Author Topic: WATCH: Rand Paul Says Dick Cheney Pushed for the Iraq War so Halliburton Would Profit  (Read 395 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 250,352
WATCH: Rand Paul Says Dick Cheney Pushed for the Iraq War so Halliburton Would Profit
As the ex-veep blasts Paul for being an isolationist, old video shows the Kentucky senator charging that Cheney used 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq and benefit his former company.

—By David Corn | Mon Apr. 7, 2014 3:00 AM PDT




Last week, continuing the sometimes catty intra-party feud between Republican hawks and GOPers skeptical of foreign interventions, Vice President Dick Cheney took a shot at Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). But Paul is not likely to be fazed by criticism from the former vice president, for several years ago the Kentucky senator was pushing the conspiratorial notion that Cheney exploited the horrific 9/11 attacks to lead the nation into war in Iraq in order to benefit Halliburton, the enormous military contractor where Cheney had once been CEO.

Speaking at a private Las Vegas gathering of Republican funders and activists on March 29, Cheney blasted what he termed isolationists within the GOP. "One of the things that concerns me first about the [2016]  campaign, that I'm worried about," Cheney said, "is what I sense to be an increasing strain of isolationism, if I can put it in those terms, in our own party." He didn't name names, but he didn't have to—at least, in one case. He obviously had Rand Paul in mind. And Cheney, who also approvingly talked about bombing Iran, chided the unmentioned Paul and other less hawkish GOPers for having not learned the supposed lessons of 9/11.

Cheney's remarks were the latest round in the tussle between the Republican Party's hawks and intervention skeptics. A year ago, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) referred to Paul, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), and other Republicans unenthusiastic about drone strikes as "wacko birds."

But years before this dust-up began, Paul was on the attack against Cheney. In not widely noticed appearances on the campaign trail, Paul claimed that Cheney's advocacy of the invasion of Iraq was partly nefarious and predicated on corporate self-interest, not national security priorities.

On April 7, 2009, as Paul was on the cusp of announcing his senatorial bid, he spoke to student Republicans at Western Kentucky University. Recalling President Dwight Eisenhower's warning about the military-industrial complex, he noted, "we need to be fearful of companies that get so big that they can actually be directing policy." And the company he had in mind was Cheney's former home: "When the Iraq war started, Halliburton got a billion-dollar no-bid contract. Some of the stuff has been so shoddy and so sloppy that our soldiers are over there dying in the shower from electrocution. I mean, it shouldn't be sloppy work, it shouldn't be bad procurement process. But it really shouldn't be that these people are so powerful that they direct even policy."




« Last Edit: April 07, 2014, 09:57:34 AM by mystery-ak »

Support the USO

Online mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 250,352

Support the USO

Online jmyrlefuller

  • J. Myrle Fuller
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 12,314
  • There's no one out there quite like me.
    • Fullervision
David Corn.

Hmm.

This is the same guy behind the 47% tape.
"Just because people in positions of authority are stupid, it doesn’t mean you have to go along with it." —Arlo Guthrie

Online mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 250,352
David Corn.

Hmm.

This is the same guy behind the 47% tape.

Well they are clearly out to get Paul..they will throw everything they can at him until something sticks..

Support the USO

Offline AbaraXas

  • Просто никто
  • Social Media Advisor
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11,280
  • Просто никто
I watched the video to hear what the title implied and it wasn't there. There was the typical 'be wary of the military industrial complex' but that doesn't say at all 'Cheney used 9/11 to profit Halliburton'. Instead, it was a warning against one company dominating a field so much, they don't have competition and could direct policy.
Никогда не обманывайте себя мыслью, что вы «влияете» или вносите изменения в Интернет. Это эфемерное удовольствие.

Offline alicewonders

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 13,053
  • Live life-it's too short to butt heads w buttheads
Well they are clearly out to get Paul..they will throw everything they can at him until something sticks..

Yep.  Paul is making inroads and now he's going to get the Christie treatment. 

Don't tread on me.   8888madkitty

We told you Trump would win - bigly!

Offline sinkspur

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 28,599
Well, if Rand still believes Cheney maneuvered the Iraq War to benefit Halliburton, he's as nutty as his old man.

On the other hand, Americans have war fatigue, and Cheney is old news with his Kristol-like urgency to want to engage Iran militarily. 
From  "A Shining City on a Hill"

To "A global laughingstock"

Offline massadvj

  • Editorial Advisor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,083
    • Auktion Online
The headline implied that the statement is recent ("says" versus "said") and that Paul directly linked Cheney's motivation with Halliburton, which he did not.  Taking a five year old comment out of context is just a feeble attempt to stir things up in the hopes that Republicans will destroy themselves.
"She only coughs when she lies."

Online truth_seeker

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 17,046
  • Common Sense Results Oriented Conservative Veteran
    • The place where argument addicts can go
Rand Paul notwithstanding, granting sole-source (no bid) contracts to Halliburton was very, very stupid and arrogant.

It was the type of thing which wore, and wore on a rational person., such as me. I asked myself, why do such an openly transparent thing, when it was not necessary?


Offline aligncare

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 18,675
  • Congrats Donald Trump! 45th POTUS!
Rand Paul notwithstanding, granting sole-source (no bid) contracts to Halliburton was very, very stupid and arrogant.

It was the type of thing which wore, and wore on a rational person., such as me. I asked myself, why do such an openly transparent thing, when it was not necessary?



Halliburton is the proven leader in supply logistics. They're the best at what they do – no other company compares. Bush used them, Clinton used them, W used them and Obama uses them. They supply frontline troops on time and on budget.

Why should we want to put the lives of our troops in the hands of the lowest bidder?
Some #NeverTrumpers are like the pockets of Japanese who didn't know the war was over

Online truth_seeker

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 17,046
  • Common Sense Results Oriented Conservative Veteran
    • The place where argument addicts can go
Halliburton is the proven leader in supply logistics. They're the best at what they do – no other company compares. Bush used them, Clinton used them, W used them and Obama uses them. They supply frontline troops on time and on budget.

Why should we want to put the lives of our troops in the hands of the lowest bidder?
"The proven leader" takes it a bit far, insofar as there ARE other firms which bid on and won contracts for similar services.

And in performing their no-bid contracts in Iraq, Halliburton had several reports of outrageous pricing, no documentation for outrageous invoicings, etc.

Not to even mention that many of these functions and services used to be performed by the military, itself.

The appearance of bias rang out, connecting Cheney, who I like, and Halliburton, who is just a company.

 

Offline sinkspur

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 28,599
Halliburton is the proven leader in supply logistics. They're the best at what they do – no other company compares. Bush used them, Clinton used them, W used them and Obama uses them. They supply frontline troops on time and on budget.

Why should we want to put the lives of our troops in the hands of the lowest bidder?

Exactly.  No other company provided the comprehensive services that Halliburton did, which is why Clinton sole-sourced them in Kosovo and Bush sole-sourced them in Iraq and Obama's administration CONTINUED that sole-sourcing.

I like Rand Paul, but he's got a lot of his daddy in him, which makes me nervous as hell. 

Trashing Dick Cheney appeals to the Libertarians and Independents who view him as the devil incarnate.    Rand knows this.

This statement (yes, made five years ago) is not unlike Jeb Bush's nonsensical "crossing the border illegally is an act of love."    Both are dumb and complicate their efforts with mainstream Republicans.
From  "A Shining City on a Hill"

To "A global laughingstock"

Online jmyrlefuller

  • J. Myrle Fuller
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 12,314
  • There's no one out there quite like me.
    • Fullervision
Quote
Exactly.  No other company provided the comprehensive services that Halliburton did, which is why Clinton sole-sourced them in Kosovo and Bush sole-sourced them in Iraq and Obama's administration CONTINUED that sole-sourcing.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what antitrust law is supposed to prevent.
"Just because people in positions of authority are stupid, it doesn’t mean you have to go along with it." —Arlo Guthrie

Offline aligncare

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 18,675
  • Congrats Donald Trump! 45th POTUS!
Antitrust is not consideration in matters of military preparedness and safety of our troops. War should not be a commercial enterprise subject to market forces. The only consideration should be how to "get 'er done" without suffering losses.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2014, 07:51:48 AM by aligncare »
Some #NeverTrumpers are like the pockets of Japanese who didn't know the war was over


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf