Cheney on Iraq in 1994 (video)
Zeke
221 Posts
Don't know if this has been posted before, but:
Zeke
221 Posts
Comments
sucked his brain out through a straw and replaced
it with a mutated cosmic warrior insect seed.
nice.
The Democrats did it! the Democrats did it!
if you mean voted to use military force in Iraq and then, almost immediately, began to undermine the use of that force, then yes you are absolutely correct.
But, thats right. They were "tricked" into it by mean old Bush/Cheney.
I have a good campaign slogan for 2008: "Vote Democrat, We're dumber than Bush!"
While I agree with your point about the democrats to a large extent, I think what should be taken from this video is that every reason he gave for not invading Iraq remained an excellent reason for not doing it 12 years later. It's not like your WW analogy at all because the fragility of the middle east had remained the same, perhaps even heightened.
Rather than deflect to the Democrats, why not just realize that Cheney must have known going into this that it was a terrible idea. Hell, he may have even warned Bush not to do it, Bush certainly had plenty of unqualified advisers to help convince him that it would have worked. Nevertheless Cheney did help lead the campaign.
Question of the day.
What September 2001 event may have changed the balance of reasons for and against invading a country that was our sworn enemy, had flaunted UN sanctions to disarm, that were in-turn flaunted by just about every country who had agreed to enforce them, and was believed to be openly pursuing the acquisition of an atomic weapon by everyone in the world, except Joe WIlson?
Moot point, in addition to the fact that the argument for the war was wmds, not an atomic bomb.
Iraq with wmds was not a threat to the US.
Moot point? if only it were that easy.
They're even less happy to know that, with our adventure in Iraq, we've undermined our own campaign to capture, kill, or otherwise disable the organization that caused their loss in the first place.
I can't understand why, only in this instance, you're having trouble admitting Cheney was right.
Reporter: What does Iraq have to..(inaudible)?
Bush: What did Iraq have to do with what?
Reporter: ..the attack on the World Trade Center..?
Bush: Nothing!
What shameless group of ideologues use September 11, 2001 to justify a public policy that flies in face of logic, reason, data and history? And then implements that policy with unprecedented incompetence--only to diffuse any form of responsibility and/or accountability through blaming and attacking their critics and political opponents?
so bush became retarded after 9/11/01?
evidence suggests otherwise.
Yes, we are taking a statement made in the context of the first gulf war, that Cheney would never have made in the current war, and remarking on its biting truth.
You don't do irony much, eh?
Many people, myself included, viewed things differently after 9/11 but stopped short of endorsing this war. It must kill you to know that "they" were right.
What does Iraq have to do with 9/11. Above you mention it, but then go right in to "sworn enemy" flaunting UN sanctions and maybe seeking nukes.
Again, if we were responding to 9/11, why Iraq, and not other countries who meet the same criteria?
I just dont think its ironic, and Im not going to get into the reasons why because we dont agree with the basic point that after 9/11 Cheney beleived there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11 or at the least a potential threat from Iraq to assist others to commit similar acts, so there is no point in going through the whole thing when we dont agree on the basic premise upon which we would both build our arguments.
At the time I supported it, in retrospect it was a mistake, and until recently, I would even agree with Fatback that it has been mismanaged terribly.
My comment: Iraq (potentially, and as it turns out, not) having wmds is a moot point because those wmds were not a threat to the US.
Your response: Are you saying that the loss of American lives = moot point?
How did you make this connection? It's not only illogical, it's flat out offensive.
I am talking about this over here.......................and you are talking about something completely different over here.
If you want to discuss the topic of politicians flip flopping on Iraq policy I'm game, if you want to put words in my mouth avoid the topic at hand, no thanks.
You mean that one event that had nothing to do with Iraq? The one that Bush said had nothing to do with Iraq? I thought we invaded Iraq because of it's weapons (which we never found and still haven't found).
Im not trying to put words into your mouth, but perhaps you should be more clear.
And what did the last National Intelligence Estimate on terrorism say? Al Qaeda had rebuilt itself in Pakistan-Afghanistan and was as strong now as before 9/11?
Don't Attack Saddam
It would undermine our antiterror efforts.
BY BRENT SCOWCROFT
Thursday, August 15, 2002 12:01 a.m. EDT
Wall Street Journal
...
Saddam's strategic objective appears to be to dominate the Persian Gulf, to control oil from the region, or both.
That clearly poses a real threat to key U.S. interests. But there is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks. Indeed Saddam's goals have little in common with the terrorists who threaten us, and there is little incentive for him to make common cause with them.
He is unlikely to risk his investment in weapons of mass destruction, much less his country, by handing such weapons to terrorists who would use them for their own purposes and leave Baghdad as the return address. Threatening to use these weapons for blackmail--much less their actual use--would open him and his entire regime to a devastating response by the U.S. While Saddam is thoroughly evil, he is above all a power-hungry survivor.
Saddam is a familiar dictatorial aggressor, with traditional goals for his aggression. There is little evidence to indicate that the United States itself is an object of his aggression. Rather, Saddam's problem with the U.S. appears to be that we stand in the way of his ambitions. He seeks weapons of mass destruction not to arm terrorists, but to deter us from intervening to block his aggressive designs.
Given Saddam's aggressive regional ambitions, as well as his ruthlessness and unpredictability, it may at some point be wise to remove him from power. Whether and when that point should come ought to depend on overall U.S. national security priorities. Our pre-eminent security priority--underscored repeatedly by the president--is the war on terrorism. An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken.
...
But the central point is that any campaign against Iraq, whatever the strategy, cost and risks, is certain to divert us for some indefinite period from our war on terrorism. Worse, there is a virtual consensus in the world against an attack on Iraq at this time. So long as that sentiment persists, it would require the U.S. to pursue a virtual go-it-alone strategy against Iraq, making any military operations correspondingly more difficult and expensive. The most serious cost, however, would be to the war on terrorism. Ignoring that clear sentiment would result in a serious degradation in international cooperation with us against terrorism. And make no mistake, we simply cannot win that war without enthusiastic international cooperation, especially on intelligence.
...
In sum, if we will act in full awareness of the intimate interrelationship of the key issues in the region, keeping counterterrorism as our foremost priority, there is much potential for success across the entire range of our security interests--including Iraq. If we reject a comprehensive perspective, however, we put at risk our campaign against terrorism as well as stability and security in a vital region of the world."
You still believe in the reasons for going to war. You are parroting that bullshit in this thread. At the same time, you are attempting to salvage some credibility by agreeing the war has been mismanaged. lol
???At the minimum, we???d be an occupier in a hostile land,??? he said. ???Our forces would be sniped at by guerrillas, and, once we were there, how would we get out? What would be the rationale for leaving? I don???t like the term ???exit strategy??????but what do you do with Iraq once you own it????
???This is exactly where we are now,??? he said of Iraq, with no apparent satisfaction. ???We own it. And we can???t let go. We???re getting sniped at. Now, will we win? I think there???s a fair chance we???ll win. But look at the cost.???
???It???s that idea that we???ve got to hit somebody hard,??? Scowcroft said. ???And Bernard Lewis says, ???I believe that one of the things you???ve got to do to Arabs is hit them between the eyes with a big stick. They respect power.??? ??? Cheney, in particular, Scowcroft thinks, accepted Lewis???s view of Middle East politics. ???The real anomaly in the Administration is Cheney,??? Scowcroft said. ???I consider Cheney a good friend???I???ve known him for thirty years. But Dick Cheney I don???t know anymore.???[/b]
no. read. "in retrospect it was a mistake." Thats what I just said. Me. Peter. I am "parroting" the reasons to give context to the video clip of what Cheney said. I mean, you can only make the decision to go to war once, and that was made in 2003, and those reasons I just gave were the reasons at the time. As it turns out they were wrong. We probably all agree on that, where we differ is that you think the admisinstration knew they were wrong, and I dont. However, I also think that in insisting that there was no connection to al qaeda prior to 9/11 one should not necessarily have to refuse that there may be one now.