Former vice-president Dick Cheney should be put under the microscope again. This time, he said that there is no "evidence" of a link between Iraq and the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Well, Mr. Cheney, why did we invade Iraq then?
It is obvious. It was for the oil. The PNAC neocons, of which Cheney and Wolfowitz were members, wanted to dominate the middle east and the world. It was on their website for years. They wanted a "new Pearl Harbor" to expedite our entrance into the middle east. They got it a year later. IMO it was NOT a coincidence.
Then Wolfowitz lied about the Iraq connection and about WMD and cooked the evidence while telling the Europeans that Iraq was swimming on a sea of oil. Google it. I write about this quite a bit. There is more. This was a war crime.
The US went into Afghanistan because of Sept 11. They went into Iraq because of Saddam Hussein's supposed WMDs.
Weren't you listening Maddie? No Iraq connection. No Al Qaeda/Iraq connection. And it has already been proven that there is no WMD connection. They went in for the oil.
We went into Afghanistan to build a pipeline after we invited the Taliban to Texas and they refused a 100 million dollar bribe to build it for us. Cheney/Halliburton had investments in the Caspian and they had to have the pipeline to get the oil out.
We helped the Taliban with arms against Russia and we thought we could buy them off by a bribe. They went to Texas in 1997. Afghanistan was not a response to 9/11. No, it was a cause of 9/11.
You will not find much of this in the mainstream news because the American people have been brainwashed into being supportive of war crimes. Even one of our Iraq generals said it was all about the oil. http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/6532 … ut_oil%22/
The guy who prosecuted Charles Manson wanted Bush prosecuted for murder, but got little notice (despite his fame) from the mainstream press. He NEVER lost a murder case: http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/displa … /index.php
That's what I said. We didn't go into Iraq because of the terrorist attacks. We're agreed on that. And I purposefully included the word "supposed" before WMDs, since there were none, and there was no evidence of any before the invasion.
There's no need to be rude or condescend, even if I weren't agreeing with you.
I misunderstood you Maddie. I am so sorry.
I can't write about this subject so late in the game without being a little condescending, because there is so much out there to show people the lies of Bush by now
Yeah you are talking about Vincent Bugliosi. You can hear him speak in front of the Judiciary Committee here. He doesn't mince his words. We were wondering why it didn't hit the media too.
Yes they were "supposed" to go for Saddam but maybe on the way they forgot the actual purpose and hence thought to get some oil back home!
And they went to Afghanistan cz of 9/11 because there isn't any oil there!
But it has already been proven that there were no WMDs. Also, life seems to have been better under Saddam, at least from an Iraqi standpoint. At least under Saddam they had the basic necessities, like electricity and running water. Now all they have is anarchy and lawlessness.
But neocon empire building has no consideration for the interests of the little people anywhere. That is all PR. They were willing to work with Al Qaida as long as they did what they were told. Besides inviting them to Texas they gave Al Qaida arms to fight the Russians. We created the jihad!
Scroll back up, I've already explained that this is why I included the word "supposed."
Yeah, I'm no longer surprised when he blatantly contradicts something he said before. Too sad.
I've always said about him & his pals that they must either be reeeeally stupid or that they think we are....
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic … riage.html
Look at Cheney gett'n with the program! WTF?
Not to sound dumb, (but here I go anyway), where is that oil? I mean, seriously, we never hear about it. It's like the oil fields just kind of vanished. Oil in Iraq? Rilly? There's oil there? lol!
OK, it's not funny, but it's kind of funny. In a dark, horrible way.
Pam, Here is a source and the quote that answers your question explaining where it went: http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/c … 40693.html
In February 2007, in line with the constitution, the draft hydrocarbon law the Iraqi government presented to parliament kept oil and gas in the state sector. It also stipulated recreating a single Iraqi National Oil Company that would be charged with doling out oil income to the provinces on a per-capita basis. The Bush administration latched onto that provision to hype the 43-article Iraqi bill as a key to reconciliation between Sunnis and Shiites -- since the Sunni areas of Iraq lack hydrocarbons -- and so included it (as did Congress) in its list of "benchmarks" the Iraqi government had to meet.
Overlooked by Washington was the way that particular article, after mentioning revenue-sharing, stated that a separate Federal Revenue Law would be necessary to settle the matter of distribution -- the first draft of which was only published four months later in June. Far more than revenue sharing and reconciliation, though, what really interested the Bush White House were the mouthwatering incentives for foreign firms to invest in Iraq's hydrocarbon industry contained in the draft law. They promised to provide ample opportunities to America's Oil Majors to reap handsome profits in an oil-rich Iraq whose vast western desert had yet to be explored fully for hydrocarbons. So Bush pressured the Iraqi government to get the necessary law passed before the parliament's vacation in August -- to no avail.
The Bush administration's failure to achieve its short-term objectives does not detract from the overarching fact -- established by the copious evidence marshaled in this article -- that gaining privileged access to Iraqi oil for American companies was a primary objective of the Pentagon's invasion of Iraq.
Thank you bgamall. Amazing. They couldn't even accomplish the one slimy 'good' reason for going in, which was what I thought probably happened, but that's even more maddening somehow. Thank you for the link.
Looks like oil is on the way back up again now, too.
What a mess.
Here is something I wrote in another forum just the other day.
You know I got asked the other day what my thoughts were on 'ole Dickie Boy. And I said, "The only reason he is spouting and defending the Bush administration's defense policy- is because he is covering up his tracks, and deterring all directed attention towards him and Bush for war crimes against humanity." So far, he has managed to do a damn good job of it.
Now that he has stepped out as a for runner of the GOP party, Cheney has now wiggled his way out of prosecutions sight and has been able to establish his positioning where Obama would never dare press the issue of being a war criminal. For anybody to think that Dick Cheney is for the American people, and not for himself is well...., is grossly ignorant.
He has raped, robbed and cheated the American tax payers out of so much money, and has been the cause of death for every American who has died over there. He is as crooked as it gets. He is a traitor and murderer. Now, I don't know too many American soldiers who'd follow a traitor like that, for very long. Cheney counts on the fact that the American people are dumb. He honestly feels this way. And so far, he is been right. We just trot along and think nothing about what he has done or what he is doing. However, the one area that he has made a mistake in miscalculating, was to under estimate the intelligence of our brave American soldiers. They can smell a rat. And pretty soon- if Cheney doesn't fade off into the shadows soon- he will wished he had. Because once he loses the support of the military, he is in trouble. But you wait and see; Cheney is no fool. He has just about served his purpose for being so out spoken, and in another month- nobody will hear a peep out of him. No, Dickie boy will be sitting in his lazyboy recliner, drinking beer and thinking how he suckers us again. And after all that's all that Dick Cheney cares about.
If you get sometime see this documentary - IRAQ FOR SALE: The War Profiteers. It was available for free in Comcast couple of months ago in On Demand section under Documentaries.
by Susan Reid5 years ago
(Reuters) - Former President George W. Bush has canceled a visit to Switzerland, where he was to address a Jewish charity gala, due to the risk of legal action against him for alleged torture, rights groups said on...
by Ralph Deeds6 years ago
The foreign policy establishment, for the most part including the New York Times editorial page, has called our military activities in Afghanistan a "necessary war," in contrast to our invasion of Iraq....
by Deforest2 years ago
John Paul Leonard stated :"At the end of August 2007, with Bush beating the drums for war on Iran, a highly unusual thing occurred: a "rogue B-52" laden with six nuclear missiles flew from Minot, North...
by BristolBoy7 years ago
With the news that a further 8 UK service personnel have died in Afghanistan in the last 24 hours it means that deaths in this war now exceed those due to the Iraq conflict. As a result calls are increasing for...
by My Esoteric2 years ago
One of President Bush's arguments for invading Iraq was the strong Hussain-al Qaeda connection. The anti-Iraq invasion group said there was only very skimpy evidence of that and much stronger evidence that such an...
by tobey1006 years ago
On March 31st Obama gave a speech announcing his decision to allow new offshore drilling for oil. He and the members of his 'green team' made the dicision to approve after reviewing the subject for more than a...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.