Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"I Know Why Cheney Went Into Iraq!" Colonel Wilkerson

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Political Videos Donate to DU
 
democracy1st Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 09:05 AM
Original message
"I Know Why Cheney Went Into Iraq!" Colonel Wilkerson
 
Run time: 08:06
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJ-7kyHsAyA
 
Posted on YouTube: May 07, 2011
By YouTube Member: MoxNewsDotCom
Views on YouTube: 584
 
Posted on DU: May 07, 2011
By DU Member: democracy1st
Views on DU: 7735
 
The Young Turks/MSNBC host Cenk Uygur delivers info on the current war on terror.

TYT & MSNBC Schedule

Watch Cenk host MSNBC weeknights at 6pm ET. Cenk and Ana Kasparian will then host The Young Turks from 9-11pm ET (6-8pm PT).

http://www.theyoungturks.com/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 09:14 AM
Response to Original message
1. recommend
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izquierdista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 09:16 AM
Response to Original message
2. He wasn't steeped?
What do you mean, Larry? He was plenty steeped.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #2
32. I heard he stumbled through the brush with Johnny Walker.
RED!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vanje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 09:30 AM
Response to Original message
3. Huge K&R nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scuba Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 09:38 AM
Response to Original message
4. Recommend. Should be mandatory viewing for Bushies defenders. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 09:55 AM
Response to Original message
5. Required listening for DUers
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tblue37 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #5
12. Some of us (we deafies) CAN'T listen, so we would appreciate if
Edited on Sat May-07-11 01:23 PM by tblue37
people would provide a brief summary of videos to include is un the community conversation!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. There's a section in there where Wilkerson asserts that we went into
Iraq purely for the oil. No other reason. Also, he goes into detail about fighting two wars and how we didn't have enough resources to do it, and that Bush's Iraq War took our eye off the mission.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JHB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. Wilkerson also pointed out that since Bush was not...
Edited on Sat May-07-11 05:27 PM by JHB
..."steeped" in knowledge of world affairs, as exemplified by a clip from a 1999 interview, where Bush was unable to name who the leaders of Pakistan and other countries significant to foreign policy were. (Recall that Pakistan had re-opened nuclear proliferation concerns by nuclear weapons testing just the year before. Political instability in a nuclear-armed countty was considered a Bad Thing by most people, so it's the sort of place a president should know something about.)

Bush's broad ignorance and aggressive lack of curiosity effectively made Cheney the guy calling the shots in the (mal)administration, since he could steamroller Bush on something he wanted, and most of the important avenues of informing the president were packed with Cheney people.

(edited to correct the date of the interview, which was from earlier than I'd thought, and so the Pakistani nuke was an even more recent event relative to the interview).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-08-11 09:16 AM
Response to Reply #20
37. Yes. Very important point.
Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #12
24. Some of us also have painfully slow "high-speed" connections
that make watching online videos a painful experience.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zinnisking Donating Member (294 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #12
29. "The day before yesterday the Iraq Oil Report made the projection
Edited on Sat May-07-11 10:09 PM by zinnisking
that there's a hundred billion barrels for sure, two hundred billion probably and at the outside three hundred billion. That dwarfs Saudi Arabia. I know why Dick Cheney went to Iraq." - Colonel Wilkerson
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-08-11 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #29
38. Another good point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 11:08 AM
Response to Original message
6. OMG!
Well, a truth teller! Limbaugh and the far right must attack Wilkerson's credibility! Maybe they can fabricate some far fetched misdeed by the Colonel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SusanaMontana41 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 11:19 AM
Response to Original message
7. I still want to know who killed Bhutto.
Who gained the most from the death of the only democrat in the race? To whom did she pose the biggest threat?

Anyone think Bush was beyond such a move? I don't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texpatriot2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 11:29 AM
Response to Original message
8. No more blood for oil...I remember that mantra here way back
then DUers knew it but it's taken all these years for other people (ie msm and leaders in America) to say it out loud. Actually, I'm sure there were leaders who were saying it but they were ridiculed and dismissed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulka38 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
9. "He[Bush] wasn't steeped in much of anything." - Ouch
Thanks for posting this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
givemebackmycountry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #9
23. Oh, yes he was...
He was steeped in gin, vodka, and Jack Daniels.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
valerief Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
10. Operation Iraq Liberation. OIL. As ironic as their 911 date. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Plucketeer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 01:02 PM
Response to Original message
11. Unvarnished truths
are SO refreshing - even if they induce disgust and anger. :grr: I'm beginning to see a need for Guantanamo - these cretin criminals don't derserve to spend their sentences on American soil. In fact, they SOIL American soil! It's a shame there's not a Firing Squad smilie I can use.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tblue37 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 01:23 PM
Response to Original message
13. Would you please provide a brief summary for us deafies? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chillspike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. Try this tblue
It was the only solution I could find on short notice but it looks pretty cool. It seems it has youtube compatibility.

http://download.cnet.com/8301-2007_4-20058475-12.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
klook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-08-11 07:25 AM
Response to Reply #13
34. Key Takeaway
Statement by Col. Wilkerson: Dick Cheney went into Iraq for the oil.

Getting the American people to believe we were after Al Qaeda or the Taliban, or that we needed to get rid of Saddam Hussein -- these were all just window dressing, camouflage for the oil grab. And that's why American troops will remain in Iraq.

It's amazing to hear a retired U.S. military officer state all this so clearly. And not just any retired military officer -- this guy, a South Carolina native, was an Army colonel and chief of staff for Colin Powell. More about him here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Wilkerson

Hope that helps.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
colorado_ufo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-10-11 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #34
42. Chief of Staff for Colin Powell,
and Powell still gave his puppet show in front of the UN.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
missingfink Donating Member (28 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 01:44 PM
Response to Original message
15. I am at a computer at the library
It has no speakers or sound of any kind. Would someone summarize the audio on this thread?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KurtNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-10-11 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #15
43. there's ton of oil in Iraq, above prior public estimates
we are staying in Iraq
Cheney was the Decider, effective administrator, ran the Bush WH
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
colsohlibgal Donating Member (670 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
16. More Unvarnished Truth
How refreshing to hear this guy not beat around the bush (or rather Bush!), not speak in code, but rather tell it exactly like it was.

The buildup to the ill advised and costly in cash and lives Iraq invasion was one of the most shameful moments ever for the MSN - instead of asking pertinent questions they acted as enthusiastic cheeleaders.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goodnews Donating Member (207 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 01:52 PM
Response to Original message
18. Well, ISI (Pakistan's CIA) bigwig sent 9/11 turrist' Atta $100, 000
prior to 9/11 and then the Bushboy tried to cover it up.



John Doraemi
Updated: ISI and the Wire Transfers of 9/11
Wed May 23, 2007 00:23



Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/
(Revised 5/22/07)


Many people don't understand or choose not to believe that evidence exists of multiple wire transfers in excess of $100,000 to alleged "lead hijacker" Mohammed Atta prior to 9/11, and that these wire transfers are linked to the then head of Pakistani intelligence (ISI). This has blatantly been covered up by the Bush regime, by the Congressrional Joint Inquiry, and by the 9/11 Commission, which this article will clearly show.

This is a complex area, and is clearly the subject of a vigorous disinformation campaign. Many aliases have appeared in US newspapers which don't correlate to the names given in previous reports regarding: just who IS this "Al Qaeda paymaster?" <1>

If you have some time, definitely read the Cooperative Research compendium of news accounts regarding Ahmed Omar Sayed Sheikh. <2> As you can imagine, his name can be spelled in numerous ways, as can any of his aliases. This has been a source of much confusion.

Let's clarify what this information about wire transfers proves.



1) At a minimum it proves cover up by high level US government officials, a cover up of the financial sponsors of the September 11th 2001 attacks on America.

a) FBI Director Robert Mueller admitted to the Congressional inquiry that many wire transfers were sent in 2000 and 2001 from several bank accounts in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to and from alleged 9/11 hijackers. Aliases linked to those bank accounts were provided as well as the specific money amounts.<3>

b) The 9/11 Commission Report stated bluntly:

"To date the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance." -THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT, p 172.<4>

c) Senator Bob Graham, chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has said that "foreign governments," plural, assisted the purported 9/11 attackers.<5> Graham refuses to name these governments.

d) Orwellian transcript-- Condoleezza Rice was confronted by the press on May 16, 2002. The transcript of that encounter has been altered, doctored both on CNN and in the "FDCH Federal Department and Agency Documents REGULATORY INTELLIGENCE DATA." The words "ISI chief" disappeared from history, down the memory hole. This is black and white proof of cover up.<6>

e) Numerous press reports, which were confirmed by US officials, linked the Atta money transfers to "Saeed Sheikh", and then to Pakistani ISI.<7> Yet this has never, ever been addressed by the U.S. government, nor explained by any "investigation" into the 9/11 attacks. They have literally pretended that these news articles were never written.



2) The U.S. State Department confirmed that "Shaykh Sai'id (aka, Mustafa Muhammad Ahmad)" was linked to terrorist funding in Bush's Executive Order 13224,"a powerful tool to impede terrorist funding," in the attached "ANNEX."<8>

The 9/11 Commission Report has no reference to the Mustafa Ahmad alias at all, and it does not address the wire transfers at all. A "Sheikh Saeed" is mentioned on page 251, referenced to Khalid Sheikh Mohammad's interrogations, whose testimony is suspect <9> (reported dead, reported not at location of his alleged capture, held incommunicado and potentially subject to torture for years in secret detention centers). The 9/11 Commission dutifully reports:

"Al Qaeda's chief financial manager, Sheikh Saeed, argued that Al Qaeda should defer to the Taliban's wishes."

"Another source says that Sheikh Saeed opposed the <9/11> operation both out of deference to Omar and because he feared the U.S. response to an attack." --(emphasis added) 9/11 Commission Report, p251.

While this is acknowledgement of Sheikh Saeed's existence as a "chief financial manager", there is no reference to any financial link between Sheikh Saeed and the 9/11 attacks themselves. None.

The only other mention of Shekh Saeed is the following passage referenced in footnote 59 of Chapter 2:

"He appointed a new financial manager, whom his followers saw as miserly."

Notice that this supposedly authoritative "investigation" doesn't bother to name this "new financial manager" here, or to explain what he did.

The footnote 59 of Chapter 2 says:

"CIA analytic report, "Shaykh Sa'id: Al Qa'ida's Loyal Senior Accountant," CTC 2003-30072H July 2, 2003."

Notice the name is spelled differently from the version on page 251 of the same report, leaving open the possibility for official denial that they are the same person?

Notice also that a "CTC" Counter Terrorism Center report was written on this man. Can someone file a FOIA request for this report?

The "CTC" is coincidentally where a memo was deliberately withheld from alerting the FBI about two other purported hijackers: Al Mihdhar and Al Hazmi.

Searching for wire transfers in the 9/11 Commission Report turned up the following:

"For Atta and Shehhi's enrolling at Jones Aviation see FBI report, "Hijackers Timeline" Dec. 5 2003 (Sept. 23 2000 entry citing SunTrust Financial records)."

Well I can't "see FBI report" because it doesn't appear to be on the Internet. Another FOIA is needed.

If the 9/11 Commission saw this FBI report, then they are aware of the SunTrust Financial wire transfers, and yet chose not to include them in their "final" report -- at all. This is more evidence of cover up.

This was all right in the Washington Post,<10> just a couple of days before the Indian intelligence service and Indian press threw a monkey wrench into the official 9/11 story:

"U.S. Ties Hijackers' Money to Al Qaeda


Investigators See Cash Trail as Key
By Dan Eggen and Kathleen Day
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, October 7, 2001; Page A01

(...)

The ties to al Qaeda, the group led by Saudi fugitive Osama bin Laden, include transfers of thousands of dollars from hijacking leader Mohamed Atta to al Qaeda's chief financial lieutenant in the Middle East days before the New York and Washington attacks.

(...)

The operation was kicked off with a $100,000 transfer into a U.S. bank account last year that has been traced to the United Arab Emirates. A source familiar with the investigation said the transfer may have been arranged by the financial lieutenant, Mustafa Muhammad Ahmed.

(...)

More than half of the criminal investigation team at FBI headquarters in Washington is dedicated to tracking the money, with many working from folding tables and chairs in the hallways.

(...)

The funding for the attack began at least a year ago with a single deposit of more than $100,000 to a U.S. account controlled by Atta. Dennis M. Lormel, chief of the FBI's financial crimes section, testified at a congressional hearing last week that the transfer has been traced back to an account in the United Arab Emirates.

In the following months, scores of cash infusions flowed into about a dozen accounts at SunTrust Bank in Florida and several other U.S. banks.

(...)

The FBI has told Congress that terrorists rely heavily on wire transfers...

(...)

Another key figure on the money trail is Ahmed, also known as Shaykh Saiid.

(...)

Ahmed is suspected of being the paymaster who oversaw the financial end, sources said. Ahmed was named by Bush as a suspected associate of terrorists, and is the subject of a global manhunt.

Ahmed got as much as $15,000 from Atta and two other hijackers, Al-Shehhi and Waleed M. Alshehri, in the three days before the attacks. Officials in the United Arab Emirates have said they believe Ahmed left there Sept. 11 for Pakistan." (emphasis added)

The FBI has said that the hijackers returned money back to the paymaster so they would not be seen as "thieves" before their martrydom. Seems plausible.

Going back to the Congressional Joint Inquiry report (p 141), we run into obfuscation about "Mustafa Ahmed Alhawsawi", which they present as a different Al Qaeda operative than "Mustafa Ahmad",<11> one who is also mysteriously later "captured" with Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, and never seen again. Witnesses reported that neither man was at the location of this alleged capture.

Another alleged "paymaster," Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, is tied to some wire transfers as well, further clouding the picture.



3) The Pakistani ISI chief, Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad was fired immediately when the Indian government and press went public with the ISI / Omar Saeed Sheikh / Mohammad Atta connection.<12>


Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad, head of ISI on 9/11/01

U.S. pressure on Pakistan to remove the ISI chief was cited in the press reports. The ISI chief was never "Wanted by the FBI" however for ordering the funds that reportedly financed the 9/11 attacks. Until this matter is clearly resolved, there has simply been no credible public investigation into the attacks of September 11th 2001.

Indian intelligence exposed (to its own detriment) its surveillance of the ISI chief's cell phone and calls, <12, 13> in order to convince the Americans that Pakistan, and in particular the ISI, was a source of international terrorism (which of course, it is).



Implications: What does it mean?

Either--


a) ISI chief ordered operative Sheikh to wire money to Atta and co.

or

b) Sheikh wired money independently, or at some other intelligence service's direction (CIA or MI6).

or

c) Someone other than Sheikh wired the money, which means that the Pakistani ISI chief was fired right then in an unrelated coincidence.

I'm going to go with a or b. Several press reports confirm Sheikh's involvement, including CNN:

"Indian and U.S. authorities now see a link between that hijacking and the September 11 attacks in the United States.

Freed with Azhar was Ahmed Umar Syed Sheikh, whom authorities say used a pseudonym to wire $100,000 to suspected hijacker Mohammad Atta, who then distributed the money in the United States. (emphasis added)" -CNN, 10/8/2001 <14>

The "hijacking" mentioned was of Indian Airlines 814, in December 1999, by men with knives who "stabbed one hostage to death in the early hours of the hijacking" and gained access to the cockpit. <15>

This method of attack is of course the one reported to have happened on 9/11/01.

While the Indian Airlines incident doesn't prove this is what actually transpired on September 11th, it does provide a proof of concept.

Some people aren't convinced that actual hijackers carried out the 9/11 attacks, and instead the planes were remote controlled, the communications from them faked. I do not take a position on this question due to a lack of irrefutable proof either way. This article deals with evidence, not speculation.

The ISI Chief in DC and the Timeline of the FBI Investigation

ISI Chief Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad arrived in Washington DC on September 4 -- prior to the 9/11 attacks. He met with CIA Director George Tenet, the National Security Council, Pentagon officials, White House officials and specifically Marc Grossman the Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs<16> and a prominent member of the Project for a New American Century.

This timeline is instructive:

"September 11, 2001:


The World Trade Center is destroyed. That morning, Pakistani ISI Chief Mahmud Ahmad is sitting down for breakfast in Washington, D.C. with Sen. Bob Graham and Rep. Porter Goss - both of whom will later head the Congressional Committee to investigate the events surrounding September 11

September 18, 2001:

CBS News reports: "...agents have uncovered a money trail that they hope will lead to the hijackers' accomplices."

September 30, 2001:

ABC News "This Week" reports that the $100,000 money trail "can be traced directly to people linked to Osama bin Laden."

October 1, 2001:


Judith Miller of the New York Times reveals that the money was wired by someone using the alias "Mustafa Ahmad". The Guardian reports that Mustafa Ahmad is the alias for a "Sheikh Saeed."

That day, an attack is launched on the Kashmiri provincial legislature, increasing tensions between India and Pakistan.

October 3, 2001:

British Prime Minister Tony Blair releases his report detailing the "persuasive case" against bin Laden, yet no explicit mention is made of the "smoking gun" money trail.

New York Newsday reporters Riley and Brune reveal that Mustafa Ahmad is an alias for a "Shaykh Sai-id, who has been identified as a high-ranking bin Laden financial lieutenant." They also identify him as an Egyptian linked to the 1998 Tanzania Embassy bombing.

October 6-8, 2001:


Maria Ressa of CNN reports that 9/11 paymaster Mustafa Ahmad is an alias for a "Sheikh Syed", a 28-year old Pakistani former student at the London School of Economics who was released from an Indian prison in 1999 after being bartered for hostages taken in an airline hijacking that was "strikingly similar to the four hijackings carried out on September 11." Ressa also links "Syed" (hereafter known as Omar Saeed) to the October 1 attack on the Kashmiri legislature.

The invasion of Afghanistan begins.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gristy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 04:22 PM
Response to Original message
19. The key exchange begins at 5:18
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deacon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 06:35 PM
Response to Original message
21. Amazing. It's leaves me speechless. K + R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hotler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 06:47 PM
Response to Original message
22. Fuckin-a! k&r n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pacalo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 07:26 PM
Response to Original message
25. We had them pegged from the get-go!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-10-11 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #25
40. Aye verily. I remember well statements back then by DUers who
could see those truths from the beginning that Bushco was lying about Cheney's war operations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 07:45 PM
Response to Original message
26. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
me b zola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 08:19 PM
Response to Original message
27. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
russspeakeasy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 09:41 PM
Response to Original message
28. It doesn't get much better than this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
garthranzz Donating Member (983 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 10:31 PM
Response to Original message
30. Cheney the most competent bureaucrat...?!?!
because of his decision making.

Col. Wilkerson said nothing of Cheney's morals, ethics or humanity, however.

I think Wilkerson, like Lugar and the former press sec. (forget his name) is having buyer's remorse, and can't quite say - I should have resigned or gone public sooner because Bush was either drunk or drugged and Cheney was an evil dictator and Rove a soul-less piece of crap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 11:36 PM
Response to Original message
31. I saw this!
Cenk said "This is why we have you on, you give it to us straight" or something like that. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cartach Donating Member (361 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-08-11 06:24 AM
Response to Original message
33. So do I !
I can't get the audio/video for this post but I think I get the gist of what it's all about from the comments. In any case I wanted to mention that some time after 9/11 there was a documentary which had to be at least an hour long and which gave a complete explanation of Iraq's oil fields and oil reserves throughout the whole country. The commentary was very informative and the people participating were supposedly experts in oil exploration and development and used maps extensively in their presentation. The main point of the documentary was to show the enormous and as yet untapped conventional crude oil reserves in Iraq which dwarfed those in any other area in the world including Saudi Arabia. When the US invaded Iraq with the reason given by the Bush administration that Saddam Hussein was a top terrorist and somehow associated with 9/11 etc., one of the first things that came to my mind was that documentary that I had recently watched about the oil reserves in Iraq. After the invasion of Iraq the MSM did not mention that oil might have been a reason,they all got on the Bush bandwagon. That alone was enough to convince me that 9/11,terrorism or WMD's was probably not the real reason for the invasion and that oil was. As time went on my feelings about the reasons promoted by Bush and company were of course confirmed and I keep asking myself why I was never was able to see that documentary or anything similar on TV again although I kept watching for something. The MSM never brought the subject up in guest discussions or other formats that I know of until after the Bush administration's reasons started to be refuted.Is that because the MSM fell hook,line and sinker for the Bush reasons, were they pressured by the government and oil interests not to bring up Iraq's oil reserve situation,or probably worse,just went along to get along?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-08-11 08:38 AM
Response to Original message
35. so we cannot handle two theaters at one time....
....even though we spend more money on military than everyone else combined? not getting much for our money are we?

cheney the best sec'y of defense since forrestall? wilkerson is showing his bias to u.s imperialism (duh! as if there is any leading military personnel who isn't so biased)

cheney was never a good sec'y of "defense". he may very well have been a good sec'y of "offense."

amazing how people like wilkerson can be seen as being on "our" side.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imagevision Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-08-11 08:49 AM
Response to Original message
36. Neither Iraq nor Afganistan lately seem to be much theater...now it seems
Afgans being trained by the US. seem to be getting bullets in the back... like last week!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oilwellian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-08-11 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
39. This is why I created the user name "Oilwellian"
It has served me well and Lt. Col. Wilkerson just legitimized it. :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-10-11 02:06 PM
Response to Original message
41. Liars! Fucking liars!!!
Cheney, Rice, Bush, Rumsfeld, and the rest who took our national tragedy and turned it into a profit-making venture which had nothing whatsoever to do with Osama, al Qaeda, or the Taliban!

Fucking liars, everyone!!! :grr:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 11th 2024, 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Political Videos Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC