Here is an investigative piece from the New York Times. Nice to see them reporting this, as it has been published by other sources previously.
Secretary Rumsfeld went to Baghdad, in 1983, to convince Saddam that Bechtel (which had two former executives in the Reagan cabinet) should be allowed to build a new pipeline through Jordan. This would increase export capacity to the US and give Bechtel a very financially beneficial contract. The U.S. knew that Saddam was using chemical weapons, and still actively courted the regime for the favor.
Saddam made the unfortunate mistake of saying no. He was concerned about the proximity of the pipeline to Israel, and the security issues that would result. He chose to keep things status quo.
Two of the biggest hawks have turned out to be Rumsfeld and former Secretary of State George Schultz. (One of the Bechtel execs in the Reagan cabinet.)
So now they have gotten their war, they will get their oil, and the "Ultimate Insider" (Bechtel) will get one of those wonderful non-competitive contracts to help rebuild Iraq.
It may have taken them 20 years, but they all got exactly what they wanted in the first place. A few thousand people had to be casualties, but hey... does it really matter?
Ultimate Insiders
QUOTE
charliecstl:
It may have taken them 20 years, but they all got exactly what they wanted in the first place. A few thousand people had to be casualties, but hey... does it really matter?
You may be giving them too much credit for long-term thinking. I'm sure their attitudes haven't changed but their plans seem much more shortsighted.
It may have taken them 20 years, but they all got exactly what they wanted in the first place. A few thousand people had to be casualties, but hey... does it really matter?
QUOTE
charliecstl:
It may have taken them 20 years, but they all got exactly what they wanted in the first place. Ultimate Insiders
Yep- a safer America without the threat of Saddam. It may have taken them 20 years, but they all got exactly what they wanted in the first place. Ultimate Insiders
I don't know about a "safer America," but Saddam is gone. Now, are we going after all the other mass murderers we abetted, like Pinochet in Chile and the former military generals in Guatemala who slaughtered the Miskito Indians there? Or is it that these don't fit the JINSA-Rumsfeld-big biz script?
[ April 15, 2003, 10:10 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
[ April 15, 2003, 10:10 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
QUOTE
fantomas:
I don't know about a \"safer America,\" but Saddam is gone. Now, are we going after all the other mass murderers we abetted, like Pinochet in Chile, the former military generals in Guatemala who slaughtered the Miskito Indians there? Or is it that these don't fit the JINSA-Rumsfeld-big biz script?
How about that "pygmy" in North Korea?I don't know about a \"safer America,\" but Saddam is gone. Now, are we going after all the other mass murderers we abetted, like Pinochet in Chile, the former military generals in Guatemala who slaughtered the Miskito Indians there? Or is it that these don't fit the JINSA-Rumsfeld-big biz script?
Wait a minute, they could actually put up a fight, never mind.
QUOTE
charliecstl:
Here is an investigative piece from the New York Times.
Actually, it was on the Editorial/Op-Ed page. Here's the link.Here is an investigative piece from the New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/14/opinion/14HERB.html
Here's a bonus link to an article in the Business section about the Carlyle Group.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/13/business...ney/13SHEL.html
In the words of Deepthroat, "follow the money."
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.