Text 3079, 144 rader
Skriven 2006-07-02 07:13:00 av Robert E Starr JR (3552.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
  * * * This message was from Carl to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *   
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <asqdnQT4nLswUjvZnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@comcast.com>
@REPLY: <qv3p82l5efiuo3tnh9t68sh5udanal89f4@4ax.com>

<kruegerb76@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1151766683.995096.226700@v61g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> Carl wrote:
>> > You have more faith in this administration than I have at this point.
>> > I believe Bush's administrations _actions_ give us very good reason to
>> > have these suspicions.
>>
>> Suspicions are fine...in fact I think it's healthy to be suspicious about
>> every administration... Democrat or Republican... but one shouldn't 
>> mistake
>> suspicion with proof.
>
> But we'll never see a decent investigation into this, will we?

Probably not, but then again the Dems time limited the Thompson
investigation into the Clintons and reportedly delayed their way through
that one.  Both sides diliked the idea that having 100K of money
in a freezer wasn't safe for someone in congress either.

Ultimately, I think that no matter which side is being investigated, the 
other side will never consider it "decent" if there isn't a conviction,
and the side being investigated will consider it a witch hunt.  To be clear, 
I am not speaking of you here.


>> > All the more because no one gives a damn:
>> > they've gotten away with it, people are getting rich.
>>
>> Being rich is not inherently a bad thing, just as being poor does not 
>> make
>> one a better person.
>
> And I didn't say it did.  It's HOW you get rich.  Being a buddy and
> former collegue of high administration officials, then getting all of
> the good contracts on a no-bid basis...

Lots of contracts are no-bid or limited bid.  A lot of times the specs are 
written (tailored) with a particular person or company in mind and even if 
it is published as "open" it isn't really.  That's been going on for a very 
long time.  I actually had a job offer at the Pentagon quite a while back in 
which they did that for me.  I didn't take the job, but I found the 
process....interesting.

Still, if nothing the way it was done looks bad.

> then being caught cheating in at  least one of these areas and not getting 
> so much as a hand slap for it... this is the bad kind of way to get rich.

Absolutely true....and unfortunately not at all uncommon.  Defense 
contractors (for instance) get caught and are given tiny slaps on the wrist 
all the time.  This has gone on for years.

I'm curious if there are any reports of companies that wanted to go and 
didn't get a contract?  My understanding was that very few companies do such 
work and they all got work.    In terms of an decent investigation... who 
has claimed injury?  I'm not trying to be flippant...I'm just curious if any 
company claimed foul or this is being brought up because of a perception 
that W's friends were given the contract.   If no company was prevented from 
getting a contract arbitrarily, then I can't see any foul here.

>> As to who is getting rich...there are only a relatively few companies 
>> that
>> do that kind of work.
>
> Then reading through the few legitimate bids that come in shouldn't
> really be a time-consuming task, should it?  Why make these contracts
> no-bid?

I don't know.  I might offer a few guesses, but that's all they would be and 
so they carry no weight.

>
>>
>> Are they cheating on contracts?
>
> Yes, they were caught doing so I believe it was in the food catering
> area.  Sorry, I don't have the details right off the top of my head.

If you reread the rest of my response, that line was mostly rhetorical as I 
conceded the point in the next sentence. :)


> If the president wants his administration to be freed from these
> suspicions/accusations then he should learn how to run a truly
> independent investigation.

I doubt there's anything they could do, an more than the GOP trusted Janet 
Reno either.

> But so far the picture seems to be a  president eager to attack
> this specific country, and at least some of
> his administration showing him the "facts" he wanted to hear.  Even if
> they weren't facts or even solid rumors in some cases.

That's a little revisionist, since Kerry and a lot of others were announcing 
the dangers of Saddam even before W got into office and in the late 90s and 
claiming with almost certainty that he was a threat.

Saddam did have WMDs...and supposedly he destroyed them (with no records and 
not being willing to prove it) and he even apparently believed he still had 
them just before the war (according to papers found).  He did gas his own 
people and fill mass graves (and there *are*  still hundreds of shells with 
toxic gas there).

If you were given two options: he's relative harmless (as he's being 
portrayed now by some) or that he was in fact dangerous...would you take his 
word for it?  Particularly if he tried to have your father killed?

Did he cherry pick?  Sure.

Then again, look at what FDR did to start a war with Japan.


> And why does no one seem to notice or care that the reasons we went
> into this war suddenly changed after we got there?  Wow, now that's a
> public that's just grown disinterested.  Wasn't there a time in this
> country when actually changing your story mid-stream would have caused
> protests in the streets?

The reasons for going didn't change...but there are different reasons for 
staying. One could argue that as soon as Saddam was pulled eout of that hole 
he was no longer a threat and we could have pulled out.   New reasons are 
given for staying there.   Whether they are good enough reasons is up to 
each individual to determine for themselves.

> But no, people just don't seem to care about
> corruption as long as it's under Bush's watch.  :S

Many thought the same thing of Clinton. I work with a guy that told me he 
wouldn't care if Clinton was guilty of everything he was accused of; he 
liked Clinton's policies and would support him.  I don't understand that 
view...from either side.
                                                                               
                
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)