Glad you aren't running for any important office or position of authority however.
Who are Bushe's cronies at Halliburton and Bechtel? Are the people you work with also 'cronies' of yours, and will they be even after you have no associations with them? Everyone knows that both those companies receive lots of contracts from the government, always have, Clinton handed them loads of contracts, as did Bush Sr and Reagan. Are you saying that all presidents have 'cronies' in these two particular companies??? What on earth?
Why is Bush 'squarely' in the middle of the oil industry? Just because they are very knowledgeable and experienced in those areas? Thats a 'bad' thing in your view? Why? You mean to tell us that everyone remotely associated with the oil industry is automatically disqualified from being president or political office or dealing with energy policy??? Doesn't that sounds a little assbackwards to you?
When you have a leakey toilet, who do you call, an electrician? Doesn't even make sense. Bring us PROOF of some tangible 'something', whatever it is you are insinuating, else you are just making up weird theories that go absolutely nowhere.
If Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world, and the Iraqis are wholly dependent on that revenue, you think it strange that the oil fields were protected from sabotage? Why? So you think it would have been better to let saddam just destroy the countries only national resource and means of income? That don't sound very smart frankly.
And I think your statement about the oil ministry being the only building 'protected' is ludicrous, unless your secret sources are telling you that all other buildings in Iraq were left unprotected. Well, they certainly were not. But I don't think they were being protected from 'looters' at all, since the stuff taken belonged to the Iraqi people anyway.
I believe its fairly obvious why you meet with oil exec experts and leaders of the energy industry when you are formulating energy policy. Why is that strange to you? In your view, who is it better to meet with than those actively participating in the industry you are examining?
You ask what is Cheney hiding? I don't know, I wasn't aware he was hiding anything. What are you claiming he is hiding? From what I've read, theres a dispute between government officials being able to meet with industry leaders confidentially, so as to not have these people worrying about having their names spattered all over the front pages the next day like they are in a soap opera. Makes lots of sense to me. How you gonna get private citizens willingly to participate if they are going to become front page stories?
Why does it matter who one met with prior to formulating policy anyway? Noone has ever been able to explain that yet. Isn't it the policy itself that matters??? Should Cheney have provided the names of all his college professors as well, since they taught him much of what he knows?
Was Clinton asked to provide the names of his Chinese connections? Didn't he arrange to have high technology weapons systems provided to China through a huge defense contractor? You know, the people who illegally provided all that highly technological weapons equipment to China, the name escapes me right now, starts with a 'B' I think, and they were even later indicted and fined for doing so as I recall. Yet noone asked clinton the names of anyone in his meetings. So what is this really all about?
I dont' recall any president ever being asked about who he sought advice from or who attended what meeting, or who he met with along the way. Have you?
Its not only unprecendented, but thoroughly useless information anyway.
But I certainly understand the hesitation to have to provide the names of private citizens and those you sought advise and council from provided to government bureacrats. What we living in, Orwells 1984? Screw that. I mean those folks may not want to become superstars or the grist of political controversy and shennanigans overnight. What is the real purpose in doing that? Trying to scare industry leaders and experts away from participation in national policy??? Not wise to say the least.
Maybe you'd have preferred they met with people from the 'entertainment' business to give 'their' views on energy policy? Again, you aren't making much sense here. Why is meeting with those in the oil industry wrong when oil is the main source of energy driving the world? Is it their 'expertise' in that field that bothers you? You think only 'novices' should be permitted to create energy policy? Sounds strange to me.
BTW, there is only one other firm in the world that matches Halliburton's size, resources, and expertise when it comes to oil related issues. Can you name that firm? (unless of course you really haven't a clue about any of this)
You are intent on believing innuendo, unproven rumour mongering, and creating disparate associations that in some instances sound absurd frankly. Sorry, but I'm not getting your agenda here at all.
North Korea??? What does North Korea have to do with Iraq? That would appear to be China's problem based on recent stories anyways, not the US. Has your head been with you all day today?
Do I believe the CIA? Guess so. I know you've said that you don't. The reports I've seen say David Kay has till now found no evidence that wmd's were sent to Syria or Iran. That likely means they are still in Iraq. But it might be better to see his actual report, don't you think? What does David Kay have to do with UN resolutions? You think he's finished after just 4 months? I doubt that also. saddam had a decade to hide his weapons, can't imagine why anyone is surprised they are hard to find now.
Sorry, but you aren't making much sense about most this stuff, is this a joke or something? Is this 'candid website' or something?