Mr Boaz,

Your post is so full of holes I don’t know where to begin.

OK, first, Saran a material that can be used to make weapons, not a WMD in itself. Hardly a big find. Especially since we already knew they had it because it was sold to Iraq by Dow Chemical, an American company.

We were told that WMDs were the only reason for invading Iraq. Don’t confuse that. The other reasons only eventuated AFTER WMDs weren’t found. For example, when it looked like WMDs weren’t going to be found at all, the neo-conservative news network, FOX News, started referring to the war as “Operation Iraqi Freedom”. Then the neo-conservative morons bought it.

What the Conservatives choose to ignore are the real reasons for invading Iraq...to make Bush and his cronies even richer. They rely on the testimony of ONE person as their entire proof that WMDs were moved to Iraq. Well gee, if it mean I’d be granted citizenship in America to tell the world that WMDs were move to Syria then I’d so it too. It’s hardly concrete evidence. Here is a list of actual facts that Mr Boaz and his ilk are conveniently ignoring:

ONE
Halliburton, the company that Dick Cheney is the former CEO of (what a coincidence) is an oil-drilling company. Their stocks have risen nearly 80,000,000 since the invasion of Iraq. Are we starting to put 2 and 2 together now Mr Boaz?

Now let’s take a look at some of the other best friends of G W Bush profiting from the war:

-AEGIS
-BearingPoint
-Bechtel
-BKSH & Associates
-CACI and Titan
-Custer Battles
-Lockheed Martin
-Loral Satellite
-Qualcomm

Cont’d…

…Cont’d

TWO
A regime change in Iraq had been planned in early 2001 by a neo-conservative think-tank involving Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Jeb Bush.

THREE
-General Wesley Clark was asked by the Bush administration to pin the 9/11 attacks on Saddam.

So who are we going to believe here...?

A decorated four-star general in the U.S. Army who was also a Supreme Allied Commander of NATO?

Or one of Saddam’s henchmen who was probably asked to lie in exchange for immunity and US citizenship?

Also, if the word of George Hormis is so credible, then why is it that the only time he made the claim was on FOX news with a neo-conservative shock-jock? Why aren’t they going to great lengths to prove his claims?

Not only that, but The Right conveniently ignore the fact that their beloved unofficial world leader, Bush, couldn’t even win an election without seriously manipulating the results. Heck, he can’t even string 2 sentences together! So give me just ONE good reason why anyone should give him a shred of credit…other than: “It suits our beliefs.”

So much for clear thinkers!

The Neo-conservatives (and Mr Boaz): 0

The REAL clear thinkers: A big and undeniable 1

Mr Man

I agree with you on this.

The importance of oil to the US and the personal connections of Bush, Cheney and Rice to the oil industry were fundamental reasons for the invasion of Iraq.

See my latest post on this at: http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com

Pete

Plantagenet,

Great post on your blog! You summarised the links between the Bush administration, Saudi Arabia and the oil industry very well. I didn’t realise they’d named oil tanker after Condoleezza…hilarious! The blatantly obvious is staring everyone in the face but some choose to ignore it.

I’m convinced that the only reason Howard has lead us into the Iraq mess was to strengthen our alliance with the US. Howard is too intelligent to be ignorant to everything you pointed out on in your blog.

It’s typical too that our mainstream media won’t mention any of it. Which is why, I guess, it’s so easy for some to keep their heads in the sand about it all.

FYI – I read your blog occasionally and find it interesting.

Anyway, I’d better make a correction to my last post before some die-hard Bush fan tries to point it out as if it proves me wrong on everything…

George Hormis has made his claim more than the one time on FOX News. It still doesn’t give his claim any more credibility though. I’m not saying he definitely DID lie. And maybe Iraq really DID have WMDs. But there is by far enough conflicting testimony and circumstantial evidence to seriously question the claims of Hormis.

What we DO know is that the Bush administration didn’t know for sure about the existence of WMDs at the time. Therefore, any findings that may happen aren’t going to mean much, nor will they be anything for The Right to gloat about.

True or false, the claims of Hormis in no way eliminate the ties between the oil industry and the Bush administration. Nor do they eliminate the real reason for the invasion; which are just soooo obvious it’s enough to make you laugh.

But I’d better stick the topic a bit here now that I’ve responded to Mr Boaz…

This article highlights some of the many reasons that I’m suspecting that the government introduced the sedition laws to start censoring us rather than protect us (for anyone who read the other threads on this topic).

This is about sedition and free speech so I suggest writers wander off the www.alliance.org.au and read the Media Muzzled report presented on World Press Freedom day and also read the gut wrenching speech by Paul McGeough about reporting from Iraq and other war zones - he is someone who has been to them all and retains a great humanity and compassion for the innocent victims he speaks to and for.

It is also about free speech but the question never asked about free speech is just how far are we allowed to go without censure.

Should Don Randall be allowed to abuse his colleagues because they don't agree with his cruel position on refugees or should he be shouted down?

Should a journalist invent an entire interview to maintain a position and not be sacked? How often should journalist or academics be allowed to plagiarise others hard work before they are pulled up?

Should vilifying people be allowed as part of our free speech if the people concerned are entirely innocent of all wrong doing? Like the Iraqi people who Howard accused of throwing the children overboard?

I guess I want to know when people are owed and apology and when should an apology be issued and accepted?

Grow up Marylyn,

The heretical range of opinions expressed on this thread, make it clear to anyone that Australia HAS free speech. The best way to debate free speech is to SHOW by example it appears.

However your kind of free speech in a world overpopulting itself towards the precipice of oblivion with the promise of 7 billion souls who will be prepared to kill each other for scarce OIL by 2010 is the product of a weak mind.
For example Australia's greatest future threat is a 10,000 strong boat people invasion of Australia that could attract international military protection for their safety and a loss of OUR sovereignty. It appears you would encourage boat people to keep this option afloat as it were. And what about the legitimate refugees who go through proper vetting channels to immigrate here? At the first sign of unscrupulous cutthroat characters jumping the queue and turning up at our doorstep unnanounced, you forget legitimates and fall to pieces in a fit of alzheimer's based compassion.

Weak minds can have their say but CANNOT expect to command issues when their immature ideas of equality place our nation at great future risk.

I respect your right to free speech but I demand my right to tell you to .... GROW UP.