Iraq
Common today, is the idea that the Iraq war was all about oil. Second most common idea is that Iraq was Junior's revenge for Daddy's "failure."
As to the oil idea: this war never was about oil and the proceeds today from the oil sales Iraq makes goes to rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure. Despite the facts, or in light of, a similar claim is made that it might not have been about oil, but we went to war for Halliburton getting the reconstruction contracts. Nothing could be stupider to say such a thing that has no merit or fact. All of the contracts for repair of the Iraqi facilities were open for bidding, despite what critics like to repeat. That only four companies bid does not mean these were "gift" contracts for votes. Only four companies were willing or able to perform reconstruction overseas in a warzone. Do the critics believe we have 6 or 7 hundred companies able to do this? I suppose they're all eager multi-cultural companies with the proper percentages of skin color represented in their company? An analogy would be the US Govt exposing a technology for auto-makers to implement and asking for bids. Well, GM, Ford, and Chrylser step up, but Chrysler's bid is denied because they are now German owned. So only domestic auto-makers can bid. Critics jump all over the contracts as "closed," phony, and gifts in return for votes because only two domestic auto-makers remain in the US. See how stupid the criticism becomes?
Back to the oil issue, Halliburton did NOT win any contracts and did NOT bid, despite the hysterical claims by critics. Halliburton backed out of the bidding process after criticism poured in from the public. But let's examine that. Cheney served on the board of Halliburton back in the 90s. He no longer serves on their board, receives any compensation, or any kickback. Logically, you have to wonder why Cheney would secretly award (if the critic's hysteria is right) contracts to Halliburton when it wouldn't benefit him a single dime. But that is how liberals promote these ideas - no facts, no logic, no sense, just hysteria. So Halliburton decides to forgo the contracts. Despite this, one of their subsidiaries, independent of Halliburton, wins a contract. What is a subsidiary? In today's market, it would be defined as a company that has any amount of shares owned by another company. The share percentage could be as low as 1% and the relationship is termed "subsidiary." In the case of Halliburton, the subsidiary does make up a substantial percentage of Halliburton's income. According to their website, over 50%. But how much of Kellogg, Brown, and Root does Halliburton own? 1%. Those details are HERE.
The war-for-oil idea is dead - it's just hyper-hysteria with no fact to make it true. Interesting trivia note here: Halliburton's contract with the military ended in 1997. Did you know that the Clinton Administration awarded a no-bid contract to Halliburton for work in the Balkans? No, I bet you didn't know that, did you?
GW Bush did not go to war with Iraq for Daddy's "failure." Bush Sr did not fail in the first war. There was question at the time of the invasion if we were going to go after Saddam. Let me remind the hysterical critics that at that time it was illegal for the US President to target individuals for removal, killing, regime change - whatever. ILLEGAL. If Bush Sr had pushed US Forces to go after Saddam, Bush Sr would have been impeached and removed from office, and likely be serving prison time. Not until Clinton's term did the US change it's policy towards targeting individuals, and rightly so. If that change had come about during a republican term, the liberals would have died of apoplexy as they demagogued the issue to death.
CLINTON knew what he was doing, too. The 9/11 report details his efforts against a stumbling US law structure to get not only bin Laden, but also to get IRAQ. Remember the missile strikes against Iraq that Clinton launched? The 9/11 report details that those strikes came as a result of intelligence linking Saddam to bin Laden and their frequent meetings between Iraqi intelligence and Al Queda operatives on safe-haven cooperation. When Bush was elected, he received all of the intelligence briefings from Clinton's deputies and learned what Clinton knew: Iran, Iraq, and North Korea were the PRIMARY suppliers of aid and support for international terror. He also learned of the efforts of the Clinton-gutted intelligence agency's efforts at pinpointing Al Queda as primary threat number 1. Bush picked up right where Clinton left off with pressure on the Taliban government in Afghanistan to expel bin Laden.
So, 9/11 happens and what results? We don't just hit Afghanistan with cruise missiles - the Clinton administration was pushing for missile strikes using armed Predator drones. No, not missiles. Under Bush, we send in troops and remove the Taliban. The Al Queda sanctuary is destroyed. Next, we see intelligence that Saddam is trying to develop nuclear ability. We already know he has used WMDs against the Kurds in the north, in the form of biological agents, and we also know that the anthrax attacks in the US were strains from Iraqi anthrax (there are only 4 strains, wprldwide, and all are identifiable). The connecting link was reported by a media now disdainful of Clinton. Remember the aspirin factory cruise missile strikes? It was BS. That building was NOT an aspirin factory; that is what the Arab media wanted you to think. The US media picked up on the lie for demagoguery. Clinton had made them look like fools over impeachment and the Lewinsky sexcapade, and now they were getting revenge. Traces of the soil outside the Al Queda "aspirin" factory showed strong traces of a chemical compound that occurs only as a by-product of anthrax production. Further, those traces were readable as Iraqi strain.
So, Bush selects Iraq as target #2, and rightly so. Do we finds WMDs? No, but we find Saddam's mobile weapons labs. Those labs are capable of churning out biologicals within hours, but the actual agents are missing. Hmm. Buried? Moved to Syria? No one knows, or at least the public doesn't know yet. So Iraq was the next logical step in the Al Queda link. When all this was happening, I was saying we should be hitting Korea or Saudi Arabia, but I was wrong. With the publishing of the 9/11 report, I now know that both Clinton and Bush were following the most efficient paths towards combatting terrorism.
I've read the 9/11 report. I know what our democratic and republican senators discovered. I know the facts. The critics just shout louder and continue to ignore the facts, repeating over and over the same lies in hopes that the public believes them rather than the truth. I hate liars.
Unfortunately, North Korea's dictator is bouncing around like a spastic monkey begging to be attacked, and is sporting nuclear weapons. Bush probably took one look at that situation and said "I'm leaving office soon." I don't blame him. But this is exactly why it is in our interests to STOP terrorist countries from getting nuclear weapons in the first place and why pre-emptive attack is the only way to stop them.