Another shocker from the Bush Administration

[MikeWaters]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/wo...er&oref=slogin

[BYU71]

How about that hostage rescue in Columbia. I guess the rebels have really weakened during the Bush administration. Nice to know the admin. has done something right.

[MikeWaters]

It's the nature of this administration that when they do something right, people get really excited. Even when another country's administration does something right, that has accepted money from the Bush administration, people get excited.

Bush has done a huge service for the next president. he has dumbed down expectations so far, that the next president will be considered as charismatic or more charismatic than Reagan + JFK put together.

[UtahDan]

I don't understand this, maybe someone can explain. But as I read the story, it is the official policy of our federal government, whenever it is aware that a business is thinking of entering into an oil deal in Iraq, to give them the following warning:

"We warn companies that they incur risks in signing contracts until Iraq passes an oil law and to strengthen Iraq’s central government."

The accusation seems to be not that this warning was not given, but that the State Department knew about it and perhaps tacitly approved of the deal.

I guess where I am scratching my head is that this seems to be a policy put in place to give the company fair warning that it could lose its investment because it could be nullified by future action of the Iraqi government or because of the weak central government in Iraq. This company entered the deal anyway, which was legal, the State Department says it gave its standard warning, which it is its policy to do. If congress wants to make such contracts illegal it certainly has the power to do so. I just flat out don't get what the story is here.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I don't understand this, maybe someone can explain. But as I read the story, it is the official policy of our federal government, whenever it is aware that a business is thinking of entering into an oil deal in Iraq, to give them the following warning:

"We warn companies that they incur risks in signing contracts until Iraq passes an oil law and to strengthen Iraq’s central government."

The accusation seems to be not that this warning was not given, but that the State Department knew about it and perhaps tacitly approved of the deal.

I guess where I am scratching my head is that this seems to be a policy put in place to give the company fair warning that it could lose its investment because it could be nullified by future action of the Iraqi government or because of the weak central government in Iraq. This company entered the deal anyway, which was legal, the State Department says it gave its standard warning, which it is its policy to do. If congress wants to make such contracts illegal it certainly has the power to do so. I just flat out don't get what the story is here.

They (the press) are feeding the animals in the zoo, like Waters.

Note how he thinks this is a big story and the Administrations success in Columbia is ignored. Heck, even MSNBC begrudgingly admitted the success there is more than just this hostage liberation.