Rand Paul has done something that will unify Democratic and Libertarian opinion, and set him aside from his Republican counterparts: he has vilified war-hawk Dick Cheney and the Bush Administration in their reasoning’s for invading Iraq. In a video which has been recently discovered by David Corn, a writer and associate for the popular Mother Jones, Senator Paul, sporting a nice sweater vest while speaking at Western Kentucky University, describes Cheney’s original opinion of Iraq in 1995, when he said that invading the Middle Eastern nation would be, “a disaster, it would be vastly expensive, it’d be civil war, we would have no exit strategy.”
Rand Paul reaches out with a popular message.
But, as everyone already knows, within due time and rising power in Halliburton, that tune would quickly change. An excerpt of the speech in which Paul blasts George Tenet and Richard Perle’s decision to invade Iraq, even though there was no clear connection, draws many of attitudes of dissatisfied voters.
“The day after 9/11, [CIA chief] George Tenet is going in the [White] House and [Pentagon adviser] Richard Perle is coming out of the White House. And George Tenet should know more about intelligence than anybody in the world, and the first thing Richard Perle says to him on the way out is, ‘We’ve got it, now we can go into Iraq.’ And George Tenet, who supposedly knows as much intelligence as anybody in the White House says, ‘Well, don’t we need to know that they have some connection to 9/11?’ And, he [Perle] says, ‘It doesn’t matter.’ It became an excuse. 9/11 became an excuse for a war they already wanted in Iraq.”
Paul also summed up what many liberal pundits, commentators and politicians have been saying for years regarding Vice President Cheney’s major conflict of interest regarding strategies in the ongoing War on Terror.
“But, you know, a couple hundred million dollars later Dick Cheney earns from Halliburton, he comes back into government. Now Halliburton’s got a billion-dollar no-bid contract in Iraq. You know, you hate to be so cynical that you think some of these corporations are able to influence policy, but I think sometimes they are. Most of the people on these [congressional] committees have a million dollars in their bank account all from different military industrial contractors. We don’t want our defense to be defined by people who make money off of the weapons.”
Rand Paul has a right to be mad too.
Halliburton’s KBR, Inc. division milked many government agencies to the tune of over $17.2 billion in the wars from 2003-2006 alone, totaling to a whopping $39.5 billion by March 2013. Financed with the $39.5 billion was the construction and maintenance of military bases, oil field repairs, and various infrastructure rebuilding projects. It should also be noted that according to the bipartisan Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan, corruption by defense contractors, including Halliburton, may be as high as $60 billion. Whereas many individuals from both sides of the aisle bash Rand Paul, his remarks should be appreciated on moral and rational grounds surrounding a very polarizing issue. At least he is saying what the facts are, while no other politician, with the exception of Bernie Sanders, Angus King and Dennis Kucinich, daring to say that which is known, publicly. Rand Paul should be commended for taking a stand against the former Vice President’s greed, and the atrocious actions of the Bush Administration regarding the two longest wars in American history.
Here is the video.