Bush said Kerry was "against vital weapon systems during his entire career." According to the non-partisan Factcheck.org, the Bush campaign "bases its claim mainly on Kerry's votes against overall Pentagon money bills in 1990, 1995 and 1996, but these were not votes against specific weapons." Nonetheless, since Kerry has been in Congress he has voted for 16 of the 19 overall Pentagon funding bills. Therefore, "even by the Bush campaign's twisted logic, Kerry should - on balance - be called a supporter of the 'vital' weapons."
Understand now ???
I understand perfectly well.
Under CLINTON'S WATCH, Halliburton's profits went from $14.5 Billion to over $30 Billion.
Just like you said.....
CLINTON RENEWED THE CONTRACT and then in 97 awarded a NEW CONTRACT.....
Thank you for making my point.............
there was NO credible information that Saddam would have a nuke anytime soon
well it was proven that the attemp to purchase uranium was actually true from nigeria
and saddam was cash rich, and kerry says there is plenty of pickings in russia
but my point was not that saddam would have got us, it was that if we backed down we became weak in the eyes of the enemy
and that would simply embolden them
sometimes I let the rhetoric get to me, it seems people will believe anything.
as far as your question on n korea and Iran, this is where I feel the Iraq invasion may end up paying many dividends,
face it saddam was the easiest target of the three, so we choose the easy, less costly way
before bush, the method of choice was a clean launch of a few cruise missles, never really did much but provide algezera (sp?) with a few good propagana pics.
now if busg tgreatens, iran and n korea will listen he that texas cowboy image is not all that bad.
they also know that kerry will appeal to the french, who can be bought off, or old europe,
or the UN which now we know can also be bought off, if you were in iran or n korea who would you want to be president?? i think that that is the true question of this election
you see the economy depends on the security of america, what do health care costs matter if you have anthrax or die in a nucleur blast.
i think bush will go against iran if elected, he has stated they will not be allowed a nuke, i am unsure if kerry has said that if he did i am not sure i believe it
No profanity or name calling? :)
Oustanding reply, honest, straight foward, no BS. A lot of what you're saying makes sense.
What about N. Korea and Iran?
When you're calm, you write a damn good post!
Don't "stoop" anymore. Stay above it.
roadmap, stranger things have happend (I think)
yes, we are paying more for energy and healthcare. but before i address that, i would like to make one observation.
I am 34, in my lifetime I have seen a dramatic rise in the standard of living. I see middle class people living in 3000 square foot houses driving 2 new cars and buying much more stuff than when i was a little kid.
So i believe that that is the true measure, not individual prices.
in addition, do not forget that while some prices have risen, the cost to finance has gone down significantly, so in reality we are paying more for some things, less for others.
in addition do not forget the cost of things related to technology have dropped dramaticly, so when i paid 10k for my apple powermac in 93 i paid a few hundred for healthcare a month
it all evens out i believe
i agree healthcare should be overhauled, but show me where a beurocracy has led to savings??
prescriptions are going up, but compared to what, we never had statins, viagra etc to really compare in the long haul
the quality of life has been driven by the fact that the big companies make a lot of money for developing blockbuster drugs, and generics take a big bite out of that, in addition we are supplementing the rest of the workd and their price controls on drugs, but if we buy from canada, supply and demand will kick in and we will end up paying near the same in the long term. so that is not the answer.
i do favor tort reform, not sure about bushs version, but for example i know a person that was saved during birth, but it caused a stutter, that person sued for several million, bought 7 or 8 porsches and a business, never went to college or even finished high school, lost his business and the cars, what did that prove??
i know another person that had some problem with his leg, and sued, at 16 he bought a callaway corvette, you get my point.
i agree that iran and n korea are more of a threat than saddam, but saddam was humiliating the us with his games and shooting at our planes, and humiliting the un by not following the rules, so if we let it go on do you think iran or n korea would be afraid?? I think bush has now will command some respect if he threatens iran, he may avoid a more deadly war?? time will tell.
as far as paying for iraq, i really do have not seen a breakdown of fixed vs variable costs for iraq, I mean we used a lot of munitions, but they were getting old, and we pay the troops no matter if we are at war or not, true we are paying a lot of reserves, but the cost is probably a lot less than published.
but the cost of not going in could have been much worse had the intelligence been correct, one nuke would cost much more than the total of the iraqi war, also subtract the cost of southern and northern watch that we have been paying
as far as kerry not being the answer i could not agree more, i thing he would be much worse
Also, you failed to actually READ the article. If you did, you would have found out that the contracts were actually awarded under the first president Bush, and were long-term. Clinton's pentagon simply chose to continue them in 1997 rather than switch contractors after 5 years.
I know that was a lot of reading for you but did you see where under Clinton Halliburton did contract work in
Haiti, Somalia, and Bosnia.
I don't think Bush 41 was making contracts with Halliburton for work in these countries.
I agree with you (can't believe that) :)
How do you feel about this? We have record budget and trade deficits. Plus, we are paying more than ever for:
And on And on
I know it's not directly the fault of Bush but you've got to admit he has to accept some of the blame.
How will he continue to pay for the mess in Iraq? The invasion of Iraq upsets me the most about Bush. I was never in favor of it. Iran and N. Korea scare me more than Saddam ever did. You can kill Millions of Americans with nukes and they have them or will soon.
That being said, kerry is not the answer either.
Date: 10/20/04 03:38 pm
the proof is there, go google it haliburtan has been doing gvt work a long time>>>
No they started contracting with the US government after Dick Cheney was given a job at Halliburton. Dick Cheney was in former Republican administrations and Halliburton put an opportunity together with greed and what do we get. An $18 Billion �no bid� contract.
<<<<<<<<fyi you lie about the cheney financial conflict
Cheney gets retirement from Halliburton and theat is all, no bonus no nothing, and he gets it no matter what happens, in fact he paid 15k for an insurance policy so he gets the money even if haliburtan goes bankrupt>>>>>
Well what about Cheney's 433,333 stock options that he has. They do not come due for a while, but I would believe that is a "conflict of interest". But I am not a lawyer, I am just someone that uses "common sense" and to me Cheney is as crooked as they get.
And if Halliburton goes bankrupt he will loose 433,333 options (about $12 million). Hey that might be insensitive to keep Halliburton running, even if it costs the US taxpayer about $20 Billion. But what do you care, Dubbya is a Republican and that is all that matters to you, huh? The rest of us will pay for Dubbya's deficits, and I am sure that Dick Cheney and Halliburton could use that money for a newer, bigger yacht or a new vacation home and that could help those people that have no medical insurance. Hey, and those 45 million Americans that live below the poverty level, I am sure that they are happy to give money to help Halliburton and Dick get ahead.