Last week, the House of "Representatives" removed from the $87,500,000,000 Iraq aid package certain provisions--approved unanimously in the Senate--that would "penalize war profiteers who defraud American taxpayers." This was two days after two Democratic "Representatives" accused Halliburton of vastly overcharging for gasoline imports into Iraq.
But don't worry! Doooon't worry! I'm not going to make any crazy connections here, like "maybe the House voted this down because they didn't want to pass a law that would work against Halliburton," or anything like that. I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons the House would vote against a popular provision that protects the American taxpayers from fraud. I can think of...zero. How many can you think of?
Posted by Chris at November 5, 2003 08:30 PM | TrackBackI can think of one legitimate one.
and possibly another one involving fear of the word 'defraud' cascading up and down the ranks of all those involved (including the senate and/or house that backed any of this iraq crap- being that the entire thing is a fraud)
but my favorite is "because they're retards"
btw- I think I remember hearing, way way back when I was a teenager- that at one time either the members of the senate or house or both had exempted themselves from any laws that they passed. I'll have to look into it. Not entirely related. Except for 99% of all government participants being lying freeloading weasles.
Posted by: Dana at November 5, 2003 09:44 PMBetter watch out, chances are pretty good that ole dubya gets himself another term. See, in your second term as president, you can basically do whatever you want, since you don't have to worry about reelection. Dukedoms for halliburton executives! Yay! How does Delaware sound as a dukedom? Nah, noone would miss it. You kidding?
Seriously, I do kid. They wouldn't give Delaware away as a dukedom. Now, that whole national park thing, we don't really need that, do we? Tell ya what. You promise to let industry clear cut and strip mine it, then we'll give you yellowstone for your own little district of halliburton. Won't that be nice? Maybe you could even find some oil in there!
Posted by: Snack Master at November 5, 2003 11:43 PMThere are, in fact, large oil deposits in Yellowstone.
Let's hear it for pre-oil industry national parks!
I thought the National parks were already given away to the *ahem* U.N. Actually that accusation came from some (I hope) crazy post on a political forum
Shit- if there really is oil in Yellowstone I can guarantee that it Will eventually be gotten by someone. I imagine by 'the government' although I wouldn't guess it would be anytime soon (not even if there was [god forbid] a second term). It's not like he's the only guy with oil contacts and 'pull'. Pretty much anyone with real power (I'm guessing) ends up with 'oil contacts/friends' eventually (and fattened pockets).
The accuser was in fact both crazy and not, all at the same time! ie, he misheard real information.
The National Parks are still just that, NATIONAL parks. They are still owned and run by the National Parks Service.
That said, several of these parks have also been designated by the UN as World Heritage Sites. Notably, Yosemite in 1984, and Yellowstone in 1978.
Hope that clears up the confusion. :)
Posted by: Nabil at November 6, 2003 10:27 PMWhat does that all amount to (from the perpective of UN and US?) It sounds as though they are just being recognized as 'very nice' by that group and not a whole lot more. (as it should be I suppose)
anyhow thanks for the info.
I am sitting at a computer...I could, I suppose, just look all that up. But I'm lazy.
Posted by: Dana at November 7, 2003 08:23 AM