Second, I'm not "Bush bashing." I'll leave that to Kerry's drones. There are many things I like about the guy. I wouldn't be voting for him again if there weren't. You sound like some crazy lib who suddenly assumes you eat children and strangle kittens because you disagree with Kerry's latest position on something. I am simply criticizing his decisions on Iraq, but I have every right, and every obligation, to do so. Bush may manage the direction of this country and make the day-to-day decisions, but my obligation is to the people of this great nation. The people, not one man, are what make this country the envy of the world. Deciding to blind yourself to his shortcomings just because he's "our guy" is treason in my eyes.
To your points:
1. The Cold War was a real situation and not created by the placement of Pershing II missiles. Reagan was absolutely right in that because Russia was an overt threat to the world. There was no misinformation about "possible" nuclear capabilities, they had 'em and the world knew it. Reagan deftly handled US military strategy to maintain the tenuous balance of power in the world. Had he not, God only knows what could have happened. The current situation in Iraq was created by US policy, not an attempt to maintain a balance of power. (Though I'm certainly not trying to say SH didn't deserve to be removed from power.) Iraq wasn't sitting on a stockpile of nuclear weapons pointed at the US. We also had many allies in the struggle against Communism. Not the ridiculous "Coalition of the Willing" we're trying to pass off as a mandate from the world. Not even close to a similar situation, this comparison doesn't hold water.
2. Halliburton has been getting government contracts for decades under a litany of presidents, no question. They've been providing for the needs of our troops through contracts initiated and renewed by Clinton, yes. But who handed them contracts to "rebuild" Iraq? Clinton? These contracts are huge in comparison and are the ones in dispute, not those which were already in effect.
Straight enough for you?
It sure was! Whatever it takes to stop the spread of communism. Those commies sensed that Carter was a pacifist and look what happened! Communism was popping up all over the place under his watch. Angola, Nicaragua, Grenada, Afghanistan, etc.
Second, I'm not "Bush bashing."
Sure you are, Halliburton is the first thing that the liberal bashers bring up. They must be gnashing their teeth when they made Cheyney sell his Halliburton stock before getting into the VP office which turned out to be a great time to sell the stock before the oncoming bear market! LOL!
Iraq wasn't sitting on a stockpile of nuclear weapons pointed at the US.
Ahh, hindsight is always 20-20, isn't it? Must be nice to be a Monday morning quarterback.In addition, do a google search on the words "Salman Pak" and then come back and tell me Iraq wasn't "necessary".
We also had many allies in the struggle against Communism. Not the ridiculous "Coalition of the Willing" we're trying to pass off as a mandate from the world.
If the U.N. would enforce their resolutions, we wouldn't be having this trouble. Not to mention that most large countries that took a pass on the "mandate" were in financial cahoots with Saddam.
2. Halliburton has been getting government contracts for decades under a litany of presidents, no question. They've been providing for the needs of our troops through contracts initiated and renewed by Clinton, yes. But who handed them contracts to "rebuild" Iraq? Clinton? These contracts are huge in comparison and are the ones in dispute, not those which were already in effect.
Do you really think that Bush himself hands out contracts? Come on! It's like saying that Bush is responsible for the deficits. If you learned elementary civics, the saying is.."the president proposes, and Congress disposes". Congress spends the money. Besides, there's no other company that can do a multi-faceted contract like Halliburton can.