Bill Gates and George W. Bush are nothing if not excellent identity thieves.
Bill Gates is nothing but a dumb crook with a lot of legal muscle and one too many corrupted politicians in his pocket. Bill Gates needed to steal the identity of Thomas Ray because, well, Bill Gates is Bill Gates. He is essentially the Jethro Bodine from The Beverly Hillbillies of the computer world with lawyers for strength. Bill Gates wanted to associate Microsoft with Thomas Ray's image to improve investor confidence in Microsoft and to, among many reasons, increase sales of the "Halo" video game. As for identity images, Bill Gates image is better suited for a viagra-type drug. Smilin' Bill and Melinda ask if you want to swim in their pool today!
Anyway, I'm not sure what all was said in the background, but this speech transcript I found the other day is suspicious, especially because it occurred only about 2 months after I started working at Microsoft as Kerry Burgess.
Remarks by Secretary of Defense William Cohen and Bill Gates
Thursday, February 18, 1999
Redmond, Washington
...
So I wanted to come here to talk just a little bit about what the military is doing in our lives, even though you may not see it except on a -- perhaps a CNN broadcast when we have to take on a Saddam Hussein or perhaps even have a deployment to either Bosnia or Kosovo or some other region. But you should be aware of how completely dedicated these men and women are who are serving us, how proud you should be of them, how proud I am to be in this position, to at least express my support for what they're doing, and to call upon each and every one of you to spread the word.
George W. Bush needed to steal Thomas Ray's image to justify his desire to invade Iraq. His motivation is from a lifelong need to look smarter than his father. Instead of simply being someone trying to improve on the accomplishments of an elder who was a great man, there are people who just have to prove they are smarter and it's not about accomplishment. It's ironic to hear George blame people for allowing him to send our troops into Iraq when it was Bush that convinced them of the need to send the troops there in the first place.
This is a speech I found recently that demontrates that the Osirak raid of 6/7/81 has value to Bush and Cheney's plans for Iraq, which would also mean the identity of Thomas Ray is important to their plans. I am guessing that Bush and Cheney turned on me after they realized their incompetence triggered 9/11 and other terroristic events.
August 26, 2002
Vice President Speaks at VFW 103rd National Convention
...
On the nuclear question, many of you will recall that Saddam's nuclear ambitions suffered a severe setback in 1981 when the Israelis bombed the Osirak reactor. They suffered another major blow in Desert Storm and its aftermath.
...
I am familiar with the arguments against taking action in the case of Saddam Hussein. Some concede that Saddam is evil, power-hungry, and a menace -- but that, until he crosses the threshold of actually possessing nuclear weapons, we should rule out any preemptive action. That logic seems to me to be deeply flawed. The argument comes down to this: yes, Saddam is as dangerous as we say he is, we just need to let him get stronger before we do anything about it.
Around the time of the invasion, on the same day I think actually, there was an email thread I responded to. There was an email forum at Microsoft for email discussion with some name similar to Veteran's At Microsoft. I think it was the day of the invasion that I responded to a thread and said that saddam is a threat to global peace and I also wrote something about that the Iraqis are smart. I have wondered for a long time if it was that comment about the Iraqis being smart that triggered someone in the Defense Dept. to suggest that the invasion would be a "cakewalk." That quote is generally attributed to Rumsfeld, but I read recently that he denies saying that. I also remember, not sure if it was the same email, that they shouldn't forget about the USS Stark. I believed for the longest time that saddam struck Stark deliberately to increase the presence of the U.S. military in the Gulf to give him a strategic advantage over the Iranians. I still believe he hit the Stark deliberately, but as I wrote the other day, I am beginning to think he had other reasons. Who really knows though. That is the problem with criminals and psychopaths; you can never get the truth out of them without a lot of effort.
