They failed to keep us safe leading up to 9/11, but plan to divert our anti-terror efforts -- as well as risk thousands of American lives and squander hundreds of $billions we don't have -- to satisfy Bush's personal blood feud against Saddam Hussein. Today, Dick Cheney tells us we must risk our young peoples' lives to attack Iraq. A few years ago, Cheney's company was making $millions in business deals with Saddam. This is just one example of GOPocrisy.

Most Republican voters are decent people who do not support their party's extremism, but simply don't want to hear the proof about how far out of touch their party is. They have inklings that the Bush Occupation and their supporters in Congress lack credibility, but Republican voters discount things they don't want to hear. We have to confront Republicans of good conscience, and force them to face these facts about their chosen party. It may be uncomforatable to challenge them, but we have no choice.

Today, Dick Cheney tells us we must risk our young peoples' lives and spend several $billions per week to attack Iraq. A few years ago, his company Halliburton was making $millions dealing with Saddam. In between, Cheney repeatedly lied to us American people about it.

Cheney did millions of dollars of business with Iraq between 1998 and 2000 as CEO of Halliburton. When he denied Halliburton did any business at all with Iraq in the 1990's, he lied. The Washington Post and even the right wing website NewsMax expose the facts proving Cheney supported Saddam's Iraq and deceived us about it.

The Post reports: "During last year's presidential campaign, Richard B. Cheney acknowledged that the oil-field supply corporation he headed, Halliburton Co., did business with Libya and Iran through foreign subsidiaries. But he insisted that he had imposed a "firm policy" against trading with Iraq. 'Iraq's different,' he said."

Now it appears Cheney lied to us when he claimed he did not have business relations with that man, Saddam Hussein.

"According to oil industry executives and confidential United Nations records, however, Halliburton held stakes in two firms that signed contracts to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq while Cheney was chairman and chief executive officer of the Dallas-based company." See: Firm's Iraq Deals Greater Than Cheney Has Said, Colum Lynch, Washington Post, June 23, 2001, reposted at: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/oilforfood/2001/0627chen.htm.

Newsmax and UPI report: "Halliburton Co., the oil company that was headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, signed contracts with Iraq worth $73 million through two subsidiaries while he was at its helm." See: Halliburton Iraq Ties More Than Cheney Said, NewsMax, June 25, 2001: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/24/80648.shtml.

Bush appointed Cheney to run the antiterrorism task force. Even the conservative, pro-Republican magazine Businessweek questioned this: "For starters, critics will home in on the apparent collapse of U.S. human intelligence and raise questions about the vigilance of the FBI and the new antiterrorism task force headed by Vice-President Dick Cheney." See: Act of War, Lee Walczak, with Alexandra Starr and Richard S. Dunham, Businessweek Online, September 24, 2001: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/01_39/b3750601.htm.

According to Time Magazine, the outgoing Clinton national security team briefed the Bush people in depth on Al Qaeda. "Long before the tragic events of September 11th, the White House debated taking the fight to al-Qaeda. It didn't happen and soon it was too late. The saga of a lost chance." Time reports a top Bush antiterrorism official Richard Clarke who has "served in the first Bush Administration and risen during the Clinton years to become the White House's point man on terrorism" warned of the impending attack and outlined steps to "roll back" Al Qaeda:

As Time details: "Clarke, using a Powerpoint presentation, outlined his thinking to Rice. A senior Bush Administration official denies being handed a formal plan to take the offensive against al-Qaeda, and says Clarke's materials merely dealt with whether the new Administration should take "a more active approach" to the terrorist group. (Rice declined to comment, but through a spokeswoman said she recalled no briefing at which [Clinton National Security Advisor] Berger was present.)"

Bush administration denials ring false, as Time explains: "Other senior officials from both the Clinton and Bush administrations, however, say that Clarke had a set of proposals to 'roll back' al-Qaeda. In fact, the heading on Slide 14 of the Powerpoint presentation reads, 'Response to al Qaeda: Roll back.'"

Again according to Time Magazine, Bush's appointees including Cheney's derelict antiterror task-force pointedly ignored "Clarke's proposals [which] called for the 'breakup' of al-Qaeda cells and the arrest of their personnel."

Time establishes that had Bush, Cheney and Ashcroft done their jobs, "The financial support for its terrorist activities would be systematically attacked, its assets frozen, its funding from fake charities stopped. Nations where al-Qaeda was causing trouble-Uzbekistan, the Philippines, Yemen-would be given aid to fight the terrorists."

Unforgivably and tragically, Bush and Cheney disdained Clarke's demand for "a dramatic increase in covert action in Afghanistan to 'eliminate the sanctuary' where al-Qaeda had its terrorist training camps and bin Laden was being protected by the radical Islamic Taliban regime." See: Could 9/11 Have Been Prevented? Michael Elliott, Time Magazine, Aug. 04, 2002: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,333835,00.html.

Time Magazine also reports, "Last summer the White House suspected that a terrorist attack was coming. But four key mistakes kept the U.S. from knowing what to do." See: How the U.S. Missed the Clues, Michael Elliott, Time Magazine, May 18, 2002: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,238564,00.html.

The Clinton administration presented Bush and Cheney with a full-scale plan which could have prevented the 9/11 attacks, but they ignored this from day one. Throughout the summer of 2001, FBI agents warned the Bush Administration of impending terrorist attacks. As threats increased, Bush's top appointees -- including Cheney, Ashcroft and the FBI directorship -- did nothing. Bush himself went on an extended vacation. Why did they ignore these warnings?

This failure rests squarely with Bush and Dick Cheney, the man he appointed to coordinate antiterrorism policies. He worked with Enron and other companies to bilk investors, consumers and employees when he should have led FBI, CIA and other agencies' efforts to keep us safe from attack.

Cheney was in charge of the antiterrorism task force which never met once before 9/11. Cheney did manage to meet with Enron executives several times. No wonder he is doing everything he can to cover up his dealings with Enron and others developing his pro-oil company energy policy.

The Bush administration is blocking investigations into their failure to protect us from terrorist attacks. Are these issues -- energy policy and terrorism -- somehow linked? Why are they lying about 9/11? What else are they hiding?

Republican policies simply do not work. Their economic policies already cost millions of jobs, squandered our surplus, and threaten to drive us back in the ditch. Their national security policies leave us insecure. They cost us more than ever before -- not just in $billions but in needlessly lost American lives.

More Republicans in power would only mean more lost jobs, more lost lives, and more lost opportunities. Republicans had their chance, they did not lead, and now it's time to replace them with Democrats. Still, Republicans keep lying to the public, and the media keeps letting them get away with it. It's up to us to hold them accountable. We must free our nation from the Bush Occupation.