Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Fraud In Iraq? Impossible.
|
|
| Re: Fraud In Iraq? Impossible. [message #205101 is a reply to message #204930] |
Fri, 23 June 2006 14:30   |
icedog90
Messages: 3483
Registered: April 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| one winged angel wrote on Thu, 22 June 2006 12:18 |
Aircraftkiller wrote on Thu, 22 June 2006 19:49
|
Aircraftkiller wrote on Wed, 21 June 2006 13:50
|
Goztow wrote on Wed, 21 June 2006 02:51
|
Aircraftkiller wrote on Tue, 20 June 2006 22:15
|
TOO LONG DIDN'T READ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Fraud In Iraq? Impossible. [message #205135 is a reply to message #204973] |
Fri, 23 June 2006 21:14 |
MadDave
Messages: 8
Registered: June 2006
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| j_ball430 wrote on Thu, 22 June 2006 19:47 |
| MadDave wrote on Thu, 22 June 2006 20:18 |
The Bush administration is good at pulling shit and then covering it up. And for those of you who keep replying with "TOO LONG DIDN'T READ", no one cares if you read it or not.
|
All administrations have done that. It's not just Bush. Bush just happens to be the current president who is being called on it.
|
That's true but like superflyingengi said, Billions of dollars is not routine. I know all administraions have done that but the Bush administration has a habbit of doing it. If they did it like every other administration then they wouldn't be called on it. You can't just ignore the fact that they did this either. If you let a criminal get off the hook after killing someone what's there to stop them from doing it again? Nothing. The next time Bush needs to fund something quick he can just do this again.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Fraud In Iraq? Impossible. [message #205171 is a reply to message #204596] |
Sat, 24 June 2006 07:24 |
 |
Sniper_De7
Messages: 866
Registered: April 2004
Location: Wisconsin
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
If an administration did it before, the only reason why it's brought up among other countless things is for liberals to demean GW some more. It may not be right, but why would it suddenly stop for GW's administration if it happened in other administrations just before? So clearly we see why it's really brought out...
Oderint, dum metuant.
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. - Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
| Re: Fraud In Iraq? Impossible. [message #205177 is a reply to message #204596] |
Sat, 24 June 2006 09:24 |
 |
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Okay, somebody name something as bad as stealing through a fake war that a previous President did.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Fraud In Iraq? Impossible. [message #205222 is a reply to message #204596] |
Sat, 24 June 2006 18:52 |
MadDave
Messages: 8
Registered: June 2006
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
|
Those possibilities are far fetched. What makes you think that if we didn't invade they would have attacked us, with Nuclear weapons even? It's amazing how people can defend a political party to this extent. It's like no matter what they do there's always a reason for it, if it was Kerry that did that you would probably wanna kill him (No I'm not a Kerry supporter, I'm just stating something). If the Bush Administration fucked a dog in the ass you people would probably make up more excuses to protect them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Fraud In Iraq? Impossible. [message #205226 is a reply to message #204596] |
Sat, 24 June 2006 19:56 |
MadDave
Messages: 8
Registered: June 2006
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
|
Bash him at every oppourtunity? It's far from that. When a president steals $700 million dollars, he should be bashed. You don't see other presidents doing shit like that, and you know if they did they would be called on it too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Fraud In Iraq? Impossible. [message #205260 is a reply to message #204596] |
Sat, 24 June 2006 22:05 |
msgtpain
Messages: 663
Registered: March 2003
Location: Montana
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
SuperFungalInfection's posts are always fun to read...
| Quote: |
And since Congressional Republicans are so adamantly opposed to doing so, what does that tell you?
|
That they're opposed to doing so; what does it tell you? Not wanting to investigate something doesn't mean that they are guilty; I thought you were supposed to be smart?
| Quote: |
I'm not entirely sure why you seem to be avoiding the point that this amazingly large sum of money was apparently stolen from the U.S. government and now such theft is apparently being covered up by the Republicans in Congress.
|
Didn't your own articles say that the FBI was investigating it? Congress does not control the FBI.. so if a crime was comitted, they'll find it... So, how are the Republicans apparently covering up a crime that we're assuming took place?
I thought you were supposed to be smart?
| Quote: |
Don't forget that you're the one refusing to acknowledge obvious theft
|
See above?
| Quote: |
It's also important to note that this missing money is implied to have been transferred to individuals, not the government. As such, thieves in the U.S. are now driving their new luxury yacht with American tax dollars.
|
You acknowledge that there is a possibility that fraud occured. You note that the FBI is currently investigating this possible crime. And yet you throw out an argument that thieves are right now, this second driving new luxury yachts with US tax payer dollars.
Your arguments are always so full of fallacies and obvious, emotional claims that it isn't actually even possible to have an educated argument with you.
It's always easier to simply point out the obvious when responding to you... You're a fucking retard, and an obvious liberal tool. It amazes me that to this day, you are still dumbfounded that no one will jump on your bandwagon.. Start discussing the subjects, leave out your typical repub-bashing comments and stop making absurd assumptions-as-fact statements and your "important issues" will be much better received.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Fraud In Iraq? Impossible. [message #205422 is a reply to message #204596] |
Sun, 25 June 2006 17:18 |
MadDave
Messages: 8
Registered: June 2006
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
|
Well, msgtpain, if over a Billion dollars isn't where it's supposed to be and Congress lets it slide, what does that tell you? 1: They stole it or 2: They don't care about the money. Eithe way, the money was stolen and to prevent that from recurring the Congress should have investigated. Now, how about not looking over every one of superflyingengi's words for something you can manipulate, and if you're gonna talk about an educated arguement try not to be such a jerk.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Fraud In Iraq? Impossible. [message #205423 is a reply to message #205422] |
Sun, 25 June 2006 17:20 |
|
|
| MadDave wrote on Sun, 25 June 2006 20:18 |
Well, msgtpain, if over a Billion dollars isn't where it's supposed to be and Congress lets it slide, what does that tell you? 1: They stole it or 2: They don't care about the money. Eithe way, the money was stolen and to prevent that from recurring the Congress should have investigated. Now, how about not looking over every one of superflyingengi's words for something you can manipulate, and if you're gonna talk about an educated arguement try not to be such a jerk.
|
Because, as we all know, Congress cares about investigating especially if the FBI is supposedly investigating? Also, out of the Democrats in Congress, what's the percentage of them wishing to invesetigate all of this? I'm not convinced that Republicans are trying to hide something if the Democrats won't speak up.
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
|
|
|
|
| Re: Fraud In Iraq? Impossible. [message #205427 is a reply to message #205135] |
Sun, 25 June 2006 17:59 |
 |
PlastoJoe
Messages: 647
Registered: October 2005
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| MadDave wrote on Fri, 23 June 2006 23:14 |
| j_ball430 wrote on Thu, 22 June 2006 19:47 |
| MadDave wrote on Thu, 22 June 2006 20:18 |
The Bush administration is good at pulling shit and then covering it up. And for those of you who keep replying with "TOO LONG DIDN'T READ", no one cares if you read it or not.
|
All administrations have done that. It's not just Bush. Bush just happens to be the current president who is being called on it.
|
That's true but like superflyingengi said, Billions of dollars is not routine. I know all administraions have done that but the Bush administration has a habbit of doing it. If they did it like every other administration then they wouldn't be called on it. You can't just ignore the fact that they did this either. If you let a criminal get off the hook after killing someone what's there to stop them from doing it again? Nothing. The next time Bush needs to fund something quick he can just do this again.
|
So you agree that all administrations have done it. Then why are you applying all these claims to the Bush administration? Why not apply it to the presidency in general?
-"The Bush administration has a habit of doing it." It would be more accurate and helpful to say "the presidency has a habit of doing it."
-"If you let a criminal get off the hook...what's there to stop them from doing it again?" Well, we've apparently already had previous administrations stealing, so either no one has caught them ever and we're going to arbitrarily start with Bush or we have caught them and it hasn't done any good either way. Maybe you should think of reforms to the office itself instead of penalizing someone who holds it once...
-"If they did it like every other administration then they wouldn't be called on it." So are you suggesting that it's fine/normal for them to steal, as long as they don't get caught and we should only punish Bush because he wasn't careful enough to avoid getting caught?
This is all assuming that there was actual wrongdoing that went on at all. If it is determined that there was none, then the whole thread is moot.
You may be a fundamentalist atheist if...
Toggle Spoiler
| Blazer wrote on Fri, 04 August 2006 18:53 |
If you wanna be a badass ex-marine law enforcment game programmer college graduate, then you can be! I'm just glad we don't see the other part of you where you join AOL chat rooms as "hotchik69" and cyber with guys while you spank off into a sock and then cry yourself to sleep on your cock-shaped pillow.
|
| tzarmind wrote on Sat, 06 January 2007 20:52 |
Not only did you immaturely edit what J_Ball said in your quote. But you fucking got in the irony truck and drove it straight off a cliff.
|
| Canadacdn wrote on Tue, 23 October 2007 12:04 |
California burns down every year. I think it's part of nature's cycle.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Fraud In Iraq? Impossible. [message #205428 is a reply to message #205422] |
Sun, 25 June 2006 18:24 |
msgtpain
Messages: 663
Registered: March 2003
Location: Montana
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| MadDave wrote on Sun, 25 June 2006 20:18 |
Well, msgtpain, if over a Billion dollars isn't where it's supposed to be and Congress lets it slide, what does that tell you? 1: They stole it or 2: They don't care about the money. Eithe way, the money was stolen and to prevent that from recurring the Congress should have investigated. Now, how about not looking over every one of superflyingengi's words for something you can manipulate, and if you're gonna talk about an educated arguement try not to be such a jerk.
|
It doesn't tell me anything.. The only thing that I can glean from this entire conversation is that you can read a statement and then (whether intentionally or through ignorance) make an assumption which is completely unsupported by the very text you presented us with.
In that whole original post, no where is there anything that even implies "stolen money" or "missing money"; those are simply your interpretations to try and support your completely fictitious opinion.
1. Halliburton allegedly overcharged $61 million for gas. That is outrageous, and if they did it intentionally to line their own pockets, shame on them and I hope they are found guilty. However, this was halliburton, Not Congress, and not even Dick Cheney, even though liberaly sympathizers would really like to persuade us it was.
2. $1.8 billion of Halliburton's charges to the government, about 40 percent of the total, had not been adequately documented. Did you read that? Care to read it again? had not been adequately documented. Last year, I struggled to find about $15 thousand dollars in paper invoices for my own business, and I only did about 1.2 million in gross revenue. I knew how I had expensed the funds, it was all in QuickBooks, but my accountant wanted a paper trail. No where in that paragraph did it even imply that the money was improperly disbursed, or that it had been stolen (as you all are trying to claim), the auditing firm simply didn't think that there was adequate documentation for the funds. Now, you can assume all you want, but this is why it's such a shallow, bullshit stance to be trying to push on us as proof of "corruption". It's simply your own opinion, without even a fraction of the facts or knowledge you would actually need to make an educated opinion on the matter.
3. the Bush administration diverted $700 million in funds from the war in Afghanistan, among other places, to prepare for the Iraq invasion. So the fuck what? We divert more than that every year from Social Security... Money is money. I can think of a thousand other ways that I'm pissed on a daily basis in regards to how the fucks in Washington spend my money. This isn't proof of corruption, or stealing, etc.
4. The problem: For one thing, it is a crime to lie to Congress, although Bush backers claim the president did not knowingly make false assertions. Wow, finally Democrats agree that this is not something we should look over with a blind eye. Funny that they don't think that about Clinton's little "lie" to congress. I'm not a die-hard Bush fanatic.. In fact, I would say that I probably agree with his 29% approval rating right now. If he did indeed lie to the Americal people about Iraq, then I hope he burns in hell. But again, that's only my opinion of what should happen if he outright lied. It is my opinion that he strongly believed in what he was doing, based on the information he had, and just made one huge, fucking, enormous mistake. But that just makes him dumb, not a corrupt bastard who is stealing from the American people.
[Updated on: Mon, 26 June 2006 17:55] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Fraud In Iraq? Impossible. [message #205476 is a reply to message #205453] |
Mon, 26 June 2006 05:43 |
 |
OWA
Messages: 647
Registered: May 2006
Location: W3D Hub
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| MadDave wrote on Sun, 25 June 2006 02:52 |
If the Bush Administration fucked a dog in the ass you people would probably make up more excuses to protect them.
|
I dont support any of your American political administrations because I am British. I support the conservative/tory party. The Labour party needs to give way to new management. Tony Blair is past it now.
RA2:AR Moddb Page
Ω W A
[Updated on: Mon, 26 June 2006 05:44] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Fraud In Iraq? Impossible. [message #205507 is a reply to message #205181] |
Mon, 26 June 2006 09:23 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| DarkDemin wrote on Sat, 24 June 2006 12:56 |
Stop calling it a fake war superflyingfucktard. People don't die in "fake" wars.
|
Yes they do, which is the point. This is a "fake" war because of a lack of reason in starting it.
msgtpain, you might warrant a response if you can talk more about actual issues than engaing in name-calling.
| j_ball |
Besides the obvious sex scandal for Clinton, of course.
|
Which killed a lot of people.
| j_ball |
We wouldn't be so apt to defend the Bush administration if Democrats weren't so willing to bash Bush at every opportunity. Sure, it's politics, but liberals have gone way past any line of sensible attacks. I mean, even to the extent of calling it a fake war. Like that's not liberal propaganda...
|
Would you prefer that this be ignored?
| j_ball |
Because, as we all know, Congress cares about investigating especially if the FBI is supposedly investigating? Also, out of the Democrats in Congress, what's the percentage of them wishing to invesetigate all of this? I'm not convinced that Republicans are trying to hide something if the Democrats won't speak up.
|
Congressional Democrats are largely spineless, so I wouldn't use that as a valid measurement.
And I would like to call attention to Former Congressman Duke Cunningham, who was driving a yacht with, although not money diverted from Iraq, money earned somewhat unscrupulously throughbribe money he was given in return for defense contracts.
| wikipedia |
In 1997, Cunningham pushed the Pentagon into buying a $20 million document-digitization system created by ADCS Inc., one of several defense companies owned by Wilkes. The Pentagon didn't want to buy the system. When it hadn't done so three years later, Cunningham angrily demanded the firing of Lou Kratz, an assistant undersecretary of defense he held responsible for the delays [10]. It later emerged that Wilkes reportedly gave Cunningham more than $630,000 in cash and favors.[24]
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_%22Duke%22_Cunningham#All egations_Arise
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Fraud In Iraq? Impossible. [message #205581 is a reply to message #205453] |
Mon, 26 June 2006 17:51 |
msgtpain
Messages: 663
Registered: March 2003
Location: Montana
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| MadDave wrote on Mon, 26 June 2006 03:07 |
You do raise some good points o-o
|
Anyone that actually cares about issues such as this can easily discuss them with others (republican or democrat) and either agree with each others opinions or agree to disagree.
The problem with SFE and the text he quotes from sources like salon.com is that they are 100% anti-Republican, not anti-policy. They engage in such blatant smear campaigns that it boggles my mind how anyone can read the stuff they smear as news and not walk away simply rolling their eyes.
In their mind, if Bush did it, it was wrong. If republicans control congress, then they're just out to screw the American people and make their corporate buddies richer. Anything and everything that they can take hold of, they'll spin it up just a little and try to convince as many people they can as to why we should vote Democrat next time.
I don't disagree with a lot of the stuff that folks like SFE post. A lot of it does need to get out in the open, and if it's a scandal, lets uncover it and make it right. But it isn't a scandal just because a Republican was involved, which is what they would like you to believe, Dem's have their fair share too.
For someone to claim that we are not "discussing the issues" when they are so obviously one-sided and closed minded is so hypocritical it is beyond comprehension. Even if he agreed to my post above, and couldn't back up his side of the argument at all, he would simply walk away and wait until the next big thing he can post and try to bash Republicans or Bush again. He'll never admit that he's wrong, or jumped to conclusions, or took something out of context; so most of us are way beyond cordial conversations with him.
If these items originally posted are indeed true, have faith in the system.. it'll all come out in time; things have a way of working themselves out. I remember a conversation on my forums a few years back from another extreme liberal. They were ranting and raving about how all these big bankrupt executives were in bed with Bush, how corrupt Bush was, and that it was the Bush administrations fault that they were all getting off scott free. How many of them have now been found guilty and sent to prison? Shit takes time to make it through the system, and honestly, would you want it any other way? Innocent until proven guilty, we set it up that way for a reason. Assumptions based on hatred for a party are not proof of guilt.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Fraud In Iraq? Impossible. [message #205603 is a reply to message #205580] |
Mon, 26 June 2006 18:54 |
icedog90
Messages: 3483
Registered: April 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| Doitle wrote on Mon, 26 June 2006 17:35 |
Wow Superflyingengi... Msgtpain debunked your entire stance pretty much, yet you overlooked it becase he zested you with a bastardization of your name?
|
don't worry, that's his excuse to not respond.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Fraud In Iraq? Impossible. [message #205723 is a reply to message #205580] |
Tue, 27 June 2006 09:20 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Doitle wrote on Mon, 26 June 2006 20:35 |
Wow Superflyingengi... Msgtpain debunked your entire stance pretty much, yet you overlooked it becase he zested you with a bastardization of your name?
|
He didn't prove it wrong, he proposed a less assumptive approach to discourse, while leaving out several key things. Some being:
The inspector general of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq released a series of reports in July 2004 finding that a significant portion of CPA assets had gone missing -- 34 percent of the materiel controlled by Kellogg, Brown & Root -- and that the CPA's method of disbursing $600 million in Iraq reconstruction funds "did not establish effective controls and left accountability open to fraud, waste and abuse."
The Defense Contract Audit Agency has "strongly" asked the Army to withhold about $60 million a month from its Halliburton payments until the documentation is provided.
This, coupled with party line votes in the Senate blocking all investigation of waste in Iraq, creates more than a baseless assumption. While I certainly wouldn't convict someone on this, it is a base for my opinion, and I have yet to actually see any of it refuted.
Now, believe me, I didn't ignore msgtpain because I couldn't respond to his post... that level of name-calling is just ridiculous, and I don't feel obligated to respond to it.
Oh, and did anyone hear that Limbaugh got detained for trying to smuggle drugs into the country?
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue May 21 20:24:50 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01534 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
