On Mon, 1 Jan 2007 11:29:00 -0500, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote in
:

From: (Frank*Gilliland)
On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 10:43:46 -0500, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote in
:
snip
What really galls me with Bush is he said the invasion was necessary to
"stop the proliferation or transfer" of WMDS. Meanwhile, for more than a
year, 'lil Kim in N. Korea was not only mocking the US by informiing us
of its nuke progress every step of the way, it actually threatened us on
several occasion while Bush sat back and played whack-a-mole with
Hussein.


North Korea knows the US won't attack

because it would bankrupt half the western

hemisphere just for the humanitarian aid that

would be needed after an attack, let alone

reconstruction costs (and associated

Halliburton kickbacks). But they do need to

worry about Japan. The US won't attack Iran

either because it would cause a firestorm of

hate in the ME, effectively starting WW3.




I'm thinking he needs a successful military
action as a smoke-and-mirror parlor trick to take away from the muliple
failures in Iraq.


There isn't enough military reserve left to invade an empty field.
What he's doing is talking about boosting the number of troops. But
it's all talk because he knows it will never make it past the first
step on the hill, and he's doing it with the intention of laying blame
on the Dems after it doesn't pass Congress. Pelosi -just- figured this
out (gawd she's slow) and is loosely supporting the troop increase
(calling his bluff), so the Shrub may water down that plan in the
coming weeks.

What you -will- see or hear, on or before the SATU address, is big
talk of a big terror plot in the US that was supposedly foiled by "the
tools that were given [in the Patriot Act] to combat terrorism". It
will either be announced in the speech or leaked to the press (FNC).
At least that's my prediction.


For starters, I don't think our autistic leader

has enough brains to be running the country.

Most likely it's Cheney and Rumsfeld pulling

the strings from behind the curtain -- the

Bible's got nothing to do with it.


Oh, I agree with you. It's just another item he uses to pander to a
certain block of voters.


And it ain't working anymore. McCain is flopping around like a fish
out of water because he can't take the Bush route and has no idea how
to establish a voting base. I'm expecting to see Hilary make a play
for Bush's abandoned conservative base -- it's the only chance she has
to beat Edwards (a Gore/Edwards ticket? Hmmm....)


It's clear now that Iraq was about oil. Saddam

was unloading huge amounts of cheap crude

on the market despite the UN sanctions (and,

in many cases, right through the UN). The

result was lower crude prices and lower profits
for US-aligned oil companies. Now that the

war has killed oil production in Iraq, the crude

prices are up and so are profits -- at record

levels.


It seems to me like we discussed this a few years ago. If memory serves
me right, I'm pretty sure you predicted (oil) price manipulation right
around the time Lee said Iraq may be to blame for 911.


Bush & Co. have the price of oil pretty well under control. The fiasco
in Alaska didn't shake the price, and neither did the announcement of
OPEC production reductions. What you are likely to see in the next
year or so is a brief reduction in the price of crude, to say around
$40-45/bbl, which will be just enough to justify the outsourcing of
refinery operations to foreign countries, while at the same time
putting a damper on Democratic plans to implement a policy/legislation
for transparency in international oil markets. Unless we have another
Katrina.....


Between OPEC, Chavez, and the US/UK

consortium, there's no such thing as a

free-market economy when it comes to

energy. It's all a sham, just like the "reasons"

for invading Iraq. The Dems have their dirty

little fingers in it, too; just look at how much oil

money was spent on Dems in the last election.


No doubt, many were involved, but check out "Project Bojinka." It's one
of those things that makes you ask , "WTF?"


Try "Evening in Byzantium" by Irwin Shaw.


And I'm sure Bush was happy with the swift

execution of Saddam. Now that Rumsfeld has

been charged with war crimes, he may be

tried in absentia where Saddam could have

been called as a witness.



Wonder if he had time to convey his memoirs to anyone? A pic is worth a
thousand words,,,

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...Rumsfeld&hl=en



If the link doesn't work, go to google video and type in "Hussein" and
"Rumsfeld."


I think you posted that a few years ago. I keep it in the same
directory with the pic of Bush41 chatting happily with Noriega.


That would have been bad for a whole lot of

Republican operatives going all the way back

to the Reagan administration.

But then again, maybe Bush & company are a

bunch of kooks that are actually -trying- to

initiate the apocolypse..... ever watch that TV

series "Millenium"?

Anyway, the majority of

Bush-loving "Christians" are hypocrites like

N3CVJ. Whatever happened to that idiot?


He seems to have disapeared along with any support Bush may have had.


I kinda miss the little snot.