Some obvious truths about the Bush/Cheney Presidency

Post Reply New Topic

After 7+ years of Bush, some things have become very obvious:

1. Bush lied to us in order to convince us to allow him to invade Iraq. He didn't "cherry-pick the intelligence," or "exagerate the danger," he lied.

2. Bush ordered the torture that has taken place during his administration. It wasn't just a few rogue individuals, it was a policy that came right from the top.

3. Bush and Cheney, both oil men, came into power with one main goal: to boost the profits of the oil industry. Everything they've done can be seen as part of a strategy to achieve that goal. If a president can be judged by how well he achieves the goals he had when he came into power, this would have to be judged the most successful Presidency ever.

I'm tired of newsmakers and politicians who beat around the bush (no pun intended ) when talking about these men. It's time we start speaking plainly about them.

fool

Now, what did that add to the topic?

If you can rebut the topic, I'd be very happy to read it.

Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 signed by President Clinton

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

Oil?

I don't feel like checking the exact figures, but I'm pretty sure that Exxon-Mobil pays around $30-Billion in Federal Income Taxes; Chevron-Texaco pays around $15-Billion in Federal Income Taxes; Conoco-Phillips ...; BP-Amoco..etc, etc

This group of companies, which includes ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Valero, Tesoro and the US operations of BP and Shell, had combined revenues of $1.4 Trillion and accounted for about half of US oil and gas production and 80% of refining. By comparison, the effective tax rate on all US manufacturing companies was 22%. In other words, the oil and gas industry is already taxed about twice as heavily as all US industry.

It's funny, but if there were more competition (ie--more oil companies) we'd probably have much lower oil prices, right?

Right.

Oil was $10/ when these firms nearly went bankrupt in 1998 and were forced to merge -- Exxon and Mobil became Exxon-Mobil; Chevron and Texaco became Chevron-Texaco; Conoco and Phillips became Conoco-Phillips; BP and Amoco became BP-Amoco.

Less competition leads to stronger price control for these firms, which in turn (coupled with fantastic demand from the new economic powerhouses China and India), has helped lead to stronger prices.

The one thing the 99% of the public doesn't understand is that the other big, big factor in oil prices is that OIL IS A DOLLAR DENOMINATED COMMODITY.

Oil has an inverse relationship to the direction of the dollar.

If the dollar goes up, the price of oil goes down.
If the dollar goes down, oil prices will rise.

So, which would you prefer? An industry who's product was barely worth $10, where the company's are on the verge of going under, where there'd probably be massive layoffs of the 250,000 oil sector employees, paying little or no taxes into the Treasury?

Or, what we have now? Nearly $1.4-Trillion in revs, while the giants in the sector prob'ly pays nearly half-a-trillion dollars in federal taxes, not to mention all the programs that are subsidized via the 'gas tax'....yada, yada, yada

Regardless of what ja has for evidence, it was still the wrong decision to attack and occupy Iraq.
Democrats, while not any smarter than the Republicans, did not make that decision.

And I maintain that it is administration policy to take the dollar as low as it can, just so the price of oil will rise, which will result in even greater profits for the oil companies. The easiest way to accomplish that is to lower the prime rate.

Alan Greenspan had started to raise the prime rate. Perhaps he was "suggested" to resign; Bernanke comes in, and interest rates fall again.

Politicians are puppets. Bill Clinton, during his term, helped pave the way for Bush to invade Iraq. Theyr all on the same team. "Liberal" and "conservative" are just there to divide the masses and breed people into idiotic group think, to make people care more about their social cliques than the facts involved.

Argument to moderation (Latin: argumentum ad temperantiam, also known as middle ground, false compromise, gray fallacy and the golden mean fallacy) is a logical fallacy which asserts that a compromise between two positions is correct. The middle ground is often invoked when there are sharply contrasting views that are deeply entrenched. While an outcome that accommodates both parties to some extent is more desirable than an outcome that pleases nobody, it is not necessarily correct.

Those are some very interesting quotes, ja. I'm going to discount all the statements made 2002 and later, because Bush had already started his anti-Iraq campaign, and the Democratic quotes can be seen as mirroring what the administration was telling them. The earlier quotes are more troubling. It should be noted that the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 did not call for invading Iraq, but instead supporting groups inside Iraq which seek to overthrow Hussein, a very different thing. Clinton did mount an air strike against Iraq's suspected weapons facilities, but that is also very different from invading. (thanks for reminding me why I hate the Clintons so much)

As for the oil companies, I found an article backing up what you said about oil revenues and taxes. It was followed by letters from readers, both in support and opposition to the numbers. The only thing that was clear was that nothing was clear. I think we have a case of "figures don't lie, but liars sure figure" (on both sides). You can view their 2007 financial statements here:

http://finance.google.com/finance?fstype=ci&cid=663876

However, this line of reasoning does nothing to dispute my claim that the Bush administration is doing everything in its power to increase oil company revenues, even when doing so is harmful to the overall US economy.

Thanks for mounting a real defense of your views.

I would like to add to this topic some evidence.

President Bush Lies About Staying The Course In Iraq

Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfied Lies About 'Immenant Threat' form iraq