From the article:
"Sen. Rand Paul
claimed..."
" Paul
argues that..."
Rand Paul gives an opinion about a videotaped speech. So what?
That isn't proof of anything.
I recall Whomod way back in the day arguing Cheney flipped on first opposing invading Iraq, then post 9-11, advocated invading Iraq. And now you're leaping on that same canard, adding slanders of "greed" and "Halliburton".
Cheney answered that back then in another videotaped interview, that the stalemate with a no-fly zone over Iraq was used in Al Qaeda's 1998 "Declaration of war against Jews and Crusaders" as a rationalization for attacks on the United States, and that post-9/11, this needed to be resolved, despite the risks of invading Iraq that Cheney had criticized earlier.
I dislike the kind of Republican-on-Republican fratricide that has become common in the Republican primaries the last two elections. And despite it being factless, it can be guaranteed that Democrats will resurrect these attacks in 2016, to attack Rand Paul or whoever gets the nomination instead of him.
(Conversely, the "Birther" issue of Obama not being born in the U.S. was created by the Hillary Clinton campaign during the 2008 Democrat primaries, and used against Obama by the Democrats. )
You could just as easily say that because I was pro-abortion until around age 35, and then after informing myself of the facts changed my point of view, that rather than seriously being persuaded by the facts I was reversed by cynicism or "greed", or because of that being the prevalent opinion at my employer or whatever. But that would all just be slander of my motives and personal character.
Just as it is about Cheney.
