- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message

RP: Cheney used 9/11 as excuse to invade Iraq for the benefit of Halliburton
Posted on 4/7/14 at 11:51 am
Posted on 4/7/14 at 11:51 am
I'm really starting to like this Rand Paul guy more and more.
Neo-cons are going to have a field day with this one.
LINK
Neo-cons are going to have a field day with this one.
LINK
quote:
Rand Paul: Dick Cheney used 9/11 as excuse to invade Iraq for the benefit of Halliburton
By Tom Boggioni
Monday, April 7, 2014 7:53 EDT
In a videotaped 2009 speech before student Republicans at Western Kentucky University, Rand Paul — who was just beginning his run for the Senate seat he eventually won — explained that former Vice President Dick Cheney, who counseled against war in Iraq in 1995, pushed for war following 9/11 to benefit his former employers at military contractor Halliburton.
In the video, discovered by David Corn at Mother Jones, Paul can be seen standing at a lectern describing Cheney’s opinion in 1995, when he said that invading Iraq would be, “a disaster, it would be vastly expensive, it’d be civil war, we would have no exit strategy.”
Paul said:
quote:
There’s a great YouTube of Dick Cheney in 1995 defending [President] Bush Number One [and the decision not to invade Baghdad in the first Gulf war], and he goes on for about five minutes. He’s being interviewed, I think, by the American Enterprise Institute, and and he says it would be a disaster, it would be vastly expensive, it’d be civil war, we would have no exit strategy. He goes on and on for five minutes. Dick Cheney saying it would be a bad idea. And that’s why the first Bush didn’t go into Baghdad. Dick Cheney then goes to work for Halliburton. Makes hundreds of millions of dollars, their CEO. Next thing you know, he’s back in government and it’s a good idea to go into Iraq.
Paul then goes on to describe events following the 9/11 terrorist attack when, then CIA director, George Tenet is told by George W. Bush adviser Richard Perle that the attack had given them reason to invade Iraq, despite the fact that the intelligence had yet to show a connection:
quote:
The day after 9/11, [CIA chief] George Tenet is going in the [White] House and [Pentagon adviser] Richard Perle is coming out of the White House. And George Tenet should know more about intelligence than anybody in the world, and the first thing Richard Perle says to him on the way out is, ‘We’ve got it, now we can go into Iraq.’ And George Tenet, who supposedly knows as much intelligence as anybody in the White House says, ‘Well, don’t we need to know that they have some connection to 9/11?’ And, he [Perle] says, ‘It doesn’t matter.’ It became an excuse. 9/11 became an excuse for a war they already wanted in Iraq.
Corn points out that the speech Paul was giving was not a one time event, describing Cheney’s desire for war.
In a videotaped 2008 Montana speech, also uncovered by Corn, Paul directly linked Cheney ‘s Halliburton “millions” to the 2001 Iraq war:
quote:
It’s Dick Cheney in 1995 being interviewed on why they didn’t go into Baghdad the first time under the first [President] George Bush. And his arguments are exactly mirroring my dad’s arguments for why we shouldn’t have gone in this time. It would be chaos. There’d be a civil war. There’d be no exit strategy. And cost a blue bloody fortune in both lives and treasure. And this is Dick Cheney saying this. But, you know, a couple hundred million dollars later Dick Cheney earns from Halliburton, he comes back into government. Now Halliburton’s got a billion-dollar no-bid contract in Iraq. You know, you hate to be so cynical that you think some of these corporations are able to influence policy, but I think sometimes they are. Most of the people on these [congressional] committees have a million dollars in their bank account all from different military industrial contractors. We don’t want our defense to be defined by people who make money off of the weapons.
As Corn points out, there have long been suspicions that Dick Cheney used the post-9/11 war on Iraq as a way to thank Halliburton for making him a very wealthy man after stepping down as Secretary of Defense under former President George H.W. Bush.
In 2012, Corn writing for Mother Jones uncovered video of Mitt Romney telling wealthy donors that 47 percent of people would vote for Barack Obama because they were “dependent upon government.” The video was widely believed to be damaging to the Romney campaign.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 11:54 am to MJM
He will win if he wins the nomination. He is the only GOP candidate who will.
This post was edited on 4/7/14 at 11:55 am
Posted on 4/7/14 at 11:58 am to JEAUXBLEAUX
quote:
This is news?
A sitting Senator and possible candidate for Pres, accusing a vice president from his own party of lying to go to war for profit.
Yes, i'd say that is news worthy.
But if you are saying "this is news" as in this is what everyone expected all along, then yes i agree.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 12:00 pm to MJM
It's good for Paul to be vocal about it, but he's basically saying something that everyone already knew for years.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 12:02 pm to MJM
To be fair about the differences:
1) There was the 9/11 attacks
2) There was a cease fire agreement (surrender) by Saddam that was being violated and the inspection service for WMD was being thwarted.
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.
1) There was the 9/11 attacks
2) There was a cease fire agreement (surrender) by Saddam that was being violated and the inspection service for WMD was being thwarted.
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.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 12:02 pm to Tiguar
If this catches on, he won't win the nomination. Moderate republicans will help the Dems destroy him.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 12:05 pm to NikolaiJakov
I usually disagree with him a lot, a real lot. But. give him credit for stating what he did.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 12:10 pm to JEAUXBLEAUX
This is the kind of stuff that republicans will destroy him with in the primaries.
Calling Fox News.......time to get the spin machine into high gear.
Calling Fox News.......time to get the spin machine into high gear.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 12:10 pm to JEAUXBLEAUX
The republican establishment is going to bury him over these. I expect he will start backpedaling from these remarks very quickly.
If not this will be brought up over and over again through the primaries.
If not this will be brought up over and over again through the primaries.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 12:12 pm to MJM
Hit machine in full frontal assault mode already, I see. 

Posted on 4/7/14 at 12:17 pm to MJM
Just like Paul pointing out that Bill Clinton represents the true war on women he's just showing how he and Hillary, who voted for the war, differ.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 12:20 pm to MJM
I like him too. I'd like to learn more about his foreign policy stance though. As far as the Cheney thing. Rhino's and Prog's are one and the same. Both sides play the game. Money is the bottom line for the establishment guys on the Hill. Feinstein's husband, has secured tens of millions of dollars from Gov't contracting. They're all crooked.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 12:24 pm to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:
1) There was the 9/11 attacks
Which had zero to do with Iraq.
quote:
But, to suggest that the only difference in the 2 time periods was the money earned by Cheney at Haliburton is bereft of plenitude.
To Cheney, that very well may have been the only difference. His tenure at Haliburton being the difference.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 12:24 pm to MJM
Meh, he's a traitorous liberal.
...at least that's what I was called at the time for pointing out the same things.
...at least that's what I was called at the time for pointing out the same things.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 12:28 pm to Holden Caulfield
quote:
Just like Paul pointing out that Bill Clinton represents the true war on women he's just showing how he and Hillary, who voted for the war, differ
Yep. He's twisting the libs into knots and they don't get it. This same dickweed mother jones writer will be at wits end trying to discount every word out of Rand Paul's mouth if he gets the nomination.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 12:32 pm to Erin Go Bragh
How is this "twisting dems in knots"?
Posted on 4/7/14 at 12:37 pm to MJM
The desire to use Paul's opinion to slay the dragon Cheney will become a challenge to them when Rand points out Hillary's willingness to support the war that benefitted Halliburton.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 12:41 pm to MJM
I'm on the Rand Paul bus. But it's hardly news that the Libertarian wing of the Republican Party is highly skeptical of the Neocon wing.
I think Paul's view on this is highly simplistic and ignores TONS of contrary evidence. Anybody who read neocon writings from 1985-2004 knows that there was a constant drumbeat of Nation-building. In fact, Bush disavowing Nation-building in the 2000 campaign debate against Al Gore was one of his biggest moments, when he got everybody on-board, including the Libertarian wing.
Haliburton profits were but a small brick in a much-larger foundation.
I think Paul's view on this is highly simplistic and ignores TONS of contrary evidence. Anybody who read neocon writings from 1985-2004 knows that there was a constant drumbeat of Nation-building. In fact, Bush disavowing Nation-building in the 2000 campaign debate against Al Gore was one of his biggest moments, when he got everybody on-board, including the Libertarian wing.
Haliburton profits were but a small brick in a much-larger foundation.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 12:42 pm to Erin Go Bragh
That's going to pale in comparison to him having to explain to republicans how the thinks that the former repub VP is a war criminal
Back to top
