Jump to content
Clubplanet Nightlife Community
Sign in to follow this  
Guest endymion

Failure of Bush Iraq "plan" hands WMD components to terrorists

Recommended Posts

Guest endymion

The security vacuum created by our invasion has led to the theft of a bunch of dual-use nuclear equipment, including enriched uranium. The "yellow cake" uranium is the same stuff that Bush accused Saddam of trying to buy through Nigeria, as a justification for invading Iraq.

I don't need to comment much on this one do I? Think about this the next time you see Bush grin and tell the cameras that America is safer now after the invasion.

It was (false) yellow cake uranium suspicions that supposedly justified our invasion, but securing the nuclear material that we really truly knew to be present at monitored locations in Iraq was a lower priority than securing oil fields, pipelines, and lucrative long-term contracts for American business interests.

Justifications For Invading Iraq

1) WMD, "imminent threat"

2) al Qaeda, "hard evidence"

3) financial gain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest endymion

I can see you twisting this into those facilities that we had secured and were monitoring before the war becoming active WMD programs. These facilities were intact and were being monitored by the UN until we gave up on that process and invaded.

NOW they are terrorist WMD programs, since we stopped monitoring them so that we could start guzzling oil. We know right exactly where all of the oil is because we're looking for it. Bush and Cheney had the oil reserve maps out before September 11, 2001. We don't know where the nuclear materials are even though we used to before we invaded because we had zero post-invasion plan and because WMD were never the real issue in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest web_norah

i dont think Haliburton is entirely false - sorry. i've gone on that website before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest slamminshaun

Read it again, here's the quote from that website.

A Kerry ad implies Cheney has a financial interest in Halliburton and is profiting from the company's contracts in Iraq. The fact is, Cheney doesn't gain a penny from Halliburton's contracts, and almost certainly won't lose even if Halliburton goes bankrupt.

The ad claims Cheney got $2 million from Halliburton "as vice president," which is false. Actually, nearly $1.6 million of that was paid before Cheney took office. More importantly, all of it was earned before he was a candidate, when he was the company's chief executive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JMT

Haliburton.

www.factcheck.org <--true non-partison website that gives preference to neither candidate. Haliburton accusations, simply untrue.

they are either too stubborn too look or admit, (i already tried that in a other thread with a detailed article posted in the washington post). i guess its just too easy to spout out a subjective case with zero evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest web_norah

Read it again, here's the quote from that website.

A Kerry ad implies Cheney has a financial interest in Halliburton and is profiting from the company's contracts in Iraq. The fact is, Cheney doesn't gain a penny from Halliburton's contracts, and almost certainly won't lose even if Halliburton goes bankrupt.

The ad claims Cheney got $2 million from Halliburton "as vice president," which is false. Actually, nearly $1.6 million of that was paid before Cheney took office. More importantly, all of it was earned before he was a candidate, when he was the company's chief executive

so why did Cheney deny that he made money on Haliburton? even if it was before office....? thats all i want to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest endymion

Wow you have never been part of a business network if you think Halliburton is going to just thank Cheney and write him a check? That isn't how you go about benefitting from swinging huge deals toward your immensely powerful friends. The way you go about benefitting from things like that is little perks like, oh, getting 'elected' president. You're expected to keep patting each others' backs toward bigger and bigger brass rings and if at all possible you slice everybody else in the world out of the deal.

Simple Nepotism 101. I can teach a seminar later if anybody needs a refresher course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest slamminshaun

Cheney: I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had now for over three years.

I don't think he denied it, he made it clear he hadn't in three years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JMT

"....For example, Cheney said in a television interview last September that he was not involved in awarding contracts while he was secretary of Defense, had never lobbied the Pentagon while head of Halliburton and had severed all ties to the company since becoming vice president. The Kerry campaign features the interview in its new television ad. "I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had now for over three years," Cheney said on NBC's Meet the Press.

Yet Cheney has reported on his financial disclosure statements that he continues to receive money from Halliburton. Those payments are part of a deferred compensation contract that pays him for work he performed in 1999. It provides for five payments, the last one in January. Cheney reported receiving $147,579 in 2001, $162,392 in 2002, and $178,437 in 2003 in deferred salary.

Cheney spokesman Kevin Kellems said the amount of the deferred pay is unaffected by any Halliburton business because Cheney had purchased an insurance contract that guarantees he will receive the full amount owed.

Cheney also had options to buy more than 400,000 shares of the company stock, according to financial disclosure records filed in May 2003. Cheney said he has committed to donate to charities any proceeds from the sale of that stock and cannot personally benefit in any way from the holdings..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest endymion

A popular line from the Bush campaign is that if John Kerry had been elected in 2000 then Saddam Hussein would still be in power.

Well...

If George W Bush had been elected in 2000, a bunch of dangerous future-WMD nuclear material would have fallen into the hands of terrorists!!

If George W Bush had been elected in 2000, North Korea would have a functional nuclear weapon, real WMDs. Kim Jong Il would still be in power in North Korea!!

If George W Bush had been elected in 2000, Osama bin Laden would still be on the loose!!

If George W Bush had been elected in 2000, the shipping containers would still be flowing into our ports from places like Pakistan and Yemen without ever being inspected!!

Wow, horrifying isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JMT

the left makes it seem like Halliburton was this struggling upstart company, and happened to "fall" into iraq bc of cheney.

they have been the top gov't contractor for decades! there prob arent even 5 companies that can handle the work of a war reconstruction like they can. and they assume all the risk of being over there. they are the best company for the job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest slamminshaun

If W had been elected in 2000,

WMD nuclear material would be in the hands of Saddam Hussein instead. :o What's your point? I thought he didn't even had this stuff to begin with?

N. Korea would have 6 nukes instead of 2. How'd they get Nuke technology to begin with? Hmm....check out the prior administrations' goof ups on that one.

Osama's was on the FBI most wanted list between 92 and 00. What happened?

Finally, how many shipping containers enter the U.S. daily? Is it feasible to inspect them all, or take out the terrorists who would expose this weak spot first to lighten the load?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest web_norah

"....For example, Cheney said in a television interview last September that he was not involved in awarding contracts while he was secretary of Defense, had never lobbied the Pentagon while head of Halliburton and had severed all ties to the company since becoming vice president. The Kerry campaign features the interview in its new television ad. "I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had now for over three years," Cheney said on NBC's Meet the Press.

Yet Cheney has reported on his financial disclosure statements that he continues to receive money from Halliburton. Those payments are part of a deferred compensation contract that pays him for work he performed in 1999. It provides for five payments, the last one in January. Cheney reported receiving $147,579 in 2001, $162,392 in 2002, and $178,437 in 2003 in deferred salary.

Cheney spokesman Kevin Kellems said the amount of the deferred pay is unaffected by any Halliburton business because Cheney had purchased an insurance contract that guarantees he will receive the full amount owed.

Cheney also had options to buy more than 400,000 shares of the company stock, according to financial disclosure records filed in May 2003. Cheney said he has committed to donate to charities any proceeds from the sale of that stock and cannot personally benefit in any way from the holdings..."

fine, then why did Cheney go on national TV and said that he hadnt made any money?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest slamminshaun

He did say it...that's the point. He said he had no financial interests in the last three years. His tax returns are an open book to the Associated Press. You just have to do a little more digging around. Remember, candidates on both sides try to stay above the fray by not participating in "conspiracy theories" that are left to the CJ message boards to sort out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JMT

"....For example, Cheney said in a television interview last September that he was not involved in awarding contracts while he was secretary of Defense, had never lobbied the Pentagon while head of Halliburton and had severed all ties to the company since becoming vice president. The Kerry campaign features the interview in its new television ad. "I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had now for over three years," Cheney said on NBC's Meet the Press.

Yet Cheney has reported on his financial disclosure statements that he continues to receive money from Halliburton. Those payments are part of a deferred compensation contract that pays him for work he performed in 1999. It provides for five payments, the last one in January. Cheney reported receiving $147,579 in 2001, $162,392 in 2002, and $178,437 in 2003 in deferred salary.

Cheney spokesman Kevin Kellems said the amount of the deferred pay is unaffected by any Halliburton business because Cheney had purchased an insurance contract that guarantees he will receive the full amount owed.

Cheney also had options to buy more than 400,000 shares of the company stock, according to financial disclosure records filed in May 2003. Cheney said he has committed to donate to charities any proceeds from the sale of that stock and cannot personally benefit in any way from the holdings..."

fine, then why did Cheney go on national TV and said that he hadnt made any money?

you are twisting his words. he said, "I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had now for over three years,"

and he was telling the truth. GUARANTEED BACK PAY that has NO relevance to Halliburton's current dealings is NOT a financial interest in the company. period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest slamminshaun

Then prove it. His tax returns don't, otherwise, the AP would be all over it. Back pay is taxed like ordinary income....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest endymion

Let's sit back and look at the big picture:

Dick Cheney is a lobbyist, a cog in a giant machine. "Financial gain" does not refer to him personally, it refers to the American companies with huge profit motives who used Dick Cheney as their 'in' guy to get a country invaded.

Those companies, like Halliburton and the Carlyle Group, actively work to go out and develop the world for a profit. Like a builder ripping down a forest and planting a strip mall, American companies have treated a hostile regime as a business opportunity. They worked together to take over an entire country's oil fields. Now they have it set up so that they control not only the oil fields but also the reconstruction of the country that had to be leveled (with tax dollars, not with their dollars) to create a bunch of new oil fields for them.

This is not an inspect-the-records SEC scandal. This is a that-guy-obviously-works-for-the-military-industrial-complex-and-they-pulled-strings-to-invade-a-country scandal.

Justifications For Invading Iraq

1) WMD, "imminent threat"

2) al Qaeda, "hard evidence"

3) financial gain

The point of this thread is that the Bush Administration's inability to look after even MATERIALS THAT COULD BECOME WMD shows that they have been focused on something else, and that justification #1 definitely, truly was a complete and total lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JMT

yep, and we fought hitler for cheaper Punch Buggies...

went to vietman to get free rice.

its all so clear now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×