So Rand Paul called Cheney an evil war profiteer

Amadeus said:

I'm actually more of a liberal extremist...

Click to expand...

I'm an extremist extremist, so far to the left they call me 'Murcury.

P.S. I should not be surprised some found a way to whine about Libruls in all this.

Henrin said:

When I got out of college I worked for Bechtel and at the time this kind of talk was common if I mentioned where I worked to someone. For some reason they thought there was some sort of conspiracy afoot, but they could never tell me who else the government should have hired for the job. It was just some stupid nonsense about no bid contracts and how terrible they are without even an ounce of understanding of what no bid contracts are, how they work or why they are used.

It was not also uncommon for the discussion to shift to Cheney and Haliburton and as you would expect all of the above problems popped up again.

Click to expand...

I have almost no respect for Cheney, but I don't think the decision to invade Iraq was because he'd make a few more $millions off his options. But Dick and George were oil people, from oil country, Dick was head of an oil supply company, and Iraq included VAST amounts of untapped oil resources. So everyone they knew would profit if the war went well. The point isn't that they sat around and said, you know, we want our oil buddies to get richer than they already are. The problem is when everyone you know profits off war, and the people who will pay are a bunch of kids who aren't YOUR kids, then it's awfully easy to justify war. There is no downside. Taxes didn't go up, but spending exploded, and all the friends of all the people in Washington with fat defense contracts saw a years long flood of money coming their way. It's hard to be principled against doing something when the doing of it is all good, and no bad for you personally.

Gardener said:

Might I possibly interest you in some delightful Florida beachfront property?

Click to expand...

No thank you, currently looking in the Carolinas. Not sure what that has to do with your Darth Cheney comment. After Obama removed all the boots on the ground in Iraq, following his claims that we had decimated al Qaeda in his 2012 political campaign, since then there was Benghazi, then the kidnappings in Nigeria where the Nigerian leader called Boko Haram an al Qaeda operations and this administration dragged their feet even to recognize them as terrorists, and now Iraq faces collapse from a militant Issi directly linked to al Qaeda which pretty much makes Cheney's world understanding more realistic than Obama's.

vesper said:

No thank you, currently looking in the Carolinas. Not sure what that has to do with your Darth Cheney comment. After Obama removed all the boots on the ground in Iraq,

Click to expand...

Thanks to Maliki and Bush, not Obama.

Since then there was Benghazi

Click to expand...

Which Bush contributed to by releasing Bin Qumu to Madman Gaddafi.

Amadeus said:

Thanks to Maliki and Bush, not Obama.



Which Bush contributed to by releasing Bin Qumu to Madman Gaddafi.

Click to expand...

Well let the finger pointing begin. You all didn't want to fight these assholes over there, well get ready to fight them here. It's coming. With the condition of the borders and that jack hammer in office unwilling to order the borders be secured when border personal admit they only capture 1/3 of those who enter our country illegally, those SOB's are already here.

vesper said:

Well let the finger pointing begin. You all didn't want to fight these assholes over there, well get ready to fight them here. It's coming.

Click to expand...

If its coming, its coming stronger because the Bush administration made the problem immeasurably worse. Seems to be a recurring theme.

View attachment 67168617

Amadeus said:

If its coming, its coming stronger because the Bush administration made the problem immeasurably worse. Seems to be a recurring theme.

View attachment 67168617

Click to expand...

Oh spare me your revisionist history lesson. On 9/11 we were attacked by militants that entered this country under Bill Clinton's watch and received their pilot training. This all happened after the first Trade Center bombing in 1993 under Clinton whose administration was well aware that the threat was very real. But don't let the facts get in the way of blaming Bush.

Edit- you were for going after the bad guys before you were against it. You have used the war on terror as a political football and all those who went to fight the fight have now done so in vain. And after 6 years of Mr. Feckless in office we are now seen as weak and sitting ducks.

vesper said:

Yes Rand Paul is playing politics. But while playing politics he and many forget one little important factor in regard to Cheney and Halliburton. Halliburton WAS the only damn company that had the means as far as equipment, mobility and manpower to handle the job in Iraq.

Click to expand...

Only true if we went in to Iraq. The unnecessary WAR, Death, Chaos, and devastation was completely avoidable. These are the smartest and truest words I've ever heard Rand Paul say. He needs to be more like his father.

vesper said:

Oh spare me your revisionist history lesson. On 9/11 we were attacked by militants that entered this country under Bill Clinton's watch and received their pilot training. This all happened after the first Trade Center bombing in 1993 under Clinton whose administration was well aware that the threat was very real. But don't let the facts get in the way of blaming Bush.

Edit- you were for going after the bad guys before you were against it. You have used the war on terror as a political football and all those who went to fight the fight have now done so in vain. And after 6 years of Mr. Feckless in office we are now seen as weak and sitting ducks.

Click to expand...

9-11 had zip, zero, nada to do with Iraq. Our feckless leader is made that way by the war hawks and MIC trying to get funding for Wars, death, misery, and sympathy by misusing the Mass Media stenographers and Presstitutes to foment a false narrative. He may be a moron, but at least he is stopping wars and that is considered criminal by Republicans. It's time for Isolationist military policy and Internationally encompassing economic policy, althought I fear it is too late for that.

vesper said:

Oh spare me your revisionist history lesson. On 9/11 we were attacked by militants that entered this country under Bill Clinton's watch and received their pilot training. This all happened after the first Trade Center bombing in 1993 under Clinton whose administration was well aware that the threat was very real. But don't let the facts get in the way of blaming Bush.

Click to expand...

Spare us YOUR revisionist history.


"CLINTON: And I think it’s very interesting that all the conservative Republicans, who now say I didn’t do enough, claimed that I was too obsessed with bin Laden. All of President Bush’s neo-cons thought I was too obsessed with bin Laden. They had no meetings on bin Laden for nine months after I left office. All the right-wingers who now say I didn’t do enough said I did too much — same people."


The Bush administration wasn't interested in Al Qaeda and completely ignored Richard Clarke's 1/25/2001 memo "urgently" requesting a high-level National Security Council review on al-Qaeda which included two attachments: a declassified December 2000 "Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Jihadist Networks of al-Qida: Status and Prospects" and the September 1998 "Pol-Mil Plan for al-Qida," the so-called Delenda Plan, which remains classified under request with the National Security Council.....

Bush Administration's First Memo on al-Qaeda Declassified

Amadeus said:

This is a few months old, but wow, I've never seen a Republican tear into another Republican like this. Rand Paul goes a step further than most liberals and says that Cheney orchestrated the Iraq War so that Haliburton could reap the profits. I'm a bit out of the loop. Is Rand Paul a mainstream Republican, or is he a fringe crazy?

Click to expand...

Wait, so you put up the biggest "no sh@t" comments possible, (Cheney war profiteer), and then ask if he's "a fringe crazy".

Seriously, do you go to the insane asylum find the person rambling incoherently making feces art on the wall and ask if they are recovered?

As I have posted here in the past I do think Cheney was the (co)orchestrator in the Iraq invasion and I feel he knew that Iraq posed no serious threat to the US. Instead I feel his motives were other than national security. There is a documentary that interviews several people that work(ed) in the intelligence field at the time who were involved and they all made basically the same claims. That is the sources that were providing information on Saddam's weapons projects (WMD) had been deemed by the CIA and MI6 as unreliable and on some cases proved to be fabricated. These sources lost the attention of the intelligence community, in some cases for years, and were deemed to be of no value. Then the 911 tragedy occurred and they said the CIA suddenly, almost to the day, claimed these sources that were deemed unreliable and unfounded previously were now an impeccable source on impending threats from Iraq. To me it seems some people were simply looking for an opportunity and while the public was feeling vulnerable after the 911 attacks they pushed their agenda knowing the American people would be more excepting at that time.

vesper said:

Well let the finger pointing begin. You all didn't want to fight these assholes over there, well get ready to fight them here. It's coming. With the condition of the borders and that jack hammer in office unwilling to order the borders be secured when border personal admit they only capture 1/3 of those who enter our country illegally, those SOB's are already here.

Click to expand...

Oh my- don't you think you are indulging in a bit of logical over reach? If you are so concerned about the border, you and all your like minded friends should give all your cash to Rep. Steve Smith. He has been trying for a couple of years to crowd source the 2 million $$ plus, per mile, funding needed to build a tall border fence.

Apparently, the people who are so concerned about this don't put their money where there mouth is... and that includes paying for the devastation visited on Iraq thanks to neocon daydreams. Bush and Cheney sealed Iraq's fate when they allowed Bremmer to disband the Iraq army, purge the Ba'athists and install Maliki.

Moot said:

Spare us YOUR revisionist history.


"CLINTON: And I think it’s very interesting that all the conservative Republicans, who now say I didn’t do enough, claimed that I was too obsessed with bin Laden. All of President Bush’s neo-cons thought I was too obsessed with bin Laden. They had no meetings on bin Laden for nine months after I left office. All the right-wingers who now say I didn’t do enough said I did too much — same people."


The Bush administration wasn't interested in Al Qaeda and completely ignored Richard Clarke's 1/25/2001 memo "urgently" requesting a high-level National Security Council review on al-Qaeda which included two attachments: a declassified December 2000 "Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Jihadist Networks of al-Qida: Status and Prospects" and the September 1998 "Pol-Mil Plan for al-Qida," the so-called Delenda Plan, which remains classified under request with the National Security Council.....

Bush Administration's First Memo on al-Qaeda Declassified

Click to expand...

While Clinton claims he was "so obessed" with Bin Laden, why wasn't he and his administration "obsessed" with security inside this country especially since the first WTC bombing occurred under Clinton in 1993 during the first year of his administration. How is it that all the terrorists involved in 9/11 from countries that had been already classified as concerns actually were awarded visas and the training to fly planes under Clinton? If they were so damn concerned where were the added security measures? I'll tell you where they were, up someone's butt. It's no different today under Obama. While we see terrorism grow and despots emboldened under Obama, Obama's idea of security is watching and collecting personal information on every citizen in this country while they leave our borders opened like a sieve for thousands of undocumented people pour through from God knows where. It puts the f in feckless.

Henry David said:

I have no doubt that Rand Paul is just playing politics, but even in that dirty game, from time to time a truthful statement comes out. That is the case here.

The personification of a war monger and war profiteer is Cheney.

Click to expand...

Agreed. He's fringe, but he's not crazy... and he is correct on this point.

vesper said:

While Clinton claims he was "so obessed" with Bin Laden, why wasn't he and his administration "obsessed" with security inside this country especially since the first WTC bombing occurred under Clinton in 1993 during the first year of his administration.

How is it that all the terrorists involved in 9/11 from countries that had been already classified as concerns actually were awarded visas and the training to fly planes under Clinton? If they were so damn concerned where were the added security measures? I'll tell you where they were, up someone's butt. It's no different today under Obama. While we see terrorism grow and despots emboldened under Obama, Obama's idea of security is watching and collecting personal information on every citizen in this country while they leave our borders opened like a sieve for thousands of undocumented people pour through from God knows where. It puts the f in feckless.

Click to expand...

Why stop at Clinton? Al Qaeda was formed, funded and trained by the US under Reagan and GHWBush's watch. Some of the 93' WTC terrorists were actually trained on US soil long before Clinton took office......



"....The US took a benign view of this at the time. The operation was, after all, assisting in the fight against Communism. As Mr Mohamed's presence showed, those associated with the US military were providing assistance to Al-Kifah. The recruits received brief paramilitary training and weapons instruction in the New York area, according to evidence in earlier trials, before being sent to fight with Mr Hekmatyar. Even Sheikh Abdel-Rahman had, apparently, entered the US with the full knowledge of the CIA in 1990.

But by the mid-1990s, America's view of Al-Kifah had changed. It discovered that several of those charged with the World Trade Centre bombing and the New York landmarks bombings were former Afghan veterans, recruited through the Brooklyn-based organisation. Many of those the US had trained and recruited for a war were still fighting: but now it was against America. A confidential CIA internal survey concluded that it was "partly culpable" for the World Trade Centre bomb, according to reports at the time. There had been blowback.

How and why did the people behind Al-Kifah turn against America? The US cut off funding in 1991 to Mr Hekmatyar, both because the Russians had withdrawn from Afghanistan and because it had at last started to realise that backing Islamic fundamentalism was perhaps not the brightest idea the CIA had ever hatched. America had also gone to war against Iraq in 1991, and stationed troops in Saudi Arabia, outraging Mr bin Laden and other devout Muslims....read...."
Terror 'blowback' burns CIA - News - The Independent


"Blowback."

DaveFagan said:

9-11 had zip, zero, nada to do with Iraq. Our feckless leader is made that way by the war hawks and MIC trying to get funding for Wars, death, misery, and sympathy by misusing the Mass Media stenographers and Presstitutes to foment a false narrative. He may be a moron, but at least he is stopping wars and that is considered criminal by Republicans. It's time for Isolationist military policy and Internationally encompassing economic policy, althought I fear it is too late for that.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying 9/11 had anything to do with Iraq. But after the attack and our troops were in the theatre Iraq was seen not just by republicans but also democrats as a preventative measure. It is well documented Saddam was funding the terrorists. It is well documented that Saddam was offering money to families that would donate a child as a suicide bomber. It was well documented Saddam was affording the terrorists training camps inside Iraq. And the threat of chemical weapons and arms getting into the hands of terrorists was real and still is. Hell that despot used chemical weapons on his own people for crying outloud. How quickly people forget the number of soldiers and innocent Afghanis were lost or maimed due to suicide bombers? It is why when Bush took it to Congress they voted not once but twice an overwhelming majority of Democrats and Republicans to invade as a preventative measure. Were there miscalculations and mistakes made? Hell yes. You don't have to agree with any of it. It is real easy to be an armchair quarterback. But the reality we live today is during the last six years Obama has been weak on fighting terror while making false claims that we had decimated Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda has been emboldened and the proof is Libya, Egypt, Nigeria, Syria, Yemen and Iraq is about to collapse. All this going on while we have thousands of troops still left in Afghanistan. Their threats have never stopped that they are coming for us. And Obama, his idea of security is a very porous border while spying on all citizens. Nothing spells feckless fail like the Boston Marathon bombers when it comes to this administration dropping the ball. Even Russia warned Obama's intelligence team about the Tsarnaev brother long before the attack. Terrorism shouldn't be a partisan issue. We can disagree on how to fight it but damit if what has been done the last six years isn't working, it's time for a reality check. And at the very friggin least the *))^^%& borders should be well secured!

JasperL said:

I have almost no respect for Cheney, but I don't think the decision to invade Iraq was because he'd make a few more $millions off his options. But Dick and George were oil people, from oil country, Dick was head of an oil supply company, and Iraq included VAST amounts of untapped oil resources. So everyone they knew would profit if the war went well. The point isn't that they sat around and said, you know, we want our oil buddies to get richer than they already are. The problem is when everyone you know profits off war, and the people who will pay are a bunch of kids who aren't YOUR kids, then it's awfully easy to justify war. There is no downside. Taxes didn't go up, but spending exploded, and all the friends of all the people in Washington with fat defense contracts saw a years long flood of money coming their way. It's hard to be principled against doing something when the doing of it is all good, and no bad for you personally.

Click to expand...

Taxes didn't go up, and the Treasury was still plundered by those on the receiving end of waging illegitimate wars brought under fraud.

Moot said:

Why stop at Clinton? Al Qaeda was formed, funded and trained by the US under Reagan and GHWBush's watch. Some of the 93' WTC terrorists were actually trained on US soil long before Clinton took office......



"....The US took a benign view of this at the time. The operation was, after all, assisting in the fight against Communism. As Mr Mohamed's presence showed, those associated with the US military were providing assistance to Al-Kifah. The recruits received brief paramilitary training and weapons instruction in the New York area, according to evidence in earlier trials, before being sent to fight with Mr Hekmatyar. Even Sheikh Abdel-Rahman had, apparently, entered the US with the full knowledge of the CIA in 1990.

But by the mid-1990s, America's view of Al-Kifah had changed. It discovered that several of those charged with the World Trade Centre bombing and the New York landmarks bombings were former Afghan veterans, recruited through the Brooklyn-based organisation. Many of those the US had trained and recruited for a war were still fighting: but now it was against America. A confidential CIA internal survey concluded that it was "partly culpable" for the World Trade Centre bomb, according to reports at the time. There had been blowback.

How and why did the people behind Al-Kifah turn against America? The US cut off funding in 1991 to Mr Hekmatyar, both because the Russians had withdrawn from Afghanistan and because it had at last started to realise that backing Islamic fundamentalism was perhaps not the brightest idea the CIA had ever hatched. America had also gone to war against Iraq in 1991, and stationed troops in Saudi Arabia, outraging Mr bin Laden and other devout Muslims....read...."
Terror 'blowback' burns CIA - News - The Independent


"Blowback."

Click to expand...

Do you draw any conclusions from the fact that AQ was created and used as early as the Reagan administration?

vesper said:

Yes Rand Paul is playing politics. But while playing politics he and many forget one little important factor in regard to Cheney and Halliburton. Halliburton WAS the only damn company that had the means as far as equipment, mobility and manpower to handle the job in Iraq.

Click to expand...

I am certain that is a true statement, and have no problem with it.

I have no objection to private companies working and completing government contracts in war zones, and elsewhere. During my time in Vietnam it was civilian companies that maintained the building I spent a lot of time in. Air conditioning. Those guys maintained out building and we would do anything for them to keep us cool.

On our end, we provided them with the random helicopter ride somewhere they needed to go.

And it took me about 2 months in country to realize that the US had no business there, that the peasants of Vietnam were no threat to my country on the other side of the planet. To realize there was a bit of a game being played.

But I do object when those wars are brought under fraud.

Moot said:

Why stop at Clinton? Al Qaeda was formed, funded and trained by the US under Reagan and GHWBush's watch. Some of the 93' WTC terrorists were actually trained on US soil long before Clinton took office......



"....The US took a benign view of this at the time. The operation was, after all, assisting in the fight against Communism. As Mr Mohamed's presence showed, those associated with the US military were providing assistance to Al-Kifah. The recruits received brief paramilitary training and weapons instruction in the New York area, according to evidence in earlier trials, before being sent to fight with Mr Hekmatyar. Even Sheikh Abdel-Rahman had, apparently, entered the US with the full knowledge of the CIA in 1990.

But by the mid-1990s, America's view of Al-Kifah had changed. It discovered that several of those charged with the World Trade Centre bombing and the New York landmarks bombings were former Afghan veterans, recruited through the Brooklyn-based organisation. Many of those the US had trained and recruited for a war were still fighting: but now it was against America. A confidential CIA internal survey concluded that it was "partly culpable" for the World Trade Centre bomb, according to reports at the time. There had been blowback.

How and why did the people behind Al-Kifah turn against America? The US cut off funding in 1991 to Mr Hekmatyar, both because the Russians had withdrawn from Afghanistan and because it had at last started to realise that backing Islamic fundamentalism was perhaps not the brightest idea the CIA had ever hatched. America had also gone to war against Iraq in 1991, and stationed troops in Saudi Arabia, outraging Mr bin Laden and other devout Muslims....read...."
Terror 'blowback' burns CIA - News - The Independent


"Blowback."

Click to expand...

Go back a couple more years sugar to the Carter years where Carter USED the Mujahadeen to fight the Soviets. One of those fighters of the Mujahadeen was Osama Bin Laden. Carter armed them, trained them and paid them well. However, after they beat the Soviets, the U.S. didn't stick around to help build a war torn country and people there struggled and evil folks with extremist ideas came into power. The U.S. cut and run. which resulted in bin Laden and his men eventually turning on their former allies using their U.S.-provided weapons, ideology, and training on new targets. The straw that broke bin Laden's back began when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in the early '90s and the Saudi dictatorship became concerned that its own kingdom might be next. Bin Laden was ready to fight Saddam but was very much against Americans getting involved. George H. Bush responded to the Saudi's fears by sending U.S. troop and Saudi leadership allowed U.S. troops to help. This frosted bin Laden's flakes. After Desert Storm, 1991, Osama and his followers responded with the first Trade Center bombing. I wonder down the road how many more like Osama will pop up out of Iraq people that are feeling that the U.S. cut and run on them too.

I could have told him all that 13 years ago...:mrgreen:

Dick Cheney IS an evil war profiteer, so I don't see how this is controversial.

Amadeus said:

This is a few months old, but wow, I've never seen a Republican tear into another Republican like this. Rand Paul goes a step further than most liberals and says that Cheney orchestrated the Iraq War so that Haliburton could reap the profits. I'm a bit out of the loop. Is Rand Paul a mainstream Republican, or is he a fringe crazy?

Click to expand...

Rand Paul in my book is a bit like his father, a Libertarian in sheeps, Republican clothing. Rand is more like the old Republicans who were isolationist, not interventionist. It use to be the Democrats were the interventionist, not the Republicans. But the Vietnam War changed all of that.

I do not think Cheney engineered the Iraq war to make a profit. he just took advantage of it. But this reminds me of IKE's warning in his last speech to the nation, about the military industrial complex. I think a whole lot of our defense dollars goes to support our military industrial complex instead of our national security. Regardless of president, it seems they all are loath to cut the toys for the military, but more than willing to cut manpower in a heartbeat.