Should we impeach Bush if he wins

yeah where does the crimes issues come into this the stupidity alone and wreckless disreguard for UN input and storming out of The Assembly as well as being responsible for all the crap going on as commander in cheif thats im sure in there somewhere there is also a crime here to a deliberate distortion of faulty intel on wmd capabilities in order to obtain authorization to go to war shows me an intent for corrupted office or treason

I couldn't include ignoring the UN as a crime. Screw the UN, they're bigger crooks than anyone in our elected government.

Originally posted by torque
I couldn't include ignoring the UN as a crime. Screw the UN, they're bigger crooks than anyone in our elected government.

you do have a point but the defiance and repeated crime of illegal war is a direct violation of international law......now one of our own laws state that we must obey these laws or be subject to criminal offense charges

Illegal war? Please elaborate, ousting a murderous dictator in a war approved by Congress? A nation which was a threat to the US (daily attacks on patrol aircraft in the No-Fly Zone, mass murderer, known harborer of terrorists, and the capicity, ability, and desire to produce large amounts of WMDs)?

Disobeying the UN? I guess you don't go for that whole free-state thing huh?

And impeaching a President, right after being voted in by the people. The people wouldn't have voted for him ad they not wanted him as President.

MECHA MAN

you are new here, so i will have to tell you that we have distroyed every asspect of your argument 1000 times over. sure there was probable cause to intervien. however the more important matter is that in order to maintain economic, political, and impirical influence through out the middle east for centuries to come, the might of US military must secure a foothold in the country sitting upon the 2nd largest oil reserve in the world. strategicaly imperative there was absolutely no way around this dilema. you can scarf down the media sugar coating all you want but this is the sole purpose, we went in to destroy an already cripple regime, and further terrorize a helpless society.

Originally posted by Mechanical Man
Illegal war? Please elaborate, ousting a murderous dictator in a war approved by Congress? A nation which was a threat to the US (daily attacks on patrol aircraft in the No-Fly Zone, mass murderer, known harborer of terrorists, and the capicity, ability, and desire to produce large amounts of WMDs)?

Disobeying the UN? I guess you don't go for that whole free-state thing huh?

And impeaching a President, right after being voted in by the people. The people wouldn't have voted for him ad they not wanted him as President.

Uh Yeah dude illegal war, study international law. Congress has hes yet to declare war on either Iraq or Afghanistan by the way. As far as him being a murderous dictator, yeah, hand picked and installed by the US. AS far as Iraq being a threat to the US, A desire to produce large amounts of WMD?? Wow that sounds rhetoric to me. The people vote din George Bush in? That is bologna, the Supreme court appointed Bush, which by the way is also illegal as the House of Representatives is the only branch of government with powers to intercede in the electoral process.

Originally posted by spud602
I am a dyed in the wool Republican and after this evenings debate I feel our Commander in Chief's days are numbered. I now agree that President Bush mislead this country.

It pains me to take such a position.

[edit on 1-10-2004 by spud602]

Crap. I was worried that this debate may actually have changed someones mind. Don't let it do that to you. Kerry just was a better speaker, who cares? Look at the facts, find truth behind them and you'll see that Bush is still the best man for the job. Kerry is all talk. He talks about a plan, but never even tells us his plan.

Originally posted by twitchy
Uh Yeah dude illegal war, study international law. Congress has hes yet to declare war on either Iraq or Afghanistan by the way. As far as him being a murderous dictator, yeah, hand picked and installed by the US. AS far as Iraq being a threat to the US,

A desire to produce large amounts of WMD?? Wow that sounds rhetoric to me. The people vote din George Bush in? That is bologna, the Supreme court appointed Bush, which by the way is also illegal as the House of Representatives is the only branch of government with powers to intercede in the electoral process.

Yeah, it's illegal if you ignore the bill that congress passed after 9/11, and ignore all the evidence that we had of Saddam producing nuclear weapons and funding al qaeda (Which a lot of people believe he did, even though a book was published saying he didn't...)

This argument that the people didn't vote George Bush in is just stupid. Yeah, if you don't know about THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE, then you can go around saying that he wasn't voted in. He won Florida which gave him the necessary number of electoral votes to win the election.

You know, Saddam could easily still have had WMD's. We know he had them before we went in. As far as all these points being proven wrong 1000 times over: no they haven't. If you mean countered with stupid theories that have no backup evidence at all....yeah they've been countered.



[Edited on 2-10-2004 by Herman]

Originally posted by Herman
Yeah, it's illegal if you ignore the bill that congress passed after 9/11, and ignore all the evidence that we had of Saddam producing nuclear weapons and funding al qaeda (Which a lot of people believe he did, even though a book was published saying he didn't...)

Evidence that Saddam was producing nuclear weapons and funding al qaeda? Wow, name one shred. If you can, Im sure the GOP would love to get their hands on it. Gulf War 1 according to the US reduced the Iraqi military by 80%, the subsequent 12 years of sanctions and weapons inspections and your telling me they had an advenced nuclear weapon program? Reality check dude. Iraq had no nuclear weapon's program. It's an illegal war because we failed to produce on shred of evidence to impilcate either Iraq or Afghanistan and went ahead with an INVASION of two soverign nations based on premises that were proven to be completely false, even fabricated.

Originally posted by Herman
This argument that the people didn't vote George Bush in is just stupid. Yeah, if you don't know about THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE, then you can go around saying that he wasn't voted in. He won Florida which gave him the necessary number of electoral votes to win the election.

Gore was announced the winner of Florida, then all hell broke loose. Get real.

Originally posted by Herman
You know, Saddam could easily still have had WMD's. We know he had them before we went in.

LOL Yeah, they say it on tv so it must be true huh? Wake up man, even the republican controlled senate and even Powell is saying they didn't, or did you quit watching your tv? Bush himself was running around looking under his chair joking about there not being WMD's there. There was some in Iraq, back in the eighties when we sold them chemical weapons to gas iranians. There was no justification for the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan. Whats really funny is you are still trying to say tehre are WMD's there. Even the party you supoprt has said there wasn't bro.

Gore was announced the winner of Florida, then all hell broke loose. Get real.

Al Gore was only declared the winner in Florida by the media before all the ballots had been counted. Then they realized Bush came out on top and announced him the winner, then all hell broke loose.

Originally posted by PistolPete

Gore was announced the winner of Florida, then all hell broke loose. Get real.

Al Gore was only declared the winner in Florida by the media before all the ballots had been counted. Then they realized Bush came out on top and announced him the winner, then all hell broke loose.

All the ballots were counted? Thats pretty funny, I could have sworn the GOP had several thousand of them held in limbo while they filed litigations to stop the recount. Not to mention the several thousand ballots that were thrown out illegally in mostly black precincts.

Originally posted by twitchy
Evidence that Saddam was producing nuclear weapons and funding al qaeda? Wow, name one shred. If you can, Im sure the GOP would love to get their hands on it. Gulf War 1 according to the US reduced the Iraqi military by 80%, the subsequent 12 years of sanctions and weapons inspections and your telling me they had an advenced nuclear weapon program? Reality check dude. Iraq had no nuclear weapon's program. It's an illegal war because we failed to produce on shred of evidence to impilcate either Iraq or Afghanistan and went ahead with an INVASION of two soverign nations based on premises that were proven to be completely false, even fabricated.

Well, first off "bro", it's not illegal on Bush's part because the bill passed on 9/12/01 said that our president has control of declaring war on anyone thought connected with the WTC bombings. Based off the intelligence that he had, Saddam was connected. Technically it would be illegal, but not on Bush's part. He was going off of the intelligence that everyone else presented him. 2 years ago, everyone thought for sure that Saddam had WMD's. Just about every politician said that we should get Saddam. The proof that you seek simply lies in the fact that we KNOW he had them at one point. We know that he wanted them, we know that he wouldn't let our weapons inspectors search everywhere. So what's stopping you from thinking that Saddam could have hidden them? It would be too easy. Just look where Saddam was hiding. We only caught him because he came out and turned himself in, and a soldier was standing right next to him!!!! Besides, nobody's going to sanction Bush for removing an evil dictator such as Saddam.

Originally posted by twitchy
Gore was announced the winner of Florida, then all hell broke loose. Get real.

Oh, so now it's ok for you to deny the evidence that Bush won? How about you "get real". They re-counted those ballots 5 times. Bush won it.

LOL Yeah, they say it on tv so it must be true huh? Wake up man, even the republican controlled senate and even Powell is saying they didn't, or did you quit watching your tv? Bush himself was running around looking under his chair joking about there not being WMD's there. There was some in Iraq, back in the eighties when we sold them chemical weapons to gas iranians. There was no justification for the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan. Whats really funny is you are still trying to say tehre are WMD's there. Even the party you supoprt has said there wasn't bro.

No justification for Afghanistan? I've already argued the Iraq point, but you don't believe that there was justification in Afghanistan!?!?!?!? Even most Bush haters admit it was ok to go into Afghanistan. Why do you believe there was no justification? Is it because the taliban is good, and we should have just let them be in control of the people? Let them still be stoning women for being raped? You don't think we should have driving the Taliban out of Afghanistan? You don't think we should have looked for Bin-laden there?

[Edited on 2-10-2004 by Herman]

Originally posted by Herman
Well, first off "bro", it's not illegal on Bush's part because the bill passed on 9/12/01 said that our president has control of declaring war on anyone thought connected with the WTC bombings. Based off the intelligence that he had, Saddam was connected. Technically it would be illegal, but not on Bush's part. He was going off of the intelligence that everyone else presented him. 2 years ago, everyone thought for sure that Saddam had WMD's. Just about every politician said that we should get Saddam. The proof that you seek simply lies in the fact that we KNOW he had them at one point. We know that he wanted them, we know that he wouldn't let our weapons inspectors search everywhere. So what's stopping you from thinking that Saddam could have hidden them? It would be too easy. Just look where Saddam was hiding. We only caught him because he came out and turned himself in, and a soldier was standing right next to him!!!! Besides, nobody's going to sanction Bush for removing an evil dictator such as Saddam.
Oh, so now it's ok for you to deny the evidence that Bush won? How about you "get real". They re-counted those ballots 5 times. Bush won it.
No justification for Afghanistan? I've already argued the Iraq point, but you don't believe that there was justification in Afghanistan!?!?!?!? Even most Bush haters admit it was ok to go into Afghanistan. Why do you believe there was no justification? Is it because the taliban is good, and we should have just let them be in control of the people? Let them still be stoning women for being raped? You don't think we should have driving the Taliban out of Afghanistan? You don't think we should have looked for Bin-laden there?

Not illegal? Oh you mean the carte blanche go ahead for PNAC mandated by the GOP? Don't you mean based on the intelligence he MANDATED? The intelligence his own intelligence community was telling him was flawed? YEah just about every politician said we should go after Saddam, well except Sen. Paul Wellstone huh? What's stopping me from believign that eh had WMD's? Well let's see... uh 12 years of cripling economic sanctions and UN inspections, not to mention the first gulf war that reduced the Iraqi military by 80%. Not to mention thatnobody has found jack there yet. What leads you to believe that the whole invasion of Iraq was about WMD's, hell silly me, I thought it was about 9-11. Now as far as afghanistan, ask UNOCAL why we invaded them, don't you find it sterange that the US was the sinlge largest financial backer of the Taliban while UNOCAL was courting them for pipeline rights, then when they decide to back out of the deal, we invade them and install a former UNOCAL consultant as their new president. Consider the following... and keep in mind that the US already had turned down three fofers from other countries to extradite Osama...

Is an Oil Pipeline Behind the War in Afghanistan?dd
Is an Oil Pipeline Behind the War in Afghanistan?
by Bill Sardi
Testimony before the US Congress is circulating on the internet. It pertains to a proposed oil pipeline through Central Asia that is applicable to the current war in Afghanistan. On February 12, 1998, John J. Maresca, vice president, international relations for UNOCAL oil company, testified before the US House of Representatives, Committee on International Relations. Maresca provided information to Congress on Central Asia oil and gas reserves and how they might shape US foreign policy. UNOCAL's problem? As Maresca said: "How to get the region's vast energy resources to the markets." The oil reserves are in areas north of Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Russia. Routes for a pipeline were proposed that would transport oil on a 42-inch pipe southward thru Afghanistan for 1040 miles to the Pakistan coast. Such a pipeline would cost about $2.5 billion and carry about 1 million barrels of oil per day. Maresca told Congress then that: "It's not going to be built until there is a single Afghan government. That's the simple answer." Dana Rohrbacher, California congressman, then identified the Taliban as the ruling controllers among various factions in Afghanistan and characterized them as "opium producers." Then Rohrbacher asked Maresca: "There is a Saudi terrorist who is infamous for financing terrorism around the world. Is he in the Taliban area or is he up there with the northern people?" Maresca answered: "If it is the person I am thinking of, he is there in the Taliban area." This testimony obviously alluded to Osama bin Laden. Then Rorhbacher asked: "... in the northern area as compared to the place where the Taliban are in control, would you say that one has a better human rights record toward women than the other?" Maresca responded by saying: "With respect to women, yes. But I don't think either faction here has a very clean human rights record, to tell you the truth." So women's rights were introduced into Congressional testimony by Congressman Rohrbacher as the wedge for UNOCAL to build its pipeline through Afghanistan. Three years later CNN would be airing its acclaimed TV documentary "Under The Veil," which displayed the oppressive conditions that women endure in Afghanistan under the rule of the Taliban (a propaganda film for the oil pipeline?). Rohrbacher then went on to say that a democratic election should take place in Afghanistan and "if the Taliban are not willing to make that kind of commitment, I would be very hesitant to move foreward on a $2.5 billion investment because without that commitment, I don't think there is going to be any tranquility in that land." Beginning in 1998 UNOCAL was chastized, particularly by women's rights groups, for discussions with the Taliban, and headed in retreat as a worldwide effort mounted to come to the defense of the Afghani women. This forced UNOCAL to withdraw from its talks with the Taliban and dissolve its multinational partnership in that region. In 1999 Alexander's Gas & Oil Connections newsletter said: "UNOCAL company officials said late last year (1998) they were abandoning the project because of the need to cut costs in the Caspian region and because of the repeated failure of efforts to resolve the long civil conflict in Afghanistan." [Volume 4, issue #20 - Monday, November 22, 1999] Three days following the attack on the World Trade Centers in New York City, UNOCAL issued a statement reconfirming it had withdrawn from its project in Afghanistan, long before recent events. [www.unocal.com September 14, 2001 statement] UNOCAL was not the only party positioning themselves to tap into oil and gas reserves in central Asia. UNOCAL was primary member of a multinational consortium called CentGas (Central Asia Gas) along with Delta Oil Company Limited (Saudi Arabia), the Government of Turkmenistan, Indonesia Petroleum, LTD. (INPEX) (Japan), ITOCHU Oil Exploration Co., Ltd. (Japan), Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co., Ltd. (Korea), the Crescent Group (Pakistan) and RAO Gazprom (Russia). Just because CentGas had dissolved does not mean that the involved parties have totally abandoned their interest in building an oil pipeline out of Central Asia. There is also talk of another pipeline thru Iran. India and Pakistan are bidding to be the pipeline terminal ocean port since they would obtain hundreds of millions of dollars in fees. So, in 1998 Osama bin Laden was identified as the villain behind the Taliban, Afghanistani women the victims of an oppressive Taliban regime, and the stage was set for a future stabilization effort (i.e. a war). Was all this a cover story for a future oil pipeline? In November 2000, Bruce Hoffman, director of the Rand Institute office in Washington DC, indicated that the next US President would have to face up to the growing threat is Islamic terrorism. Hoffman: "The next administration must turn its immediate attention to knitting together the full range of US counterterrorist capabilities into a cohesive plan." [Los Angeles Times, November 12, 2000] All that was needed was a triggering event.October 15, 2001Bill Sardi [send him mail] is a health journalist at www.askbillsardi.com.Copyright � 2001 by the Bill Sardi Word of Knowledge Agency, San Dimas, California.

ENRON GAVE TALIBAN $MILLIONS
The Enron Corporation gave the Taliban millions of dollars in a no-holds-barred bid to strike a deal for an energy pipeline in Afghanistan -- wile the Taliban were already sheltering terror kingpin Osama Bin Laden!
Enron executives even met with Taliban officials in Texas, where they were given the red-carpet treatment and promised a fortune if the deal went through.
That's the bombshell finding of an exclusive ENQUIRER investigation into the collapse of the company that ripped off Americans for millions of dollars. The ENQUIRER has also uncovered that some of the Enron money wound up supporting Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda terrorist network!
"Enron would do business with the devil if it would make the company money!" said a member of a Congressional committee investigating the company's collapse. And Atul Davda, who worked as a senior director for Enron's International Division until the company's collapse, confirmed to The ENQUIRER: "Enron had intimate contact with Taliban officials. Building the pipeline was one of the corporation's prime objectives."
As The ENQUIRER revealed two weeks ago, Enron secretly employed CIA agents to carry out its dealings overseas. And a CIA insider disclosed: "Enron was wooing the Taliban and was willing to make the Taliban a partner in the operation of a pipeline through Afghanistan.
"Enron proposed to pay the Taliban large sums of money in a 'tax' on every cubic foot of gas and oil shipped through the pipeline."
Enron shelled out more than $400 million for a feasibility study on the pipeline and "a large portion of that cost was payoffs to the Taliban," said the CIA source.
Shockingly, Enron's wooing of the Taliban continued even after Al Qaeda agents bombed two American embassies in Africa in 1998, and the U.S. retaliated with missile attacks on suspected Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan and Sudan. "The U.S. was shooting missiles into Afghanistan, and it was clear that the Taliban were enabling Bin Laden and Al Qaeda," terrorist expert Jeffrey Steinberg, editor of the Executive Intelligence Review, told The ENQUIRER. "Nonetheless the oil companies continued to work behind the scenes to complete the pipeline deal."
The pipeline project was originally proposed by Unocal Corporation.
And an FBI source told The ENQUIRER: "Enron and Unocal dumped hundreds of millions of dollars into Afghanistan and the Taliban. The pipeline would relieve our dependence on Saudi Arabia -- and Enron would make billions.
"When Clinton was bombing Bin Laden camps in Afghanistan in 1998, Enron was making payoffs to Taliban and Bin Laden operatives to keep the pipeline project alive. And there's no way that anyone could NOT have known of the Taliban and Bin Laden connection at that time, especially Enron who had CIA agents on its payroll!"
Said an Enron company source, "After the Taliban came to power in 1996, Tliban leaders were invited to Sugar Land, Texas, by Unocal and Enron executives. "The Taliban's mullahs were given the royal treatment for four days in 1997!" The visit was aimed at getting Taliban cooperation to build the pipeline, which would carry vast gas and oil deposits from Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. Enron had exclusive contracts with the former Russian republics, according to another former Enron employee.
The pipeline was to travel through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Indian Ocean. When contacted by The ENQUIRER, U.S. State Department's press officer for South Asian Affairs, Len Scensny, confirmed that a Taliban delegation visited Sugar Land, Teas, in 1997 to discuss business with oil companies. Three days after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Unocal announced it had withdrawn from the Afghanistan pipeline project. But the CIA insider said Enron and its CEO Kenneth Lay held on, waiting for the Taliban to give up Bin Laden as the Bush administration was demanding. "Enron figured the Taliban wanted to stick to their deal, that they wanted riches the same way Enron did.
"What Enron and Ken Lay didn't understand is that it was Bin Laden who was calling the shots, not Enron's Taliban friends. "Now Enron and the Taliban are both goners!"
Published on: March 4, 2002
www.nationalenquirer.com...

The following is mirrored from its source at:
www.onlinejournal.com...
Enron: Ultimate agent of the American empire
Part II: Enron, the Bush administration, and the Central
Asian war
by Larry Chin, Online Journal Contributing Editor
7 February 2002
Most experts agree that the Caspian Basin and Central Asia are the keys to energy in the 21st century. Said energy expert James Dorian (Oil & Gas Journal, 9/10/01), "Those who control the oil routes out of Central Asia will impact all future direction and quantities of flow and the distribution of revenues from new production." America wants the region under total US domination. The Caspian Basin has an estimated $5 trillion of oil and gas resources, and Central Asia has 6 trillion cubic meters of natural gas and 10 billion barrels of undeveloped oil reserves. Interconnecting pipelines are the key to accessing and distributing oil and gas to European, Chinese and Russian markets. Policy planners have devoted years to this agenda. A report published in September 2001 detailing a conference held at the Brookings Institution in May 2001 provides clear evidence that the exploitation of Caspian Basin and Asian energy markets was an urgent priority for the Bush administration, and the centerpiece of its energy policy. The report states that "the administration's report warned that 'growth in international oil demand will exert increasing pressure on global oil availability' and that developing Asian economies and populations -- particularly in China and India -- will be major contributors to this increased demand" and that "options for constructing gas pipelines east to Asia from the Caspian have been discussed for the last decade." For years, Enron (along with Unocal, BP Amoco, Exxon, Mobil, Pennzoil, Atlantic Richfield, Chevron, Texaco, and other oil companies) has been involved in a multi-billion dollar frenzy to extract the reserves of the three former Soviet republics, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan. According to Project Underground (11/7/99), former Soviet, KGB and Politburo members are profiting from oil riches, along with "a formidable array of former top Western Cold Warriors, drawn principally from the cabinet of George [H.W.] Bush." The dealmakers include James Baker, Dick Cheney, Brent Scowcroft, and John Sununu. Also cashing in on the deals are former Clinton Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen (close friend of Ken Lay and longtime recipient of Enron funding) and Zbigniew Brezezinski. Brezezinski, a leading member of the Council on Foreign Relations and arguably the most influential policy planner in the world, spearheaded the American effort to destabilize the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1970s. He is a consultant to BP Amoco. His recent book, "The Grand Chessboard" is a virtual blue print for a war and balkanization of Central Asia. According to Alexander's Oil & Gas Connections (10/12/98), Enron signed a contract in 1996, giving it rights to explore 11 gas fields in Uzbekistan, a project costing $1.3 billion. The goal was to sell gas to the Russian markets, and link to Unocal's southern export pipeline crossing Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Afghanistan. Turkmenistan (where Enron's project was based) and Azerbaijan are closely allied with Israeli military intelligence. Yosef Maiman, a former Israeli intelligence agent, is the official negotiator for energy development projects in Turkmenistan. Enron recently conducted feasibility studies for a $2.5 billion trans-Caspian gas pipeline to be built jointly with General Electric and Bechtel. Enron's goal was to link this pipeline to another line through Afghanistan. As described in many accounts, notably the recently published "Osama Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth" by Jean Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasique, a Central Asia Gas (CentGas) consortium led by Unocal had plans for a 1,005 mile oil pipeline and a 918 mile natural gas pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan. This project stalled because of the political instability in Afghanistan. In August 2001, George W. Bush revived negotiations with the Taliban. Writer William Rivers Pitt notes that, "intense scrutiny has shaken loose two e-mails sent by Enron's Ken Lay to his employees in August of last year. In them, Lay waxes optimistic about the strength and stability of his company, and exhorts his employees to buy into the company's stock program."
Pitt believes that, "while many observers view this as the gasping lies of a drowning criminal," Lay's messages must be considered in light of the timing: His last e-mail was sent on August 27, about the same time as the final Taliban meeting with the Bush administration. Was Kenneth Lay anticipating a piece of a new pipeline deal, and an Enron contract, courtesy of George W. Bush? After the Taliban refused the Bush administration's "carpet of gold," America dropped its "carpet of bombs" on Afghanistan, allegedly in retaliation for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Was Ken Lay also anticipating a war, and a way to profit from it? Former Unocal lobbyist Hamid Karzai now heads a bombed and gutted Afghanistan. Bush's US envoy is Zalmay Khalizad, another former Unocal representative, who helped draw up the plans for the original CentGas pipeline. The US has established four new permanent military bases, throughout the region, including a new one in Afghanistan. Recently, Uzbekistan, hosted dozens of members of the US House of Representatives and the Senate. The region will remain a zone of perpetual violence and conflict, and plunder. If Enron had not made the mistake of collapsing, Kenneth Lay and his team would be in the thick of it. Enron, Halliburton, Bush . . . bin Laden? At the web site Rumor Mill News (www.RumorMillNews.com), a journalist named "Phoenix" has laid out business links that tie Enron to the bin Laden family. These connections, which have been independently verified by Michael Ruppert (www.copvcia.com), play out as follows: Osama bin Laden's family business, the Saudi Binladin Group, is a major construction company. Saudi Binladin Group was an investor in the Carlyle Group. Carlyle's directors include George H.W. Bush, and James Baker. George W. Bush's firm Arbusto Energy was funded by an investment from Texas investment banker James Bath, who was also the investment counselor for the bin Laden family. Bath had connections to the CIA, and was involved with the Iran-Contra, savings and loan, and BCCI scandals.
One of Saudi Binladen's joint venture partners is H.C. Price Company.
H.C. Price is a major builder of pipelines, and is involved in large projects, including two projects for Enron: the Florida Gas Pipeline and the Northern Border Pipeline running from the US/Canadian border from Montana to Illinois.
In 1996, Dresser Industries and Shaw Industries merged their pipecoating businesses to form Bredaro-Shaw Group. H.C. Price became part of Bredaro-Shaw.
Halliburton acquired Dresser in 1998. George H.W. Bush's father, Prescott, was the managing director of Brown Brothers Harriman, which previously owned Dresser. Dresser Industries gave George H.W. Bush his first job in 1948.
Dick Cheney orchestrated the Dresser and Bredaro-Shaw acquisitions.
Both Halliburton, and its subsidiary Brown & Root, have deep ties to the CIA and the military. The company has been involved in US military conflicts in Vietnam, Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Chechnya, Pakistan, Colombia and Rwanda. Brown & Root builds oil rigs, pipelines, wells, and nuclear reactors. It does not appear to be a simple case of coincidence that Saudi Binladin, a long time business partner with the Bush family, also has a partnership with a Dick Cheney-affiliated Halliburton that works with Enron. The cover-up begins In their book The Outlaw Bank, Jonathan Beaty and S.C. Gwynne wrote of BCCI, "It was a conspiratorialist's conspiracy, a plot so byzantine, so thoroughly corrupt, so exquisitely private, reaching so deeply into the political and intelligence establishments of so many countries, that it seemed to have its only precedent in the more hallucinogenic fiction of Ian Fleming, Kurt Vonnegut or Thomas Pynchon. As tales of its global predations were splattered across headlines all over the world, its apparent influence reached almost absurd proportions." The scope of Enron's influence has reached well into the absurd, if not beyond. And there are many more Enrons out there, waiting to be blow open. In describing the system that breeds Enrons, professor Michel Chossudovsky of the University of Ottawa (CovertAction, Fall 1996) wrote: "Global crime has become an integral part of an economic system, with far reaching social, economic and geopolitical ramifications . . . the relationship among criminals, politicians, and members of the intelligence establishment has tainted the structures of the state and the role of its institutions . . . this system of global trade and finance has fostered an unprecedented accumulation of private wealth alongside the impoverishment of large sectors of the world population, and the prospects for change are dim. Meanwhile, the international community turns a blind eye until some scandal momentarily breaks through the gilded surface." In light of congressional "investigations" headed exclusively by committee chairmen who have received Enron monies, weeks of FBI foot-dragging, continued White House secrecy, no independent counsel, and media complicity in White House damage control efforts, the Enron trail has already begun to grow cold. The American corporate media has done its best to look the other way. This is no surprise, since Enron dumped handsome sums into the pockets of media moguls, and conservative journalists such as Lawrence Kudlow, Peggy Noonan, William Kristol and others. Cronies and cohorts are meeting. Patsies and fall guys have been designated. Lies are being fabricated. Fifth Amendment mantras will be repeated. As was the case with Watergate, BCCI, Iran-Contra, and the savings and loan scandals, it is not too cynical to expect the Enron hearings to expose only enough malfeasance to silence the public, while leaving the massive system intact. The masterminds and the largest beneficiaries are about to slip into the shadows. The American empire is built on a thousand Enrons. It will exhaust every means to avoid implicating itself, even as it drowns in the cesspool of its own creation, dragging thousands of innocent people down with it.
Larry Chin is a freelance journalist and an Online Journal Contributing Editor.
Copyright � 2002 Online Journal[tm]. All rights reserved. Reprinted for Fair Use Only.

to explain the reasons more clearly ......although I;m on the loosing end apparently here is why....

First the UN comment

1986 UN says USA Illegally charged into (now I may have the country but the year is right) Hondurus ....the UN told the US negotions were still possible But USA didnt stop....

Iraq -----UN said that Bush's war was based on misinformation and again the USA war was illeagal the complaint came from the Secratary General for the UN didnt it

Bush failed to plan ahead----yes the first strike and the deseating went fairly quickly I thing if more of our assets where not already ingaged in two other countries fighting the war on terrorism we would not have had such a dragged out batttle Bush should have held off placed all our assets on our existing war to rap it up first while keeping direct contact with Iraq and the UN to resolve the Iraq issue we are not the only military force on earth if the issues in Iraq were first started by other forces and we only come in if absolutely needed we would have been better off we could have shifted a smaller portion of our assets from the war with the taliban and al-queda

it would not of hurt to let someone else to go first especialy since our primary reason for going into Iraq still to this day cant be proved there were no WMD there both UK and USA concided to that just recently

another short sighted issue is once we got to the point where we are in Iraq we should since we are stuck there now place more special or black ops assets in and fought on the gurella warfare angle this crap of trying to train people should wait and if we are going to be a target we should have to nurse these guys along that divides our attention a distracted target is the easiest

the we have the fact these same personel we are training and arming are in fact taking this training and arms and handing it over to the enemy I mean really this idiot was recruiting from the Iraqi enemy army common you cant trust the enemy the first chance they got they screwed us that was stupid

i got some more but those are a good start but like i said this is a major screw and no matter how many was people try to explain it away the basic facts will be the same

Is it just me, or are these all suggesting that we already have Bin-laden? Why should I believe these. Where's your proof? You did what I did with the "Kerry's resume thing" and copied/pasted these articals from some random website, only yours isn't supposed to just be funny!

Disobeying the UN? I guess you don't go for that whole free-state thing huh?



Yes I believe in a free state but I also think as a member of the UN we should abide with rules even we dont like it....we cant just be cooperative when things are good for us and we get what we want

Originally posted by Herman
Is it just me, or are these all suggesting that we already have Bin-laden? Why should I believe these. Where's your proof? You did what I did with the "Kerry's resume thing" and copied/pasted these articals from some random website, only yours isn't supposed to just be funny!

Not from me I am saying we should have finished that job first and the deploy to Iraq if the UN needed us to come someone else from the UN or its membership should have taken the lead and we should have done what we were through to completion I mean if we were needed later by the UN or other coalition forces then pull of bin laden a smaller force and send the to IRAQ i mean we were already in the neighborhood if we were absolutely needed

ooooohhhhh to address something that seems to be a common cry of the supporters of Bushes discision

the war was not illegal cause of the US congress gave approval ......who cares the UN told the not to ingage congress can say doit but that dont make it right

this makes me sick now I just sat here listening to the news and now Bush is playing debt councelor for IRAQ with the Internation Monitary Fund and World Bank pleading for IRAQS international debt to be erased common
granted Germany was nice enough to forgive up to 50% of the debt but whats it our buisness IRAQ needs to handle there bills themselves not us we have enough money problems with IRAQ right now by pouring good money after bad by fixing the place up and then either the enemy or ourselves cause the damages again during combat whats the point dont fix it till your done breaking it dont fixit and break it the next day combat causes damage even the dumbest person on earth knows if your are in combat things are going to get caught up in calateral damage

perhaps its an effort to get that oil flowin! also economic assistance for our contractors. i wouldnt know specifics, but ill bet they are getting a handfull of luctrative busness deals out of iraq. *cough* carlye *cough* i mean cmon its such a sweet deal, free oil, free defense contracts, and some easily disgarded nay sayers(aka terrorist killers) to the side.

only worry is, desimation and anhilation of the iraqi people and their homes, but hey its only collateral damage right?



[edit on 3-10-2004 by sturod84]