We all know the bind Cheney was in with Halliburton when he donned the crown of Vice President. He cooked the books and he wanted a way out. Iraq was a convenient country to invade. Saddam Hussein frequently fired his gun off on his balcony and for the purpose of rubbing Cheney and Bush's nose in it.
From Michael Moore (click here):
Published on Thursday, August 19, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
How Dick Cheney Got Away With $35 Million Right Before he Government Launched a Probe into Halliburton (ciick here)
By Jason Leopold
It i obvious that no mainstream news reporter has the gumption to seriously question Vice President Dick Cheney's ethics when he was chief executive of Halliburton, the oil-field services company that is currently embroiled in a scandal with the Pentagon due to it's questionable accounting practices related to it's work in wartorn Iraq.
Pity those journalists because this is the stuff Pulitzers are made of . What's even more remarkable is that there's reams of documents in the public domain showing how Cheney cooked the books when he was CEO of Halliburton, which makes the vice president look like Ken Lay's twin brother. The evidence is beginning to collect dust. To tell the story of how Cheney's Halliburton used accounting sleight of hand to fool investors all you need to do is connect the dots, which is what this story will do.
Let's start with a bit of old news. A couple of weeks ago Halliburton agreed to pay a $7.5 million fine to settle a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission probe related to a 1998 change in the way Halliburton accounted for construction revenue. The commission says the undisclosed accounting change caused Halliburton's public statements regarding its income in 1998 and 1999 to be materially misleading, boosting Halliburton's profit on paper by $120 million...
Cheney and Saddam had something in common, power.
When Bush invaded Iraq he unleashed MISTRUST of the USA in the global community. The entire world was with us after September 11, 2001, but, that radically changed as WMD was politicized and Iraq was then the target.
There it is, "...we went into Iraq for very good reasons...." Such as?
The Surge makes me laugh. Somehow the nation is suppose to believe 'The Surge' was a magical answer to the civil war within Iraq. The Surge killed people. It killed Iraqis. Of course it worked. There were less Iraqis to fight the civil war. The Iraqis learned that fighting the USA meant death. The USA was the ultimate warlord. I don't know if there is a body count when "The Surge" was launched, but, it was simply slaughtering people in order to dominate the country. The Surge is still what is the problem today. The rebels simply laid low until they had a chance to regain footing. The same thing happened in Afghanistan.
But, Cheney hangs on to those words "The Surge" as if it was something that actually changed the landscape. It didn't change a darn thing, it simply killed more people.
I think it is time the USA stopped killing people. Obviously, Mr. Cheney disagrees. When then? When does the USA stop using death as a means to control nations? Never? The USA is suppose to occupy every nation it invades such as South Korea? That is nonsense. If the USA needs to dominate countries, what does that say about our country? Is the USA so completely out of step with humanity it has to kill and control in order to exist?
Cheney bellyaches about the number of USA soldiers being left behind in Baghdad. 20,000? He simply wants a ready force to rule the country. The USA military was Maliki's private militia. Makiki never had peace in Iraq, he had the USA military. The civil war was simply to be thought of as 'insurgents' and 'terrorists' and 'dead enders.' There was only 'the end game to clean up.' What the USA was doing by leaving behind 20,000 troops was immoral from the standpoint that the USA was maintaining the peace and not the people. The citizens are suppose maintain the peace. They are suppose to run their own country.
20,000 USA troops lead by USA generals and commanders would continue to destablize Iraq. Today, the Kurds are strong enough to form their own independent state. Would that have happened if the USA dominated Iraq? Heck no, the USA military would have seen the Kurds as a threat to the Maliki government and would have confronted them as insurgents.
"The result was an Iraqi military that was unable to stand up to the terrorists." Does Cheney ever listen to his own words? Somehow the number of American troops in Iraq was suppose insure a democracy without conflict or war. 20,000 rather than 3,000 was a better presence to insure the USA had control over Iraq.
What Mr. Cheney stated was, "The result was an Iraqi military that was unable to stand up to the terrorists." Is that right? So, how is 20,000 troops going to change that? It wouldn't. All 20,000 USA troops would insure is the best outcome of what the USA prioritized as important for Iraq and it's people.
Was Iraq never to have a military that could stand up to the terrorists? Nearly a decade and the result was an Iraqi military that was unable to stand up to terrorists.
"...extremists would have to rethink their strategy of jihad. Nearly a trillion dollars spent there with 4500 American lives lost there. What do you say to those that say you (Mr. Cheney) was so wrong about so much at the expense of so many?"
"No, I just fundamentally disagree..."
Right. There weren't over 4500 Americans lost, there wasn't nearly a trillion US spent? But, yet the entire statement is fundamentally wrong.
Mr. Cheney cannot admit the intelligence was extremely flawed. He cannot admit the 'intelligence' leading to the Iraq invasion was as cooked as Halliburton's books. He CANNOT. If he ever admitted he was wrong and the invasion was a travesty, he'd be facing his own peril.
Is everything 'not quite accurate?' Dick Cheney is the only accurate man in the entire of Washington and the world? My goodness Mr. Cheney can read minds. He 'believes' Maliki thought the USA didn't want a Status of Forces agreement. Wow. Cheney 'believes' he knows everything Maliki thinks. Some kind of talent.
He never has given up that 'magical thinking,' has he? I 'believe' therefore it is.
Just because President Obama states the same thing about Iraq as his predecessors, doesn't mean he is correct either. The only person that appears to be correct is Vice President Biden at this point. President Obama won't even recognize VP Biden's assessment. That is a shame. Maybe things would have moved along quite nicely without the "ISIS Surge."
Oh, dear, Liz Cheney states President Obama didn't do his job. Hm. And of course she knows what his job is in these circumstances. I mean this is President of the USA. Who writes his job description?
See, Mr. Maliki followed Mr. Cheney in 'believing' President Obama didn't want to leave any USA troops in Iraq. So, because Mr. Maliki is a spineless ninny and can't speak up for the needs of Iraq, there was no Status of Forces agreement. I think it takes at least two signatures. Not only that, but, I would think the Status of Forces Agreement would include Iraqi soldiers as well as USA forces. That was the deal with the American people. The American people believed the entire time we were fighting this insane civil war there would be 'As Iraqi forces stand up, the USA would stand down.' Didn't I hear that from somewhere?
The Bush/Cheney administration IS responsible here. They lied, they cooked up the Cabal and they betrayed the trust of allies. Somehow that reality escapes Liz Cheney. We would not even be in Iraq if "When Bush lies people die." Somehow Ms. Cheney forgets that very important point.
By Evelyn Leopold and Nadim Ladki
1-10-3
President Obama's desire is to weaken the nation. Hm. Indeed, it is easy to see it was never the Bush/Cheney administration that weakened the nation, it was that sly Kenyan in the White House pulling the strings the entire time.The near enemy vs. the far enemy (click here)
One of the truly unique and dangerous elements of Al Qaeda’s brand of terrorism is its transnational nature. Bin Laden and many of his followers derided the governments of most Muslim-majority nations, in particular Saudi Arabia and Egypt, as apostates. Yet instead of targeting these governments, often referred to as the “near enemy,” Al Qaeda believed that destroying their U.S. and Western allies, the “far enemy,” would more effectively lead to the downfall of apostate Arab regimes. The group’s transnational aims and focus on the United States made it unique among terrorist organizations and brought jihadist terrorism to American soil.
Over the last decade, the United States has demonstrated the enormous costs associated with making it a target. When coupled with the death of bin Laden, the most effective advocate for this strategy, the near enemy/far enemy balance has shifted decidedly in favor of the near enemy. Al Qaeda affiliates, with the possible exception of AQAP, seem much more concerned about attacking domestic targets as opposed to spending their resources on a much more difficult attack on the other side of the planet.
