Matt,

I assume you've heard about the Irag reconstruction plans. When these guys sat down to plan this war they asked themselves, "How can we maximize profit on this thing?" There's the spiking petroleum prices, the reconstruction contracts, and let's not forget all the bombs and other military hardware. And of course the Bush energy policy doesn't endorse conserving gas or even enforcing tougher mpg requirements on auto manufacturers (correct me if I'm wrong). It all feeds this greedy, right wing juggernaut that taken power.

How can people not see this? Can they not see past the 10 second sound bytes and the ever changing justification for this war? I've heard some office and bus stop conversation about the war of the 6 people whose opinions I've polled (myself included) it's 2 against and 4 in favor of the U.S. position on the war. Their justifications seem to tie the war on Iraq with the war on terror or fear that Saddam's WOMD might fall into the "wrong hands". Where's the proof? This preemptive war making based on what a perceived enemy might "potentially" do seems insane. This line of thinking could justify attacks on Korea, Iran, or really almost any country could be painted a potential threat. Of course, the administration would have to do an analysis to determine potential enemies based on profit margin first. Then plan a few stories in the media and hey, we could do this again around election time.

Don't get me started.

Anyway this is the link that started this rant.US expects to award massive contract to rebuild Iraq

Haliburton, hmmm? Where have we heard that name before?

Greg