It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rand Paul: Dick Cheney used 9/11 as excuse to invade Iraq for the benefit of Halliburton

page: 3
46
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 07:03 AM
link   
When I was young, I was told that the only thing a man really has is his reputation.
When a man dies he can't take anything with him and he will leave behind the only thing that counts; the memory of his reputation.
In the case of too many people, they try to emass a pile of money and a power, none of which they can ever truely enjoy. They have to always defend it while they are alive so they can not "retire" and enjoy the fruits of their work. After they die, their relatives will fight over what they leave, so they have even sown discourse after their death.
In the case of those who have knowingly sent our young to wars for their own profit; I don't know about the "afterlife" so I think things would be best served if they could die very very slowly and be given time to reflect on what they have done during their lives.




posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


So instead of Israel, this time it's China's turn? Just how many have their hands in our cookie jar??? (rhetorical)

I like Ron Paul
Rand Paul, - not so much.
edit on 8-4-2014 by Fylgje because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 07:16 AM
link   
We don't need more people telling is the obvious. Its well known Bush and Cheney with the help of Bush Snr's old friends lied to the world and invaded Iraq under false pretenses for financial gain.

We DO need more people to provide proof!



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


Rand Paul 2016!



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 08:06 AM
link   
Possibly sitting on a rather large supply of diamonds and lithium too! Seems alot of countries are always interested in walking over Afghanistan.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 08:33 AM
link   
Well if you followed the money

You hit the nail on the head,



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 09:14 AM
link   
I actually find myself agreeing with this, their is no doubt that some American Neoconservatives saw 9/11 as the catalyst to propel themselves back onto the political stage and promote a very aggressive foreign policy, and it is true that they sought to use 9/11 as a excuse at one point for invading Iraq.

And i would not doubt that this has had financial benefits for lots of American corporations.

There is one hugely important fact to remember however, saying that 9/11 was advantageous for some neoconservatives does not mean that they or anyone action on their behalf where behind 9/11. It is a massive leap to go from saying that the neocons tried to used 9/11 as a excuse to invade Iraq to saying there where behind the 9/11 attacks so they could invade Iraq.

A very quick and simple way to demonstrate this is to simply ask the following.

If "they" where really behind the attacks of 9/11 then why not replace Bin Laden with Saddam or even put a couple of Iraqi citizens in the frame as hijackers?



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 09:17 AM
link   
America invaded those countries to give freedom and democracy, also prevented terr... terriis...terrorizors from raping America.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 





If "they" where really behind the attacks of 9/11 then why not replace Bin Laden with Saddam or even put a couple of Iraqi citizens in the frame as hijackers?


if you remember correctly they said that saddam along with his wmds' supported terrorists.

just one quote from cheney's book.




Even with benefit of hindsight Saddam was nexus of terrorism The president and I were determined to do all we could to prevent another attack, and our resolution was made stronger by the awareness that a future attack could be even more devastating. The terrorists of 9/11 were armed with airplane tickets and box cutters. The next wave might bring chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. When we looked around the world in those first months after 9/11, there was no place more likely to be a nexus between terrorism and WMD capability than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. With the benefit of hindsight--even taking into account that some of the intelligence we received was wrong--that assessment still holds true. We could not ignore the threat or wish it away, hoping naively that the crumbling sanctions regime would contain Saddam. The security of our nation and of our friends and allies required that we act. And so we did. Source: In My Time, by V.P. Dick Cheney, p.369 , Aug 30, 2011



here is a link for other quotes from cheney.
Dick Cheney on War & Peace

edit on 8-4-2014 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by hounddoghowlie
 


Yes that was essentially the Bush doctrine, these guys could become a threat to the National Security of the United States so we have a justification to attack them first.

So they spouted off all this crap about how Iraq might end up providing WMDs to terrorists on bad intelligence and so on.

Believe me I am no supporter of the war in Iraq I have spent quite a bit of time looking at the flawed intelligence in the run up to the war. I would even go as far as to say there there is at the very least some kind of conspiracy behind it all.

But at the same time I am saying is that the Iraq and 9/11 conspiracies are essentially two different things, yes they wanted to use 9/11 as a excuse to invade Iraq but in my mind that does not mean that they (the neocons) where behind 9/11 only that they used it to their advantage.

I would also add that I think it is sick that they done that, used the deaths of almost 3000 fellow country men to promote their warmongering agenda.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by CB328
 


Halliburton won the contract with the federal gov't under the Clinton Administration.....



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 



buster2010
This is another reason why Paul won't get the nomination for president. The war machine will not allow anyone into office that stands in the way of their profit.


Agreed.

I agree with Rand Paul (it doesn't happen often) but I think he's bringing this up to rile up a certain segment of the voting public. Unfortunately for him, it will turn away another segment of the party, making it a wash for him.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 11:54 AM
link   

nwtrucker
reply to post by CB328
 


Halliburton won the contract with the federal gov't under the Clinton Administration.....


Wrong. It was under Bush #1 that Halliburton began LOGCAP work (in 1992), "Logistics Civil Augmentation Program", by the Clinton-era Pentagon, it would only retain the Balkan portion of their LOGCAP contract.

Cheney had always been close to Halliburton, as Defense Secretary awarding it contracts under Bush #1, as CEO extending LOGCAP contracts, as Vice President under Bush #2 giving Halliburton no-bid contracts in Iraq.

THE TRUTH ABOUT HALLIBURTON

Halliburton actually lost their "Master Contract" under Clinton, he didn't renew it.

In fact it was under Cheney's that the whole scheme of a "Master Contract" and privatization of the DoD began. Here is a bit of History on Cheney's 1992 Privatization of DOD & Halliburton:


Early in 1991 the secretary unveiled a plan to reduce military strength by the mid-1990s to 1.6 million, compared to 2.2 million when he entered office. In his budget proposal for FY 1993, his last one, Cheney asked for termination of the B-2 program at 20 aircraft, cancellation of the Midgetman, and limitations on advanced cruise missile purchases to those already authorized. When introducing this budget, Cheney complained that Congress had directed Defense to buy weapons it did not want, including the V-22, M-1 tanks, and F-14 and F-16 aircraft, and required it to maintain some unneeded reserve forces. His plan outlined about $50 billion less in budget authority over the next 5 years than the Bush administration had proposed in 1991. Sen. Sam Nunn of the Senate Armed Services Committee said that the 5-year cuts ought to be $85 billion, and Rep. Les Aspin of the House Armed Services Committee put the figure at $91 billion.

Most of the contracts have been with the U.S. Army for engineering work in a variety of hot spots, including Bosnia, Albania, Kosovo and Haiti. Not surprisingly all this work stems from a new scheme to privatize operations of the U.S. military that were drawn up by Halliburton itself under contract to Cheney in 1992.

The U.S. military has always relied on private contractors to provide some basic services such as construction, dating back as far as the Civil War. But today as much as 10% of the emergency U.S. army operations overseas are contracted out to private companies run by former government and military officials. These private companies operate with no public oversight despite the fact that these contractors work just behind the battle lines. The companies are allowed to make up to nine percent in profit out of these war support efforts. And experience so far has shown that the companies are not above skimming more profits off the top if they can.

(...)

The new job is one of the first examples of a lucrative, new ten-year contract that Kellogg, Brown & Root won from the Pentagon on December 14, 2001 titled Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP). The contract is what the Pentagon calls a "cost-plus-award-fee, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity service," which basically means that the federal government has an open-ended mandate and budget to send Kellogg, Brown & Root anywhere in the world to run humanitarian or military operations for profit.

The Revolving Door

Halliburton, Kellogg, Brown & Root's parent company, is a Fortune 500 construction corporation working primarily for the oil industry. In the early 1990s the company was awarded the job to study and then implement privatization of routine army functions under Dick Cheney, then secretary of defense.

(...)

When Cheney quit his job at the Pentagon, he landed the job as chief executive of Halliburton, bringing with him, his trusted deputy David Gribbin. The two substantially increased Halliburton's government business until they quit in 2000 when Cheney was elected vice-president, taking multi-million dollar golden parachutes with them. Since then, another former military office and Cheney confidante, Admiral Joe Lopez, former commander in chief for U.S. forces in southern Europe, took over Gribbin's former job of go-between the government and the company, according to Kellogg, Brown & Root's own press releases. Other close friends include Richard Armitage, the assistant secretary of state, who worked as a consultant to Halliburton before taking up his present job.

(...)

Running services at military camps is a relatively new chore for Kellogg, Brown & Root that began in 1992 when the Pentagon, then under Cheney's direction, paid the company $3.9 million to produce a classified report detailing how private companies (like itself) could help provide logistics for American troops in potential war zones around the world. (see related article) Later in 1992, the Pentagon gave the company an additional $5 million to update its report.

That same year, Kellogg, Brown & Root won its first five-year logistical support contract from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that would send them into work alongside G.I.s in places like Somalia, Haiti, Kosovo, Bosnia, and Saudi Arabia. The Balkan contract has been the most profitable for Kellogg, Brown & Root -- the General Accounting Office (GAO) estimates that the company made $2.2 billion in revenue during the U.S. military operations there building sewage systems, kitchens, and showers and even washing underwear for the 20,000 U.S. soldiers stationed there.

(...)

The allegations in the case first surfaced several years ago when Dammen Gant Campbell, a former contracts manager for Kellogg, Brown & Root, turned whistle-blower and charged that between 1994 and 1998 the company fraudulently inflated project costs by misrepresenting the quantities, quality and types of materials required for 224 projects. Campbell said that the company submitted a detailed "contractors pricing proposal" from an Army manual containing fixed prices for some 30,000 line items.

Once the proposal was approved, the company submitted a more general "statement of work" which did not contain a detailed breakdown of items to be purchased. Then, according to Campbell, Kellogg, Brown & Root intentionally did not deliver many items listed in the original proposal. The company defends this practice by claiming that the "statement of work" was the legally binding document, not the original "contractors pricing proposal."


LOGCAP as a program began in 1985 (under Reagan), but it was awarded through a bid process to any number of contractors.

LOGCAP and Halliburton

Again, Halliburton won their Master Contract under LOGCAP in 1992, with Cheney as Defense Sec and Bush #1 as president. They LOST their Master Contract in 1997 under Clinton. It was re-awarded in 2001 with no-bid under Bush #2 and Cheney as VP.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 12:00 PM
link   

nwtrucker
Well, that knocks Rand Paul off my favorites for president list.


Your favorites for president doesn't matter. Look for the candidates with the closest ties to the Bush family. They are the political controllers/handlers for the USA. I'm not saying they are the only controllers, as there are many other people/families and corporations that have influence. What I am saying is that the Bush family is primarily responsible for political vetting of both Democrat and Republican candidates.

The list that best serves the people doesn't amount to a small pile of horse s#!t.

For example, look how old this picture is - before ANYONE in the national public knew who Clinton was (circa 1983 - the year he was elected Governor of Arkansas):


The guy George HW Bush is shaking hands with is Governor George Wallace (Democrat). This was of course after his 1972 assassination attempt when he was on his vying for Democratic bid for the 1972 Presidential campaign. The assassination attempt left him paralyzed. (He was a big threat to Nixon, so strange indeed that he was "taken out.")

Rand Paul may become a threat, expect something to happen to remove him as a threat so that "business as usual" can continue. Rand Paul won't be allowed to be president. The way Ron Paul, his father, was treated and marginalized by the MSM and Republican Party proves how Rand will be treated.




posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


Really! I had seen a report that said it in the Clinton era. I have no idea what article that was...too old, I guess. LOL. I stand corrected.

Let me say that I've had huge skepticism on the Cheney rant/argument. Let me explain why.

First and foremost, the unending attacks on virtually every Republican President, candidate, cabinet member or activist that I can recall.

The list is long and distinguished, to say the least. If one just looks at G.W.'s era, Off the top, they went after Condi, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush himself, later.

If one cries wolf often enough, one will be ignored.

The Cheney (diatribe?) got traction. Largely due to the "oil connection". (By the way, where's all those "oil/pipeline deals" that the Republicans were accused of in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars?? None, zip, nada.)

Did Halliburton clean up? Sure! But so did Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Medical supply industries, MRE manufacturers, tank builders, on and on.

Seeing more Republicans come from the private sector than Democrats, is it any surprise that one member of the Bush Administration would have high connection to one of those many industries that "profit"? I think not. Almost inevitable..

That's why all Republicans are crooks? Or a very convenient avenue for attack?

On a personal level, I have yet to meet anyone, ever, that "owed" a previous employer. More like the one finger salute than anything.

Cheney was, perhaps, hired to use his influence/connections to enhance Halliburton's position. So what? There isn't a single major corporation that doesn't "lobby"/push their interests, and yes, that includes those companies that benefit from democrat agendas as much as Republican. he received his "compensation". Hugely. So have many, many others received incredible compensations for their services.

Now add in all those bright people in the Bush Administration that weren't connected to Halliburton, the Condi's et al, and you think Cheney trumped all those advisors and Bush bought into it?

Even if all the above are, indeed "facts", they are culled from the my "facts"/overview and conveniently omit that overview.

The brilliance of it is it isn't an impossible scenario. Taken within the overall picture...I say BULL#....probably, LMAO.


edit on 8-4-2014 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by nwtrucker
 





and you think Cheney trumped all those advisors and Bush bought into it?


Absolutely, especially since he was saying the things that bush wanted to hear.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by WCmutant
 


Wow. The bush family vets the dems??

Your gonna have to explain that one to me...LOL. This is a hoot...LMAO....



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by nwtrucker
 


Clinton was just at the NCAA champ game last night with the bush family... They are friends and business partners
Was a great game tho



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Sremmos80
 


Hmmm. I'd say possibly. Certainly not "absolutely". When added to rest of my points-again, just my view of it-I remain skeptical, to say the least.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 01:21 PM
link   

nwtrucker
reply to post by Sremmos80
 


Hmmm. I'd say possibly. Certainly not "absolutely". When added to rest of my points-again, just my view of it-I remain skeptical, to say the least.


Fair to remain skeptical on the fact of bush only listening to cheney and not the other advisers, but that is assuming they all are on a different page then cheney. I for one think they all were on the same talk track, looking for the same things. So I don't think it was cheney going above the other advisers, maybe he was a couple pages ahead of them but they all had the same end game.




top topics



 
46
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join