You are exactly right about that having nothing to do with the President Bush or the Constitution. I was referring to the fact that the contract was extended during the Clinton administration:
"Under similar contracts, the Army paid Kellogg Brown & Root $1.2 billion from 1992 through 1999 to support U.S. troops, mainly in the Balkans. An extension of that contract from 1999 through 2004 is projected to cost $1.8 billion." This text is from the article I posted earlier in this thread. We know Clinton was President from 1993-2001. The contract was extended during this period of time. The Gulf War made it clear the US Military needed a standing agreement with somebody to support logistics based on what we learned during the mobilization phase of that war. I saw a lot of Udall's description, and I have heard others say similar things before. However the point remains, most still voted for it. Those who did, and are now saying they were confused with the legal jargon, I have no sympathy for. The stuff was on the news, we all knew about it well before it was passed. These guys make the laws and they can't read legal jargon, come on, these are the guys who write legal jargon, they should read the bill before it is past. That is just as bad as signing a contract without reading it, only to learn later that you are stuck with something. Don't complain to me about it, just fix it. > -----Original Message----- > From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 2:32 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: well now > > inline > > Nick McClure writes: > > > But I am not and will not be bringing up Clinton and any adultery > issues. I > > think what he did was wrong, and it was conduct unbecoming the > president. > > That being said, I don't think the question should have been asked > unless it > > was clear that what he was doing was interfering with his duties as > > President. > > Good. I will even go a step further. It *was* conduct unbecoming a > president and the question *should* have been asked. It just has nothing > to > do with the Constitution or with George Bush. > > > While personally I think it could have, I don't think there was evidence > > that could lead to the conclusion. Anybody saying it did is purely > > speculating. > > I don't know. I think it does raise significant moral issues. > > > I think saying that Bush has trashed the Constitution remains to be > seen. We > > still have to remember that it takes congress to pass laws. And many of > > these laws per passed in bi-partisan votes. > > See Udall's description of how the Patriot Act was passed. Remember, this > was a couple of weeks after 9/11 and to question the president was > tantamount to treason. > > > The final outcome remains to be seen. I am cautiously optimistic. > > I just hope it isnt already too late. I am glad lawmakers are waking up > about Patriot II. > > Dana > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 1:44 PM > > > To: CF-Community > > > Subject: Re: well now > > > > > > I think Doug is talking about the exchanges that go: > > > > > > A - Bush has trashed the Constitution > > > > > > B - Clinton committed adultery > > > > > > A - Bush has perverted the governmental process to make his friends > rich > > > > > > B - Clinton lied about committing adultery. > > > > > > ... Anyway. I am pointing the finger at the Bush administration > because I > > > think it is doing great wrong. I would criticize Gore if he had > railroaded > > > a Patriot Act through the Congress as well. > > > > > > I am still interested in seeing some references to contracts under > > > previous > > > administrations. If you are correct about that it would make the whole > > > thing look a lot less suspicious and belive it or not I don't enjoy > > > Orwellian scenarios -- they just seem appropriate at the moment. > > > > > > Dana > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
