Rumsfeld: Political Dissent=traitorism

Dback Jon · September 9th, 2003, 06:56 AM

Really, this guy is about as un-American as they come - he needs to step down, investigated, and probably jailed for misconduct.
He is trying to destroy the United States.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96716,00.html

WaywardFan · September 9th, 2003, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dback Jon
Really, this guy is about as un-American as they come - he needs to step down, investigated, and probably jailed for misconduct.

Why?

Dback Jon · September 9th, 2003, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by WaywardFan
Why?

His shady dealings with private contractors - funnelling no-bid contracts to his buddies for starters.

And someone with his lack of respect for freedom of speech and dissent has no place running our most powerful cabinet.

SirStefan32 · September 9th, 2003, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by WaywardFan
Why?

His name is followed by an "R." He's a Republican.
That's why.

WaywardFan · September 9th, 2003, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dback Jon
His shady dealings with private contractors - funnelling no-bid contracts to his buddies for starters.

How do you know they are shady? Because these contracts didn't go to less capable companies? Because they didn't go to French companies?

Quote:

And someone with his lack of respect for freedom of speech and dissent has no place running our most powerful cabinet.

Where are you getting this 'lack of respect for freedom of speech'?

Dback Jon · September 9th, 2003, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by WaywardFan
How do you know they are shady? Because these contracts didn't go to less capable companies? Because they didn't go to French companies?

Where are you getting this 'lack of respect for freedom of speech'?

Just let an independent investigator look into them - but the Bushies will never allow that - they have this "Secrecy in the Name of National Security" down pat.

From his speeck, and others in the past.

WaywardFan · September 9th, 2003, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dback Jon
Just let an independent investigator look into them - but the Bushies will never allow that - they have this "Secrecy in the Name of National Security" down pat.

Yeah, heaven forbid we don't give everyone away all our secrets. What are they thinking.

Quote:

From his speeck, and others in the past.

Particulars please? I'd like to know specifically where you think he has lack of respect for freedom of speech.

Dback Jon · September 9th, 2003, 09:23 AM

Domestic criticism also hurts, Rumsfeld said.

criticism from Democratic lawmakers in the United States complicate the terror fight.

Just from that article.

WaywardFan · September 9th, 2003, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dback Jon
Domestic criticism also hurts, Rumsfeld said.

criticism from Democratic lawmakers in the United States complicate the terror fight.

Just from that article.

How does this translate into a lack of respect for free speech?

Besides, despite the political mileage he's probably trying to get from these statements (which I'll readily admit), his statements are still truthful. Maybe that's why you're angry with him? He's explaining the obvious and it makes your side look bad.

Dback Jon · September 9th, 2003, 01:24 PM

Iraq Windfall: Corporations Benefit From Costs of Iraq Reconstruction
by Jake Tapper

W A S H I N G T O N, Sept. 6 — Paul Bremer, the U.S. civil administrator in Iraq, has said the reconstruction there would require "several tens of billions of dollars" in just the next year.

Americans may think this cash is all going to U.S. soldiers or the Iraqi people.

Guess again.

"Much of it is going to big companies like Halliburton and Bechtel, which are doing extremely well in terms of their own profitability," Chellie Pingree, president of the citizens' activist group Common Cause, told ABCNEWS. "Much of that money is just coming back to their stockholders in the company and their CEO."

More Lucrative Than Thought

Apparently, it is an ever-increasing amount.

Army documents show Halliburton will make more than previously thought — $1.7 billion for contracts ranging from hot meals to hunting for weapons of mass destruction, with much of the money generated by an exclusive, no-bid contract.

Bechtel's contract to rebuild Iraqi infrastructure such as airports and schools had been capped at $680 million. But now it may exceed $1 billion.

The Pentagon argues that the military is stretched thin and needs the help.

"We're trying to get some rules changed the way the Department of Homeland Security did and the way some other departments have some flexibility so that people can make rational decisions," Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said Aug. 20 during a trip to Honduras.

The degree to which private contractors are being used in Iraq is unprecedented. But there are questions about employee safety, cost savings and favoritism in bidding.

"From England to other countries around the world, you have nations who say, 'Why weren't we allowed to participate in this process?' " Pingree said. "Perhaps if [they] were, [they would] also be sending in troops to support the effort. It doesn't seem like it's cost-effective and doesn't seem like it's good policy."

Army of Halliburton, Bechtel?

Some question the entire policy of privatization.

"At the end of the day you're turning over national security and soldiers' lives to private companies that you can't always depend on, because they're only responsible to the marketplace," said P.W. Singer, author of the book Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry.

But already pending are $2 billion worth of new contracts — more potential cash for a small number of well-connected American companies

WaywardFan · September 9th, 2003, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dback Jon
Iraq Windfall: Corporations Benefit From Costs of Iraq Reconstruction
by Jake Tapper

And what does this op-ed prove exactly? That a company universally accepted as the best in its field is going to make lots of money while reconstructing Iraq. Is the fact they're making money what angers you?

Dback Jon · September 9th, 2003, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by WaywardFan
And what does this op-ed prove exactly? That a company universally accepted as the best in its field is going to make lots of money while reconstructing Iraq. Is the fact they're making money what angers you?

Hmmm - Vice-President's company - no bid contract for Billions.......

WaywardFan · September 9th, 2003, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dback Jon
Hmmm - Vice-President's company - no bid contract for Billions.......

Insinuation is lovely, really. However, it doesn't mean anything.

I still want to understand how Rumsfeld has a lack of respect for free speech.

Chris_Sanders · September 10th, 2003, 03:49 AM

You say insinuation, I say corruption.

WaywardFan · September 10th, 2003, 04:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Chris_Sanders
You say insinuation, I say corruption.

Then I say prove it.

And wasn't the topic about how horrible Rumsfeld thinks free speech is? I've yet to see a good foundation for such an allegation.

Rumsfeld: Political Dissent=traitorism

Re: Rumsfeld: Political Dissent=traitorism

Re: Re: Rumsfeld: Political Dissent=traitorism

Re: Re: Rumsfeld: Political Dissent=traitorism

Re: Re: Re: Rumsfeld: Political Dissent=traitorism

Re: Re: Re: Re: Rumsfeld: Political Dissent=traitorism

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rumsfeld: Political Dissent=traitorism