Subject:
|
Re: With Saddam's sons dead, now we just need to bag dad (Baghdad get it?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 24 Jul 2003 20:09:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
241 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
> As for Cheney, I'm not privy to your reference, but sounds like business not
> politics.
Business, sure, but look at the circumstances. Cheney was Secretary of
Defense in Gulf War I and CEO of Halliburton in 1995, and in 1999 oil deals were
struck with Iraq. Let's remember that this was during the time when Saddam was
already known to have possessed and used WoMD, not to mention the brutal
extermination policies of his dictatorship, as well as his ongoing quest to defy
the UN and its inspectors. What we gather from this is that Cheney was a CEO
willing to deal with anyone, no matter how "evil," as long as the bottom line
was served. This is, of course, in addition to Halliburton's well-documented
legal-but-shady tax evasion schemes via subsidiaries and offshore holdings.
With all of that in mind, is Cheney, who is willing to cheat the tax system
and deal with "evil-doers" really the guy we want as our second in command (if
indeed he is "second" and not "first")? And that's only assuming that he's not
still engaged in agressive favoritism for Halliburton (from whom he still draws
a hefty salary).
If you're willing to excuse Cheney's business practices as "business not
politics," and if you're therefore willing to overlook those practices from
subsequent evaluations of his character or fitness-for-office, then surely you
must likewise be willing to overlook the personal relationships of Bill Clinton
as "personal, not politics." Am I correct in this assessment?
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
26 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
