Post to Messageboard
Blog post
The cost of Bush's war on Iraq war has surpassed one trillion dollars but there is no evidence of it benefiting the US economy. It is time to drive a stake through the heart of the malicious lie that wars are good for the economy. Only the Military/Industrial complex benefits from war and what is good for the MIC is NOT good for the country.
The MIC is a drag on the economy, an economic black hole into which is drained the economic and creative resources of the nation. War itself is a Faustian bargain. The hour of midnight is approaching.
IT TOOK five years, the deaths of 4,100 US soldiers, and the wounding of 30,000 more to make Iraq safe for Exxon. It is the inescapable open question since the reasons given by President Bush for the invasion and occupation did not exist, neither the weapons of mass destruction nor Saddam Hussein's ties to Al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Passed on a 268-155 vote, the funding will cover U.S. military costs in Iraq and Afghanistan through mid-2009, well after a new president takes office.
The White House welcomed the bill's passage but some Democrats were disappointed.
LONDON - More than one million Iraqis have died as a result of the conflict in their country since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, according to research conducted by one of Britain’s leading polling groups.0131 07
The survey, conducted by Opinion Research Business (ORB) with 2,414 adults in face-to-face interviews, found that 20 percent of people had had at least one death in their household as a result of the conflict, rather than natural causes.
by Dahr Jamail
False Pretenses
Following 9/11, President Bush and seven top officials of his administration waged a carefully orchestrated campaign of misinformation about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
By Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith
A recently discovered video dating from 1994 featuring Dick Cheney warning against an invasion of Iraq has been shrugged off by the Vice President's office who say they cannot comment because at the time Cheney was not Vice President.
The video appeared earlier this week on YouTube and shows Dick Cheney explaining that trying to take over Iraq would be a "bad idea" and would lead to a "quagmire."
"How many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth? Our view was not very many, and I think we got it right," Cheney said.
The video was posted by alternative media site Grand Theft Country, the on-screen source is the conservative American Enterprise Institute, who conducted the interview with Cheney on April 15, 1994.
(Article continues below)
CBS 5 contacted the Vice President's press office Wednesday, where a spokesperson reacted to the video by saying: "He was not Vice President at the time, it was after he was Secretary of Defense. I don't have any comment."
Former U.N. Ambassador Richard Sklar told CBS "A number of us in discussions knew that it existed. None of us have seen it on tape before, and Cheney's office has always just poo-pooed and refused to discuss it,"
As secretary of defense Cheney had helped direct the Gulf War under Bush 41. Some criticized the first Bush administration for pulling out too soon and allowing Saddam Hussein to retain power in Iraq. Cheney had to explain the reasoning for this in the years to come, one reason why the neocon cabal was hell bent on invading Iraq, and had drawn up the plans before regaining power in 2000.
Cheney's office goes one better than Donald Rumsfeld who explained away the infamous video of him warming shaking Saddam Hussein's hand by asserting that he had no recollection of the meeting.
VIDEO TRANSCRIPT:
Q: Do you think the U.S., or U.N. forces, should have moved into Baghdad?
A: No.
Q: Why not?
A: Because if we'd gone to Baghdad we would have been all alone. There wouldn't have been anybody else with us. There would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq. None of the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq.
Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off: part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it -- eastern Iraq -- the Iranians would like to claim, they fought over it for eight years. In the north you've got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey.
It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq.
The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action, and for their families -- it wasn't a cheap war. And the question for the president, in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad, took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth?
Our judgment was, not very many, and I think we got it right.
http://www.infowars.net/articles/august2007/170807Cheney.htm
BUSHWILLBLOWTHESEDAMS--
DOYOUREALLYBELIEVE
BUSHCHENEY
WHENHESAYS
THATDAMSAREABOUTTOCOLLAPSE
WITHOUTBOMBS???
EDITOR'S NOTE: In Sunday's issue, the Daily News asked readers, "Do you agree with Ted, Lisa and Don on Iraq?" Here is a representative sample covering most of the responses.