Did you Support War in Iraq??

[NotfooledbyW]

This nation has many structures in place to balance power. Polls are not one of them.

I have never once in my entire life said that professional polling services are a structure of the United states Government. So why are you stating that is beyond me. However I will say our great government is one where we all give our consent to to be governed And that is what makes it work so well. With that consent from me I do expect a certain degree of accountability and pure unadulterated honesty when those at the very top have to make a choice between war or peace in the world.

In March 2003 President George W. Bush had a very clear choice on that subject:

(A) Start a preemptive war and invasion into a Muslim country that had shown zero aggression against his neighbors or the United States of America since September 2001 even though that nation was being bombed extra heavily during the summer of 2002 by the United States and the United Kingdom. The purpose for preemptive war was is two separate the dictator of that nation from suspected possession of weapons of mass destruction and potential future development of same. The threat construct for justifying invasion is that the dictator could give weapons of mass destruction to global terrorists which could strike anywhere in the world at a future date.

The mid-March 2003 invasion dead was not set due to any kind of immediate threat. It was launched at a time where are military personnel would be able to beat the heat in the desert on the way to Baghdad. I believe (and this is personal opinion) right now that the reason the invasion was launched in March 2003 and not held off until the fall with a longer period of time before our troops would face the devastating summer heat is because It was a political choice. 2004 was an election year and President George W. Bush wanted to have the sure fire upcoming Iraq victory parade scheduled on the books for September when the voters would decide whether he gets a second term or not. Launching an invasion in September 2003 may not have been soon enough to achieve the military victory in time for the election.

or

(B) allow the United Nations Security Council inspections under 1441 that had been in progress and working for 90 days prior to March 2003 to continue for another 90 days. That was the timeframe that the professional weapons inspectors had stated was a reasonable deadline to complete their work.

President George W. Bush of course chose option (A) to get the political campaign rolling.


In defense of President George W. Bush‘s choice for a war Correll has to give some kind of explanation for that date. That is because President George W. Bush proclaim to the American people that he was a man of peace and that he would exhaust all peaceful diplomatic means before choosing war. So the best answer Correll has been able to come up with for 17 years as to why Bush started a war in March 2003 was because Saddam Hussein was “poking the bear“ and “just fucking around“ and the majority of the American people had no patience for his defiant shit anymore .

However we can know for certain due to professional polling services that Correll is pulling an opinion out of his ass because he has zero to back up his claim that Americans had lost their patience with the dictator Saddam Hussein.

We know from numerous polls consistently over the four month period leading up to the war that six out of 10 Americans wanted the United Nations involved in any decision regarding regime change in Iraq. They specifically also said they wanted their president George W. Bush to deliver on his promise to disarm Iraq peacefully and the way to do that was to allow the United Nations Security Council inspections to continue until completed.

Hence we got at Correll making up a story that I had claimed that polling was part of the checks and balances system iwithin the Constitution of the United States of America.

It’s desperate times for the Iraq invasion warmonger side.

 

[Correll]

Yep. At one point he supported the war, and at a later time he stated his belief that Bush lied to get us into that war.

I mean, wow. People change their opinions over time, especially in the light of new information.

Whatever led you to your false belief that Trump changed his original opinion to support or I believe in his case he did not object to the invasion into Iraq to disarm Iraq of WMD without allowing the inspectors finish the job.

No one can say they supported it going in and then lie afterwards when it goes to shit that they were opposed. Well they can if they are liars and they can get away with lying if their support for invasion was never expressed in the public record..

And you don’t appear to understand the simple concept that if one supported Bush’s threat assessment and justification for starting a “preemptive” war and find out that the President lied to you about its necessity it is more than proper, It Is a moral imperative to lash out a President that lied the country into a 500,000 death and 5 trillion dollar war. That rebuke of a lying War President is not partisanship It is a moral civic duty.

1. It is strongly implied by his later position that "bush lied".

2. If their past position was never expressed in the public record, then how do you "know" that they are lying? Oh, right, you don't care if they are actually lying, you just want to smear Trump supporters. That is what this is about. Got it. You are a partisan troll.

3. You are assuming that Trump supporters agree with your opinion that Bush lied. That is you assuming that people who disagree with you on nearly everything, agree with you on one thing, so that that you have an excuse to talk shit about them. lol!! You really are on a long trip for an excuse to be an asshole to people.

 

[Correll]

POINT ONE. Bush's/Trump's base, that you are so.... fixated on, does not equal with The Religious RIght. The RR is a PART of the REpublican Base, not the whole of it, you seem confused on that point

Of course the religious right is only a part of the entire Trump base. I have not made a claim that it is in any way There v whole Trump base. Why did you make a point of it to say that I did?

Do you have a point that would counter what I wrote besides falsely accusing me of being anti-Christian and making a false claim about what I said.

try again will you?

​

“I’m not confused at all. I understand full well that America’s white evangelical Christian nationalists back in March 2003 were not concerning themselves in the slightest way with whether or not Bush was telling the truth or lying, or any shady crap in between, about Saddam Hussein hiding WMD from UN inspectors.”​

From reading your comments regarding Bush, Iraq and WMD I believe this was your position at the time;
.......back in March 2003 You did not concerning yourself with whether or not Bush was telling the truth or lying, about Saddam Hussein hiding WMD from UN inspectors.”............. Is that true?

I believed that Saddam was hiding or had hid his wmds, until the nation was occupied and searched and no wmds were found.

You are really beating a dead horse here, just to give yourself a justification to smear your enemies.


DO you really not have anything real that you can use against us? Wow. We must be even better people than I thought, if you have to go to these lengths to gin up some shit to whine at us about.

 

[Correll]

1. Not at all. THere were plenty of valid reasons to oppose the war. Nothing I have ever said implied otherwise.

What about what I mentioned regarding the motivation and attitude that led your war mongering side to dismiss valid reasons such as letting the inspections play out as 6 out of 10 Americans preferred?

For suggesting that I know I was called a SADDAM LOVING anti-American Islamist.

We were not having a legitimate debate prior to the war versus rational intelligent people. and Bush went with them. Now you don’t want to talk about it.

You are Poud that religious Christian warmongers won the Day with your DUBYA and now we are obligated to just shut up about it.

1. "the motivation and altitude"? WTF are you even talking about? We disagreed with your desire to give Saddam more time.

2. You do come across a being quite anti-American. I would actually peg you as a standard lefty atheist, not an islamist.

3. We were having a fairly healthy debate on the issue, certainly better than we would do today, what with Big Tech and Cancel Culture. That it was not conducted according to formal debate rules, by Vulcans, is part of the Human Condition.

4. I am not Proud of winning a debate in the past. My point was that rehashing it, is pointless. I was clear about that. Stop pretending to not get the point so you can talk shit.

5. YOur anti-Christian bigotry is noted.

It was grossly unAmerican to support Bibi's desire to overthrow Saddam based on the most assinine lies.

You are assuming I agree with you? WHy? Are you so stupid that you can't comprehend that other people disagree with you?

 

[Correll]

I supported, for reasons previous explained, the policy of invasion.

I was pointing out the point where you joined the discussion:

The lie I was referring in the above was specific . “Bush lied about SH hiding them from inspectors in March (2003) to start a war.” I was not referring to any intelligence gathering prior to the UN inspectors’ return to Iraq in December 2002. This is where Correll joined the discussion.​

Correll said: Could have been an honest mistake.​

Yes you explained that you supported the War in Iraq because you were angry about the al Qaeda attacks that had nothing to do with SH in Iraq.

And you have presented distorted logic for why we must not ever discuss what was being discussed when you joined this thread because you, a cultural Christian true American say it was an honest mistake - move on.

1. YOur opinion that Bush lied is irrelevant at this late date.

2. And it could have been an honest mistake.

3. Al Qaeda attacks are NOT the reason I supported the invasion.

4. My being a cultural Christian has nothing to do with my logic, or my support of the invasion. .You are just being a religious bigot.

5. This is all about your desire to use this to somehow spin up some negative shit to smear current day Trump supporters.

I resigned the Republican party after 35 years because of Bush's stupidity. Didn't you KNOW this invasion was going to be an unmitigated disaster? Americans in the ME, oilmen, Arabs, Diplomats, Historians KNEW it was a huge, huge foreign policy blunder. Hasn't got a damned thing to do with Christianity or religion.

notfooled is the one that keeps bringing up religion, not me. If you have something to say about it, say it to him.

 

[Correll]

1. We were wrong about the wmds. GOT IT.

But of course you were never wrong personally and you of course continue to be absolutely right about WMD. You were right prior to the AUMF vote in October 2002 that was tied to disarming Iraq peacefully and patiently of WMD If possible.

You were right about WMD when the UNSC including the United States of America voted on an international stage that tied GW Bush to disarming Iraq peacefully and patiently If possible.

You were right in December 2002 when General al Saadi told reporters at the UN that Saadam Hussein was committed to disarming Iraq peacefully and patiently by offering to allow the CIA agents to enter IRAQ to join the search for WMD alive and in person because IRAQ did not have any.

You were right in JANUARY 2003 when Secretary of State Colin Powell on ABC This Week showed a high level of America’s patience when he stated affirmatively that Saadam Hussein was disarming Iraq peacefully by cooperating with UN inspectors. When asked by Stephanopolis if war in Iraq was inevitable, Sec Powell answered that war was not inevitable as long as the current level of cooperation continued. Fact. It really happened.

You were right in February 2003 when Dr. Hans Blix reported that Saadam Hussein was committed with his proactive cooperation on process and substance with the 1441 inspectors and that disarming Iraq peacefully would take about 90 more days after March 17 2003. The American people expressed they had patience for that.

You were right because all that peaceful disarmament Bullshit was just a charade wasn’t it to give Bush and Blair to amass 250,000 ground troops and their wheels on the borders of Iraq.

Being the genius that you are you figured out what the entire world and 6 of 10 Americans could not figure out. WMD didn’t matter at all.

2. Yes. I found the WMD argument to be unconvincing at the time.

I’ll bet you t thought it was hilarious when Dubya showed a slide show of himself in the Oval office, leaning to look under a piece of furniture. "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be here somewhere”Another slide showed him peering into another part of the office, "Nope, no weapons over there," he said, laughing. "Maybe under here," he said, as a third slide was shown.

How many soldiers were dead at that point after going into Iraq to hunt down the most lethal weapons ever devised under Dubya’s command.

The inspection’s meant nothing to the war supporters in 2003 and they mean absolutely nothing to @Correll today.

@Correll believes in a series of Iraq common myths and has a total lack of comprehension of what disarming Iraq peacefully means when the fact turned out to be there were no WMD to be found by the invading army.

My Thanks to you for this:

I resigned the Republican party after 35 years because of Bush's stupidity

Too bad others in your your former camp didn’t do the same. We likely would not be having our heritage threatened by the Trump insurrection with all his supporters believing his BIG LIE.

They were trained in believing BIG LIES by Big DICK and Lil Dubby and have Republicans perfected it under the Donald. Its still the same four out of ten Americans seemingly that fall for white patriarchal and authoritative father figures who will tell them anything to make them angry but daddy will keep them safe in that Republican bubble they live in.

Do you understand that I disagree with you?

 

[Correll]

You were vague.

Never facts - always format with you.

Where’s the facts?

A lot of people came to the conclusion that Saddam was hiding shit. It is strange with the benefit of hindsight that what he was hiding was that he ACTUALLY destroyed his wmds, as required.


An odd choice for him. Especially as America had been terribly attacked and was not in a mood to put up with any shit.


Would have been a good time to walk softly, instead of poking the bear.

When and his did Saddam “poke the bear” after 1441.

You have no facts:

I have facts :


www.foxnews.com › story › sa...
Saddam Ever xtends Invite to CIA | Fox News

Dec 22, 2002 — Saddam Hussein's adviser Amir al-Saadi on Sunday invited the CIA to ... of weapons inspectors in Iraq, the United States will provide the experts

Saddam had plenty of time. He choose to spend it fucking around.

I have facts and gave them to you a while

www.foxnews.com › story › sa...
Saddam Ever xtends Invite to CIA | Fox News

Dec 22, 2002 — Saddam Hussein's adviser Amir al-Saadi on Sunday invited the CIA to ... of weapons inspectors in Iraq, the United States will provide the experts ...

You have no “Poking the Bear” facts. You out have what Bush told you. It was all lies.

Saddam had been poking the bear for years. Your denial of this history is you being a partisan hack.

 

[Correll]

This nation has many structures in place to balance power. Polls are not one of them.

I have never once in my entire life said that professional polling services are a structure of the United states Government. So why are you stating that is beyond me. ....

Don't play retarded. I said it because you presented that a poll showing support for waiting as though that should have trumped the judgement of the duly elected President and Commander in Chief.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I said it because you presented that a poll showing support for waiting as though that should have trumped the judgement of the duly elected President and Commander in Chief.

I posted those polls in our discussion when you made a claim that is not based upon facts or data of any kind. Its nothing more than that. You made something up so I smacked you down with reality.

The polls are reality. What you pull out if your ass is Trumpism reality. It is in no way connected to reality.

according to the polling at the time addressing the very subject every one of those quotes is not

America, in the aftermath of 9-11, did not have much patience.

Six out of 10 Americans wanted inspectors to finish the job.

You asked a question. Why not do as Biden suggested and wait longer at a certain point in time.

My response was that America, in the after math of 9-11, was out of patience.

You arec an idiot so don’t speak for me or the sixty percent of informed and sensible Americans that agreed with me and Biden - we had patience and if SH quit cooperating - We could take him out in the Fall. Its best to have rock solid evidence before killing half a million people at a cost of $5 Trillion

Y

So, to be clear, you are arguing that the US, was going to be happy to wait for Saddam to... do something and not attack him for his repeatedly provocations?

No. When 200 inspectors were on the ground in IRAQ and a 200,000 man invading army was surrounding him ready to pounce if he farted too loudly It was absurd to expect him “to do something” when he was 90 days away from being verified disarmed.

To counter the historical record of America getting tired of his fucking around and just invading his ass and occupying his country, you...have...a... poll....?

Yes I have many polls that are much more a part of the historical record than what you pulled out of v your ass right there. What is “the historical record of America getting tired of his fucking around” anyway? Is There a FBTA Federal Bureau of Turrd Americans that tracks everything Americans are tired of. I’ll best most Americans are tired of warmongers who live to start wars based on just being angry at someone deserving a boot up his c ass. And no matter the cost. Don’t ask what it cost -just Pay

3. Bush did not take Saddam up on his offer, because Saddam had exhausted America's patience. No more fucking around. How many times do you need that explained to you.

Saddam didnt exhaust my patience. I’m an American and more Americans agreed with me than agreed with you, So who do you think you are speaking for me?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Saddam had been poking the bear for years. Your denial of this history is you being a partisan hack.

You are a liar now. I do not deny that history at all. . Take it back. It is a lie. That history of poking the bear is the exact reason why I supported Senator Clinton, Kerry And Biden and all Democrats when they voted in October 2002 to give President George W Bush the authorization to use military force against that motherf’ing piece of shit, bear poker if he did not allow United Nations Security Council inspections back in. So don’t give me that shit. Don’t tell me what I think. It’s after 1441 was passed unanimously at the United Nations Security Council and the inspections resumed in December 2002 that SH did not poke the Bear. Saddam Hussein did not poke the bear after 1441 was passed.. If you have evidence that Saddam Hussein poked the bear after 1441 then post it. If you don’t quit lying about it

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Do you understand that I disagree with you?

Yes. You were right. You are a nation building genius. WMD didn’t Matter. You didn’t
care about the WMD charade/ the smokescreen to get the Troops mobilized. Inspectors blah blah bjah - you’ve cant disarm a nation that already was disarmed. The invasion you supported was to kill 500,000 and cost $5 Trillion to establish a Democratic Republic like ours in the center of the Muslim World.

Yeah it’s a disagreement all right. You
think you’re a genius and I know you’re an idiot

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You did cite polls. And I pointed out that polling is not how we run this country.

Who was expected to pay for your PNAC “Project for a New American Century” $5 trillion neocon warmonger hobby in Iraq? Who was going to Pay Halliburton’s invoices when they took over Iraq? Polling is a way to find out if those who will end up paying your goddamned bills are in agreement before putting boots on the ground to start shooting.

A big part of the argument for war, was that a functioning democracy in the ME would be a powerful ideological challenge to Islamic Extremism.

Did you have the cost assessment from the Bush Administrstion in front of you when you jumped in head first into the March of Folly; Did it hurt when you found out they forgot to fill the pool.

March to folly - The Economic Consequences of a War with Iraq Introduction by William D. Nordhaus, Yale University October 29, 2002.

The first concern is that the Bush administration has made no serious public estimate of the costs of the coming war. The populace and the Congress are unable to make informed judgments about the realistic costs and benefits of the upcoming conflict when none is given.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Democrats were for the war when the public was behind it, and against it when the public got tired of it. Democrats are demagogue scum.

my reply to that lie five years ago;

When you make a false statement no matter how many times you make it, you must be refuted. Don't run away after stating something that is not true.

One month before the invasion all polling indicated that the majority did not support a US invasion without UN authorization. The majority of Americans wanted Bush to give the inspectors more time. That is not a public 'for war' by any means. The percentage of Dems wanting Bush to give more time to inspections was close to 90%.

Same goes to you Correll

3. Bush did not take Saddam up on his offer, because Saddam had exhausted America's patience. No more fucking around. How many times do you need that explained to you.

One month before the invasion all polling indicated that the majority did not support a US invasion without UN authorization. The majority of Americans wanted Bush to give the inspectors more time. That is not a public 'for war' by any means. The percentage of Dems wanting Bush to give more time to inspections was close to 90%. The truth is for the majority of Americans Saddam had not exhausted America's patience at all.

 

[Correll]

I said it because you presented that a poll showing support for waiting as though that should have trumped the judgement of the duly elected President and Commander in Chief.

I posted those polls in our discussion when you made a claim that is not based upon facts or data of any kind. Its nothing more than that. You made something up so I smacked you down with reality.

The polls are reality. What you pull out if your ass is Trumpism reality. It is in no way connected to reality.

according to the polling at the time addressing the very subject every one of those quotes is not

America, in the aftermath of 9-11, did not have much patience.

Six out of 10 Americans wanted inspectors to finish the job.

You asked a question. Why not do as Biden suggested and wait longer at a certain point in time.

My response was that America, in the after math of 9-11, was out of patience.

You arec an idiot so don’t speak for me or the sixty percent of informed and sensible Americans that agreed with me and Biden - we had patience and if SH quit cooperating - We could take him out in the Fall. Its best to have rock solid evidence before killing half a million people at a cost of $5 Trillion

Y

So, to be clear, you are arguing that the US, was going to be happy to wait for Saddam to... do something and not attack him for his repeatedly provocations?

No. When 200 inspectors were on the ground in IRAQ and a 200,000 man invading army was surrounding him ready to pounce if he farted too loudly It was absurd to expect him “to do something” when he was 90 days away from being verified disarmed.

To counter the historical record of America getting tired of his fucking around and just invading his ass and occupying his country, you...have...a... poll....?

Yes I have many polls that are much more a part of the historical record than what you pulled out of v your ass right there. What is “the historical record of America getting tired of his fucking around” anyway? Is There a FBTA Federal Bureau of Turrd Americans that tracks everything Americans are tired of. I’ll best most Americans are tired of warmongers who live to start wars based on just being angry at someone deserving a boot up his c ass. And no matter the cost. Don’t ask what it cost -just Pay

3. Bush did not take Saddam up on his offer, because Saddam had exhausted America's patience. No more fucking around. How many times do you need that explained to you.

Saddam didnt exhaust my patience. I’m an American and more Americans agreed with me than agreed with you, So who do you think you are speaking for me?

If the polls showed the opposite, would it change your opinion on the war, the decisions made, or Bush himself?


Rhetorical question. You don't give a damn about the polls and I agree. I don't give a damn about the polls either.


You are just throwing shit at the wall, trying to spin up some negative shit to smear your modern day enemies, ie Trump supporters with.


That you have to reach so far, though, reveals that you know on some level, that we are mostly in the right, and your side is mostly wrong.

 

[Correll]

Saddam had been poking the bear for years. Your denial of this history is you being a partisan hack.

You are a liar now. I do not deny that history at all. . Take it back. It is a lie. That history of poking the bear is the exact reason why I supported Senator Clinton, Kerry And Biden and all Democrats when they voted in October 2002 to give President George W Bush the authorization to use military force against that motherf’ing piece of shit, bear poker if he did not allow United Nations Security Council inspections back in. So don’t give me that shit. Don’t tell me what I think. It’s after 1441 was passed unanimously at the United Nations Security Council and the inspections resumed in December 2002 that SH did not poke the Bear. Saddam Hussein did not poke the bear after 1441 was passed.. If you have evidence that Saddam Hussein poked the bear after 1441 then post it. If you don’t quit lying about it

The response that was needed, was Saddam destroying his weapons and providing proof he had done so.

Anything else was failing to meet with his obligations.

 

[Correll]

Do you understand that I disagree with you?

Yes. You were right. You are a nation building genius. WMD didn’t Matter. You didn’t
care about the WMD charade/ the smokescreen to get the Troops mobilized. Inspectors blah blah bjah - you’ve cant disarm a nation that already was disarmed. The invasion you supported was to kill 500,000 and cost $5 Trillion to establish a Democratic Republic like ours in the center of the Muslim World.

Yeah it’s a disagreement all right. You
think you’re a genius and I know you’re an idiot

Do you understand that I disagree with you?

 

[surada]

You did cite polls. And I pointed out that polling is not how we run this country.

Who was expected to pay for your PNAC “Project for a New American Century” $5 trillion neocon warmonger hobby in Iraq? Who was going to Pay Halliburton’s invoices when they took over Iraq? Polling is a way to find out if those who will end up paying your goddamned bills are in agreement before putting boots on the ground to start shooting.

A big part of the argument for war, was that a functioning democracy in the ME would be a powerful ideological challenge to Islamic Extremism.

Did you have the cost assessment from the Bush Administrstion in front of you when you jumped in head first into the March of Folly; Did it hurt when you found out they forgot to fill the pool.

March to folly - The Economic Consequences of a War with Iraq Introduction by William D. Nordhaus, Yale University October 29, 2002.

The first concern is that the Bush administration has made no serious public estimate of the costs of the coming war. The populace and the Congress are unable to make informed judgments about the realistic costs and benefits of the upcoming conflict when none is given.

May I butt in here? In a warzone there are no negotiations for contractual services.. Its always COST PLUS. Halliburtonn didn't do anything wrong here.. In 1997 Saddam begged the US to lift sanctions on their oil sector for reserve mgmet and specified Halliburton. It was a bargain.

 

[surada]

Do you understand that I disagree with you?

Yes. You were right. You are a nation building genius. WMD didn’t Matter. You didn’t
care about the WMD charade/ the smokescreen to get the Troops mobilized. Inspectors blah blah bjah - you’ve cant disarm a nation that already was disarmed. The invasion you supported was to kill 500,000 and cost $5 Trillion to establish a Democratic Republic like ours in the center of the Muslim World.

Yeah it’s a disagreement all right. You
think you’re a genius and I know you’re an idiot

Do you understand that I disagree with you?

Saddam couldn't let Iran know that Iraq was on the ropes.. All Bush's war accomplished was to put Iran in the catbird seat.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

A big part of the argument for war, was that a functioning democracy in the ME would be a powerful ideological challenge to Islamic Extremism.

These two statements are incompatible.

4. My being a cultural Christian has nothing to do with my logic, or my support of the invasion.

One of the many positive outcomes of your participation in a thread that you complain about and depict quite often to be irrelevant is that you inadvertently bring fresh ideas to the sociological profession as to how and why so many Americans allowed themselves to be lied into supporting a war of choice; lied into supporting a first strike war of preemptive self/defense; lied into supporting a policy of what the Bush Administration has chosen to call “anticipatory self-defense.

So don’t run away because we need a cultural Christian’s perspective and honest opinion and input to find the answer to why so many Americans allowed themselves to be lied into supporting a war of choice.

As a cultural Christian and eventual Trump supporter you said your support pre-invasion and post-invasion TrumpO o use massive amounts of US military force in order to preemptively remove ..... ( not wait for an attack beyond March 17 2003 ) ..... the Sunni regime in Baghdad in order to give the Shia majority that has a religious connection to Iran a chance to establish a functional free and fair Democracy that would provide an ideological challenge to Islamic extremists.

But then you say that being a cultural Christian has nothing to do with your support of preemptive war to force regime change in a nation comprised mostly of Muslims.

Can you explain in a mature and thoughtful way why you think your religion had nothing to do with your decision making process that led you to support the invasion of Iraq.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

May I butt in here? In a warzone there are no negotiations for contractual services.. Its always COST PLUS. Halliburtonn didn't do anything wrong here..

Yes. I’m not addressing Halliburton’s role or how they get paid. I’m asking Correll if he considered There v potential cost to the tax payers of doing regime change in Iraq and set the Shia up to run a democracy.