Skip to comments.Rand Paul in ’09: Cheney pushed Iraq war to benefit Halliburton
Posted on 04/07/2014 5:08:13 PM PDT by SoConPubbieEdited on 04/07/2014 5:29:10 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
David Corn over at Mother Jones unearths a 2009 video of Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), in which Paul suggests that former vice president Dick Cheney wanted to invade Iraq in order to benefit his former employer, Halliburton.
In the video, shot at Western Kentucky University, Paul argues that Cheney thought the invasion was a bad idea in the first Bush administration but changed his tune after working for Halliburton.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Ah, now I know you’ll be able to get everything you need for the invasion from Halliburton...
Paul sounds like he has the same reasoning ability as Reid, Obama, Pelosi, Wasserman-Schultz and Sharpton.
Water under the bridge. We had to kick somebody’s arse.
True enough, it doesn’t show that Cheney got any kickbacks for it.
Bingo! The libtards I know are stuck in that same groove as well.
Paul is sounding creepier and creepier.
Ooooh... Great find, there, Corn. You’re amazing.
The 9/11 attacks were not used a pretext for the war in Iraq. If that were the case, why did we spend months getting our allies on board and seeking UN blessing? The 9/11 attacks were used, rightly, as a pretext for the war in Afghanistan.
Strike Three Mr. Paul. I am with Rand on a lot of issues, but he’s got too many strains of the left-wing wack-a-doo-dle propaganda.
Rand Paul is stuck on stupid
Ted tied goofy Rand at the Pa. Leadership Conference this weekend with 20% each. Carson and Santorum (who delivered a spellbinding speech Friday) also did well. IMO, Rand needs to remain a back bencher. He will lead us to disaster. Bob
That “water under the bridge” should result in trials!! What a joke. NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?? God help us. That little stunt , not only was the greatest disaster of bush,but it put this country into the hands of a diabolical liberal. You can’t make up how important it is to dismiss another bush in our party.
I don't have a problem leaving our
military dependents allies to fend for themselves, given that their defense policy - reflected in minuscule budgets as a % of GDP - since the end of the Cold War has been to fight their enemies to the last dead American. But people like Paul seem to have this idea that the US is the root of all evil in the world. Were they born defective, or were they repeatedly dropped on their heads as kids?
Is it taboo to say that Iraq War benefited a lot of companies? After all, those companies stood to make hundreds of billions off of war and were actively looking to get lucrative contracts?
After all, why apologize for trying to maximize shareholders’ wealth? We all benefited.
......tend to agree, Cheney might be a lot of things but he would not send our kids to their deaths for a few bucks in his pocket.................in my opinion!
The loonatarian Cult of Paul is already getting insufferable, and we've got, what, 2 more years until the 2016 primaries?
GMTA, the apple don’t fall far from the tree.
These older people don’t understand how much the Iraq war hurt the GOP with voters. It the reason the GOP lost the House, the Senate and and the White House in 2006 and 2008.
Cheney is the poster boy for crony capitalism and the revolving door style of corruption. He’s also a proponent big government and an open borders fanatic.
So what you are saying is Bush while he was Gov. of Texas, somehow arranged to have Bill Clinton’s CIA and all other intel agencies around the world falsify reports claiming Iraq had WMD’s so he, Bush, could then use these false reports to invade Iraq when he became president sometime in the future.
Welcome to Free Republic. Yeah, us *older people* know how to deal with a threat to our nation, when we see one.
Cheney is the poster boy for crony capitalism and the revolving door style of corruption. Hes also a proponent big government and an open borders fanatic.
I'll take Cheney in my foxhole over most any other "R's" presently in office, with the exception of a very few.
You sound just like Nancy Pelosi or a DU lib, newb. Take it somewhere else.
Tree - Apple - Plop!
Well - great minds and all .....
I’m going to call BS on Rand this time even though I like him.
My understanding at the time and correct me if I’m wrong was that there was a big flap that Haliburton got the contract for putting out the oil well fires on a no bid. But it was pointed out that the only reason they got the contract was that they were the only company at the time that was large enough and had the equipment to handle the job and that they never broke even on the deal let alone made money.
Here is Al gore ranting about Bush ignoring Hussein’s WMDs in 1992. 33 seconds.
ABC news 1999: Osama bin Laden / Saddam Hussein alliance.
Tell me WHY we invaded Iraq?
If you don’t know that, you are badly out of touch with most Americans.
Neocon type foreign policy is very unpopular now and it is probably the biggest reason why so many college educated white Americans are not voting GOP. What do you think is driving the increase in self-identified “libertarians.” Most of these people are conservative leaning and foreign policy is for most the biggest disagreement they have with the GOPe.
I tend to agree w/ you re how Cheney is viewed by many voters...they believe Cheney was banging the drum for a war in Iraq. It doesn’t matter what ‘we’ believe or not...it does matter how the average voter viewed the war in Iraq.
I don’t think it helped that GWB did that stupid video...supposedly comedy... looking for WMD and never finding them. No...didn’t help one dang bit.
But I’m not voting for Rand Paul and I’m not voting for Bush III.
So in your confused mind, not only is everyone at the political site you just signed up for 'old', but because they are 'old', they can't know about the politics and history that this forum exists to discuss, study and affect.
We do know a little bit about politics here.
The libertarianism they are leaning towards is dope and the gay agenda, the kids didn't suddenly come out of their Obama stupor to become foreign policy wonks.
A chip off the old Blockhead.
Only in the land of the loony left could a despicable terrorist be a major threat one minute then become a “victim” the next.
I did not intend to offend you. Bush was president on 9/11. He attacked Iraq???? you can’t make that up. The SOBs that killed 3000 of us were Sunni from Saudi Arabia!! invade them!! not Shiites in Iraq who did nothing to us. In either invasion you TAKE THEIR OIL!!! Your point is what?
SH had been supporting terrorist for years.
Had he provided even a small amount of bio weapon material to the terrorist the terrorist could have brought this country to it’s knees.
You recall what happened with the small amount of anthrax sent through the mail?
A single quart of anthrax would have been enough to spread across the entire country and then some.
Just a few months ago everyone was talking about the WMD’s Syria has as coming from Iraq, maybe you forgot.
Personally I’m glad Bush didn’t take a chance and wait to respond until after an attack which would have made 9/11 look like a walk in the park.
Scratch Paul from my list of top three.
I’ve never understood the fascination with this man. I have never been on the randwagon and decided I was disinclined to get on it when he voted yes on the Hagel appointment.
You forgot to add Jebbie to your list.
Yes, and SH had slaughtered and tortured his own people as well as the kurds. The problem with Iraq was when the bureaucrats like L. Paul Bremer decided to ‘nation build’. That’s where we started to lose it. We should have stopped after we got Saddam and then left. Take out the dictator and leave and tell the Iraqis they are on their own. We will take a percentage of their oil as payment and be on our merry way.
The left did not help our cause with their constant attacks on Bush and the military.
Amazing how the left supported the war until the terrorist had time to form an opposition force, then right on queue, the terrorist went on the attack and the left went on the attack against Bush at the same time.
It's often forgotten (or intentionally overlooked) in discussions like these, but there was a conversation with Vice-President Cheney that Bob Woodward reported in Bush At War (2002).
Woodward wrote that, shortly after 9/11/01, he asked Cheney about the source of the anthrax attacks. Cheney responded "We believe we know who did it. But we're not ready to do anything about it yet."
Recall that, at the time, it was widely speculated that the anthrax powder had come from Iraq -- but, curiously, the FBI (i.e., the administration) kept deflecting the conversation toward a domestic source.
As disinformation, this approach would be consistent with "We believe we know who did it. But we're not ready to do anything about it yet."
Most people don’t realize just how small a quantity of bio weapon it takes to cover/contaminate a huge area.
In the 50’s and 60’s the govt. tested using non hazardous bio agents, how bio weapons could be dispersed and the area affected.
Crop dusters, dumping it in the subway and letting the subway carry it along, mail, etc. you name it they tried it.
Just a small amount dumped in a subway would cover,contaminate an entire city the size of NY in just a few hours.
Yes, and he supported the closure of Guantanomo Bay, said our national security is not threatened by a nuclear Iran, etc. Then he denied all of this and those who brought it up during the campaign were viciously attacked and branded as liars.
Actually we probably lost it in 2006 due to Mark Foley. Prior to that we were actually steadying in the polls. No doubt, however, that the way things were going in Iraq was a huge negative and seats were going to be lost. “The surge” should have been done long before it was to stabilize Iraq.
We lost it in 2008 due to the financial collapse coming just before the elections.
Well, that “surge” that came years later should have been done immediately - imagine Iraq being stable in 2006 and our troops withdrawing prior to the 2008 elections.
That wouldn’t have stopped Mark Foley or the financial collapse, but at least that would not have been an issue...both politically and more importantly for the good of the people in Iraq and our military.