Skip to main content

We've seen the video. If you haven't, it's easy to find ...just search Google for "Cheney, 94". One shot, one continual take, and Cheney paints a US occupation of Iraq as nothing but a bad thing. It's clear that in 1994, Cheney recognized how Iraq would fragment if we pushed in to occupy it.

The only trouble for us is: it's exactly what he planned.

The 2004 video, taken by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), is telling. In it, Cheney says:

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...

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.

It wasn't the first time Cheney had said something like this. There are quotes from 1991 too, easy to find with a simple search.

Which makes the events of 2002 all the more surprising.

The Conservative-leaning WorldNetDaily site still has a StratFor press release that states:

An idea to unite Jordan and Iraq in a pro-U.S. Hashemite kingdom after a U.S. war is being floated in diplomatic and opposition circles, reports Stratfor, the global intelligence company...

The plan, authored by US Vice President Dick Cheney, was first discussed at an unusual meeting between Crown Prince Hassan of Jordan and pro-US Iraqi Sunni opposition members in London in July.

Benefits for US: The fact that the Western-based Iraqi opposition completely depends on Washington will help the "Hashemite Plan". The US favours the plan because the current goal of replacing Saddam Hussein with a pro-US Iraqi government still would not guarantee long-term US control over the territory and its oil.

I'm going to say again: this is from a Right Wing News Source, stating the contents of a Right Wing think-tank's press release.

The more observant among you might have noticed something more telling: this press release was from 2002, before we even had troops on the ground in Iraq.

Bush was still saying war was the last option on the table, months before the invasion, yet Cheney had already organized a London meeting between Crown Prince Hassan and Sunni Iraqis to discuss the "Hashemite Plan". The spoils after the nation fragmented...

...and the only way to get any country to fragment is obvious: a Civil War.

The article goes on to say Sprinzak stated that the authors of a "Hashemite plan" are U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. Both are American Enterprise Institute think-tank members, hawkishly right-wing, and the AEI is not only the source of the 1994 video. It's also the center base for many neo-conservatives. Wolfowitz and Cheney are joined in the AEI by Bork, Gingrich, and most telling, Perle. Cheerleader for the war.
 
LOGICALLY - Cheney recognized, on numerous occasions, that Civil War in Iraq would be a foregone conclusion if we invaded. That it would be bloody and Iraq would "fly off", it would split into pieces. Then he made sure that people met to discuss a civil war in Iraq, even as the President was giving platitudes that war was the final option.

Why would Cheney do this? I think I have an answer that's easy to demonstrate. War = Profit. All I need are two graphs that I generated in October of last year. I used the Finance section of Yahoo.

First, we see how Halliburton (HAL) stock has done since the 1980s. I'll compare HAL to the Dow Jones Industrial Average in New York, and the Financial Times Stock Exchange in London. How did it do?

graph one - history of Halliburton

OK, not too well (as we see). Halliburton has done about as well as the 100 companies in the FTSE in London, but the 30 companies in the DJI completely trounced it. Mathematics don't lie. The benchmark of American companies was twice as good as Halliburton, an American company.

But now we're going to change the search parameters a little bit. Let's get rid of everything but a five year period (you can tell I did these graphs last October, but seeing as I have them I'll use them). First, some history: The Dow rose over 250% under Reagan (Republican) and over 300% under Clinton (Democratic), but let's keep this totally Cheney and G.W.Bush.

How did a company that barely keeps up with the FTSE do with friends in high places?

graph two - five year performance

Wow.

This is not some trick of mathematics. This is not 'spin'. We took the value of the DJI, the FTSE, and HAL. Rated them all at their 2001 (October 20th) closing price, and said "you're at the same starting line now, so let's see how much you make for investors..."

Those low points in the red line was when Halliburton was at $10 a share or so. The 2006 high was $41.99.

A share that 'kind-of kept up' with the market but underperformed it for decades suddenly shot off like a bottle rocket. A company that usually gave 50% suddenly went and gave its investors eight times that performance in a few years. And it all seems to be concentrated just before that yellow line.

See that yellow line I have on the second graph?

That yellow line is March, 2003. The start of the American invasion of Iraq. War is profit, if your ex-chairman is now Vice President of the invading country. Not spin, not bullshit. Fact. Mathematical, easy to see, no doubts at all.

Fact. War is profit. And there's the proof. And Cheney knew about the death and the quagmire and the civil war.

But money trumps life for Republicans in power.

Originally posted to ShawnGBR on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 10:28 AM PDT.

Poll

The Iraq Civil War. It's...

14%6 votes
12%5 votes
73%30 votes

| 41 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Amend the final statement (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ShawnGBR, Wilberforce

    But money trumps life for Republicans in power.

    It simply can read "money trumps life for those in power".

    It does so happen that those in power and who hold a lot of money (which is an imaginary concept that sometimes baffles me) are registered as republicans, but I will argue that it will be more beneficial to remove political parties and realize that we're fighting something a lot bigger.  

    I've been mulling over a series of diaries regarding this sort of topic and more.  

    Good diary, though.  It's very useful to point out how when the money was right, Cheney was more than happy to lie and use violence against people worldwide to ensure more accumulation of wealth and power.

    •  Money's not, in itself, the problem. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ssmt

      Douglas Adams wrote about our planet, and money, in The HitchHiker's Guide To The Galaxy:

      ...most of the people on it were unhappy for pretty much of the time. Many solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these were largely concerned with the movements of small green pieces of paper, which is odd because on the whole it wasn't the small green pieces of paper that were unhappy.

      Even Warren Buffett, second richest man in the country, mentioned that it was unfair that his secretary paid more of a percentage in taxes than he did because of the low percentage rate on investment returns.

      In fact, he offered a cool million to a room filled with millionaires if any of them could show their secretary had a better tax percentage than them.

      I think, if you look, the truly successful rich people become philanthropists, Liberals, Progressives.

      It's the wannabe-rich people that try to screw each other over for a percentage. In 2000, Time magazine asked people how rich they thought they were.

      Nineteen percent of Americans say they are in the richest 1 percent and a further 20 percent expect to be someday. So in the 2000 election, 39 percent of Americans genuinely thought that Al Gore was taking a direct shot at them when he talked about the top 1%.

      The moral of this tale, unfortunate though it may be: Ditech is wrong. People are not smart. At least, not many people are as smart as they'd like to think they are. Or as rich, as it turns out.

  •  More than that: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ShawnGBR

    They forced it to happen.

    From nearly the beginning, American soldiers, who were dressed as Sunni or Shia, have committed various false flag terror attacks (as reported by Greg Palast and others).  I even think Iraq may not have fractured without this direct involvement.

    Divide and Conquer via civil war has always been the 'exit strategy'.  

    The 'surge' isn't about propping up the so called Iraqi government--it's about making sure neither side can win.

    Essentially, this is what they'd like to see for the entire ME--a constant state of war and cold war with everyone's guns aimed at each other.

    "The military industrial complex not only controls our government, lock, stock and barrel, but they control our culture." - Mike Gravel

    by Wilberforce on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 11:39:07 AM PDT

    •  True. The pushed and pushed. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Wilberforce

      It's not just the no-bid contracts (which I had no interest or stake in, one way or another).

      And it's not the use of our military for profit, with thousands of needless deaths (nobody I know closely is currently in Iraq. Do know one guy stationed in South Korea, though...).

      It's the constant barrage of insults for daring to speak up against this. The dots are easy to join.

      1 - Cheney knew that a push to Baghdad equals quagmire and civil war, and said so on numerous occasions.

      2 - Cheney then wrote a plan to split the spoils of an Iraqi Civil War, using the same US troops that were in #1's quagmire.

      3 - Cheney made sure his old buddies at HAL got a share of the booty.

      4 - Cheney even had BearingPoint write Iraqi law. That's for another diary entry. How the former consulting division of the huge accounting firm KPMG LLP, a company that was brought down in the Enron/Arthur Anderson scandal of 2002, changed the logos on its website with a name change and got a contract to write Iraq's finance laws to the neocons' liking.

      5 - Cheney and his cohorts continually try to ridicule and attack anyone that points out it's a civil war, or the direct connection between the war and profits made by Halliburton. Or just generally anyone not praising George Walker Bush.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site