04:03 PM
    [b] Just look what a little bid rigging can accomplish.

    December 10, 2003
    [b]High Payments to Halliburton for Fuel in Iraq[/b]
    By DON VAN NATTA Jr.

    Gasoline imports are one of the largest costs of Iraqi reconstruction efforts so far. Although Iraq sits on the third-largest oil reserves in the world, production has been hampered by pipeline sabotage, power failures and an antiquated infrastructure that was hurt by 11 years of United Nations sanctions.
    [/b][/quote]
    Yes...I read that in the Times today as well. Of course the guy lost all credibility with me for the following paragraph: [i]Gasoline imports are one of the largest costs of Iraqi reconstruction efforts so far. Although Iraq sits on the third-largest oil reserves in the world, production has been hampered by pipeline sabotage, power failures and an antiquated infrastructure that was hurt by 11 years of United Nations sanctions.[/i]

    Right, Hussein&#39;s pilfering of the country had nothing to do with an antiquated infrastructure, no it was sanctions pressed for by the U.S.

    Another pathetic liberal attempt&#33;

  11. #11
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Spirit of Weeb[/i]@Dec 10 2003, 04:48 PM
    [b] Last time I checked, America was founded on capitalism. Liberals haven&#39;t fully converted us to a communist/socialist country -- yet. [/b][/quote]
    And to prove your point the deranged howard dean has already come out and said he [b]will[/b] regulate the media if he is elected. This guy isn&#39;t in office yet and already he&#39;s dangerous&#33;

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    The Keystone Cops Administration is at it again. Even Bush was pissed this time&#33;

    [b]Bush Seeks Help of Allies Barred From Iraq Deals[/b]
    By DAVID E. SANGER and DOUGLAS JEHL

    WASHINGTON, Dec. 10 — President Bush found himself in the awkward position on Wednesday of calling the leaders of France, Germany and Russia to ask them to forgive Iraq&#39;s debts, just a day after the Pentagon excluded those countries and others from &#036;18 billion in American-financed Iraqi reconstruction projects.

    White House officials were fuming about the timing and the tone of the Pentagon&#39;s directive, even while conceding that they had approved the Pentagon policy of limiting contracts to 63 countries that have given the United States political or military aid in Iraq.

    Many countries excluded from the list, including close allies like Canada, reacted angrily on Wednesday to the Pentagon action. They were incensed, in part, by the Pentagon&#39;s explanation in a memorandum that the restrictions were required "for the protection of the essential security interests of the United States."

    The Russian defense minister, Sergei Ivanov, when asked about the Pentagon decision, responded by ruling out any debt write-off for Iraq.

    The Canadian deputy prime minister, John Manley, suggested crisply that "it would be difficult" to add to the &#036;190 million already given for reconstruction in Iraq.

    White House officials said Mr. Bush and his aides had been surprised by both the timing and the blunt wording of the Pentagon&#39;s declaration. But they said the White House had signed off on the policy, after a committee of deputies from a number of departments and the National Security Council agreed that the most lucrative contracts must be reserved for political or military supporters.

    Those officials apparently did not realize that the memorandum, signed by Paul D. Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense, would appear on a Defense Department Web site hours before Mr. Bush was scheduled to ask world leaders to receive James A. Baker III, the former treasury secretary and secretary of state, who is heading up the effort to wipe out Iraq&#39;s debt. Mr. Baker met with the president on Wednesday.

    Several of Mr. Bush&#39;s aides said they feared that the memorandum would undercut White House efforts to repair relations with allies who had opposed the invasion of Iraq.

    White House officials declined to say how Mr. Bush explained the Pentagon policy to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, President Jacques Chirac of France and Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of Germany. France and Russia were two of the largest creditors of Saddam Hussein&#39;s government. But officials hinted, by the end of the day, that Mr. Baker might be able to show flexibility to countries that write down Iraqi debt.

    "I can&#39;t imagine that if you are asking to do stuff for Iraq that this is going to help," a senior State Department official said late Wednesday.

    A senior administration official described Mr. Bush as "distinctly unhappy" about dealing with foreign leaders who had just learned of their exclusion from the contracts.

    Under the Pentagon rules, only companies whose countries are on the American list of "coalition nations" are eligible to compete for the prime contracts, though they could act as subcontractors. The result is that the Solomon Islands, Uganda and Samoa may compete for the contracts, but China, whose premier just left the White House with promises of an expanded trade relationship, is excluded, along with Israel.

    Several of Mr. Bush&#39;s aides wondered why the administration had not simply adopted a policy of giving preference to prime contracts to members of the coalition, without barring any countries outright.

    "What we did was toss away our leverage," one senior American diplomat said. "We could have put together a policy that said, `The more you help, the more contracts you may be able to gain.&#39; " Instead, the official said, "we found a new way to alienate them."

    A senior official at the State Department was asked during an internal meeting on Wednesday how he expected the move to affect the responses of Russia, France and Germany to the American request. He responded, "Go ask Jim Baker," according another senior official, who said of Mr. Baker, "He&#39;s the one who&#39;s going to be carrying the water, and he&#39;s going to be the one who finds out."

    In public, however, the White House defended the approach. Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said "the United States and coalition countries, as well as others that are contributing forces to the efforts there, and the Iraqi people themselves are the ones that have been helping and sacrificing to build a free and prosperous nation for the Iraqi people."

    He said contracts stemming from aid to Iraq pledged by donor nations in Madrid last month would be open to broad international competition.

    Richard A. Boucher, the State Department spokesman, said Wednesday that while the bidding restriction applied to prime contracts, "there are very few restrictions on subcontractors."

    He also said the World Bank and International Monetary Fund "may have different, or their own, rules for how they contract."

    When the committee was drafting the policy, officials said, there was some discussion about whether it would be wise to declare that excluding noncoalition members was in the security interests of the United States. As a matter of trade law, countries are often allowed to limit trade with other nations on national security grounds.

    "The intent was to give us the legal cover to make the decision," one official said.

    But the phrase angered officials of other nations because it seemed to suggest they were a security risk.

    Moreover, the United States Trade Representative&#39;s office said on Wednesday that contracts with the occupation authority "are not covered by international trade procurement obligations because the C.P.A. is not an entity subject to these obligations."

    "Accordingly, there is no need to invoke the `essential security&#39; exception to our trade obligations," the office added.

    That raised the question of why Mr. Wolfowitz included the phrase.

    The Pentagon was already recasting the policy on Wednesday.

    "Nobody had the intent of being punitive when this was being developed," said Larry Di Rita, spokesman for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

    "This is not a fixed, closed list," he said. "This is meant to be forward looking and potentially expansive."

  13. #13
    the Bush administration has to be to diplomatically the worst administration in American history. They have no idea what diplomacy is or how to use it. They know what bombs are and how to use them, but diplomacy is sorely lacking in the White House.

  14. #14
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Dec 11 2003, 09:49 AM
    [b] the Bush administration has to be to diplomatically the worst administration in American history. They have no idea what diplomacy is or how to use it. They know what bombs are and how to use them, but diplomacy is sorely lacking in the White House. [/b][/quote]
    Do you have any idea how ludicrous this statement is? What is diplomatic about rewarding countries who incurred no cost or risk? The diplomatic thing to do is reward the countries who DID help bear the cost of this operation, and that&#39;s what Bush is doing. "Diplomacy" does not mean never pissing off France, Germany or Russia. Do you even understand the concept of risk/reward? Do you understand that this shows the Eastern Bloc countries that we are willing to reciprocate? Do you understand that this is very diplomatic with reagrds to the countries that did help us and we are even letting all others get in on it if they help us now? There is no such thing as a free lunch - it&#39;s not undiplomatic to point this out.

    If you and I invested in a stock and made a profit, should we also give some of that profit to people who put up no money and actively tried to stop is from buying that stock? Bush and the USA have been clear on this point from the get-go. The amazing part is that these contracts are largely going to be funded by american taxpayer dollars, there is no way in hell we should stimulate the economies of countries who undermined what we tried to do, at ZERO cost for them, ESPECIALLY in light of the fact that these same countries have traded with and profited from Saddam for YEARS in violation of the same UN and concept of "unity" that they now champion.

    Why does Saddam have so much debt to France and Russia? Why don&#39;t they "investigate the legality" of their trades with Saddam in violation of the sanctions? Hey Chirac - if Saddam owes you so much bank go talk to him about it&#33;

  15. #15
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    8,094
    So which is it bit? Are the adminstration&#39;s actions the result of an evil, scheming, vast and calculated conspiracy; or are they stumbling, bumbling idiots? What&#39;s your convenient flavor of the day?

  16. #16
    shakin i never said they were bumbling idiots nor did i say there was a conspiracy - these are words put in my mouth. If you want to quote me then quote me, but don&#39;t just make s**t up that i never said.

    it doesn&#39;t matter anyway im not on trial nor am i a candidate for election, so i don&#39;t have to be consistant.

    Bottom line when your secretary of defense releases a memo that hamstrings a request the president was about to make, that&#39;s piss poor diplomacy. If you are too much in love with Dubya to recognise that, hey that&#39;s your business.

    Wolfowitz couldn&#39;t have waited 2 days to release that statement?

    even supporters of the President should realise how BAD they are at diplomacy. Ronnie and Bush I admin were masters at diplomacy. Bush II admin doesn&#39;t even know the meaning of the word.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever+Dec 11 2003, 11:26 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (jets5ever @ Dec 11 2003, 11:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--bitonti[/i]@Dec 11 2003, 09:49 AM
    [b] the Bush administration has to be to diplomatically the worst administration in American history. They have no idea what diplomacy is or how to use it. They know what bombs are and how to use them, but diplomacy is sorely lacking in the White House. [/b][/quote]
    Do you have any idea how ludicrous this statement is? [/b][/quote]
    5-ever...Did you even read the article? Try and keep up will ya&#33;

    Bush was furious at the timing of Pentagon&#39;s directive. It undermined the effort he and James Baker were making at having Iraq&#39;s debt restructured or forgivin. I&#39;d love to read a transcript of the conversation Bush had with Vladimeir Putin yesterday, I&#39;m sure it was awkward as hell. Putin must have laughed his ass off after he hung up on Bush.

    This administration&#39;s foriegn policy is uncoordinated and often makes them look foolish.

  18. #18
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators+Dec 11 2003, 10:42 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (tailgators @ Dec 11 2003, 10:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> [quote]Originally posted by -jets5ever@Dec 11 2003, 11:26 AM
    [b] <!--QuoteBegin--bitonti[/i]@Dec 11 2003, 09:49 AM
    [b] the Bush administration has to be to diplomatically the worst administration in American history. They have no idea what diplomacy is or how to use it. They know what bombs are and how to use them, but diplomacy is sorely lacking in the White House. [/b][/quote]
    Do you have any idea how ludicrous this statement is? [/b][/quote]
    5-ever...Did you even read the article? Try and keep up will ya&#33;

    Bush was furious at the timing of Pentagon&#39;s directive. It undermined the effort he and James Baker were making at having Iraq&#39;s debt restructured or forgivin. I&#39;d love to read a transcript of the conversation Bush had with Vladimeir Putin yesterday, I&#39;m sure it was awkward as hell. Putin must have laughed his ass off after he hung up on Bush.

    This administration&#39;s foriegn policy is uncoordinated and often makes them look foolish. [/b][/quote]
    Bush signed off on it. He knew about it.

    The NY Times and their "senior admin officials" can blow me.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Dec 11 2003, 11:46 AM
    [b] Bush signed off on it. He knew about it.

    The NY Times and their "senior admin officials" can blow me. [/b][/quote]
    Typical response 5-ever.

    You just can&#39;t admit being wrong can you? You&#39;re in way over your head here.
    Go back to the kiddie table will ya&#33;

  20. #20
    ok 5ever you are right, the NY times can blow you.

    Bush definately knew what he was doing when he signed that document (cause hes the type of guy who reads everything he signs) and it was a calculated piece of quality diplomacy to piss off your allies, and then ask for a favor, instead of the other way around.

    Why i didn&#39;t see this before must be the shortcomings my tiny liberal conspiracy theory brain. Obviously it was a great move to piss everyone off then ask for the reconstuction favor. What was i thinking, it was pure genius&#33; <_<

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us