Iraqi Government wants Blackwater OUT of Iraq!

Senator Feinstein has a real problem since her husband is a part owner in Blackwater. What will she do for money now?

With all the noise about Halliburton no one on your side of the isle seem to be interested in all the other no bid contracts that Senator Feinstein funneled to her husbands companies. Now one of them is being threatened and you choose to blame Mr. Bush for it. Did you not say in another blog that the President should not interfere with the will of the Congress? LOL

Reply By: Paladin77 Posted: Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Senator Feinstein has a real problem since her husband is a part owner in Blackwater. What will she do for money now?


He did not send Blackwater to iraq. that was Bush!

In reality senator Feinstein is the one that makes those decisions, all the president did was say this is what we need the Congress picks the people that are authorized to be used by the military. Why is it that you don’t blame the people that make the final list of companies the military and the state department can use? Congress chose Halliburton because they are the only company that can do what was needed and blackwater was chosen because they were the best of what is available. You should campaign to impeach senator Feinstein because of her lack of ethics and the culture of corruption in her party. If you are intellectually honest this is what you would and should do.

No problem we can change the name to something else, maybe umm call them um WHITEWATER. yeh that has a familar ring to it.

Reply By: Paladin77 Posted: Tuesday, October 09, 2007
“He did not send Blackwater to Iraq. That was Bush!


In reality senator Feinstein is the one that makes those decisions, all the president did was say this is what we need the Congress picks the people that are authorized to be used by the military. Why is it that you don’t blame the people that make the final list of companies the military and the state department can use? Congress chose Halliburton because they are the only company that can do what was needed and Blackwater was chosen because they were the best of what is available. You should campaign to impeach senator Feinstein because of her lack of ethics and the culture of corruption in her party. If you are intellectually honest this is what you would and should do.”

This has nothing to do with anyone other then Bush


The issue is that Bush is trying to fight a war in Afghanistan and Iraq without the force levels needed. He has attempted to compensate for the lack of military forces by contracting services in combat zones that should be handled with uniformed military. The result is that the taxpayers are paying 6 times more for the services then it would cost with military forces and the use of these non military contractors has created political issues with the Iraqi Government. The bigger issue is not if we use company A or B it is the use of non military forces to fight a war rather then to provide a military force large enough for the mission they have been given. This is another example of a Bush policy that has not worked and has created major fiscal and political problems for our country. Everything Bush does demonstrate he had no experience to be president. He had no fiscal management experience, military or foreign policy experience and no executive experience that is wroth a thing. The results of his lack of experience can be scene in every part of our government and with the total failure of just about everything our government is doing. If Bush set out to fail he could not have done a better job if it.

So let me get this straight! You who say we should do want Congress says and ignore the President. The president asked for more troops and was turned down by Congress twice. So now it is the Presidents fault? Can you pick who should be to blame for this now? Or does it depend on your mood each minute. My point is that the president is fighting the war with the tools he has and you are trying to take those tools away so he can fail. Whos side are you on?

The problem is that Bush DID NOT ask congress to increase the size of the military during the first 6 years of his administration when he was adding to the mission of the military. In 2000 campaign Bush claimed the military (Army and Marines) were too small. That was BEFORE Afghanistan and Iraq. Did Bush seek to increase the size of the Army or the Marines in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004,2005,2006 - HELL NO. He made a difficult situation far worse by invading Iraq. His solution was to gave NO BID contracts to companies that are costing the taxpayers 4-6 times MORE then if we had just increased the size of our military. In addition to the added cost, the civilian contractors are not as effective in a combat zone and have now created the political problems with the Iraqi Government. This is another 100% Bush created situation that has FAILED of every front-- Cost, effectiveness and politically!

As I have pointed out to you on several occasions the first recorded time that the administration tried to increase troop strength was at 0700 September 11, 2001 breakfast meeting in the Pentagon. The leaders of both sides of the isle said that they were more interested in a social security lock box than building up the military. These members of Congress had other priorities. When told that AQ and others were planning to attack us they asked for specifics but there were none to give other than the facts that we have been attacked before and that we were in a war that was moving in slow motion. None of the terrorist have changed professions as of yet leading us to believe that they will continue to attack us every chance they get. Two hours after that meeting a plane slammed into the WTC buildings and the rest is history. There were other times but I only know of one other time where the administration asked for more troops in 2002 and was still turned down.
Once again you misrepresent the facts. I have told you the above a few times and each time you ignore it and continue to tell lies like the good political hack you are. You can’t handle the truth so you hide under the cloak of lies and ignorance.

The president is fighting the war with the tools that the Congress has given him. Congress won’t increase troop strength so the president was forced to use contractors from the list given him from the Congress. You don’t see any company that is owned or controlled by republicans on those list only democrats. Maybe that is the reason the Congress has not increased troop strength. Senator Feinstein is a war profiteer and should be arrested!

Reply By: Paladin77 Posted: Thursday, October 11, 2007
“In 2000 campaign Bush claimed the military (Army and Marines) were too small. That was BEFORE Afghanistan and Iraq. Did Bush seek to increase the size of the Army or the Marines in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004,2005,2006 - HELL NO.


As I have pointed out to you on several occasions the first recorded time that the administration tried to increase troop strength was at 0700 September 11, 2001 breakfast meeting in the Pentagon.”


First a meeting with a few members of Congress is not asking the Congress for an increase in the size of the military. Second that meeting per you was BEFORE 9/11. Show us where Bush asked Congress to increase the size of the military AFTER 9/11. Show us where Bush said to Congress when he sought the Iraq War Resolution that per our best military planners and generals it will take 500,000 troops to successfully invade Iraq? Every military leader and people like Senator McCain has said we did not send the troops needed to succeed in Iraq. If Bush did not have or could not have gotten the needed troops, we should not have invaded Iraq from a pure tactical consideration. You NEVER send less then the forces levels needed into a military attack. That is JUST what Bush DID against all the military advice and the history of WHY we have been so successful in our past wars.

Reply By: Paladin77 Posted: Thursday, October 11, 2007
He made a difficult situation far worse by invading Iraq. His solution was to gave NO BID contracts to companies that are costing the taxpayers 4-6 times MORE then if we had just increased the size of our military. In addition to the added cost, the civilian contractors are not as effective in a combat zone and have now created the political problems with the Iraqi Government.


The president is fighting the war with the tools that the Congress has given him. Congress won’t increase troop strength so the president was forced to use contractors from the list given him from the Congress. You don’t see any company that is owned or controlled by republicans on those list only democrats. Maybe that is the reason the Congress has not increased troop strength. Senator Feinstein is a war profiteer and should be arrested!

YOU ARE A BOLD FACED LIER!!!!

You need to learn to read, the meeting was on 9/11 not before 9/11 it was two hours before the attack on 9/11 and that was the first recorded request of two that I know of.



As I answered this crap you brought up the last five times you brought it up the process starts with the leaders of the committees and if they don’t approve it never reaches the full congress. So those congressmen are the gatekeepers they have repeatedly stopped it from happening.



So we know that Iraq is planning to give WMD to our enemies and since we don’t have enough troops we should let it happen so we can lose thousands of American citizens in the next AQ attack? This is a bad tactical position on your part.



Prove it!!!!!!

What's the problem? Bush short of troops? Is this the "vigilante" ethic that seems to absorb Americans so much (like Mr Cheney for instance), that they must send private armies in to guard their backs. And I suppose there's another outfit guarding Blackwater's back.

Suburbans with blank plates creeping around Baghdad are just that--CREEPY.Little choppers with ex-para-whatevers manning machine guns are creepier still. Good thing Blackwater stayed out of Somalia or there'd be a new book called "Blackwater Down."

Same thing happened in Angola. Executive Outcomes crawling all over the place--no brief, just whispers, big Suburbans, big heads, no law.

“So we know that Iraq is planning to give WMD to our enemies and since we don’t have enough troops we should let it happen so we can lose thousands of American citizens in the next AQ attack? This is a bad tactical position on your part.”

We knew NOTHING of the sort. In fact, the CIA advised Bush that given his past actions they did not believe Saddam would do anything with the WMD he might have other then use it in Iraq like he had in the 1980's. In addition there was no agreement that Saddam had any WMD other then some gas filled Artillery shells which is the ONLY thing that we found. Iraq was no threat and the entire idea that Saddam had or would have provided WMD to anyone else was pure conjecture. The entire nuclear issue was untrue and the CIA told Bush that. In fact Tenet told Bush that when Cheney wanted to use the yellow cake BS. Then Bush turned around and three month later repeated that lie in his State of the Union Speech.

If providing WMD to terrorists is such a threat, how about China, Russia, Iran, Syria, and North Korea. They all have WMD. What is stopping them from selling it to the terrorists?

This flies in the face of the facts that Saddam publicly stated on more than one occasion that he would sell or give any one parts of his stockpiles of WMD who promise to use them on Israel or the United States.

Maybe you should read this?

Senator Bob Graham (D, FL), chairman of the senate intelligence committee, sent a letter to the President dated Dec. 5 2001 saying “There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and maybe be back to pre-gulf war status. In addition, Saddam continues redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of an illicit missile program to develop longer range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies”

This is part of the public record produced by a democrat one that I have voted for many times, twice as gov, and twice as senator. You being an author should know what research means try doing some.

Prove it.

The last I read on the issue was Ambassador Wilson said it happened in his report to the CIA and lied to the press after. According to public records and all investigations Iraq was looking for Yellowcake. So show me proof that Great Briton lied to us and the CIA who agreed with it changed their mind.

This flies in the face of the facts that Saddam publicly stated on more than one occasion that he would sell or give any one parts of his stockpiles of WMD who promise to use them on Israel or the United States.

He did not have WMD to give to anyone.

Reply By: Paladin77 Posted: Thursday, October 11, 2007
The entire nuclear issue was untrue and the CIA told Bush that.


Prove it.

The last I read on the issue was Ambassador Wilson said it happened in his report to the CIA and lied to the press after. According to public records and all investigations Iraq was looking for Yellowcake. So show me proof that Great Briton lied to us and the CIA who agreed with it changed their mind.


The CIA and the 9/11 Commission clearly said there was NO evidence of any active Nuclear Program in 2002 in Iraq. That has been proven correct today. Tenet told Bush face to face the yellow cake story WAS NOT TRUE!


You also continue to ignore the Pentagon report in 2002 that said Saddam had almost NO military capability. How then was such a threat that justified the United State Invading Iraq?

There was no evidence that AQ was going to hijack planes and slam them into buildings in the US but there was intelligence that suggested it might happen. Based on that you expected the President to KNOW that we were going to be attacked by AQ, in this case you have two reports that contradict dozens of reports that say the opposite with the trouble we were having around the world at the time it was safer to go with what we knew. He had them, he said he had them, the UN said he had them, and the same CIA said he was five years from having a nuclear weapon to add to his stockpiles. The fact that we don’t know where they are now does not mean he did not have them only that they are not where we have looked. You are using one of many CIA reports most of the reports contradict the one you cite so it is hard to fall all over your words.

Reply By: Paladin77 Posted: Thursday, October 11, 2007
The CIA and the 9/11 Commission clearly said there was NO evidence of any active Nuclear Program in 2002 in Iraq.


"There was no evidence that AQ was going to hijack planes and slam them into buildings in the US but there was intelligence that suggested it might happen. Based on that you expected the President to KNOW that we were going to be attacked by AQ, in this case you have two reports that contradict dozens of reports that say the opposite with the trouble we were having around the world at the time it was safer to go with what we knew. He had them, he said he had them, the UN said he had them, and the same CIA said he was five years from having a nuclear weapon to add to his stockpiles. The fact that we don’t know where they are now does not mean he did not have them only that they are not where we have looked. You are using one of many CIA reports most of the reports contradict the one you cite so it is hard to fall all over your words."

WRONG. The Intelligence about the nuclear program of Saddam was NOT from a single source but was the judgment of the intelligence community including the CIA. The nuclear issue was HYPE from Bush and Cheney to scare Congress and the American People to allow Bush to invade Iraq. I notice you continue to ignore the Pentagon Study in 2002 that said Saddam had no offensive military capability. Iraq attacking the U.S. is like that movie “the Mouse that Roared" when a tiny county attacked the U.S. to get aid when they lost and as a spoof won the battle. That is what the idea that Iraq was a danger to the U.S. in 2002 -- A SPOOF!

Saddam saying he had WMD was NOT proof. He did that to deflect outside countries from invading Iraq and to help him maintain control of the internal factions that opposed him in Iraq. When Saddam used WMD it was to control internal descent! He never used WMD against anyone outside Iraq! That is want the CIA advised Bush in 2002. Bush and Cheney also tried to tie Iraq to 9/11 despite the fact that ALL the intelligence showed it was al-Qaeda and bin Laden NOT Saddam that was responsible for 9/11, the first tower attack, the attack on the Cole and the Marine Barracks. All the warnings that the CIA gave Bush from March 2001 to 6 September 2001 said it was al-Qaeda and Bin Laden. There was not a single warning that said the U.S. was in danger from Iraq. That was a TOTAL FICTION created by Bush and Cheney!

Even if Saddan did have some of the WMD that Bush and Cheney claimed, it did not pose a danger to the U.S. China, Russia and others have WMD, why have we not invaded them? After all if posession creates the danger then we should take over ALL countries that have WMD!

very good point from a foolish point of view.
China is run by a commette that has not stated publiclly that they will attack the US. Russia is a broken nation that used to be the Great Soviet Union, remember them, Russia has not publiclly stated that they plan to attack the US. Saddam has stated publicly stated that he would give or sell his WMD to anyone that planned to use them on Israel or the US. That is a threat. North Korea has a nuclear weapon but has not stated that they plan to use it against us. This is why we are talking to them and not bombing them.
Is logical thiking not part of your reasoning process?