Strong Words, Clearly Spoken
 

Offical Transcript of Bush's Speech

About the only thing that took me aback was the 48 hour deadline.

I thought the press conference at the UN was kind of interesting ... mostly because of Kofi Annan very carefully NOT saying anything against the US, giving the impression that we had a nod and a wink agreement to "go take care of him and we'll be in after," particularly given the offers of humanitarian aid to the Iraqi people.

You didn't know about that? They were talking about it (48 hour deadline) at 5:30 tonight.

He spoke well, though his words did not stir up anything in me but sadness.

I kinda caught the speech here at work am and alittle behind the news. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's 48 hours till we begine our airstrikes against Bagdad. Which is their capital... Which is full of civilians... And Bush was talking about a free and peacefull Iraq peaple? I don get it.

It's 48 hours for Saddam and his offspring to get the heck outta Dodge. The airstrikes begin some unspecified amount of time after that ... (probably no more than, say, 10-15 minutes).

And no, Syc, I hadn't really paid attention to the earlier reports, assuming they would primarily be wild speculation.

(I did like the story about Tariq Aziz being too scared to deliver the ultimatim to Hussein because of a perceived tendency of his to blame the messenger.)

What ifs...
 

What if we capture Saddam and Uday? What in hell are we supposed to do with them?

What if he leaves and we know which plane it is and its in Iraqi air space? Do we shoot it or just follow it?

What if we don't find any WMD? We are going to look mighty foolish since that was the entire pretext. I'm sure they are/were there but they could be destroying them secretly just to make us look bad.

Who gets the presidential assets?

How much oil do we keep?

Will we take Blabs Striesand, Sean Penn, Martin Sheen, Jeanine Garafalo and the Ditsy Chicks into Saddam's chamber of torture and try out some of his stuff on them? If not, why not?

I'm on board but I have questions.

This will not be Hiroshima Lotec. It is our moral and political objective to keep the civie losses to a minimum.

The US spooks and Special Forces have been in Baghdad for weeks. Bush *knows* who he is after and it is not the civies. Also note that we will be using new electronic warheads in the Tomahawk cruise missiles that knock out electronics through the use of EMP. People will not be directly affected by the warheads.

This is not to say there will not be losses, but I'm betting they will be low.

Despite what I have read here in the past months the US is the greatest and the most compassionate country in the history of the world, even when we have to come knock down your doors and kill you. :)

Ah yes.. the new, politically correct, compassionate war. <g> Man, thank God for evolution! We sure have learned our lessons.

Re: What ifs...
 

The torture for these people will be the people will know how foolish they have acted. Millions will always love them for their commitment in the war against Bush, er...., I mean, the war. Others will remember how silly they have acted and they will become a cautionary tale for frivilous political non sensical protests of the future.


(This is not intended to step on Griff's toes, he and many here have made *much* better arguments against the war than the "protestors" have without resorting to ridiculous conspiracy theories about Bush's intentions, even though I don't support them either)

Oh dear ...

Probably I would be dealing with all of this a lot better if I'd been at work and too busy to really dwell on anything ...

But here I am, at home ... trapped by circumstance ... wondering ... should I have bought that duct tape and plastic sheeting instead of scoffing? Should I have violated my physician's orders and driven up to the corner for gasoline before the price goes over $2/gallon?

Nah .. I'm not changing any of my behavior over this stuff ... I've always slept with a loaded gun. Why should that change now?

Humor aside ... what I have noticed ... there's a LOT of unaccustomed air traffic overhead tonight ... I live next to an airport, but it's a civilian airport ... the only thing of any real size that flys over at this time of night is the medevac chopper. I think that went at at around 2130 hrs, has been quiet since.

I'm hearing big multi-engine jets, sometimes turbo-props ... mostly from the direction of the Naval Air Station. Last time I heard anything like this was just before the start of the gulf war.

Has anyone noticed ... have any of the TV stations started a visible countdown timer? Foxnews keeps reminding us verbally. "Saddam Hussein has x hours left to make a decision on the ultimatim ..." This needs a doomsday clock though, dontcha think?

The claim that Bush is "more evil" than Saddam is ridiculous. This is just another example of how crazy this thinking is. Not only can people from all over the US protest him without fear of torture or death, he hasn't killed any of his office staff, unlike WJC who *allegedly* killed one and had a couple unjustly thrown in jail.

One loaded handgun and a loaded M14 is better these days Wolf. :)

I'll see you and raise you a shotgun ;) :shotgun:

What about the 152 people that were executed while he was governor of Texas? And hey, you can bet your ass those Al-Qaeda prisoners over in Cuba are being tortured! Hell, man, he's c-r-a-z-y!

We're torturing them in horrible ways like forcing them to eat regularly and sleep on cots.

Executed 152 convicted criminals who were subjected to a rigorous appeals process. Awwww ... poor criminals.

(oh, wait, you were being sarcastic again, weren't you ... never mind ;))

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;On the subject of changing habits... I wouldn't consider suggesting that anyone not have a gun handy these days. In fact I'm looking into getting one myself. That's right I don't own one now, go ahead and scoff. Things are getting spooky and I'm not just talking about the impending war.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Two questions: One, does anyone believe that there is a snowballs chance in hell of Hussein actually stepping down? (if you do please explain) Two, Who thinks that this war will be used in administration plans to take away our rights... er... I mean continue the fight against terrorism?

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Oh yeah, a quick third question. Am I the only one that listened to Bush talk and had the old Star Trek spoof of Kirk saying, "We come in Peace, shoot to kill, shoot to kill, we come in peace, shoot to kill" playing mentaly in the back ground? Just me? Oh well... Sorry to have bothered you...

Unfortunately, we have little control over Sharon. If Iraq has and successfully deploys a WMD in Israel, I'd assume his response would be beyond proportional. Like any other speculation about how this will play out though, its pretty much baseless. Pandoras box will be opened and nobody knows what will happen.... unless Saddam steps down snicker snicker phhht bwhahahahaha!!!!!! No Whit not even a snowballs chance, Hussein wants to die as the master. As far as the war on rights goes, it will have to be ratcheted up, our war on radical Islam making us less secure with every deeper engagement with all the mid-east nut jobs er people.

I'm not signed on to this whole war deal yet. The Daily Show hit it pretty well last night.

"The President today met with what he called a 'Coalition of the Willing', and what everyone else called 'England and Spain'."

I'm not a fan of putting lives in danger unless there is a very very <b>very</b> obvious reason. Saddam's a turd and he's got some things he shouldn't have, and Powell's presentation to the U.N. was pretty good, I think, but I just am not convinced yet. I hope Tobiasly is okay.

"Let me see if I've got this straight: One, the French say we're arrogant. Two, the Germans say we're warmongers. Three, the Russians say we don't respect the rule of law. And now four, the Arabs think we're undemocratic. And if that doesn't convince you of the correctness of our position, nothing will."

- anonymous blog comenter

I am saddened and wary. I'm looking for hope.
So, then, an "exiled", scattered, underground Saddam is less threatening? Where is that busboy with a silencer?

After we hit, then clean up the dead and snuff the immediate violence...and then snuff more, and then more, then retaliate, then snuff more...
I heard Dana Priest on MPR last night, discussing the US occupation and longterm democratic rebuilding of Iraq. Hmmm. Her book,"The Mission" sounds interesting. She looks at the expanded roles of the military, post conflict, as humanitarian coordinators, civic managers, cultural diplomats, and republic builders. Roles they have increasingly assumed and roles that they may not yet be trained,equipted to carry out. Anybody read it?

Hey, I think we all reach that point in our lives where we alone hold the glorious light of truth, and everyone else must bask in the darkness of their pitiful ignorance.

Eventually, though, we're wrong enough times when we were sure we were right that we begin to get some perspective and grow up.

Perhaps our administration just needs to grow up?

With respect to "The Mission":

ahh ... I don't read that liberal claptrap. (everyone around here knows I stick exclusively to conservative claptrap) ;)

With respect to Juju's comment about "growing up":

As far as maturity in govt. is concerned ... despite being one of the younger countries in the world, we've had a stable form of govt. for a lot longer, for the most part. We must be doing something right.

Hey, I've learned my lesson when it comes to referring to entire countries as people. That's why I specifically avoided it this time.

Anyway, I wouldn't exactly call the Bush adminitstration "stable".

Hell, man, the only thing crazier than that would be referring to entire corporations as people. That would be ridic- hey, waitaminute..

What would be your benchmark for stability? Hopefully not the Clinton administration ... GHW Bush? Reagan? Kennedy? or some other lost in the mists of history?

Not causing the entire world to hate us?

You sure do have a funny definition of "stable".

Well, I'm a funny kind of guy. :)

Anyway, she didn't ask for a definition, just a benchmark.

I'm sorry, did you say causing the hate or revealing it?

The US has most of the English-speaking world on its side; most of us don't understand the others anyway, so who cares if they hate us?

Well, my philosophy is that it's better to keep on everyone's good side. That way you avoid "situations".

Better to be popular than right?

Euro countries fully supporting war:

United Kingdom, Spain, Denmark, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Macedonia, Croatia, Portugal, Bosnia, Montenegro

Euro countries supportive but wanted 2nd resolution:

Netherlands*, Estonia, the Czech Republic**, Slovenia, Slovakia**

* = sent equipment to Turkey before NATO resolution
** = sent specialists to Kuwait to support effort

Euro countries neutral:

Ireland, Austria, Finland, Serbia, Switzerland, Norway

Euro countries against:

France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, Sweden, Greece

Who's really right in this situation, though?

Well, you can have both, I think. There are ways of getting what you want without pissing everybody off.

That list is interesting. I'd be interested in knowing how the non-European countries felt, though.

Yeah, that's a good point. No sense in agitating an already pissed off dog, though. Dammit, stop making good points! You're going to make me look bad.

I slept with a loaded gun and it's too damn snooty to call me back!

If we'd rolled into Iraq after Afghanistan, no one would have given it a second thought. But now everyone has the luxury of second, third, and fourth thoughts. Everyone knows that war is wrong, but this one is a bit fuzzy, kind of gray. There's circumstantial evidence all around, nothing to convict with. I'm mildy suprised that Germany and Russia are opposed to military action, but France is not really a surprise. I believe there is a genuine wish to not cause civillian casualties, but I don't know how successful that's going to be. The aforementioned EMP bombs and GPS smart weapons are the best bet. However at some point we're going to mistake a hospital for a military traget, and it's going to suck royally.

The US will have a reputation, not any better or worse, just different, France will not have the monoploy on oil in Iraq, and in the summer or 2004 Iraqi kids will be cruising with their homies, talkin' on their cellphones to their bizzatchi's and listening to the Dead Husseins.

I'm just waiting for something big, nebulous, and nasty on the horizon; something along the lines of "What do you get when you multiply 6x9? 42". Something that makes the universe seem cockeyed and distorted. i.e. this little problem in Iraq is just that: little.

Can we stop supporting little verminous, murderous, psychopathic leaders now? Have we learned our lesson here? God I hope we have.

I dunno about that. I remember hearing about our guided missles that could home in on and knock out a single floor in an office building, neutralizeing the target with minimum damage and loss of life. We used em in that opperation in kossavo or where ever... couple years ago... when we lost a couple of our all powerfull, unstopable stealth fighters. I don't remember exactly. We killed a huge amount of civilians there, though. Granted nothing like the old days... (see fire bombing of Dresden, Germany; WW2) but it was alot. Enough that, supposedly, the UN was going to charge us with war crimes, but 9-11 sorta disolved that. (that last bit from an ex-spook friend of mine). It just seems to me that they could have picked more military targets instead of the capital.

electronics can be amazingly useless in house to house urban warfare. so what if we fry their radar and radios, the guns will still shoot. If (big if, i know) the iraqi military decides to be tenatious and defend every building and every block, it could get really ugly.

If we neutralize their ability to use high tech weapons, they are only left with small arms. After we cut their supplies off, they will slowly surrender or die, their choice. If we really want to get nasty, we play audio tapes of Al Gore from 10 ft tall speakers all night and drive them crazy(er).

You are right though Lotek, I'm talking outta my ass here. We will win, and I am confident we won't have to massacre millions, or take heavy losses ourselves.

And another thought while I'm here. Electronics *could* be very effective in urban combat. Thermal imagry through walls might very well be beneficial in such a fight. Do we have such a thing? I don't know. I wouldn't know even if we did. I *do* know that a friend of mine works at one of the local modern production plants as a preventative maintenance tech. We were talking about a new gadget 2 years ago. With an LCD viewer, the device can "see" the temperature variance in a wide variety of materials and displays them as different colors, real time. It can even isolate interior parts. This allows the tech to verify the temp of heavy equipment bearings. What the hell does this have to do with that? Thermal imagry. The technology has advanced in the past 10 years to the point that a system *may* be able to search through buildings.

I do have table salt ready for my hat, should I need to eat it though.

and posting to the Cellar

Actually, the Supreme Court, in a surprising 8-1 vote, has issued a stay in a Texas execution.

"UNUSUAL INTERVENTION

Unusually, three former federal judges, including former FBI director William Sessions, who is from Texas, filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to hear the case.

In a one-paragraph order, the high court said the stay would remain in effect until the justices decide whether to hear one of the pending appeals filed by Banks' lawyers.

If the appeal is rejected, the stay of execution will end, the court said. If the justices decide to hear the case, it will continue until the court issues a decision.

Banks had shown that from 1975 through 1980, Bowie County prosecutors accepted 80 percent of qualified white jurors and eliminated 90 percent of blacks in felony cases. They used a code, writing "b" or "n" by the names of blacks on jury lists."


Want to guess what the "n" stood for? So a former FBI director and 8 Supreme Court Justices, including 2 of the most conversvative justices in court history all feel that something is rotten in the state of Texas. The sole dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas.

Now this is merely for a stay of execution, but this is certainly noteworthy. After all, it has been established in Texas that it sufficient that a defendant in a capital crime have counsel, but that there are no minimum standards, including a requirement that the defendant's counsel be awake during the entire trial.

Anyway, back to the war.

Misleading to the point of outright lying. For example Spain's Aznar supports the US position. However only 13% in Spain agree with him. The massive Spanish majority, many times over, oppose this war.

Best one can find for US support is Britain - only 38% supportive. Considering that two years ago, 78% of Britians was supportive of US actions, then this demonstrates how stupid this president is regarded within the entire world.

In most nations, Americans are not blamed for this American foreign policy. Most people polled blame George Jr. Only in Russia and Turkey do the people also blame Americans for this war.

A smart person would say we simply bide our time until Saddam is problem to the only countries he will ever threaten - Iraq's neighbors. However this president cannot be bothered with intelligent actions. As long as Saddam is there, then Saddam is a trophey to incompetance by George Jr's advisors who were part of the George Sr administration. Nothing was going to keep George Jr from starting this war - as was decided before George Jr was even inaugurated.

So we spend massive more money and risk many more lives unnecessary. We could have taken out Saddam as we did Milosevik. But that would require patience and intelligence. Virtually every nation in the world realizes that this American president is doing the stupid thing. So be it.

This so called coalition amounts to only three nations - Britain, Australia, and US. George Jr has even destroyed relations with America's closest friend - Canada. Never since WWII have Canadian / American relations been lower. Some NATO countries sent equipment to Turkey. Not to support the US but to defend Turkey per NATO obligations.

UT openly misleads everyone. Most of the world's population is strongly against the US - moreso against George Jr than against America.
Negative Views of U.S. Are Increasing in Europe, Poll Finds

Name countries opposed to the US attack of Afghanistan. The smoking gun existed. To justify a war, the reason must be that extreme and that obvious. Even in WWII, Germany sank 100 US merchant ships - and that still was not sufficient to declare war on Germany.

Afghanistan was clearly a justified war. Korea was a justified war. Persian Gulf was clearly justified. I mention Persion Gulf with particular emphasis. I fumed while most of us opposed that war - and now forget that fact. Again reason for war was based upon an obvious smoking gun - based totally on logic. How many forget that even George Sr would not commit until Maggie Thatcher put a backbone up his ass?

War must be justified by the smoking gun. None exists (yet) in Iraq. But that point is now moot and irrelevant. The only question remaining: will America learn, again, why war must be avoided until a smoking gun clearly exists.


It is very obvious why Germany and Russia are so opposed to this war. The Bush doctrine makes it especially obvious. Why does China keep asking, "Who's next?" Specifically listed in a paper that defines the Bush Doctrine is pre-emptive military attacks on any nation that might become a super power. Specifically listed as potential threats to a US dominant position (and therefore justified for attack) are India, Russia, and Germany. Why would Germany and Russia approve of a war based upon a new American doctrine that outrightly lists them as a possible threat to the US - and therefore the next Iraq?

In any other situation, China would abstain from any UN resolution such as the failed US resolution for war. China votes in its self interest. Normally an attack on Iraq would be of no interest to China. However because of this Bush Doctrine, a justification of attacks without smoking gun, well, even China would have vetoed that UN resolution - because China keeps asking, "Who's next?"

Publications for those who think outside of the headlines (which does not include UT) keep asking this question. PBS Frontline's "War Behind Closed Doors" could not have been more blunt. Who's next? George Jr's administration now advocates attacking any nation 1) because they 'might' be a threat and 2) without any justification of a smoking gun.

If it's a POLL, and it's in the NY Times, it has been SPUN. Very simple: just ignore any stories in the Times regarding polls.

Same reasoning put forth by Richard Nixon fanatics when the NY Times repeatedly told the truth about Viet Nam. Those same right wing 'war mongers' made same accusation about any publication that did not promote a crooked administration's lies. Those same 'war mongers' also used a 'pre-emption' argument (Domino Theory) to justify their war and to label the NY Times as pinko communist liberals. Today we konw the NY Times was one of the few news sources to tell the truth. Funny. UT makes similar accusations. When the facts are contrary to the president, then insult the publication to prove it is wrong.

In the meantime, populations in virutally every nation - including Australia - are opposed to this US war - in direct contradiction to what UT would have us believe. Even in Britian, only 38% approval which is about a 50-50 split. UT can attack the messenger all he wants. Those are realities also expressed by numerous other responsible publications. Numbers are too one sided in direct contradiction to what George Jr and UT would have us believe.

When an American closest ally - Turkey (also Israels only ally in the region) - is on the order of 90% opposed, then UT must then declare all polls invalid to justify his opinion. UT posts in error twice over - once about world opinion that is strongly against Geroge Jr, and again about polls because they are so one sided in disagreement with his opinions.

But then this is all irrelevant. We attack anyway. With US military budgets now in excess of Cold War budgets (even when compensating for inlfation), the president has discovered that he can spent all he wants - and we will approve. Budget deficiet now exceed Reagan's deficiets. So who's next now that pre-emption is the doctrine and deficient spending has no limits? Pakistan? India? N Korea? Syria? France?

The problem with those polls. They show how strongly the world opposes George Jr's war. Therefore they must be wrong.

The 90% Turkish poll is exactly what I'm talking about. 90% WHAT? 90% against war. But of course - the Turks had a pretty rough time of it last time. If war is inevitable, what then? A whole new set of numbers, of course, with a whole new set of meanings and a whole new set of spin.

If pollsters are honest they'll report the numbers today and tomorrow, which will change enormously. If not, you'll know they were just after spin.

Polls spin left, polls spin right ... pick your favorite (and by that I mean "aligned with you politically") news source and you'll get the results you want ...

e.g., http://www.worldnetdaily.com/polls/f...sp?POLL_ID=778

This war is unjust and you know it. A bad move.
Yeah, Yeah, list the twisted partial rationalizations, the chess of global politics, your polls, lame attempts to frame it as forced "liberation"- try to put a moral face on it. It still doesnt quite float. The arguement is that its too complex, I should just shut up and trust that the President knows whats right. We'll wrap it up nicely in a flag, condemn anyone who dares to question or cares to disagree as "not supporting our troops", "traitor!" when the most effective support would be to make sure our military lives, your friends and family and mine, are not wasted. WASTED. We'll bomb the shit out of civies, kill, (make cool TV footage) risk and lose the lives of our expendable kids, all for control of fucking oil- So the US can occupy the oil fields. (you better not burn them!)
I really want to be wrong. But nothing I have read, seen, or heard has convinced me yet. Keep trying.

Like warch, I haven't been convinced yet (perhaps the first political issue we agree on?) - but I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's all for oil.

I'm trying to keep an open mind here, and I'm hoping that the "Coalition of the Willing" is right in what it is doing. I can't pretend to know about everything that's going on. There certainly <b>are</b> a lot of complications and issues that the public simply doesn't know about. Whether or not they are sufficient to justify the invasion on another nation is really yet to be seen. Perhaps I am more cautious than I should be. There is no doubt that Saddam is, at very best, an inappropriate choice to lead a country. But I can't say what he is at worst because I simply don't know.

A victory in the war is assured; we have, by far, the strongest military in the world. I'm not concerned about winning or losing. I am concerned that they won't find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; that innocent Iraqi civilians and our troops will die for the freedom of a people in a far away land but, in the process, will turn moderates around the world into extremists against us. At the end of this, will we be able to say that it needed to be done, that it was worth it?

Compelling cases can be made for why the United States must lead a coalition to disarm Iraq. Compelling cases can be made for why we must not. I am still on the fence, and I must admit, I am uncomfortable here. I want to be behind this, to know that it is right. But I don't. And I hate that.

Dave, that might quite possibly be the best post you have ever written on the Cellar (in terms of construction and writing).

As I've mentioned previously, I do not believe that war is the proper solution. I also do not believe that this is just about oil...truth be told, I wonder whether oil is truly an issue at all.

I said a prayer last night when the first strikes were made. I prayed for as few casualties as possible, for this war to end quickly, and for our troops to be safe.

I don't know what ramifications or consequences lie ahead because of this. Will the US be forever ostracized? Will we snub the French and Russians? Nah...as I see it, everyone in the world is guilty of being fuckheads at one time or another. This is just our turn to be on the crackpipe. Will the UN still be viable and necessary? Sure. This isn't the first time someone has gone "against" the UN, and it won't be the last.

The actions that go on in the world all balance out in the end, IMO.

As outrageous as it may seem, that's my advice. Because:

There's your moral face, and it's very very very likely that it's only the tip of the iceberg. Over the next few weeks we're going to actually find out what's been going on. The stories will out. And that's what I fear, more than any amount of US grunt casualties. The grunts know the risks; the people were just people, and we are about to find out how many wound up with their ears nailed to the wall with rusty nails.

I'm appalled at the left's ability to shut these stories out and say they don't matter. The honorable left I once knew and even participated in was all about ending torture, executions, brutality and nuclear proliferation, and all about returning power to the people. Now we're the oppressors if we stop these things. So you say that it's just a rationalization? It's not part of the administration's thinking? Well who really gives a shit?

Not the people in the plastic shredder, that's for sure.

Somehow I think we're going to need to uncover lots moral justification after the facts, or Indict will continue their tally on us.

And it still is.

If you point them out, the left either says you made them up or exaggerated them, or they point to a whole bunch of other countries where torture goes on and ask why the US isn't going after them. If I go into Imperialist mode, smile, and say "one at a time", they get irritated :-)

Then I say, "And that brings us back to oil..." How irritating.

"In the U.S." doesn't count :)

Ok Tony boy. xxoo :)

Let me add a tad to this.

The 3 actions that I think would balance the current situation:

--WMDs are found in Iraq, and those against war begin to see things the same way as the Bush administration.

--Everybody gets a "piece of the pie."

--George W. Bush is voted out of office next year, uses up his 2 terms, or makes a sudden shift in foreign policy.

That's not going to happen for a large number of people under any circumstances, they hate Bush. That will not change even if 534,968,345 suitcase nukes are discovered in Baghdad addressed to OBL

There is an old expression that I may misquote. "God cursed Mexico. It gave them oil."

Oil is the wild card. But oil is not the objective nor the need for solution in Iraq. Question one is how much this war will cost Americans. Question two is about nation building. Nation building is another concept that George Jr so adamently campaigned against and now must address. Nation building, regardless of you opinions on this war, is really the current topic. The war itself is now moot and irrelevant.

Do we install a MacArther and dictate that Iraq become a democratic nation? Probably. But that is not where it gets sticky. Sticky are things such as the Kurds and Turkey's relations. Iran and how strong should this goverment be permitted to be as a result. How much do we charge Iraq for nation building? How much do third party nations participate? And how adversarial will the Iraqis be. Apparently we intend to protect and maintain everyone in Iraqi government except top leadership.

Who gets all the contracts in Iraq? Does Russia get paid their $8billion?

Oil and religion are the incendary devices in this country. How to deal with same is really a question that no one has been asking. What was the George Sr's major mistake? Politicians did not plan to take over from the military. Instead those politicians were too busy celebrating with campaign. Have they asked these and the so many additional questions? Clearly the press has not 'pressed' for those answers.