Well I guess i've found a buyer for this little bridge I have.

_(repost)
Why are people so willing to accept shiat or coarse explanations on things like "war for oil" but demand high levels of citation for another coarse explanation like "war for Israel."

Good lord. Look for quality in your retrospectives for all of your explanations.

Some of the comments after TFA are about as silly, and dumb as saying

Netanyahu says 9/11 terror attacks good for Israel

OMG LOOK! See! 11!1

or
Israel's Olmert warns against early Iraq exit
OMG! Its All the JOOOZ
---
Good gravy. Nail the point down better. Conflations aren't helpful.

This article is fairly ridiculous. First of all, it seems clear they have no idea what a no-bid contract is. And they assume that because some members of the Administration may have had information about the questionable deal with the Kurds that the President knew about it.

The more I see stuff from this website, the less I want to read it. Every article I read (when they're greenlit) is full of misrepresentation and exaggeration.

DeltaXi65:The more I see stuff from this website, the less I want to read it. Every article I read (when they're greenlit) is full of misrepresentation and exaggeration.

Yeah, its so unfair that reality has such a blatant liberal bias! And it may be arguable that the President is not fully aware of every single deal that goes through his administration... he is still responsible for them as the man in charge.

Code_Archeologist:he is still responsible for them as the man in charge.

I think we could get a lot fixed if people in charge be it government or corporations were held accountable for the misdeeds of their organizations.

Code_Archaeologist

This has nothing to do with liberal bias. It has to do with what appears to me to be a willful disregard for fact. They throw in buzz words like "no-bid" that have a negative connotation, play a quote from the President, and then use some emails from mid level staffers to call him a liar. It's just stupid. I don't understand why people feel the need to stretch so far. It's not as if the Administration has done things so well that this is the best you can do to criticize it.

antidisestablishmentarianism

Why would anyone want the job if that was the case? Why would I want to entrust my job or my freedom to someone I've never seen and never hired? Bad idea.

Has anyone pointed out that as an 'oversight committee' they were pretty shiatty at 'oversight.' Point and laugh at the GOP all you want, but the oversight was full of fail in this case.

DeltaXi65:Why would anyone want the job if that was the case? Why would I want to entrust my job or my freedom to someone I've never seen and never hired? Bad idea.

I have a group of people working for me, and I take personal responsibility for the things that they do for the company. It is this thing called leadership; when they screw up it is my failure first (for not being aware of what they were doing, not making sure they knew what they were doing, continuing the farktard's employment when I had the first inkling that they were a farktard), their failure second for actually lousing it up.

You might not be willing to take responsibility for people working for you and show leadership... and that is your choice. But I hold the nation's "leaders" to the same standards that I hold myself to... and their unwillingness to show the even the slightest amount of responsibility or leadership is a failure on their part all the way up to the highest level.

Code_Archeologist

There's a difference between "accepting personal responsibility" and "being held accountable for the misdeeds of their organizations." I read disestablishmentarianism's comment to be directed more at a criminal, financial or impeachment related idea of accountability, rather than simply accepting responsibility.

It's not reasonable to assume that the level of leadership someone displays in a small business or even mid-level corporation would work at the Government level. Bush has, at the last count that I saw, 14.7 million people working for him. Do you honestly think that it's reasonable that he "be held accountable" for a mistake made by a mid-level staffer, posted in a foreign country, at least a dozen layers removed from him, who he has never met?

And not only that, how many of those employees are civil servants, who didn't hire and can't fire without cause?

For what it's worth, I have the same philosophy as you do when it comes to leadership. But at the same time, I recognize the limitations of a hierarchical organization. At some point, it just gets too big to always hold the guy at the top accountable for everything that goes wrong.

Satan_Sunburn:Has anyone pointed out that as an 'oversight committee' they were pretty shiatty at 'oversight.' Point and laugh at the GOP all you want, but the oversight was full of fail in this case.

Yes.

That is exactly why we should be angered by the information in this article.

The people in charge of exposing the criminals screwed up.

It's all their fault.

T.M.S.:

Yep, because that is exactly what I said.

"the State Department actually had an "integral role" in the awarding of no-bid contracts to develop Iraq's oil fields."

Obvious tag?

Fark needs an 4'x8' fluorescent glowing neon "No farking shiat, Sherlock!" tag.

DeltaXi65:Code_Archeologist

There's a difference between "accepting personal responsibility" and "being held accountable for the misdeeds of their organizations." I read disestablishmentarianism's comment to be directed more at a criminal, financial or impeachment related idea of accountability, rather than simply accepting responsibility.

It's not reasonable to assume that the level of leadership someone displays in a small business or even mid-level corporation would work at the Government level. Bush has, at the last count that I saw, 14.7 million people working for him. Do you honestly think that it's reasonable that he "be held accountable" for a mistake made by a mid-level staffer, posted in a foreign country, at least a dozen layers removed from him, who he has never met?

And not only that, how many of those employees are civil servants, who didn't hire and can't fire without cause?

For what it's worth, I have the same philosophy as you do when it comes to leadership. But at the same time, I recognize the limitations of a hierarchical organization. At some point, it just gets too big to always hold the guy at the top accountable for everything that goes wrong.

By that logic Bush escapes any and all responsibility for every misdeed of his administration.

But we all know he is a man of honor and would never stoop to blaming his subordinates.....

T.M.S

Of course it doesn't. Not every decision that is bad or a mistake is going to be made by a mid-level staffer that the President didn't know or was so far removed that he could escape responsibility. A lot of the crap that the left hates him for he legitimately made the decision on. This just doesn't happen to be one of those issues. And you can't impute knowledge to the President just because someone in the federal government may be aware of something. That's my point.

As for your man of honor nonsense, there's always plenty of blame to go around. But in this case no one is blaming anyone. Saying "I'm not aware of this, and I'm concerned about it" is different from "I didn't do it, somebody else did, blame him."

Satan_Sunburn:Has anyone pointed out that as an 'oversight committee' they were pretty shiatty at 'oversight.' Point and laugh at the GOP all you want, but the oversight was full of fail in this case.


You apparently forgot that the GOP was managing ALL oversight when this occurred....except that they never actually showed up for work...

The Dems have only held the slot since last year, but they're no better than those whom they replaced.

That said, this is only news for idiots who think that five-year-old information is a news flash.

Satan_Sunburn:T.M.S.:

Yep, because that is exactly what I said.

This is what you said:

Has anyone pointed out that as an 'oversight committee' they were pretty shiatty at 'oversight.' Point and laugh at the GOP all you want, but the oversight was full of fail in this case.

You were diverting the blame to the people charged with enforcing the law.

Now where have I seen that technique before...?

Party of personal responsibility my ass.

What? I wasn't supposed to do that?
Dang - chalk-up another C- on the ol' report card!
HAW Haw haw...

Move along... Nothing new to see here...

For someone so supposedly stupid, Bush has fooled everyone.

He came in with the whole 'uniter not a divider', 'honor and integrity', 'compassionate conservative', 'no natiion building' etc.. and did the EXACT opposite! and got re-elected!

Who is the stupid one now?

vernonFL:

Who is the stupid one now?



You don't understand. He really loves me.

vernonFL:For someone so supposedly stupid, Bush has fooled everyone.

He came in with the whole 'uniter not a divider', 'honor and integrity', 'compassionate conservative', 'no natiion building' etc.. and did the EXACT opposite! and got re-elected!

Who is the stupid one now?

Everyone who voted for him not once but twice! And they laughed at us when we said "no war for oil" . . .

I'm sure it's only a coincidence that bush and cheney's leadership resulted in giant fortunes for industries with which they have extensive ties.

I'm not usually a big haliburton/oil industry conspiracy guy, but this seems like a real happy coincidence for all involved.

I tend to think cheney had his eye on the money more than bush. with bush I speculate that he was first sold on the neo-con ideology after 9/11 ( a true believer in the beacon of democracy nonsense). the profits for his old friends was just gravy to him.

I think when all the facts about this admins actions get out we're going to be so ashamed.

just a thought.

------------------------
unexplained bacon 2008-07-03 10:31:30 AM

I think when all the facts about this admins actions get out we're going to be so ashamed.

just a thought.
-----------------------------

That is why McCain will win the presidency, regardless of how the people vote. They need him to cover up for the current administration, and if somehow Obama gets into office, the sounds of paper shredders will be heard all the way to Hawaii.

DeltaXi65:And they assume that because some members of the Administration may have had information about the questionable deal with the Kurds that the President knew about it.

In other words, "The buck stops elsewhere"

FTA: President Bush denied knowledge of the contract, saying that he "knew nothing about the deal" and was "concerned":

"I knew nothing about the deal. I need to know exactly how it happened. To the extent that it does undermine the ability for the government to come up with an oil revenue sharing plan that unifies the country, obviously if it undermines it I'm concerned."

Translation:



"I see nothing, nothing!!1!"

TFerWannaBe:Everyone who voted for him not once but twice!

I know of two people very close to me who voted bush twice.

I swear they're not retarded, and I certainly did my best to dissuade them from going that way.
frankly one of them was anti-kerry sold on the swift boaters, and the other was...I'm not sure, I think he just thought everything was gonna be fine, sort of a head in the sad problem.

it would have been better if I could make good arguments for kerry instead of having to make all my arguments against bush.

it really did seem like a no-brainer to me, though.
I'd puke and shiat simultaneously if I even thought of casting my vote for bush in 04.

All politicans suck

I'm no historian, but didn't rampant cronyism and over-ambitious foreign interventionism ultimately destroy the USSR?

Oh look, it's time for the Treasury to write their weekly three Billion dollar check to fulfill our no-bid contract obligations to Halliburton, KBR, and Blackwater. This way they can continue their fine work in Iraq until the rapture.

soakitincider:All politicans suck

who are you voting for?

/after your last statement I don't think there's a right answer.

T.M.S.:You were diverting the blame

Not in the least. Just pointing out a different fact. There's plenty of blame to go around.

soakitincider:All politicans suck

Right. So why hold any specific politician acountable.

Let's continue to bend over and take it.

SpacePunk:That is why McCain will win the presidency, regardless of how the people vote. They need him to cover up for the current administration, and if somehow Obama gets into office, the sounds of paper shredders will be heard all the way to Hawaii.

I don't think there's much of a chance for a McCain win.

If something shady does go down and McCain wins he will continue the utter destruction of the republican name and after another 4 years you'd have a lot of trouble finding anyone who would allow an (R) to follow their name.

I think obama is likely to win, and this admin will do their best to hide what they've done.
however, I think there are enough people around who have had it with covering w's ass that he just might be left hangin'.

Satan_Sunburn:T.M.S.:You were diverting the blame

Not in the least. Just pointing out a different fact. There's plenty of blame to go around.

The finger kinda deflates your credibility and inflates your lack of civility. There is no further reason to listen to you.

Have a nice day.

Satan_Sunburn:T.M.S.:You were diverting the blame

Not in the least. Just pointing out a different fact. There's plenty of blame to go around.

speaking of blame to go around

A Shortage Of Troops in Afghanistan
Iraq War Limits U.S. Options, Says Chairman of Joint Chiefs

By Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 3, 2008; Page A01

The nation's top military officer said yesterday that more U.S. troops are needed in Afghanistan to tamp down an increasingly violent insurgency, but that the Pentagon does not have sufficient forces to send because they are committed to the war in Iraq...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/02/AR2008070202010. html (new window)

this admin is a crime.

some more different facts I'm pointing out.

China Inspired Interrogations at Guantánamo

Article Tools Sponsored By
By SCOTT SHANE
Published: July 2, 2008

Correction Appended

WASHINGTON - The military trainers who came to Guantánamo Bay in December 2002 based an entire interrogation class on a chart showing the effects of "coercive management techniques" for possible use on prisoners, including "sleep deprivation," "prolonged constraint," and "exposure."

What the trainers did not say, and may not have known, was that their chart had been copied verbatim from a 1957 Air Force study of Chinese Communist techniques used during the Korean War to obtain confessions, many of them false, from American prisoners.

Link (new window)

unexplained bacon:

this admin is a crime.


Well not specificly this administration.

More like, you know, all administrations.

"I don't recall"
"I have no recollection of illicit arms dealings with Iran"
"It's, It's about...freedom"
"mankind and fish can coexist peacefully"

DeltaXi65:This article is fairly ridiculous. First of all, it seems clear they have no idea what a no-bid contract is. And they assume that because some members of the Administration may have had information about the questionable deal with the Kurds that the President knew about it.

The more I see stuff from this website, the less I want to read it. Every article I read (when they're greenlit) is full of misrepresentation and exaggeration.

If "some Members of an administration" knew about something, particularly if those members are the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board then the president Knew or got-damn well SHOULD have known

Iraqi Oil (clicky pop)

Video

Nice job, guys. Congratulations on finally figuring out what any idiot that's been paying attention has already known for years...Somebody had better warn the House Oversight Committee that you can't actually get $25 million dollars from some guy in Nigeria as well...

War Is A Racket

A speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.

WAR is a racket. It always has been

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes. . . .

T.M.S.:unexplained bacon:

this admin is a crime.


Well not specificly this administration.

More like, you know, all administrations.

maybe, but...

let's not miss the opportunity to demand accountability in the present by lamenting our mistakes in the past. otherwise our future selves will resent us.

this admin has crashed the economy and botched a war sold with fear tactics. what better time than now to step up and demand someone answer for this shiat.

fernt:War Is A Racket

A speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.

WAR is a racket. It always has been

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes. . . .

Small historical footnote: The author of this speech was once apparached by a cabal of industrialists including our current president's father, and asked to lead a military coup they had planned, to replace FDR.

Instead he blew the whistle on them , and even though Congress investigated and found everything he said to be true, nothing happened to any of the plotters. Why? largely because Hearst was a fellow traveller,and had nigh-monopolistic control of the news media in those days, so all his papers portrayed Butler as a crank and the whole thing as some sort of looney conspiracy theory. Then WWII hit and the whole thing was swept under the rug

unexplained bacon:T.M.S.:unexplained bacon:

this admin is a crime.


Well not specificly this administration.

More like, you know, all administrations.

maybe, but...

let's not miss the opportunity to demand accountability in the present by lamenting our mistakes in the past. otherwise our future selves will resent us.

this admin has crashed the economy and botched a war sold with fear tactics. what better time than now to step up and demand someone answer for this shiat.

I agree. (I was just trying to do it im my best Jeff Lebowski voice)

I failed, man.

T.M.S.:I agree. (I was just trying to do it im my best Jeff Lebowski voice)

I failed, man.

maybe not, I've only caught that flick once so you could be doing a great impression and I'd miss it.

I was just looking for a setup to make that point in general anyway. so thanks.

Magorn:Small historical footnote: The author of this speech was once apparached by a cabal of industrialists including our current president's father, and asked to lead a military coup they had planned, to replace FDR.

Instead he blew the whistle on them , and even though Congress investigated and found everything he said to be true, nothing happened to any of the plotters. Why? largely because Hearst was a fellow traveller,and had nigh-monopolistic control of the news media in those days, so all his papers portrayed Butler as a crank and the whole thing as some sort of looney conspiracy theory. Then WWII hit and the whole thing was swept under the rug

And one of the plotters? Prescott Bush.

One of the few things History Channel did right was "The Plot to Overthrow FDR." Highly recommended.

Wiki: "The Business Plot"

It's amazing what historical facts are hidden on purpose. "Nothing to see here, move along."

Magorn:fernt:War Is A Racket

A speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.

WAR is a racket. It always has been

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes. . . .

Small historical footnote: The author of this speech was once apparached by a cabal of industrialists including our current president's grandfather, and asked to lead a military coup they had planned, to replace FDR with a fascist regime.

FTFY