RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events "It's not about oil or Iraq..."

That last article you posted is among the most balanced I've seen you post here Whomod, I pretty much agree with all of it, and your commentary after as well. The war in Iraq clearly has great benefits as well as setbacks, and it's refreshing to see a balanced view of this.

I assume NWO stands for "New World Order".

Again, regarding the Halliburton/Iraqi reconstruction contracts, I think I made it pretty clear that I'm not blind to the fact that Halliburton and other corporations have made tremendous lobby and campaign donations to both parties, which is clearly intended to influence government regulation and federal contracts.

The need for campaign finance reform is one of the main reasons I supported McCain over Bush as a candidate for president.

But at the same time, I do think the Democrat/anti-Bush attacks are way overstated. It's one thing to say that: There is enormous money going to the Republicans from Halliburton, and many key people from Halliburton are working in high levels of the Bush administration, and while there's no proof yet of corruption, that definitely warrants investigation, to insure there is no corruption.

THAT is a statement I agree with 100% !

But it's quite another thing for Democrats to say: Cheney and Bush are making millions and giving huge contracts to their buddies at Halliburton, getting rich at the expense of U.S. taxpayers.

THAT statement is inflammatory, slanderous and unproven.

~

Regarding the Mona Charen editorial I posted at the top of this page, what was quicky dismissed by you guys (JQ and Whomod) as partisan, is simply equal time and a pointed deconstruction of the absurd conspiracy theories made here against Bush for initiating the war in Iraq.

Especially since up until March 2003 (as I posted earlier) many of these same Democrats in Washington, who now allege that the evidence was "fabricated", not only voted to go to war, but said over and over that Saddam Hussein by all indications and intelligence did have WMD's and pose an imminent threat.
And only began to question the threat of Saddam having WMD's when it became politically expedient. (John Edwards, Hilary Clinton, John Kerry, Bob Graham, Diane Feinstein, etc. )

Hindsight opened the door for anti-Bush revisionism. But the best available knowledge AT THE TIME (Sept 2002-March 2003, and prior) had virtually all the Democrats supporting invasion of Iraq.

If it is "partisan" to point out the hypocrisy and unfounded allegations of Bush's attackers (who happen to be Democrats), then so be it.

And while I've already said above that it's not "all the Democrats" who vitriolically oppose the President on Iraq invasion (as I said, Joseph Lieberman, for one, largely supports the President, and how a majority of Democrats feel about this can be seen in how most Democrats instead support Dean, Kerry, Clark and Edwards, who relentlessly attack the President's credibility regarding invasion of Iraq) anti-Bush vitriol is the way of an overwhelming majority of Democrats.

Most Democrats, I think, want to believe Bush is wrong. And hyperbolically attack the President with facts not in evidence, and make allegations contrary to the obvious
(such as "waiting for the U.N. to join the coalition", which was never realistic. France publicly said to the world it would oppose ANY resolution to invade Iraq, and though less strongly stated, Germany and France were also adamant. And ALL were violating U.N. trade sanctions with Iraq and doing business with Iraq, which was allowing Saddam's government to go on indefinitely.)
For Democrats to come back again and again and allege that we "should have waited for the U.N." is a clear falsehood, in contradiction of these facts.

And it is "partisan" to respond to that point here, alleged over and over here by liberal Democrats? That's a dismissive way to bypass the truth.