Jason your point is well taken and valid. For me here are the two paragraphs that don't sit well with me:

"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 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."

Re: Re: To the original topic on this thread
 

I love how we get these little snippets of tape. Nixon often spoke in code. What the hell was he talking about?

Your correct. :confused:

The article was showing the OTHER picture of Bush during the visit...you know, the one of him serving the troops. As well as their reactions. THis from a paper that has been known to have a liberal bias.

Rob:cool:

Re: Re: Re: new twist on the original topic
 

Alrighty Ijust cannot resist this even though I know its not true:

Dissention's a Nancy Fan, Dissention's a Nancy Fan !!!!!!!!

:cool:

I know - I know

The whole thing about Halliburton for me is that they are highly respected in that industry. Yet, Cheney was their VP and Bush is tied even more so than every other politician to Big Oil. So, I can see why many, including me at times, just go WTF - this whole thing is just a big profiteering racket. But, then I think the press would slam them to the wall if it was that overt.

I think sometimes I think I think too much :cool:

Re: Re: Re: To the original topic on this thread
 

We already know that he was hiding Bush's involvement in the JFK assasination...

:laugh:

I found the picture of Arnie and the Rothschilds. I'm going to send you the link, my fellow conspiracy theorist.

Re: Re: Re: Re: new twist on the original topic
 

Good lord, I should just register as Republican and get it over with, huh?!

I'm a-waitin'. :laugh:

This will be one for the annals.

Re: Re: Re: Re: To the original topic on this thread
 

:laugh: :wavey:

Okay for both of you:

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/chan...&contentid=961

Really?

I remember back when Clinton was accused of smoking a joint that it was a huge *scandal*, but when Bush's past involving drunk driving (a youthful indiscretion, as he claims? No my friends, it occurred in his late thirties) and cocaine was brought up, the press went silent. The media is conservative, not liberal, on the whole.

I agree.

But, I always remind myself that Bill Clinton in a lot of ways was the first "new generation" President we had. I mean Reagan, Bush, Carter, Nixon, Ford, etc., were all too old to have experimented in the 60's while in college. So, I think that is why Clinton got so much flak.

It also could be that Bush admitted (yes I know he belatedlty admitted the drunk driving, but when confronted he fessed up and he was not really asked the question before) his indiscretions and problems and has reformed. Clinton on the other hand gave that cockamamie (sp.?) story and actually expected people to believe it regardless of its veracity. no wonder the press pounced on it. So, the two are a little different to me.

Yet when asked about the cocaine, he got furious, clammed up, and refused to answer. And when he answered about the drunk driving, he came up with the cockamamie excuse of it being a youthful indiscretion...even though he was almost forty.

;) Check this out...


Rob:cool: