On 12/9/05, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My response to this seems to have been lost. There are a couple of parts > to what I want to say. The first part will address some of the information > given by Gary. The second part will detail a fraction of the news articles > indicating that US companies are not the first in line for oil development > contracts.
Your list is of recent contracts after things went to Hell in a handbasket. My later post I actually stopped pulling news accounts of contracts in 2003 except for a very recent post of the type of contracts being given. There is a clear difference between what was happening in the first year and before and what is happening now. Between their plans for strategic control of oil financed by Iraqi oil and the current $100 billion toilet. <snip> > Finally, I think there is an unwritten assumption underlying this analysis. > It is that Hussein never has and was very unlikely to ever pose a > significant future risk to the United States. No reasonable person could > even think so. > > Is my reading of that assumption valid? I think that is a fair assumption. Today the WP reports the only evidence the White House ever had of links between Osama and Saddam was obtained after one member was being tortured in Egypt and saying whatever lies we wanted to hear. -- Gary Denton http://www.apollocon.org June 23-25, 2006 "The budget should be balanced; the treasury should be refilled; public debt should be reduced; and the arrogance of public officials should be controlled." -Cicero. 106-43 B.C. Easter Lemming Liberal News Digest - http://elemming2.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
