Thursday, November 18, 2004 at 1:55 AM
Edited Thursday, November 18, 2004 at 1:57 AM "As you can see in the recent posts, people steeped in ideology (Dems or Reps) can't or won't listen to stuff that goes against whatever ideology they hold. Any info that comes out about the UN's corruption is processed by the left partisan as cover-up for Iraq. Any dissenting voice about the war is viewed by the right as unpatriotic." Holy shit...read my post. I try to be fair when I make my arguments but this is getting fucking frustrating.
I would be more than happy to listen to evidence concerning this "scam". But that's the problem, there isn't any.
This is exactly like the WMD thing before the build up to the invasion. All the sources that British and US intelligence used were heavily discredited before the war, but these accusations just gained credibility because they were repeated so many times. And now it can't be more obvious that it was simply the echo chamber in effect and not real evidence. It's the same case here. The US was fully aware of these kick backs, and "bribes" while they happened, the contracts were organized by the US themselves, that's the whole point of the article. So, your a conservative because you feel safety is our number one concern? Does it bother you terrorism is higher than it's been in 30 years? That Al Queda has the most members in its history, has spread to 60 countries, and is considered to be more dangerous and harder to pin down than it used to be? That North Korea now has nuclear weapons directly due to our actions in Iraq and has threatened to preemptively strike the US? And that the only reason why Iraq has ties to Al Queda is BECAUSE the US invaded, not vice versa as it was claimed? But obviously, Kerry would have been worse, because he's a flip flopper and speaks french. —piesore | 
