Of course. Clearly you have not heard of the Halliburton Hurricane Machine.
And the point about the deferred compensation* is that he had an insurance policy that guaranteed a payment of an exact amount irrespective of how well Halliburton was doing. Had Halliburton gone out of business, he would have been paid the same. That’s also explained in one of your Google trawl cites, Nemo. I’ll let you figure out which one.
*doesn’t matter one bit whether it was deferred salary or deferred bonus
In one of the Hillary threads there was a discussion of the relationship between financial greed and the enjoyment of power. Cheney derived huge satisfaction from knowing he was making his rich friends richer, and directing the course of world events. The detail of exactly how many $million he personally made from Halliburton residuals is irrelevant.
Keep in mind that the various Bush advisers all pushing for that misbegotten war had different individual motives. While playing Santa Claus to his friends at Halliburton and Blackwater may have been a big part of Cheney’s motivation, for some in the DoD a major motive might have been to make their jobs more interesting! Boys want to have fun. The reconstruction of Iraq became a playground for every callow 25-year old right-winger who wanted to personally experiment with “Friedmanism.”
Your question about Israel is an interesting one, on which I have no comment except to note that many astute Israeli intelligence analysts were well aware that the aftermath of an Iraq invasion could be disastrous; they were actively warning Americans against it.
But the idea that Cheney, Rove et al were motivated to serve Israeli interests overestimates these people’s integrity. Yes, some Bush advisers (Rice, Kissinger) were trying to recommend actions based on a larger geopolitical picture, but most of the Bush neo-cons had simpler down-to-earth motives. In addition to lusts for power, enriching rich friends, and just wanting to have fun, Bush advisers were well aware that the GOP would win national elections easily as long as they pursued a big war that didn’t totally fail.
I don’t think most people are going to see “the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service reported last year that an official’s deferred salary and stock options could amount to “a continuing financial interest” in the company involved” as a refutation. Because saying something is possible is not a refutation.
No emphasis added. Didn’t need it.
There’s lots of evidence.
- Cheney was a major factor in the decision for America to invade Iraq.
- Halliburton made billions of dollars in profit from the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath.
- Cheney received millions of dollars from the rise of Halliburton’s profits during that same period of time.
None of these facts are disputable. They’re all matters of public record. The only issue is whether you choose to believe they’re connected or coincidental.
If you wish to put your faith in Dick Cheney’s integrity, I can’t stop you.
Cheney’s integrity has nothing to do with the question of whether you’re connecting the dot. Cheney can be the worst Vice President in history and your little conspiracy theory can be wrong at the same time. I think the odds are overwhelming that this is indeed the case.
Back to the OP. did the invasion of Iraq have some Isreali involvement?
I’d guess yes. Many countries are involved in such things and I guess so was Saudi Arabia and some others.
typical leftist (and paleo-right) tripe; Israel was not the reason America went to war in iraq. Here’s a good case against that lie.
The reason Bush went to war was so he could do what his father couldn’t do: get re-elected. It worked because of the “don’t change horse in midstream” made the case for keeping the incumbent in office. Also, it helped keep Bush II’s job approvals above 40% for the election season; Bush Sr.'s job approvals were sub-40% for the 1992 election season, as were Jimmy Carter’s in 1980; they both lost. (tho Bush I’s did go up after he lost in November 1992, in part because of him sending troops to Somalia).
Is there anything the (increasingly mainstream but for now, far)-left won’t blame on Israel?
No one mentioned “blame” and this thread appears to demonstrate serious person don’t think Israel was an influence. Other than that, well done for contributing your usual.
Do you have any evidence that “leftists” are actually promoting the theory in the OP? Or are you simply flinging insults at “leftists” because you cannot actually spend the effort to examine an occasional fact?
No one on this thread–not even those who might be regarded (from the alt-right) as “leftists”–has actually supported the claim that Israel played a role in the decision to wage war.
Attacking people who do not exist does not provide much of a fight.
Can one find some “leftist” somewhere who believes that Israel played a role in the decision to invade Iraq? Possibly. However, it is hardly a strong belief held by “leftists” or anyone else. You could probably use all that straw to mulch your garden rather than building straw men to torch.
Sorry I’m late to the conversation.
What chapter of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are we up to right now?
Although I am aware of the circumstantial case that can be made that Cheney (and others in that government) personally profited in various ways from leading us into an unnecessary and mistaken war, my overall impression as to why they all cooperated to “massage” the data in order to support a case for war, was more fundamental and directly human.
Basically, I think that the people we had in power at that time, were from a large group who already believed that 'knowing what’s right," should always be allowed to overrule both logic AND factual information that tells us otherwise. The entire Republican Party did then, and does still now, believe that lying, cheating, preventing people from voting, rigging decision making processes and so on, are all entirely justified, if that’s what it takes to push the United States in what they think is the right direction.
The financial gains associated with the decision, would similarly be excused and explained away as being due , not to corruption, but to be an affirmation that their financial thinking about the United States overall, was correct. People SHOULD get rich from doing the right thing, shouldn’t they?