LWolf
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-23-03 07:32 AM
Original message |
Cheney had Iraq in sights two years ago |
|
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/07/22/wcheny22.xmlDocuments released under America's Freedom of Information Act reveal that an energy task force led by vice-president Dick Cheney was examining Iraq's oil assets two years before the latest war began.
The papers were obtained after a long battle with the White House by Judicial Watch, a conservative legal charity that opposes government secrecy and which is suing for the dealings of the task force to be made public.
Dick Cheney was examining Iraq's oil assets two years before the latest war began The emergence of the documents could fuel claims that America's war in Iraq had as much to do with oil as national security. It also indicates that the Bush administration is beginning to lose the battle to keep its internal workings secret.<snip>
|
DarkPhenyx
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-23-03 07:40 AM
Response to Original message |
1. Leaping to a conclusion... |
|
Edited on Wed Jul-23-03 07:40 AM by DarkPhenyx
...w/o enough information. I've said it before but nobody seems to eb listening. Yes, this does make me think we need to look deeper into things, but it isn't the smoking gun. It dosen't mean anything on it's own. So an energy task force was looking at *gasp* energy production. Big deal. Let's see what else there is before we go charging off and looking stupid....again.
|
Kolesar
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-23-03 08:03 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
3. "We report, you decide" |
|
I think you are correct. But this is a great way of getting the "secret energy planning meetings" story back in the public eye.
|
DarkPhenyx
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-23-03 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
5. As long as we approach it correctly. |
|
If the movement comes across as too reactionary, too "anti-Bush", too tin hatty then it'll end up falling on deaf ears. Take a page from their play book. Start slow, build steadily, whisper constantly. Except when we do it we do it with class and the truth behind us. IF we find out we're wrong, or at least not entirely correct, it's a damn site easier to save face and back up or change tack.
|
ObaMania
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-23-03 07:41 AM
Response to Original message |
|
.. if I remember correctly, that was the first thing out of his mouth in his acceptance speech. Said something like, we have to get Saddam. This, I thought was sour grapes from not getting Saddam the first time. But now that I know more, I suspect that it was discussed with him before he was selected for (and terms of becoming) Sec of State.
|
thom1102
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-23-03 08:31 AM
Response to Original message |
4. The Bush 2000 Election was pushing |
|
for the removal of SH. This is not that big of a deal. They were just looking for an excuse to take on Hussein. They would have taken on Iraq earlier if 9/11 had happened, and focus had to be shifted to Afghanistan.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Wed May 08th 2024, 08:26 PM
Response to Original message |