Hi Anne, > I really don't mean to drive you crazy, Kakki. I think > we've talked enough in person that you know I mean that > sincerely. We just disagree in our points of view on > this one.
I didn't mean to single you out at all Anne, and I'm sorry if it came across that way. I've heard "it's all about oil" with the Bushes for years from all over the place! Maybe it is "all about oil" as far as the oil being an important part of the region and most of the world depends on getting access to it in the middle east, but the whole situation goes back way before the Bushes and before U.S. involvement. I just can't get my head around thinking it all somehow started with the Bushes or that they somehow orchestrate all the middle east oil transactions. The Bushes and Cheney have spent most of their careers in public service, not the oil business. Halliburton is a large construction company, kind of like Fluor Daniel. They are involved in projects all over the world, not just the oil sector. I've looked at Bush I's and Cheney's bios - they are not what I would characaterize as oil men. > Well, it's is a mantra I sing. I don't believe the Bush > family is acting with honest intelligence in the best > interests of the American people or the American > founding principles. I essentially don't think the US should be involved in any other countries. I'm philosophically a non-interventionist. I only think we should intervene out of direct self-defense. That is the question for me here - one that has not been completely answered. I'm personally too worried about our safety to just write it off as being all about oil, though. Thanks for your reply, Anne. It's good to hear from you! Kakki
