President Bush Says "It's Good To Be The King"

[MKULTRA]

Nothing he's done has been reasonable,unless of course, you take into consideration that him and his family are getting filthy rich(er) off this war on terror and the Iraq/Afghanistan wars.

Most of Congress is nothing more than his accomplice in crime at this point.

It's funny that some of you post Wrestling pictures because that's exactly what it's like. George Bush and Hillary Clinton get on T.V. arguing and fighting and then behind the scenes they are counting their money together.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by MKULTRA

you take into consideration that him and his family are getting filthy rich(er) off this war on terror and the Iraq/Afghanistan wars.

based on what ????????????

[avsp]

Does the initial resolution contain a 'victory condition' or an 'expiry date'? I assume not.

Thus, presumably, from a legal POV the war ends only when the President says so. Is this correct?

I assume that if Congress refused to fund an increase in spending in Iraq Bush could use funds from within DoD to pay for increased troop levels. Is this correct? (I assume that practically that Bush would find this too hard to achieve BTW)

As for notions of ignoring the voters, ..., even though Parliament voted for the war there was always a very strong feeling that they (& Blair) had done so against the wishes of the public, ..., though of course once it 'kicked off' public opinion was with 'our boys'


Bush's has continued his 'concilitary' tone of his announcement last Wedensday in answering critics of the 'surge' policy. He basically says "I'll listen, ..., what've you got?".

He is able to do so only because the situation is so very dire & the range of options so very limited & so highly problematic.

His rejection of the Baker-Hamilton proposals seems doctrinaire.

Originally Posted by Pro Street

I dunno if I'd call it micromanaging, this is a very important step to take in the war, one that almost everyone knows is doomed to failure.

What bothers me is what Bush will do once it's obvious that it's not working. I can't support a massive pull out, but I also can't support another tiny increase. A massive increase in troops wouldn't be a desirable option.

We'll have to hope it works then, despite our misgivings.

As for when/if it fails, ..., well he has said that plans will adapt. But you're right, "What to?" is mind-boggling

The likelyhood of effective non-sectarian Iraqi 'leadership' in this seems remote IMO.

Did Bush do enough to inform the American public about the huge rise in Coaltion casualties that his policy shift is going to result in?

Beforehand a redeployment.. and i'm not referring to the buzz word regarding withdraw, but rather a redeployment within Iraq, where we can use selective airpower and other means to support the Iraqi government without being part of te door-to-door operation would have been the better solution in my opinion..

Airpower may not be the appropriate way to go, ..., but if you're going to flatten Sadr City anyway then I suppose it'll keep Coalition casualties down

The prospect of embedded forces seems like the best way to root out inflitration but also incredibly dangerous for Coalition troopers

Placing more troops along the borders and outside of the capital would help secure from outside influence as well

On the basis that the troops should stick to tasks that have some clear meaning & are to an extent 'doable' I'd agree with this.

The main action that the Coalition troops presence is achieving is preventing direct foreign intervention & that in itself is enough reason not to leave

Meanwhile the Iraqis can just get on with it till they feel that they've waded thru enough blood

[MKULTRA]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

based on what ????????????

Based on his investments and all of his contributors.

Link

Please do not respond with "this site hates Bush". I can find 100 other sites with information on this and Bush's connections to Haliburton and other war profiteers is openly admitted. The same game is played with the Democrats, which is why they keep voting for the war funding.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by MKULTRA

Based on his investments and all of his contributors.

Link

Please do not respond with "this site hates Bush". I can find 100 other sites with information on this and Bush's connections to Haliburton and other war profiteers is openly admitted. The same game is played with the Democrats, which is why they keep voting for the war funding.

he doesnt have control over any of his investments.


And that site doesnt even mention his investments.

[MKULTRA]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

he doesnt have control over any of his investments.


And that site doesnt even mention his investments.

Why doesn't he? If you read more you would see that it does mention his and his cabinet's investments.

Why does George Bush have no control over where he puts his money? He doesn't have control over who he takes donations from?

And why are you in so much denial? He is a war profiteer just like Hillary Clinton and just like Dick Cheney. They make money off of the wars they start.

Understand, I am not a partisan hack and I don't support elite parasites of any flavor that profit off of wars while avoiding combat like the plague.

Here is another article on it for you that sources and lays out these investments.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by MKULTRA

Why doesn't he? If you read more you would see that it does mention his and his cabinet's investments.

Why does George Bush have no control over where he puts his money?

because he is the President. Both he and Cheney have signed over the control of their investments to remain as neutral as possible.

He doesn't have control over who he takes donations from?

what does that have to do with anything ?

[MKULTRA]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

because he is the President. Both he and Cheney have signed over the control of their investments to remain as neutral as possible. what does that have to do with anything ?

They did not sign over the majority of their investments to anyone. They resigned their positions with certain companies, all of which still have them on the payroll. They still have their stock options. Do you seriously believe these people have no control over their money and that they just happen to be making millions off of the wars they have started? I know you are not that naive.

Who they take contributions from has everything to do with everything we're talking about. It is why they are where they are and one reason why they are so wealthy.

Further, George Bush and Dick Cheney as well as Wolfowitz are all in groups like the TC and CFR, which are openly and admittedly groups dedicated to forming a one world government. This stuff is not a secret. Bush's dad is in the Carlyle Group.

These people love war. That is how they make their money. War is globalism. America is the foot soldier for a one world government. Do not believe me. Read the documents for yourself. Research the Trilateral Commission and Council on Foreign Relations. These wars are no different than the ones fought 200 years ago. They are about money and power.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by MKULTRA

They did not sign over the majority of their investments to anyone. They resigned their positions with certain companies, all of which still have them on the payroll. They still have their stock options. Do you seriously believe these people have no control over their money and that they just happen to be making millions off of the wars they have started? I know you are not that naive.

The Cheneies sold/transfered all of their stock out of their hands. The only ones left are controlled by a broker and all the profits are transfered to charity groups.

This is well published.

Who they take contributions from has everything to do with everything we're talking about. It is why they are where they are and one reason why they are so wealthy.

wtf ?

Further, George Bush and Dick Cheney as well as Wolfowitz are all in groups like the TC and CFR, which are openly and admittedly groups dedicated to forming a one world government. This stuff is not a secret. Bush's dad is in the Carlyle Group.

so what ? OMG people joining with others of the same class

These people love war. That is how they make their money. War is globalism. America is the foot soldier for a one world government. Do not believe me. Read the documents for yourself. Research the Trilateral Commission and Council on Foreign Relations. These wars are no different than the ones fought 200 years ago. They are about money and power.

[MKULTRA]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

The Cheneies sold/transfered all of their stock out of their hands. The only ones left are controlled by a broker and all the profits are transfered to charity groups.

This is well published.

wtf ? so what ? OMG people joining with others of the same class

So you're saying the Chenies sold all of their stocks? I'd love to see a source on that "well published" information.

This is back in 05' and it's only gotten worse. They did not severe all their ties upon election

Halliburton has been more closely associated with the invasion of Iraq than any other corporation. Before the Iraq War began, it was 19th on the U.S. Army's list of top contractors and zoomed to number 1 in 2003. In 2003 Halliburton made $4.2 billion from the U.S. government. Cheney stated he had , "severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest."
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) recently asserted that Cheney's stock options which were worth $241,498 a year ago, are now valued at more than $8 million-- for an increase of 3,281% . Cheney has pledged to give the proceeds to charity. Cheney continues to received a deferred salary from the company. He was paid $205,298 in 2001; $162,392 in 2002; $178,437 in 2003; and $194,852 in 2004.
The Congressional Research Service has concluded that holding stock options while in elective office does constitute a “financial interest” whether or not the holder of the options donates the proceeds to charities, and deferred compensation is also a financial interest.
Calling on Cheney to sever his financial ties to Halliburton, Lautenberg points out that the company has already raked in more than $10 billion for work in Iraq, and was handed some of the first Katrina contracts. The company has been criticized by auditors for its handling of no-bid contacts in Iraq, and there have been numerous allegations of over charging for services. Auditors found the firm marked up meal prices for troops and inflated gas prices in a deal with a Kuwaiti supplier. The company also built the American prison at Guantanamo Bay. Lautenberg said, "It is unseemly for the Vice President to continue to benefit from this company at the same time his Administration funnels billions of dollars to it.”

link

Here is another, more recent, well sourced article on what we're talking about


I await your link showing the Chenies sold all of their stocks.

And I have no problems with people of the same class associating with each other. What I do have a problem with is a bunch of politicians, whom all avoided the draft, making money off of the multiple wars that they planned prior to 2000 and then claiming they are fighting for peace or some noble goal when clearly what they are accomplishing is the fattening of their own pockets. The situation we have now, where all the Republicrats are having their pockets lined by international corporations and war profiteers, is not one conducive to peace. In fact, you can rest assured it's always going to create a state of perpetual war.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by MKULTRA

So you're saying the Chenies sold all of their stocks? I'd love to see a source on that "well published" information.

This is back in 05' and it's only gotten worse. They did not severe all their ties upon election




link

Here is another, more recent, well sourced article on what we're talking about


I await your link showing the Chenies sold all of their stocks.

And I have no problems with people of the same class associating with each other. What I do have a problem with is a bunch of politicians, whom all avoided the draft, making money off of the multiple wars that they planned prior to 2000 and then claiming they are fighting for peace or some noble goal when clearly what they are accomplishing is the fattening of their own pockets. The situation we have now, where all the Republicrats are having their pockets lined by international corporations and war profiteers, is not one conducive to peace. In fact, you can rest assured it's always going to create a state of perpetual war.

your own link is the evidence.

The stock options he was given from Halliburton are under the control of a broker. http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFil...0Agreement.pdf

The "Gift Trust Agreement" the Cheney's signed two days before he took office turns over power of attorney to a trust administrator to sell the options at some future time and to give the after-tax profits to three charities. The agreement specifies that 40% will go to the University of Wyoming (Cheney's home state), 40% will go to George Washington University's medical faculty to be used for tax-exempt charitable purposes, and 20% will go to Capital Partners for Education , a charity that provides financial aid for low-income students in Washington, DC to attend private and religious schools.

The agreement states that it is "irrevocable and may not be terminated, waived or amended," so the Cheney's can't take back their options later.

The options owned by the Cheney's have been valued at nearly $8 million, his attorney says. Such valuations are rough estimates only -- the actual value will depend on what happens to stock prices in the future, which of course can't be known beforehand. But it is clear that giving up rights to the future profits constitutes a significant financial sacrifice, and a sizeable donation to the chosen charities.

He has absolutly zero control over them and wont even profit from the sale. At most he will get a nice tax deduction for the donation.



FactCheck.org Kerry Ad Falsely Accuses Cheney on Halliburton

He deserves every cent of his defered salary, since he earned it before he was elected.



Cheney is still paid by Pentagon contractor | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited


funny how you keep asking for evidence,but provide none yourself

[MKULTRA]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

your own link is the evidence.

The stock options he was given from Halliburton are under the control of a broker. http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFil...0Agreement.pdf


He has absolutly zero control over them and wont even profit from the sale. At most he will get a nice tax deduction for the donation.

Read your own articles, that on one hand claim he cannot benefit in any shape, way, or form, and then on the other hand point out his stocks are rising but he is going to donate all the proceeds to charity. He is not profiting directly from the stocks but he is profiting directly from the company.

He is still getting paid a pension and that is on top of the over 44 million he made in 5 years, when he was also doing government work. Cheney has been working in and with government and war profiteering as a major player since the days of Ford.

Then you can go ahead and include all of these campaign contributions, which can end up anywhere.

His severance package was worth 34 million. That's on top of the 44 he already made. Do you really believe that has nothing to do with his ties to Haliburton? Cheney also retains unexercised stock options at Halliburton, which have been valued at nearly $8 million. I'm unclear whether or not that is factored into his insurance policy or not. I would assume not but let's say it is: Cheney's insurance policy guarantees him a fixed amount of profits regardless of how Haliburton does. That's a fixed amount of 34 millions. It does not exclude him from profiting off of Haliburton. That's exactly what he's doing. It does not exclude him from benefiting from the campaign contributions or the other stocks he has, in other war profiteers.

Now I do concede and agree that Cheney cannot directly from the stock he has. I have read your posts regarding that and agree with you. But I just cannot believe there was not a conspiracy. That is an enormous payout. You're talking about a man getting 34 million after the fact. You're talking about a man getting millions in campaign contributions. I cannot believe that is all coincidence.

[RMNIXON]

The reality is the problem. If only the United States had the kind of global control the conspiracy buffs think we have! But the truth is we don't know if the Bush plan will work and we don't know how bad the consequences of a pullout will be? We do know that the current conditions are not solving the problem so a choice needs to be made period. I think everybody is at that juncture now. The congress and Bush are walking on egg shells and they know it!

[MKULTRA]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

The reality is the problem. If only the United States had the kind of global control the conspiracy buffs think we have! But the truth is we don't know if the Bush plan will work and we don't know how bad the consequences of a pullout will be? We do know that the current conditions are not solving the problem so a choice needs to be made period. I think everybody is at that juncture now. The congress and Bush are walking on egg shells and they know it!

I don't believe the U.S. has a lot of control. We are heavily in debt to foreign bankers that run our Federal Reserve and increasingly giving the UN control over our land, education, oceans, and everything else. Every country the US and the USSR(back in the day) took over had a central bank installed owned and operated by the same people that run ours.

The U.S. may be a strongarm for globalization but they are not in the driver's seat. And globalization is pushed by big business and big banking. It always will be and always has been. People trying to take over the world is not some conspiracy theory; it is a constant throughout history.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by avsp

Does the initial resolution contain a 'victory condition' or an 'expiry date'? I assume not.

Thus, presumably, from a legal POV the war ends only when the President says so. Is this correct?

Considering Iraq is now recognized as a sovereign nation and the US isn't at war with them, the war is over.

Originally Posted by avsp

I assume that if Congress refused to fund an increase in spending in Iraq Bush could use funds from within DoD to pay for increased troop levels. Is this correct? (I assume that practically that Bush would find this too hard to achieve BTW)

He could, but the reason for asking for additional funding is current funding levels are probably not sufficient to cover the cost.

[avsp]

Congress can 'ringfence' money in allocation bills cant they?

If they were to refuse any extra funds requested for additional troops in Iraq but 'forget' to properly 'ringfence' other funds in the DOD budget them honour would be satisfied in Iraq matters but Bush would have given them a stick to further beat him with.

[Diamond Cross]

The war with Iraq may be over, but there's still a guerilla war with Saddam's Sunni loyalists to be won.