Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Breach of security?

  1. #1
    i want to know how the White House could wait 78 days before starting an inquiry into who ousted the CIA agent

    but waited less then 1 day to start an inquiry into whether Paul ONeill's documents were a breach of national security?

    lets face facts people - as much as the admin is trying to paint Paul ONeill as a disgrunted former employee (and it might be true)

    the bottom line is that last sunday, on TV, in full color was the proof that the war in Iraq was PRIMARILY about OIL.

    Displayed for all to see was a blueprint drawn up by the big 5 oil companies and handed to their man Dubya, detailing how, when, where and by whom the spoils of Iraq would be divided up.

    How this information came out and whether it is a security breach isn't relevant to the current dialogue.

    we can talk about "sending a message" in region or "fighting terrorism where it lives" and about a hundred other bull**** lines of reasoning

    but the proof is right there - the Oil companies were planning this in the EARLY stages of the administration and Bush was fully behind it. (gee who would have thought of that... an oil man looking for oil!)

    If you can't see that this war is about OIL then i'm sorry you are in severe denial. There are human rights violations all over this planet that we don't give a rat's ass about and you all know it.

    so go ahead conservatives and character assassinate Paul Oneill just like you character assassinate ANYONE who opposes the short-sighted and greed-driven agenda of the President.

    the message is out and hopefully the people of this country take care of the ruthless pandering to corporate interests and war-profiteering that has DISGRACED our nation's capital.

  2. #2
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    3,408
    How can you say the president only cares about oil? He is pushing for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Ohh yeah he wants to produce the hydrogen through petrolium rather than cleanly getting it from water.

  3. #3
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    "I ride a bike to work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Section109Row15[/i]@Jan 15 2004, 11:03 AM
    [b] How can you say the president only cares about oil? He is pushing for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Ohh yeah he wants to produce the hydrogen through petrolium rather than cleanly getting it from water. [/b][/quote]
    Hey, Einstein, do you have any idea how expensive it is to extract hydrogen from water on a scale that would even begin to make it usable for fuel?

    "No blood for Oil!" "Free Mumia!" "Castro Rules!" "Saddam is a victim!" "France knows everything!"

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    The documented record is very clear right from his first day in office President Bush had Iraq in his sights. It was never a question of if Bush would have the U.S. invade Iraq, it was always a question of when.

    My Congressmen, Rep. Maurice Hinchey has called for a Congressional investigation into the planning and execution of this war.

    [url=http://www.dailyfreeman.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10802387&BRD=1769&PAG=461&dept_id=74969&rfi=8]http://www.dailyfreeman.com/site/news.cfm?..._id=74969&rfi=8[/url]

    I agree with him that the time has come to examine and review the plunge into war that President Bush led us into.

  6. #6
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Jan 15 2004, 11:57 AM
    [b] i want to know how the White House could wait 78 days before starting an inquiry into who ousted the CIA agent

    but waited less then 1 day to start an inquiry into whether Paul ONeill's documents were a breach of national security?

    lets face facts people - as much as the admin is trying to paint Paul ONeill as a disgrunted former employee (and it might be true)

    the bottom line is that last sunday, on TV, in full color was the proof that the war in Iraq was PRIMARILY about OIL.

    Displayed for all to see was a blueprint drawn up by the big 5 oil companies and handed to their man Dubya, detailing how, when, where and by whom the spoils of Iraq would be divided up.

    How this information came out and whether it is a security breach isn't relevant to the current dialogue.

    we can talk about "sending a message" in region or "fighting terrorism where it lives" and about a hundred other bull**** lines of reasoning

    but the proof is right there - the Oil companies were planning this in the EARLY stages of the administration and Bush was fully behind it. (gee who would have thought of that... an oil man looking for oil!)

    If you can't see that this war is about OIL then i'm sorry you are in severe denial. There are human rights violations all over this planet that we don't give a rat's ass about and you all know it.

    so go ahead conservatives and character assassinate Paul Oneill just like you character assassinate ANYONE who opposes the short-sighted and greed-driven agenda of the President.

    the message is out and hopefully the people of this country take care of the ruthless pandering to corporate interests and war-profiteering that has DISGRACED our nation's capital. [/b][/quote]
    Simple....it was well known in DC circles that woman eorked for the CIA. Add in the fact that a reporter went on television and said she was a CIA agent as opposed to O'Neill who basically got up on the stand and crucified himself.

    As far as the ridiculous war for oil arguement...neither my gas nor home heating oil bills have dropped since we won the war.

  7. #7
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Jan 15 2004, 12:05 PM
    [b] "I ride a bike to work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" [/b][/quote]
    [b]5ever[/b] you can be glib about it but even you have to admit that this countries over-reliance on OIL is a bad thing. Every time the oil supply is threatened (twice in the 70's and twice in the 90's) it triggers a recession. Besides the environmental concerns, there are legitimate health concerns, especially with asthma affecting the young and elderly in densely populated areas due to fossil fuel emmissions.

    lets not forget the fact that the only reason we give a s**t about the most unstable region in the world is because of OIL and the 6 and a half billion barrels it takes to make the country run every year.

    if there wasn't OIL in the middle east there wouldn't have been Western meddling in the region... probably no Israel as well. Its not a stretch to say without OIL in the Middle east there would have been no 9-11. Bin Ladin's family wealth was directly related to OIL.

    Nuclear power and alternative energy sources need to be emphasized for a multitude of reasons.

    The only reason to keep the oil status quo is for the benefit of people like George Bush who's families are HEAVILY invested in these companies.

    ---

    but that's all a disscussion for another day.

    what's relevant now is that the President has been marketing this war on Lies and the proof came out on 60 minutes. Call it the "war for oil" at least that's honest.

    i can't wait to see what one or two line response i get to this ;)

  8. #8
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Come Back to NY[/i]@Jan 15 2004, 12:20 PM
    [b] As far as the ridiculous war for oil arguement...neither my gas nor home heating oil bills have dropped since we won the war. [/b][/quote]
    [b]Come Back to NY[/b]

    hey i must have missed it, when did we win the war? we still have 140,000 troops in the region dying at a rate of one per day.

    this war is not for 2004 oil its for 2014 oil... its for the oil we will be extracting not the oil we have been extracting.

    seriously though your bills will never go down... its like when they went from CDs from Vinyl - it takes a couple bucks to make a record it takes 2 cents to make a CD yet a CD costs 20 bucks and a Record costs 7. They will charge whatever they want to charge and people will pay it. Its not about winning oil so they can pass the savings on to the consumer. Its about winning the oil so they can make 30 more years of money off it. Cmon think about it.

  9. #9
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    3,408
    [quote][b]As far as the ridiculous war for oil arguement...neither my gas nor home heating oil bills have dropped since we won the war. [/b][/quote]

    Because we havn't divied up the oil fields yet amongst Bush's friends.

  10. #10
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Looks like President Bush may be using the templates that Bill Clinton left in dealing with political opponents.

    You guys could've sent a message to all future presidents that using your office to investigate your enemies wouldn't be tolerated. You could have insisted Bill Clinton resign after abusing the FBI and IRS to attempt destroy his opponents (powerless American citizens). Just ask Steve Clark, Terry Reed, Larry Nichols, Paula Jones, Jennifer Flowers, Albert Casey, L.D. Brown, Billy Dale and a host of others about the investigatory power of the White House.

    In other words, Clinton made the bed, now you all can lie in it. I just love you all complaining about things when the shoe is on the other foot.

    [url=http://www.counterclintonlibrary.com/VTTravelGate.htm]Clinton Liebrary[/url]

  11. #11
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    8,122
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti+Jan 15 2004, 12:25 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (bitonti @ Jan 15 2004, 12:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--jets5ever[/i]@Jan 15 2004, 12:05 PM
    [b] "I ride a bike to work&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;" [/b][/quote]
    [b]5ever[/b] you can be glib about it but even you have to admit that this countries over-reliance on OIL is a bad thing. Every time the oil supply is threatened (twice in the 70&#39;s and twice in the 90&#39;s) it triggers a recession. Besides the environmental concerns, there are legitimate health concerns, especially with asthma affecting the young and elderly in densely populated areas due to fossil fuel emmissions.

    lets not forget the fact that the only reason we give a s**t about the most unstable region in the world is because of OIL and the 6 and a half billion barrels it takes to make the country run every year.

    if there wasn&#39;t OIL in the middle east there wouldn&#39;t have been Western meddling in the region... probably no Israel as well. Its not a stretch to say without OIL in the Middle east there would have been no 9-11. Bin Ladin&#39;s family wealth was directly related to OIL.

    Nuclear power and alternative energy sources need to be emphasized for a multitude of reasons.

    The only reason to keep the oil status quo is for the benefit of people like George Bush who&#39;s families are HEAVILY invested in these companies.

    ---

    but that&#39;s all a disscussion for another day.

    what&#39;s relevant now is that the President has been marketing this war on Lies and the proof came out on 60 minutes. Call it the "war for oil" at least that&#39;s honest.

    i can&#39;t wait to see what one or two line response i get to this ;) [/b][/quote]
    bit

    I&#39;m not sure I&#39;d disagree that he had Sadaam in his sights before 9/11, and I&#39;m also not clear on what would be so horribly wrong with that.

    But:

    Briefly (preferably concise bullet points without rhetoric), exactly what are the lies George Bush told?

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    [quote][i]Originally posted by shakin318[/i]@Jan 15 2004, 12:33 PM
    [b] Exactly what are the lies George Bush told? [/b][/quote]
    Here&#39;s one example that Senator Kennedy cited yesterday.


    "The gross abuse of intelligence was on full display in the President&#39;s State of Union address last January, when he spoke the now infamous 16 words-"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." The President did not say that U.S. intelligence agencies agreed with this assessment. He simply and deviously said, "the British government has learned."

    As we all now know, that allegation was false. It had already been debunked a year earlier by the U.S. intelligence community. Yet it was included in the President&#39;s State of the Union Address. Has any other State of the Union Address ever been so disgraced by such blatant falsehood?"

  13. #13
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [quote][i]Originally posted by shakin318[/i]@Jan 15 2004, 12:33 PM
    [b] bit

    I&#39;m not sure I&#39;d disagree that he had Sadaam in his sights before 9/11, and I&#39;m also not clear on what would be so horribly wrong with that.

    But:

    Briefly (preferably concise bullet points without rhetoric), exactly what are the lies George Bush told? [/b][/quote]
    And had he not had those designs that would&#39;ve been irresponsible....all clinton said after 9-11 was that he was "obsessed with OBL while in office" ...well why didn&#39;t he do something about him? :huh:

  14. #14
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    3,408
    [img]http://65.216.239.9/pics/politics/oil.gif[/img]

  15. #15
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [img]http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/images/title_header.jpg[/img]

  16. #16
    [b]Come Back[/b]

    Michael Moore isn&#39;t the president... he&#39;s just an overweight filmmaker that has nothing to do with what we are talking about right now.

    it must be fun to live in la la land.

  17. #17
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Bitonti, Michael Moore is an important topic in the discussion. It&#39;s important for the undecided, moderate voter out there to know who supports a candidate.

    You&#39;re not embarrassed that your guy is backed by Michael Moore, are you? Michael Moore has a right to voice his opinion. I support that and hope he keeps voicing it loud and clear right up until election day&#33;

    After all, this is America -- free speech and all.

  18. #18
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Spirit of Weeb[/i]@Jan 15 2004, 04:34 PM
    [b] Bitonti, Michael Moore is an important topic in the discussion. It&#39;s important for the undecided, moderate voter out there to know who supports a candidate.

    You&#39;re not embarrassed that your guy is backed by Michael Moore, are you? Michael Moore has a right to voice his opinion. I support that and hope he keeps voicing it loud and clear right up until election day&#33;

    After all, this is America -- free speech and all. [/b][/quote]
    Weeb

    Michael Moore has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. The first person to mention him was Come Back to NY for reasons i can&#39;t understand. Probably his brain was overcome by logic and it was a reflex response. Who knows.

    But to answer your question - in some senses i am less than pleased with MM&#39;s endorsement but in other senses i feel its a positive thing. He had to endorse someone and Lets be honest no one south of the Mason Dixon line was gonna vote for the governor of Vermont.

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