NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.
All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report
Or is it a BUG?"
"Let's call it an accidental feature. :-)"
--Larry Wall in <6909@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.
Provoking me again ;) (Score:2)
Of course, it depends on who you listen to, the Swift Vets gang [swiftvets.com] or the Democrats (and the mainstream media that
Re:Provoking me again ;) (Score:2)
Yes of course :)
WRT the murderous there's a difference not only in degree but also in nature between some war atrocities and send people to butchery by starting an entire war based on lies purely for personal profit.
As for Kerry's competence, it simply doesn't matter: no matter how incompetent you just can't be worse than Bush. It's never been seen in any major country before, and, with any hope, won't be seen again in our lifetimes. The Democrats could run a monkey for presidency, I'd still s
-- Robin Berjon [berjon.com]
Re:Provoking me again ;) (Score:2)
The problem is that the latter never happened. First, even if you believe the WMD was a lie, that doesn't mean the entire war was based on lies. We know many justifications for the war were absolutely true, including Iraq's noncompliance with UN resolutions which threatened force, including that Iraq aided
Re:Provoking me again ;) (Score:2)
But to be honest, the war wasn't "sold" to the American public based on noncompliance with UN resolutions was it? We were told that Iraq was a imminent threat to the US. We were told that they had WMD and were just itching to use them.
Further, there is not a jot of credible evidence that Bush profitted (or will profit) from the war at all, let alone that it was a motivation.
Bush or Bush
Re:Provoking me again ;) (Score:2)
It absolutely was. The administration made reference to "material breach" of Resolution 1441 early and often.
I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next bloke but you have to admit those nice no-bid Haliburton contracts make you think don't they?
Eh, not really, when you consider all of the factors: the shift in recent years to hiring one contractor to do all the work, the fact that very few companies can handle that kind of a contract, the fact that most people believe Haliburton is the best out there to do the job, the fact that Haliburton was already handling much of the work we'd need done, and the fact that the timing was such that having an open bidding process would have taken too long and would have damaged our attempts to work with the UN Security Council to get a second resolution (which ultimately failed anyway).
Superficially, it looks bad, but I don't think it actually is that bad. Some people say, isn't it funny that the company doing this used to have the VP as its CEO? But really, Haliburton is the best, so they are going to have the best as their CEO: someone with a great deal of experience at Middle Eastern relations, someone with government contacts (foreign and domestic), etc. Cheney never thought he would hold public office again. This wasn't calculated.
Reply to This
Parent