Two years since 9/11....

[Axis Kast]

Stuart gives no timeframe at any point during his original essay.

There's a clear difference too, mind you, between conceptualizing an end to the Hussein regime and actually initiating the workup to war.

[The Dark]

And you have proof of this? Bush ran on a platform of virtual isolationism compared to his precedecessor. That is acknowledged fact. What you've given us is nother more than biased opinion.

I'm trying to find sources right now. I've already found one about an attack on Afghanistan being planned pre-9/11, as reported by George Arney of BBC News at this page. The Project for the New American Century had espoused invading a Persian Gulf Nation since 2000. Members of the PNAC included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle.

The following quotes are from the PNAC website at http://www.newamericancentury.org/:

"We eventually have to undermine [the Iraqi leader's] position within his own country . . . and that means slowly taking away pieces of his territory,"

It has long been clear that the only way to rid the world of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction is to rid Iraq of Saddam. Last week, Paul Wolfowitz, a defense official in the Bush administration, laid out in testimony before Congress a thoughtful and coherent strategy to accomplish that goal.

A strategy for supporting this enormous latent opposition to Saddam requires political and economic as well as military components. It is eminently possible for a country that possesses the overwhelming power that the United States has in the Gulf. The heart of such action would be to create a liberated zone in Southern Iraq comparable to what the United States and its partners did so successfully in the North in 1991. Establishing a safe protected zone in the South, where opposition to Saddam could rally and organize, would make it possible:...For that provisional government to control the largest oil field in Iraq and make available to it, under some kind of appropriate international supervision, enormous financial resources for political, humanitarian and eventually military purposes;

Saddam Hussein must go. This imperative may seem too simple for some experts and too daunting for the Clinton Administration. But if the United States is committed, as the President said in his State of the Union Message, to insuring that the Iraqi leader never again uses weapons of mass destruction, the only way to achieve that goal is to remove Mr. Hussein and his regime from power. Any policy short of that will fail.

These sound pretty determined to invade Iraq, and many of the PNAC members are now in the Bush administration.

And now Bush is trying to shift power from the courts to the Department of Justice, ignoring the checks of power written into the law, and Halliburton (Dick Cheney's old company) is spending more than anticipated on rebuilding Iraq, to the tune of over two billion taxpayer dollars. People wonder why I'm cynical about the government...

The judicial "power shift" is related primarily to foreign nations tried under U.S. jurisdiction. Even assuming you personally were to go to court, it's extremely unlikely the legal results of September 11th would ever become an issue.

Speaking at the FBI crime laboratory in Quantico, Va., Mr. bush said the Justice Department should have authority to issue subpoenas-without a judge's approval-in terrorism cases, and to automatically hold terror suspects without bail. He also said the law regarding the death penalty in terror cases should be expanded

There's a reason a judge is involved in such cases. Impartiality is important in determining the need for such things, and Bush doesn't like the fact that the Justices are threatening to throw out his cases because he's violating American law, so he's trying to change that law.

Halliburton was chosen by the Army Corps of Engineers.

With a non-competitive bid, in flagrant violation of standard operating procedure for government bids.

It fought oil fires immediately after the war. It can competantly rebuild into the foreseeable future. Just because Dick Cheney was once involved doesn't mean it's the wrong choice.

They did not have the low bid, they were not previously involved in this sort of reconstruction (which lower bidders were), and now they're saying they need more money. Sounds like a bad choice to me. If Halliburton were competent I wouldn't object to their ties with the Vice President. Since they have not demonstrated such capability to my satisfaction, I become suspicious of their ties to the government.

[Axis Kast]

I'm trying to find sources right now. I've already found one about an attack on Afghanistan being planned pre-9/11, as reported by George Arney of BBC News at this page . The Project for the New American Century had espoused invading a Persian Gulf Nation since 2000 . Members of the PNAC included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle.

That article is suspect – especially considering that it was repeated nowhere else and came in the middle of a period when media reports were issued with wild abandon to satisfy a readership thriving on fear.

The fact that this came from a source in the former Pakistani government renders it even more suspect. Why would the United States communicate with somebody out of office?

These sound pretty determined to invade Iraq, and many of the PNAC members are now in the Bush administration.

Clinton tackled the issue of Iraqi intransigence in 1998. There’s no reason the PNAC shouldn’t have put forth some spin. Let me make myself more clear: I want somebody to prove that the Bush administration was clearly planning the war in Iraq before September 11, 2001 – and I want more than the written opinions of interest groups and pundits already invested in the issue. You’re talking about analysis, not a solid plan of action.

There's a reason a judge is involved in such cases. Impartiality is important in determining the need for such things, and Bush doesn't like the fact that the Justices are threatening to throw out his cases because he's violating American law, so he's trying to change that law.

This will primarily affect foreign nationals. I say again: what part of these judicial alterations have any realistic bearing on the average American?

With a non-competitive bid, in flagrant violation of standard operating procedure for government bids.

Source? From what I’ve heard, the Army Corps of Engineers selected Haliburton specifically – but largely on the basis of their experience fighting oil fires.

They did not have the low bid, they were not previously involved in this sort of reconstruction (which lower bidders were), and now they're saying they need more money. Sounds like a bad choice to me. If Halliburton were competent I wouldn't object to their ties with the Vice President. Since they have not demonstrated such capability to my satisfaction, I become suspicious of their ties to the government.

What company in Iraq isn’t in need of extra cash? Security, logistics, imports of food and medicine for personnel. These cost money that’s being increasingly siphoned off to deal with shattered infrastructure or post-bomb damage assessments.

[The Dark]

These sound pretty determined to invade Iraq, and many of the PNAC members are now in the Bush administration.

Clinton tackled the issue of Iraqi intransigence in 1998. There’s no reason the PNAC shouldn’t have put forth some spin. Let me make myself more clear: I want somebody to prove that the Bush administration was clearly planning the war in Iraq before September 11, 2001 – and I want more than the written opinions of interest groups and pundits already invested in the issue. You’re talking about analysis, not a solid plan of action.

As I said, the members of PNAC include the current: Vice President of the United States, Secretary of Defense, and Assistant Secretary of Defense. As members of PNAC, they are "dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership." To dismiss those three people as "pundits" shows you either don't understand the issue, don't understand the American government, or are deliberately misreading the writing. I'll admit that Cheney and Rumsfeld have nothing publicly available on the PNAC site. Wolfowitz does, and he appears to have wanted to avoid American casualties by arming guerilla fighters to wage war against Hussein. However, PNAC claimed the reason for war would be to "protect American interests," which means oil. We have no other interest in Iraq, since more and more evidence is coming to light against WMDs having been in Iraq.

There's a reason a judge is involved in such cases. Impartiality is important in determining the need for such things, and Bush doesn't like the fact that the Justices are threatening to throw out his cases because he's violating American law, so he's trying to change that law.

This will primarily affect foreign nationals. I say again: what part of these judicial alterations have any realistic bearing on the average American?

Oh, I don't know...perhaps the fact that an average American could be accused of terrorism and held without ever being formally charged?

With a non-competitive bid, in flagrant violation of standard operating procedure for government bids.

Source? From what I’ve heard, the Army Corps of Engineers selected Haliburton specifically – but largely on the basis of their experience fighting oil fires.

Wall Street Journal contrasts all other bids for Iraqi involvement to the Halliburton contract (I did make a mistake; the contract was given to Halliburton rather than being tendered for bids). The field-support contract was competitively bid. The oil field contract was not. The oil field contract also includes rights to pump and distribute the oil from Iraqi oil wells, according to the US Army Corps of Engineers. Halliburton ended up hiring subcontractors to extinguish the fire, most notably Boots and Coots International and Wild Well Control Inc.

They did not have the low bid, they were not previously involved in this sort of reconstruction (which lower bidders were), and now they're saying they need more money. Sounds like a bad choice to me. If Halliburton were competent I wouldn't object to their ties with the Vice President. Since they have not demonstrated such capability to my satisfaction, I become suspicious of their ties to the government.

What company in Iraq isn’t in need of extra cash? Security, logistics, imports of food and medicine for personnel. These cost money that’s being increasingly siphoned off to deal with shattered infrastructure or post-bomb damage assessments.

True, but the need for those should be factored into a corporate bid. Additionally, Halliburton has had less work than anticipated, because there were fewer oil fires than expected by the Corps of Engineers. Business Report Online also mentions how Halliburton traded with at least two members of the "axis of evil," Iran and Iraq, while they were under embargo and while VP Cheney was CEO. Supposedly, telegraph.co.uk confirms the Iranian connection, but I don't have a registration there. It's just bad business.

[Axis Kast]

As I said, the members of PNAC include the current: Vice President of the United States, Secretary of Defense, and Assistant Secretary of Defense. As members of PNAC, they are "dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership." To dismiss those three people as "pundits" shows you either don't understand the issue, don't understand the American government, or are deliberately misreading the writing. I'll admit that Cheney and Rumsfeld have nothing publicly available on the PNAC site. Wolfowitz does, and he appears to have wanted to avoid American casualties by arming guerilla fighters to wage war against Hussein. However, PNAC claimed the reason for war would be to "protect American interests," which means oil. We have no other interest in Iraq, since more and more evidence is coming to light against WMDs having been in Iraq.

Your argument stinks of assumption. I asked for actual proof that the Bush administration had initiated planning for the War in Iraq before September 11, 2001. Opinions of members of the Project for a New American Century are insufficient proof of action on the past of the Bush administration in general. Your suspicions are not substantial.

Oh, I don't know...perhaps the fact that an average American could be accused of terrorism and held without ever being formally charged?

This is likely to change your own life how, exactly?

Wall Street Journal contrasts all other bids for Iraqi involvement to the Halliburton contract (I did make a mistake; the contract was given to Halliburton rather than being tendered for bids). The field-support contract was competitively bid. The oil field contract was not. The oil field contract also includes rights to pump and distribute the oil from Iraqi oil wells, according to the US Army Corps of Engineers. Halliburton ended up hiring subcontractors to extinguish the fire, most notably Boots and Coots International and Wild Well Control Inc.

It is Halliburton’s right to hire subcontractors. Was it possible that the oil field contract went alongside the support contract?

True, but the need for those should be factored into a corporate bid. Additionally, Halliburton has had less work than anticipated, because there were fewer oil fires than expected by the Corps of Engineers. Business Report Online also mentions how Halliburton traded with at least two members of the "axis of evil," Iran and Iraq, while they were under embargo and while VP Cheney was CEO. Supposedly, telegraph.co.uk confirms the Iranian connection, but I don't have a registration there. It's just bad business.

Halliburton still needs supplies and security. It’s easy to see where the requests for extra money originate.

So Halliburton worked with the Axis of Evil. So have countless other major American and other firms worldwide. Here we have amnesty for corporations, not necessarily a plug for Halliburton by Bush.

[weemadando]

Meh.

[Dalton]

Meh.

Thread locked before it devolves into yet another Ando-ignited flamewar. And this thread is already old.