Rand Paul says (in 2009) that Dick Cheney wanted war with Iraq for Halliburton profits

[Roma_Victrix]

http://politics.suntimes.com/article...4072014-1121am

An excerpt from the now leaked speech Rand Paul gave back in 2009, regarding former Vice President Cheney:

He's being interviewed (in 1995), I think, by the American Enterprise Institute, and and he says it would be a disaster, it would be vastly expensive, it would be civil war, we'd have no exit strategy. He goes on and on for five minutes — Dick Cheney saying it would be a bad idea," Paul said. "And that's why the first Bush didn’t go into Baghdad. Dick Cheney then goes to work for Halliburton. Makes hundreds of millions of dollars — their CEO. Next thing you know, he's back in government, it's a good idea to go into Iraq.

Paul also indicates in the video that right after the 9/11 attacks, George Tenet (former CIA director) ran into Richard Perle at the White House, where Perle confided in him that "we've got it! Now we can go into Iraq." Tenet supposedly questioned him on this, asking if there should be a connection first, to which Perle replied that it didn't matter. Paul then says 9/11 became the excuse to launch the unrelated Iraq War.

Paul isn't speaking from a vacuum here; he's basically reiterating what others have stated, and is probably just stating the obvious:

In the run-up to the invasion, one of the most senior officials in charge of procurement in the Pentagon objected to a contract potentially worth $7bn that was given to Halliburton, a Texan company which used to be run by Dick Cheney before he became vice-president.
Unusually only Halliburton got to bid - and won.

(Source: BBC News)

That would be the same Halliburton that awarded Dick Cheney a $36 million severance package upon leaving Halliburton as its CEO to run as vice president on the ticket with George W. Bush in the 2000 presidential campaign.

Who thinks this might become an issue for Paul should he run in the Republican presidential primaries in 2016? It would certainly endear him further to the Libertarian wing of the Republican party, but the neocons like Jennifer Rubin are already biting him for this (her opinion piece sounds more like a desperate attempt at damage control than anything else). Apparently, Bush's former US Ambassador to the UN, John R. Bolton, wants Paul to get down on his hands and knees and personally apologize to Don Corleone-Cheney.

[Euphoric]

It's only going to hurt him in the primaries, which he was destined to lose anyways. My prediction is Rubio v. Clinton. Anyways, he doesn't even have as much traction as his father did at this point, so it will be an uphill battle for him. Really, Rand Paul should focus on building Libertarianism from the local level up before he ever considers a serious bid for the presidency.

[Exarch]

rand paul might actually be a better choice for america than the other republican idiots like King or whoever
besides, there's a growing voting group of ppl across party lines-both republican and democrat- who agree with a lot of what he's saying especially in light of the wars and NSA spying

[Vanoi]

Lol what? Sorry, i don't want a Tea Party Republican running my country. Rand Paul has some good ideas. But not enough for me to vote for him.

[Phier]

It will help him with the internet meme makers, much like Ron Paul was an internet darling but it won't matter since he won't win anything.

[Admiral Piett]

It will help him with the internet meme makers, much like Ron Paul was an internet darling but it won't matter since he won't win anything.

Rand has gained a lot more attention than his father and tends to say less unpopular things that the media views as kooky. There aren't any polls out yet that can state that Rand has the same numbers as his father, especially considering how much he differs from his father on issues.


Vanoi, Rand represents a different spectrum of the tea party, unlike the Palinites, Bachmann, or Cruz types.

[Phier]

Rand has gained a lot more attention than his father and tends to say less unpopular things that the media views as kooky. There aren't any polls out yet that can state that Rand has the same numbers as his father, especially considering how much he differs from his father on issues.

I like Rand, but I just can't see him winning anything substantial.

[Vanoi]

Vanoi, Rand represents a different spectrum of the tea party, unlike the Palinites, Bachmann, or Cruz types.

Opposes gay marriage, is extremely pro-life and opposes any kind of abortion. Opposes the US drones strikes but supports US police using armed drones. Opposes any kind of gun control. Opposed anti-discrimination legislation for homosexuals. Sounds very tea party to me.

[Sir Adrian]

Opposes gay marriage, is extremely pro-life and opposes any kind of abortion. Opposes the US drones strikes but supports US police using armed drones. Opposes any kind of gun control. Opposed anti-discrimination legislation for homosexuals. Sounds very tea party to me.

Except for police drones, gun laws and discrimination it all sounds very good to me

[Nevins]

looking at iraq today aint it ironic that cheney's halliburton didn't end up the big winner in iraq; that most of the lucrative iraqi oil contracts went to China and Russia and Baghdad, under the control of a Shia government is actually now moving closer to Iran?

Cheney sure didn't think this one through, that's for sure

Its almost as if that wasn't a primary factor in the decision to invade

Except for police drones, gun laws and discrimination it all sounds very good to me

So except for half the things its sounds good to you

[Admiral Piett]

Opposes gay marriage, is extremely pro-life and opposes any kind of abortion. Opposes the US drones strikes but supports US police using armed drones. Opposes any kind of gun control. Opposed anti-discrimination legislation for homosexuals. Sounds very tea party to me.

Good look finding a social liberal Republican. You won't. If that's how you feel, just stick with the actual Libertarian party like I do. At least the majority of them, like Gary Johnson, set religion aside for the most part. For the record, Rand believes those are state issues for the most part and doesn't make his views on that his central platform. For the most part he just wants to cut deficit. With Bachmann, that's all she freaking talks about. And Rand never said the the state police should all adopt drones, he said its hypocritical that we have the authorization to use them in foreign countries without permission if they won't use one in our own to take out domestic terrorists like Tsarnyaev. Poorly worded criticism, yes. Support for police drones, no.

I think its a good thing that we let Europe defend themselves more for one. Let them deal with what we have to balance between either manning up and paying for defense or funding more in social safety nets. The people that say all 'libertarians' want to isolate ourselves from the worlds have no idea what they are talking about anyway so we can just leave that criticism for the pro-status quo conservatives and blue dog Democrats. Yes, because we support cutting the military and using our force projection less means we want to withdraw from the UN and NATO. Pbbt.

[Roma_Victrix]

To be fair, Ted Cruz is in a different breed of human altogether. The guy looks and acts like he walked off an assembly line in a factory that manufactures plastic Republican action figures.



Frightening stuff for bedtime right there.

[Sphere]

You won't find too many conservatives that are terribly thrilled about Dick Cheney and are eager to protect his legacy.

Rather, the problem for Rand Paul is that this exposes what I think is the largest divide in the Republican party; that between isolationists and hawks. On this issue the Republicans live in a house divided, and anyone looking to move up the ladder in the party would do well just to avoid it.

It isn't a new rift. For those that remember in the 2000 election GWB stated he did not believe the US should be in the business of "nation-building". Foreign policy wasn't a huge issue in the election, so GWB didn't really have to elaborate on it, but he did feel it necessary to throw a bone to the isolationists. The rift went on hiatus during the Bush wars for obvious reasons. But during the Obama presidency it has come back in force.

One part of the party is eager to criticize Obama for his withdraw from Iraq & Afghanistan, the "leading from behind" when it comes to our European Allies, the lack of military action in Syria (and now Ukraine). The Rand Paul wing of the party sees this more or less as steps in the right direction.

These two views are not really reconcilable, the only rational approach is just not to talk about it. Something Rand Paul has done ever since he has decided to sniff around and see if he can position himself for the parties nomination.

[Venomousmonkey]

Rand Paul is the most viable candidate to come along. Not because he's favored by the Main stream Media, which has been proven many times to be unreliable. The situation comes that we don't need someone who's going to win and be popular, we need the best candidate for Constitutionality. Which is the exact opposite of Obama. Anyone want to challenge that last point I will provide a thorough list.

I just don't want another Mitt Romney (A.K.A Chris "What's the 4th Ammendment?" Christie)

[Slydessertfox]

Rand Paul is the most viable candidate to come along.

Rand Paul would get trounced in any general election. He's a little more viable than his father but that's not saying much.

[Euphoric]

Rand Paul would get trounced in any general election. He's a little more viable than his father but that's not saying much.

I doubt he's even as viable as his father was at this point, he has yet to build the sort of support his father did, particularly among the youth.

Lol Euphoric is already placing bets before people even officially join the race. That's great.

Do you doubt that Paul would lose the Republican primary? Or that Hillary and Rubio will most likely be on their parties respective tickets? Rubio is obviously less of a given, but Hillary seems pretty likely at this point, she has been posturing for the candidacy for some time and there doesn't seem to be any stronger candidates at this point (but who knows, I suppose; there could be a dark horse).

[Gaidin]

Do you doubt that Paul would lose the Republican primary? Or that Hillary and Rubio will most likely be on their parties respective tickets? Rubio is obviously less of a given, but Hillary seems pretty likely at this point, she has been posturing for the candidacy for some time and there doesn't seem to be any stronger candidates at this point (but who knows, I suppose; there could be a dark horse).

Why would I place a bet even with a pre-supposed pool of candidates this early? Look what a traffic jam did to the most likely candidate to win that we can suppose will join. And you don't know who the hell is going to join the race. Don't try and say you do. Betting on someone now is just acting like a news station.

[Slydessertfox]

(but who knows, I suppose; there could be a dark horse).

At this point the only dark horse I can see in the Democratic Party running is Sanders (since if he runs he almost certainly will as a Democrat to prevent the spoiler effect). Though he doesn't have much of a chance. Though Clinton was projected to sail to the nomination with no real competition at this point in the 08 election too-and then Obama came out of nowhere.

[alhoon]

Hillary seems pretty likely at this point,

Hillary would be as old (or older) than McCain was in 2008. I.e. a million years old. Not to mention she has been in power for so long, that she has eroded parts of her powerbase.

Any benefit the US would have from cutting its military spending by downsizing its overseas military involvement and leaving NATO ...

There's no NATO without USA. If USA left NATO, it would be the equivalent of USA taking NATO (probably along UK and Canada), and going somewhere else with it.

[Gaidin]

I just don't want another Mitt Romney (A.K.A Chris "What's the 4th Ammendment?" Christie)

You mean the guy Euphoric would've bet on before a mere traffic jam?