A Feminist Who Voted for Bush

On the Bin Laden thread I posted a NY Times piece showing how Kerry was IN FAVOR of turning the issue of Bin Laden in Afghanistan over to the Afghanis and publicly praised that decision. Now he condemns it as 'outsourcing' American security.

Fellow Feminists of A2K, hang tough! We are feminists because we can think and decide for ourselves, we are smart enough to figure out stuff all by ourselves, we are tough enough not to be sheep, and we are assertive enough to demand more than an empty suit for President.

Bold above is mine:

If that is your claim for why others objected to us invading Iraq, then you might want to know:

A discreet way of doing business with Iraq
FT.com site; Nov 3, 2000
BY CAROLA HOYOS, UNITED NATIONS CORRESPONDENT

Millions of dollars of US oil business with Iraq are being channelled discreetly through European and other companies, in a practice that has highlighted the double standards now dominating relations between Baghdad and Washington after a decade of crippling sanctions.

Though legal, leading US oil service companies such as Halliburton, Baker Hughes, Schlumberger, Flowserve, Fisher-Rosemount and others, have used subsidiaries and joint venture companies for this lucrative business, so as to avoid straining relations with Washington and jeopardising their ties with President Saddam Hussein's government in Baghdad.

By submitting their contracts to the UN via mainly French subsidiaries, many of which do little more than lend their name to the transaction, the companies are treated as European, rather than US or Japanese, applicants.

In 1998 the UN passed a resolution allowing Iraq, the world's sixth largest oil producer, to buy spare parts for its dilapidated oil industry.

Since then, only two of the 3,058 contracts for oil industry parts that have been submitted to the UN have officially come from US companies. But the facts behind these figures tell a very different story.

US companies have in fact submitted contracts worth at least $100m to the UN for approval to supply Iraq with oil industry spare parts, through their foreign subsidiaries. Some informed estimates put that value as high as $170m.

They have used, or allowed, associated companies, mainly in France, but also in Belgium, Germany, India, Switzerland, Bahrain, Egypt and the Netherlands, to put the contracts through.

"It is a wonderful example of how ludicrous sanctions have become," says Raad Alkadiri, analyst at the Petroleum Finance Company, a Washington-based consulting firm.

"On the one hand you have the Americans, who do not want to be seen trading with Iraq, despite the fact that it is above board and legitimate, because that would contradict their image of being tough towards Iraq. On the other hand you have the Iraqis, who on the technocratic level would like to buy the best stuff on the market - in many cases that comes from the US - but politically have to be able to say they are refusing to deal with US companies," he said.

Halliburton, the largest US oil services company, is among a significant number of US companies that have sold oil industry equipment to Iraq since the UN relaxed sanctions two years ago.

From 1995 until August this year Halliburton's chief executive officer was Dick Cheney, US secretary of defense during the Gulf war and now Republican vice-presidential running mate of George W.Bush.

From September 1998 until it sold its stake last February, Halliburton owned 51 per cent of Dresser-Rand. It also owned 49 per cent of Ingersoll-Dresser Pump, until its sale in December 1999. During the time of the joint ventures, Dresser-Rand and Ingersoll-Dresser Pump submitted more than $23.8m worth of contracts for the sale of oil industry parts and equipment to Iraq. Their combined total amounted to more than any other US company; the vast majority was approved by the sanctions committee.

Mr Cheney is not the only Washington heavyweight to have been affiliated with a company trading with Iraq. John Deutch, a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, is a member of the board of Schlumberger, the second largest US oil services company.

Schlumberger has submitted at least three contracts for well-logging equipment and geological software via a French subsidiary, Services Petroliers Schlumberger, and through Schlumberger Gulf Services of Bahrain

MORE: http://www.truthout.com/docs_01/02.23D.Cheney.Circumvented.htm

I bet if you looked real hard Squinney, you could link me or somebody close to me with Halliburton or any of the other really sinister entities you see out there. I'm almost certain I own at least one or two stocks with companies that have benefitted from the war in Iraq. It's pretty hard to run a war without purchasing goods and services that benefit somebody. I could never run for president. When I was in college as a budding reporter, I would join anything to get the inside scoop. So at one time I simultaneously belonged to organizations similar to the John Birch Society and the Young Communists of America. You can imagine the hay an opponent could make after tacking that onto my resume.

What is cheap and petty about such accusations as asserted in the article you posted, is it is all innuendo and any wrong doing is simply unproven.

Nice try at diversion. These are US companies doing business with Iraq while sanctions were in place, which refutes Xena's claim that other countries didn't want us to invade and mess up their being "on the take." US companies were "on the take" too. Oh, and look. They were doing it THROUGH FRANCE!!! Golly Gee!

Exxon Mobil, ChevronTexaco and Valero were the three biggest buyers of Iraqi oil during the years of the oil-for-food programme.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11382

And assuming that your information is correct, how is that a problem Squinney?

If you'll go back up the page, you'll see that I was refuting Xena's statement.


Back on topic- It doesn't appear that other NOW feminists agree with Tammy Bruce.

http://www.now.org/


Personally, I always thought feminism had to do with standing up to the oppression of women. While equal pay for equal work, abortion rights, and non-discrimination came into the movement as addressing specific areas of opression, I think it is now a much broader term. Apply that basic principle to todays politics and one can't possibly vote for Bush and claim to be a feminist.

Part of the reason Tammy Bruce split with the LA Chapter of NOW was because they were not behind some of the feminist agenda as it started out. She talks about the OJ case that was happening at the time and how they were pissed at her for speaking out against OJ. She was going on the point that OJ was a wife beater and more then likely killed her. The national chapter of NOW was against this because they were going on the premise that OJ was being tried for being black as Johnny Cochran said.

She claims that the agenda of NOW isn't female equality but political partisanship, and doesn't want to be any part of it. You should read her book it is quite good.

I was a charter member of NOW in Kansas and left that organization when it became apparent they were not as interested in furthering the opportunities and status of women as they were in decreasing the oppoortunities and status for men. They went so far out in left field, they abandoned many of the values held by most women.

To me they embody few of the qualities I value in a true feminist. Tammy Bruce does embody those qualities and that's why I like her.

Would you approve of her adopting a child?

Bit late with this, but why did we have to invade Iraq as a result of 9/11??

Mesquite writes


Sure, if there was no traditional family (ie Mom and Dad) family wanting to adopt and the child needed a home and Tammy passed all the requisites normally applied for adoption (not being an ax murderer or whatever; being able to provide adequate clothing, shelter, food, etc.) I would have no problem with her adopting a child.

My bold.

In other words, sure you can ride, but step to the back of the bus please.

To Mesquite: Nope. For me it is not a matter of equal rights, but what is best for the child. You and I battled this out extensively on another thread and I have not changed my opinion on this. I believe any loving adult, gay or straight, is capable of competently rearing children, but I also believe the overwhelming evidence is that a loving dad and mom in the home are the best formula for rearing children and should have priority in placing children for adoption. For me that is not negotiable.

If there is no loving mom and dad available for a child, then of course you give him/her the next best thing possible.