re: RP: Cheney used 9/11 as excuse to invade Iraq for the benefit of Halliburton

I think I may be warming up to RP. I just pray he gets someone intelligent as a running mate. Preferably not TCruz

quote:

---

People who believe Cheney engineered the Iraq invasion for $$$ and not foreign policy reasons are the same people who believe the WTC attacks were staged or in the petrodollar. And confuse coincidence for connection.

---

Google this:
"Project For A New American Century"

It was their idea. Congress and the majority of the American people bought it.

Some of you guys think Paul has support because of this board.

This board is not representative of the R party. The Religious Right still rules.

quote:

---

Google this: "Project For A New American Century". They engineered it.

---

Yep, unfortunately they took the official website down.

But the list of signees is as familiar as it is impressive:

Signatories to Statement of Principles[edit]

Elliott Abrams
Gary Bauer
William J. Bennett
John Ellis "Jeb" Bush
Dick Cheney
Eliot A. Cohen
Midge Decter
Paula Dobriansky
Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg
Francis Fukuyama
Frank Gaffney
Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby
Norman Podhoretz
J. Danforth Quayle
Peter W. Rodman
Stephen P. Rosen
Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld
Vin Weber
George Weigel
Paul Wolfowitz

Here's the Statement of Principles:


June 3, 1997
American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.
As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead. We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities. Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:
• We need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• We need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• We need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• We need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

quote:

---

That he believed in along with many others in a forceful American foreign policy does not equate to engineering Iraq for $$$.

---

But it at least shows that it was on the agenda before 9/11. It also shows that the "no nation building" speech was just a flat out lie.

quote:

---

quote: fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars

---

Yeah like THAT has ever been needed.

Obviously if you are noninterventionist you see that policy statement as misguided but it's not crazy.

I think he is right. I like W but i think he had some people advising him that he trusted too much from his Dad's days and didn't have the country's best interests ahead of their own bank accounts.

I don't think W was in charge until late in his Presidency.

quote:

---

I am not taking a "side" on the decision. But, to suggest that the only difference in the 2 time periods was the money earned by Cheney at Haliburton is bereft of plenitude.

---

Well, if "bereft of plenitude" means bullshite lie, then I will agree with you.

But I do have a side.

Anyone who believes that Dick Cheney made decisions about the fate of our country and its soldiers for any kind of personal gain is a flat out lying propagandist.

You can disagree with Cheney's policy and his decisions - but when you subscribe 'filth lucre' to his motive you fall into the realm of smear merchant.

Dick Cheney is an honorable public servant who does not deserve to be besmirched by low-lifes.