[dd74]

I too would speak cautiously with the T-word, as in "take over." The war has already cost so much money, whatever budgetary windfall Clinton's Administration assembled, is now completely gone, plus, the government's in the red again. No one wants to see that happen as it invariably means higher taxes, etc. Taking over a country like Iraq could bankrupt the U.S. and many other countries, European included just in a simple domino-like manner.

As far as a few benefitting greatly from the war, that would be a given in any conflict. Defense contracts are a prime example of this. What Bush suffers (if not just plain ego and ignorance), is the closeness of his VP to Haliburton; a controversial link from the Bush Administration's inception, as Cheney had to resign his chairman's position from Haliburton before running for vice president.

With that done, Haliburton now receives a contract to go into Iraq and "fix" the oil side of things - yes, it is fishy. There is one thing, however, that should be considered: Haliburton, supposedly, has been in sensitive oil vs. foreign soil situations before, and is one of the few U.S. companies of its kind to pass muster with the State Department.

For whatever that's worth, it is one of the issues the Bush Ad. hangs its hat on as a reason Haliburton (along with a few other select entities) was chosen to regenerate Iraqi oil supplies.