posted on December 15, 2001 07:29:53 AM new
Many of the same American corporate executives who have reaped millions of dollars
from arms and oil deals with the Saudi monarchy have served or currently serve at the
highest levels of U.S. government, public records show.
Those lucrative financial relationships call into question the ability of America's political
elite to make tough foreign policy decisions about the kingdom that produced Osama bin
Laden and is perhaps the biggest incubator for anti-Western Islamic terrorists.
Nowhere is the revolving U.S.-Saudi money wheel more evident than within President
Bush's own coterie of foreign policy advisers, starting with the president's father,
George H.W. Bush.
These intricate personal and financial links have led to virtual silence in the
administration on Saudi Arabia's failings in dealing with terrorists like bin Laden, said
Charles Lewis, executive director of the Center for Public Integrity, a Washington,
D.C.-based government watchdog group.
``It's good old fashioned `I'll scratch your back, you scratch mine.' You have former U.S. officials, former presidents, aides to the
current president, a long line of people who are tight with the Saudis, people who are the pillars of American society and
officialdom,'' said Lewis.
Substantial profits received by U.S. leaders in private sector deals with the Saudis have helped to squelch criticism of the royal
family's refusal to address the role its country has played in fueling Islamic terrorism, Lewis said.
``There's a disconnect there,'' Lewis said. ``I'm fascinated that we don't lay this at Saudi Arabia's doorstep. But the chances to
cash in and the amount you can cash in for are starting to become absolutely astronomical. Who wants to look like the Boy Scout
complaining about it and potentially jeopardize their own post-employment prospects?''
``I think the fact that they have these connections makes it important for this information to be made public,'' said Henry Siegman,
a senior fellow on the Middle East at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Larry Noble, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington, D.C., a non-partisan group that examines
money and politics, said the Bush-Carlyle connection is a concern.
``It is well known that the father is a close adviser to his son and therefore it does raise concerns,'' Noble said ``It's not
necessarily that the father has been compromised, but the danger is that it leads people to question George W. Bush. The public
has a right to feel their leaders are making independent judgments without the influence of private interests.''
When a private organization such as the Carlyle Group, with unmistakable links to the White House, is benefiting from America's military action in Afghanistan, that is conflict of interest. "Operation Enduring Freedom" is looking a little shady.
posted on December 15, 2001 09:14:06 PM new
In less than a year, George has become the first US president elected illegally with the help of robber oil barons and the first president to establish a monarchy with the approval of the majority of American people, Congress and the Senate.
posted on December 15, 2001 09:17:35 PM new
But no special persecutor unless somebody gets Lay'd. You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
posted on December 16, 2001 11:38:50 AM newIn less than a year, George has become the first US president elected illegally with the help of robber oil barons and the first president to establish a monarchy with the approval of the majority of American people, Congress and the Senate.
If you don't have friends that roll their eyes in amazement when you say stuff like that you might need to travel in a wider social circle.
posted on December 16, 2001 12:49:04 PM newI'm not arguing with a little piss ant like you.
In the future you cute little cur why don't you refrain from hitting the reply or addressing me if you aren't going to argue with me. It's common knowledge that intelligence isn't your strong point Helen, but come on, get a clue.
Here's an idea, why don't you follow your post with "This post is for dramatics only and doesn't reflect reality" or "Helen"
Oops you do follow your posts with Helen... please accept my apology.
posted on December 16, 2001 03:10:36 PM new
Uaru, you certainly have taken your role of wife and mother to heart, haven't you? But you know, not all real women need to #*!@.
Have you devised any new punishments for the breadwinner of the family today? Or are you stil lurking around your house pretending that the power is off to teach your paramour a lesson?
posted on December 16, 2001 08:13:54 PM newMany of the same American corporate executives who have reaped millions of dollars from arms and oil deals with the Saudi monarchy have served or currently serve at the highest levels of U.S. government, public records show.
Those lucrative financial relationships call into question the ability of America's political elite to make tough foreign policy decisions about the kingdom that produced Osama bin Laden and is perhaps the biggest incubator for anti-Western Islamic terrorists.
I can understand the scrutiny of the Bush administration considering their personal oil investments. But, I haven't seen anything so far that makes this administration seem any more protective of the Saudi/American relationship than the Clinton administration was. Both administrations have seemed more than willing to ignore any issue that might rock the proverbial boat.
Re: Your quote copied by Kraftdinner above..."This post is for dramatics only and doesn't reflect reality"
Elsewhere, uaru, you also posted that you sprayed the strongest solution of ammonia that you could find into the face of a dog.
My question is could this post be for dramatics only? Surely it doesn't reflect reality. Spraying only a few drops of ammonia into the eye of an animal is cruelty beyond my comprehension.
<quote>
If the dog was particularly nimble I'd come back another day with a gun to fix his sorry ass. Relax, it wasn't a real gun but a water gun, filled with the strongest ammonia solution I could find. One squirt of ammonia in the face and that dog was through chasing bikes for at least one day.
<end quote>
[COMPLETE QUOTE]
As an adult I've never tormented an animal, but I have no tolerance for pets that run wild. I was serious about bicycling for many years, any dog that felt I was a chase toy was in for a nasty lesson. If I was on the road bike I used my tire pump like a tennis player, if I was on my mountain bike I recalled my days of playing soccer. If the dog was particularly nimble I'd come back another day with a gun to fix his sorry ass. Relax, it wasn't a real gun but a water gun, filled with the strongest ammonia solution I could find. One squirt of ammonia in the face and that dog was through chasing bikes for at least one day.
[END COMPLETE QUOTE]
posted on December 16, 2001 10:18:17 PM newhjwMy question is could this post be for dramatics only? Surely it doesn't reflect reality. Spraying only a few drops of ammonia into the eye of an animal is cruelty beyond my comprehension.
Beyond your comprehension doesn't mean much Helen given your level of comprehension. Welcome to reality Helen. Ammonia in a water gun or water bottle is an old trick any serious cyclist knows about to keep dogs from chasing bicycles Helen. Pick up any book on bicycling or visit one of the many web sites and they will offer that tidbit of information on dealing with problem dogs. The ammonia isn't for the dogs eyes but his nose. What do you thing the US Postal workers carry when delivering the mail? Do you think they spray underarm deodorant at the dogs? They use pepper spray, much more effective for rover. With pepper spray the dog runs off yelping, with ammonia they stop cold and wonder why the world has such a bad odor.
Bicycling TipsSome cyclists carry a squirt gun full of ammonia water or similar dog repellent to discourage troublesome dogs.
Am I so fascinating that you'll drag posts (out of context) from other message boards here to argue with me? Even though you say you won't waste your time arguing with me.
posted on December 16, 2001 10:40:53 PM new
So you really do spray ammonia into the eyes of dogs. The answer to your question is no, nobody who sprays amonia into the face of an animal fascinates me.
By the way, Uaru, you addressed me first in this thread to point out my lack of intellegence. If I'm so dumb, Uaru, why do you feel the need to bother me?
posted on December 16, 2001 10:57:00 PM new
Kids, if you don't stop throwing that Play-doh and start eating it, there'll be no tv for two whole weeks...
posted on December 16, 2001 11:09:03 PM newhjwSo you really do spray ammonia into the eyes of dogs.
Awwwwwww, poor Helen, you can't understand the possible need for using a dog repellent? You want me to get off my bicycle and try and understand the dog's anger and reason with him? I'm such an unreasonable person.
Dog repellents are necessary, it is preferred over getting bitten. They might not bite you Helen out of professional courtesy. You really need to pull your head out of your butt and get a breath of fresh air now and then, it could do wonders for your brain.
God forbid you learn about how I deal with insects in my home.
posted on December 16, 2001 11:22:00 PM new
I just did some research about the use of ammonia in the face of animals and for those people who may be reading this nonsense, it can cause irreparable eye damage.[/b] I doubt that that will make any difference to you, Uaru, but it may be informative to someone else reading here.
You failed to answer the question that I asked you.
By the way, Uaru, you addressed me first in this thread to point out my lack of intellegence. If I'm so dumb, Uaru, why do you feel the need to bother me?
posted on December 16, 2001 11:34:15 PM new"God forbid you learn about how I deal with insects in my home"
Oh, I can't wait. I've no doubt that you'll spill the beans about that too, uaru, what with your tendency to whiney threads in which you bring all of the dirty laundry in your household out for display.
Have any new 'lessons' in mind for your wife? She sure does make you angry sometimes, doesn't she? Or is that what you meant when you said 'insects in your home'?
posted on December 17, 2001 07:03:15 AM new I just did some research about the use of ammonia in the face of animals and for those people who may be reading this nonsense, it can cause irreparable eye damage. I doubt that that will make any difference to you, Uaru, but it may be informative to someone else reading here.
Helen, I have to confess it won't make any difference to me. If I'm being harassed by a dog and especially if my daughter is riding with me I'm going to be downright unreasonable by your standards. The dog gets a squirt gun of ammonia and I'll sleep without any guilt what so ever.
By the way, Uaru, you addressed me first in this thread to point out my lack of intellegence. If I'm so dumb, Uaru, why do you feel the need to bother me?
I don't feel the need to bother you, if there is something I can do to help you with the ignore function let me know maybe I can help you.
Why did you feel the need to call me a "piss ant" and claim you aren't going to argue with me when you know (or should know) such a remark is probably going to cause a response? Why did you feel compelled to pull posts from another message board out of context and edit my remarks so you could employ part of the post in a attempt to discredit me on this message board? I'd really like an answer to that one. That's rather low even for your standards. I realize you don't care how that sleazy that makes you look, but you should.
posted on December 17, 2001 10:05:41 AM new
Helen,
I'm a very good cyclist and I'm very protective of my daughter. My trial for animal abuse is over sweetheart.
Now for you, you ill tempered stupid b'tch... back to my question that you are understandably avoiding.
Why did you feel compelled to pull posts from another message board out of context and edit my remarks so you could employ part of the post in a attempt to discredit me on this message board? I'd really like an answer to that one. That's rather low even for your standards.
If you're allowed to import and edit posts from that message board then I'm allowed to post links to that message board.
I have only responded to your unprovoked attacks. Your attempt to discredit me on this board are as follows.
<quote>
If you don't have friends that roll their eyes in amazement when you say stuff like that you might need to travel in a wider social circle.
<quote>
Then the second remark.
<quote>
In the future you cute little cur why don't you refrain from hitting the reply or addressing me if you aren't going to argue with me. It's common knowledge that intelligence isn't your strong point Helen, but come on, get a clue.
Here's an idea, why don't you follow your post with "This post is for dramatics only and doesn't reflect reality" or "Helen"
Oops you do follow your posts with Helen... please accept my apology.
<end quote>
There were others but these two provoked a response from me. Did you expect me not to reply?
<br />
Where you choose to post and what you choose to post is your decision. What a silly question to ask me.
Helen
ubb ed.
[ edited by hjw on Dec 17, 2001 10:36 AM ]
posted on December 17, 2001 10:48:21 AM newThere were others but these two provoked a response from me.
Helen,
Anyone with the most basic of reading skills (that excludes you) can see the evolution of this thread. Don't wring your hands and start that "Oh dear me, I've been wronged, I'm being picked on" crap. You better start doing some editing because as things stand in this thread you look like... well I've covered that haven't I.
If you won't answer this you at least have the courage and honesty to admit some shame.
Why did you feel compelled to pull posts from another message board out of context and edit my remarks so you could employ part of the post in a attempt to discredit me on this message board? I'd really like an answer to that one. That's rather low even for your standards.
This topic is 6 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new
