PDA

View Full Version : Cheney: Unilateral Invasion of Iraq will lead to quagmire


Taco John
08-13-2007, 02:00 PM
Video Surfaces of Cheney, in 1994, Warning That An Invasion of Iraq Would Lead to 'Quagmire'

By E&P Staff

Published: August 12, 2007 10:20 AM ET

NEW YORK It's not the first time that citizen "investigative journalists" have uncovered some embarrassing, or telling, nugget from the past that apparently remained buried for years. But it has happened again with the posting of a now wildly popular video on YouTube that shows Dick Cheney explaining in 1994 that trying to take over Iraq would be a "bad idea" and lead to a "quagmire."

The people who put it up come from a site called Grand Theft Country, the on-screen source appears to be the conservative American Enterprise Institute, and the date on the screen is April 15, 2004. That looks right, by the look of Cheney.

Posted on Friday, it had received over 100,000 hits by this morning, after being widely-linked around the Web. The transcript of this segment is below.

Cheney had helped direct the Gulf War for President George H.W. Bush. That effort was later criticized for not taking Baghdad and officials like Cheney had to explain why not for years. Some have charged that this led to an overpowering desire to finish the job after Cheney became vice president in 2001.

Here is the transcript. The YouTube address is at the end.
*

Q: Do you think the U.S., or U.N. forces, should have moved into Baghdad?

A: No.

Q: Why not?

A: Because if we'd gone to Baghdad we would have been all alone. There wouldn't have been anybody else with us. There would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq. None of the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq.

Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off: part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it -- eastern Iraq -- the Iranians would like to claim, they fought over it for eight years. In the north you've got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey.

It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq.

The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action, and for their families -- it wasn't a cheap war. And the question for the president, in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad, took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth?

Our judgment was, not very many, and I think we got it right.

***

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6BEsZMvrq-I" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed>

BucEyedPea
08-13-2007, 02:27 PM
I saw that yesterday. Interesting.

HolmeZz
08-13-2007, 02:32 PM
IT WAS A PRE-9/11 WORLD, MAN

patteeu
08-13-2007, 04:03 PM
I have 3 initial thoughts about this:

1) This doesn't fit in very well with the narrative about how the administration came to power gunning for Iraq.

2) I wonder what changed his mind. Hopefully the man will write a memoir to explain his roles and his rationales throughout his political life.

3) I'll be darned if Dick Cheney isn't right about everything. Even when some might think he's been wrong about something (like how difficult toppling Saddam could be), a video like this shows up and proves he was, in fact, right. :thumb:

HolmeZz
08-13-2007, 04:10 PM
3) I'll be darned if Dick Cheney isn't right about everything. Even when some might think he's been wrong about something (like how difficult toppling Saddam could be), a video like this shows up and proves he was, in fact, right. :thumb:

ROFL ahahahaha

It's pretty easy to be 'right' when you've taken both sides of an argument.

Mr. Laz
08-13-2007, 04:20 PM
3) I'll be darned if Dick Cheney isn't right about everything. Even when some might think he's been wrong about something (like how difficult toppling Saddam could be), a video like this shows up and proves he was, in fact, right. :thumb:
holy schite you are insane



he WAS right when he did this interview but sadly when most of us said this about the IRAQ war as it was happening Cheney and his watch dogs shouted us down .... including your dumb ass.


so when Cheney says it you applaud ..... but when we say it, we are anti-american and want the U.S. to fail and american soldiers to die?!?



dam :shake:


this just shows that Cheney knew that the war in Iraq was a bad idea .... he just didn't care because he had other agenda.

Mr. Flopnuts
08-13-2007, 04:20 PM
LMAO I'm so glad politicians don't make it a habit to think before they speak.

StcChief
08-13-2007, 04:25 PM
It was a pre 9/11 world. Yes Iraq (Mesopotamia) has been three or more religious regions slammed together.

Waring amongst themselves

So why would it NOT be difficult to remove Saddam an not have issues. At least they are trying build a gov't.

Success is largely going to be in their hands now.

Mr. Laz
08-13-2007, 04:30 PM
It was a pre 9/11 world. Yes Iraq (Mesopotamia) has been three or more religious regions slammed together.

Waring amongst themselves

So why would it NOT be difficult to remove Saddam an not have issues. At least they are trying build a gov't.

Success is largely going to be in their hands now.
so what did Saddam have to do with 911?


i thought the invasion of Iraq was a humanitarian issue?






.

irishjayhawk
08-13-2007, 04:44 PM
so what did Saddam have to do with 911?

Nothing, even Bush admitted that. Didn't Cheney too?

So, what then StcChief?

StcChief
08-13-2007, 04:47 PM
so what did Saddam have to do with 911?

Jury is out and will likely be for a long while. Not buying the current reports as complete, case closed.

What did Saddam have to do with continued violation of UN 1441, oil for food scam. Firing anti-aircraft guns as we patrolled / enforced the no fly zone. Killing and torturing his people. Giving $25K to families to have brain washed people to blow themselves up. Everything.

irishjayhawk
08-13-2007, 04:51 PM
Jury is out and will likely be for a long while. Not buying the current reports as complete, case closed.

What did Saddam have to do with continued violation of UN 1441, oil for food scam. Firing anti-aircraft guns as we patrolled / enforced the no fly zone. Killing and torturing his people. Giving $25K to families to have brain washed people to blow themselves up. Everything.

Because we are, after all.......

TEAM AMERICA WORLD POLICE

*cue theme song*

StcChief
08-13-2007, 04:57 PM
Because we are, after all.......

TEAM AMERICA WORLD POLICE

*cue theme song*

Who attacked who or have you forgot.

HolmeZz
08-13-2007, 04:58 PM
Saddam attacked us. Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh. Everybody knows that.

BucEyedPea
08-13-2007, 04:59 PM
Who attacked who or have you forgot.
AlQaeda attacked us mostly Saudis with a Saudi leader and NOT a state sponsored terrorist group. Certainly not any Iraqi, nor SH. They hide and live in friggin caves.

Oh btw those flyovers were also illegal. If a hostile nation flew over our airspace are you saying we'd have no right to shoot them?

Adept Havelock
08-13-2007, 05:02 PM
What did Saddam have to do with continued violation of UN 1441, oil for food scam. Firing anti-aircraft guns as we patrolled / enforced the no fly zone.

Funny how you (IMO often correctly) bash the UN, except when you need to trot out that piece of toilet paper called UN 1441 to justify starting (and apparently an open-ended commitment to) the clusterf**k that is Iraq.

Baby Lee
08-13-2007, 05:03 PM
So a bad idea in 1994 is automatically a bad idea a decade later?
Someone should've alerted the SC in Brown v. Bd of Ed.

Seems there are two distinctions between then and now;
A reassessment of the need to take to task states that are terror-friendly.
Some misinformed/lying Iraqi expats who convinced the admin that Iraqis were more amenable to regime change than they actually were.

irishjayhawk
08-13-2007, 05:09 PM
Who attacked who or have you forgot.

Phew, the Republican brain washing really did a thorough job on you.

memyselfI
08-13-2007, 05:09 PM
ROFL ahahahaha

It's pretty easy to be 'right' when you've taken both sides of an argument.

http://www.arkansas103.com/generator/files/flip%20flops.jpg

memyselfI
08-13-2007, 05:12 PM
It's pretty obvious he'd changed his mind about this by the time he'd signed on to PNAC's agenda...

which was 1998ish. :hmmm:

StcChief
08-13-2007, 05:13 PM
AlQaeda attacked us mostly Saudis with a Saudi leader and NOT a state sponsored terrorist group. Certainly not any Iraqi, nor SH. They hide and live in friggin caves.

Oh btw those flyovers were also illegal. If a hostile nation flew over our airspace are you saying we'd have no right to shoot them?

AlQueda may have been NOT state sponsered. Still not convinced about the Saddam connection. given the 10 years of domination after 1991 for UN 668/UN 1441.

If they were so Illegal.... why wasn't the league of nations stopping it.
US/UK/France conducted this to keep Saddam from bombing Kurds/Kuwait.

If hostile nation attempts to fly over. They will be met.

Sympathize with Saddam all you want. Explain how he was not a bad guy and should have been left alone.

irishjayhawk
08-13-2007, 06:26 PM
AlQueda may have been NOT state sponsered. Still not convinced about the Saddam connection. given the 10 years of domination after 1991 for UN 668/UN 1441.

If they were so Illegal.... why wasn't the league of nations stopping it.
US/UK/France conducted this to keep Saddam from bombing Kurds/Kuwait.

If hostile nation attempts to fly over. They will be met.

Sympathize with Saddam all you want. Explain how he was not a bad guy and should have been left alone.

Explain to me how he was a threat to us.

patteeu
08-13-2007, 06:32 PM
holy schite you are insane



he WAS right when he did this interview but sadly when most of us said this about the IRAQ war as it was happening Cheney and his watch dogs shouted us down .... including your dumb ass.


so when Cheney says it you applaud ..... but when we say it, we are anti-american and want the U.S. to fail and american soldiers to die?!?



dam :shake:


this just shows that Cheney knew that the war in Iraq was a bad idea .... he just didn't care because he had other agenda.

Don't you think that Cheney's mind could have changed during the intervening years? Maybe he got smarter. Maybe the lay of the land changed. Maybe someone else made a convincing argument.

patteeu
08-13-2007, 06:45 PM
so what did Saddam have to do with 911?


i thought the invasion of Iraq was a humanitarian issue?






.

Two things.

1) 9/11 was only one of several attacks that were symptoms of a growing violent islamist movement in the middle east that some believe is stimulated by the totalitarian rule of the region. Removing one of these totalitarians and replacing him with a democracy was intended to be a major step in a GWoT strategy that attacked the roots of the problem.

2) With Saddam's history of working with terrorists and fomenting terrorism in Israel, and al Qaeda's thrist for technologies that could only be provided by a limited number of states, ousting Saddam was one way to both ensure that he wouldn't hand over any of his weapons but also to be a warning to other regimes not to engage in proliferation. It was a preventative strategy that was developed in an environment in which the administration was being criticized for not connecting dots early enough to prevent 9/11. Iraq was a case of connecting dots.

BucEyedPea
08-13-2007, 06:50 PM
Sympathize with Saddam all you want. Explain how he was not a bad guy and should have been left alone.
What does that have to do with the defense of the United States?
How does that give us the right to social engineer other countries? That's a liberal game. Where does the US Constitution says we social engineer other countries? That bad guy was also our ally for many years too. Why was that okay then but not in 2003?

Fact, still is, his heavy managment is what kept that fake country together and was directed at those trying to oust or kill him too. Now the Shiite militias are doing the same thing he did. I'd rather have a bad guy as a buffer between Iran and the rest of the ME or a knowable situation as opposed to what we may not know that could be worse.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Ultra Peanut
08-13-2007, 06:59 PM
IT WAS A PRE-9/11 WORLD, MANOoh, nice.

It was a pre 9/11 world. HAHAHAHAHAHA

patteeu
08-13-2007, 06:59 PM
What does that have to do with the defense of the United States?
How does that give us the right to social engineer other countries? That's a liberal game. Where does the US Constitution says we social engineer other countries? That bad guy was also our ally for many years too. Why was that okay then but not in 2003?

Fact, still is, his heavy managment is what kept that fake country together and was directed at those trying to oust or kill him too. Now the Shiite militias are doing the same thing he did. I'd rather have a bad guy as a buffer between Iran and the rest of the ME or a knowable situation as opposed to what we may not know that could be worse.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I would think that it would be obvious that if it didn't happen earlier, at the very latest Saddam went from being an ally-of-convenience to being an enemy when he stood his ground in Kuwait and made us shed blood to drive him out. :shrug:

Bowser
08-13-2007, 07:10 PM
How long until we go back to Somalia?

Mr. Laz
08-13-2007, 07:16 PM
Sympathize with Saddam all you want. Explain how he was not a bad guy and should have been left alone.
there we go again .....

disagree with iraq and you 'sympathise' with saddam.



so when are we gonna invade the country of every other 'bad guy' in power?



i swear the excuses shift so fast you can barely keep up with them.


WMD ... no WMD

just wait WMD ... no WMD

link to 911 ... no link to 911

link to terrorism ... 'indirect' link to terrorism

humanitarian effort ... still floating that when it's convenient***

and now the next one ROFL

saddam is a bad guy ... ??????????????????????



(***even though the current GOP clearly doesn't believe the government should be involved in humanitarian issues)

the Talking Can
08-13-2007, 07:29 PM
ha ha

Nightwish
08-13-2007, 08:37 PM
What did Saddam have to do with continued violation of UN 1441, oil for food scam.
A lot of people profited from the corruption of the oil-for-food thing. We should have bombed Halliburton's headquarters, while we were at it, as they profited as much as anyone.

Firing anti-aircraft guns as we patrolled / enforced the no fly zone.
Those same aircraft that were patrolling/enforcing the no-fly zones were also firing missiles at targets inside Iraq on a fairly regular basis, something that they weren't given authorization to do in the resolutions that provided for the no fly zones. If we shoot at them, they are more than within their rights to shoot back.

Killing and torturing his people.
Great reason to invade back in the 1980s, when he was doing all that. Lousy reason to wait until 20 years after the fact.

Giving $25K to families to have brain washed people to blow themselves up.
Fine, let Israel invade Iraq. That was their problem, not ours.

Pitt Gorilla
08-13-2007, 08:54 PM
Don't you think that Cheney's mind could have changed during the intervening years? Maybe he got smarter. Maybe the lay of the land changed. Maybe someone else made a convincing argument.Smarter? Wasn't he right the first time?

the Talking Can
08-13-2007, 08:59 PM
so, Cheney was against the invasion before he was for it...there's a word for that...right on the tip of my tongue...i'm sure a Republican would know it...if i remember right it starts with an "f" and is also the name of a type of shoe...

Taco John
08-13-2007, 09:12 PM
I think this thread proves what we already knew: there is about 25% of the country who will carry the water no matter how far it needs to be carried, no matter how dirty (bloody) that water is.

Taco John
08-13-2007, 09:16 PM
I would think that it would be obvious that if it didn't happen earlier, at the very latest Saddam went from being an ally-of-convenience to being an enemy when he stood his ground in Kuwait and made us shed blood to drive him out. :shrug:



May I comment on that?

That's really an extraordinary statement. Are you saying that something Sadaam did invited the US to attack Iraq? I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for the reasons we attacked Iraq.

irishjayhawk
08-13-2007, 09:26 PM
May I comment on that?

That's really an extraordinary statement. Are you saying that something Sadaam did invited the US to attack Iraq? I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for the reasons we attacked Iraq.

ROFL

BucEyedPea
08-13-2007, 09:33 PM
I'll tell ya' what changed with Cheney in the interim...his heart went bad.
Less oxygen to the brain perhaps or became a chemical personality with the pharmaceuticals keeping him alive. :p

Logical
08-13-2007, 09:40 PM
Don't you think that Cheney's mind could have changed during the intervening years? Maybe he got smarter. Maybe the lay of the land changed. Maybe someone else made a convincing argument.ROFLROFLROFL

go bowe
08-13-2007, 10:20 PM
May I comment on that?

That's really an extraordinary statement. Are you saying that something Sadaam did invited the US to attack Iraq? I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for the reasons we attacked Iraq.what's this?

are you channeling rudy, or what?

patteeu
08-14-2007, 06:32 AM
May I comment on that?

That's really an extraordinary statement. Are you saying that something Sadaam did invited the US to attack Iraq? I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for the reasons we attacked Iraq.

I'm not sure what you're talking about, but I assume you are familiar with Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and our response to that invasion. It's pretty clear to me, at least, that any positive relationship we might have had with Saddam in the previous decade ended at that point.

If you are talking about our more recent attack on Saddam, I'd just say that at a minimum, Saddam didn't do enough to avoid being attacked.

Bowser
08-14-2007, 09:32 AM
I'm not sure what you're talking about, but I assume you are familiar with Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and our response to that invasion. It's pretty clear to me, at least, that any positive relationship we might have had with Saddam in the previous decade ended at that point.

If you are talking about our more recent attack on Saddam, I'd just say that at a minimum, Saddam didn't do enough to avoid being attacked.

Granted, but I still don't see how that confirms that Iraq was behind the attacks on the World Trade Centers.

Taco John
08-14-2007, 09:32 AM
what's this?

are you channeling rudy, or what?



<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sk334TbliaY" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed>

StcChief
08-14-2007, 09:43 AM
I think this thread proves what we already knew: there is about 25% of the country who will carry the water no matter how far it needs to be carried, no matter how dirty (bloody) that water is.
Doesn't prove that at all.
It continues to prove the right and left are very far apart on what America is and should be. and the middle is still up for grabs despite how the media continues to try and paint it.

HolmeZz
08-14-2007, 09:48 AM
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sk334TbliaY" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed>

Rudy's a bully with a lisp.

Taco John
08-14-2007, 10:44 AM
Rudy's a bully with a lisp.


Do you see how he goes bug eyed there toward the end... It looks like his eyes are going to shoot lasers.

patteeu
08-14-2007, 11:48 AM
Granted, but I still don't see how that confirms that Iraq was behind the attacks on the World Trade Centers.

This was a subject brought up by BEP's question: "That bad guy [Saddam] was also our ally for many years too. Why was that okay then but not in 2003?"

I gave my take on how Iraq is related to 9/11 in post #24.

penchief
08-15-2007, 11:04 AM
I have 3 initial thoughts about this:

1) This doesn't fit in very well with the narrative about how the administration came to power gunning for Iraq.

2) I wonder what changed his mind. Hopefully the man will write a memoir to explain his roles and his rationales throughout his political life.

3) I'll be darned if Dick Cheney isn't right about everything. Even when some might think he's been wrong about something (like how difficult toppling Saddam could be), a video like this shows up and proves he was, in fact, right. :thumb:

He was definitely right on that day.

penchief
08-15-2007, 11:08 AM
Don't you think that Cheney's mind could have changed during the intervening years? Maybe he got smarter. Maybe the lay of the land changed. Maybe someone else made a convincing argument.

Maybe he started drinking the Kool-Aid.

Ugly Duck
08-15-2007, 11:58 AM
I'll be darned if Dick Cheney isn't right

We finally agree on something.

"There would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq" and "It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq" are astute observations. Predicted by many and come to sour fruition.

Boyceofsummer
08-16-2007, 03:18 AM
Because we are, after all.......

TEAM AMERICA WORLD POLICE

*cue theme song*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3ZuNBUBmcM&mode=related&search=

CHIEF4EVER
08-16-2007, 03:24 AM
Do you see how he goes bug eyed there toward the end... It looks like his eyes are going to shoot lasers.

Careful TJ. If you are too critical of 'Don' Giuliani you may wind up with a horses head in your bed when you wake up.

Braincase
08-16-2007, 06:20 AM
IIRC, Halliburton handled logistics for Gulf War I, then after an audit, it was determined that Halliburton engaged in a practice of overbilling the tax-payers, and continued logistal support for the region was awarded to Bechtel or some other company.

Of course Cheney wouldn't advocate a move of that nature at that time... he couldn't guarantee the huge payday for his buddies at Halliburton, but when there was an open-ended contract that could be expanded as necessary, now you've got a machanism in place to pilfer the treasury.

I'm looking forward to the post-Bush audit.

penchief
08-16-2007, 11:41 AM
IIRC, Halliburton handled logistics for Gulf War I, then after an audit, it was determined that Halliburton engaged in a practice of overbilling the tax-payers, and continued logistal support for the region was awarded to Bechtel or some other company.

Of course Cheney wouldn't advocate a move of that nature at that time... he couldn't guarantee the huge payday for his buddies at Halliburton, but when there was an open-ended contract that could be expanded as necessary, now you've got a machanism in place to pilfer the treasury.

I'm looking forward to the post-Bush audit.

Not me. It's going to be so much worse than anyone expects. It's going to take a long time and a lot of sacrifice to dig ourselves out of this mess.

Not only that, no matter how sincere the next president is going to have to be when it comes to trying to repair the damage, the righties are going to say, "see, we told you they'd raise taxes. we told you they'd make it harder for businesses to make a profit with all their unnecessary regulation, etc."

I'm not at all looking forward to the corporate media regurgitating that line of shit.

And I'm just not looking forward to more collusion and manipulation by the economic elite in efforts to undermine sound policy and honest governance just so they can restore their grip on the power to do whatever they want without accountability.

go bowe
08-16-2007, 10:16 PM
Don't you think that Cheney's mind could have changed during the intervening years? Maybe he got smarter. Maybe the lay of the land changed. Maybe someone else made a convincing argument.nope, this is a major flip flop...

just a flippin floppella...

barbecue flip and hunan stlye floppers, please...

or is that floppin flips?

never could keep this flip flop thingy straight...

Mr. Kotter
08-16-2007, 10:18 PM
nope, this is a major flip flop...

just a flippin floppella...

barbecue flip and hunan stlye floppers, please...

or is that floppin flips?

never could keep this flip flop thingy straight...

Says the man, who's flip-flopped from gobo to go bowe. ;)

go bowe
08-16-2007, 10:58 PM
Says the man, who's flip-flopped from gobo to go bowe. ;)oooh oooh, goody gummy guns...

can i flip back to 1969?

it was a very good year...

Ultra Peanut
08-17-2007, 08:01 AM
[H]ow many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth?

Our judgment was, not very many, and I think we got it right.Seriously, this is such a great quote.

banyon
08-17-2007, 12:37 PM
Don't you think that Cheney's mind could have changed during the intervening years? Maybe he got dumber. Maybe the lay of the land changed. Maybe someone else made a convincing argument.


FYP

dirk digler
08-17-2007, 04:06 PM
In 2000 Cheney while running for VP reaffirmed his 1994 stance

In 2000, Tim Russert asked Vice Presidential nominee Dick Cheney, “Do you regret not taking Saddam out nine years ago?” Here’s how Cheney responded:

CHENEY: I don’t, Tim. It was–and it’s been talked about since then. But the fact of the matter is, the only way you could have done that would be to go to Baghdad and occupy Iraq. If we’d done that, the U.S. would have been all alone. We would not have had the support of the coalition, especially of the Arab nations that fought alongside us in Kuwait. None of them ever set foot inside Iraq. Conversations I had with leaders in the region afterwards–they all supported the decision that was made not to go to Baghdad.

They were concerned that we not get into a position where we shifted instead of being the leader of an international coalition to roll back Iraqi aggression to one in which we were an imperialist power, willy-nilly moving into capitals in that part of the world taking down governments. So I think we got it right, so suppose it’s one of those things that’ll be debated for some time. But I thought the decision was sound at the time, and I do today. [Meet the Press, 8/27/00]

patteeu
08-17-2007, 05:11 PM
In 2000 Cheney while running for VP reaffirmed his 1994 stance

He may still agree with that stance. It's pretty likely he doesn't think the circumstances were the same then and now though.

HolmeZz
08-17-2007, 05:37 PM
He may still agree with that stance. It's pretty likely he doesn't think the circumstances were the same then and now though.

You can trot out 9/11 as an excuse all you'd like, but that still doesn't address his original assessments that we wouldn't be able to control Iraq on our own.

Mi_chief_fan
08-17-2007, 05:45 PM
It seems like we're having this discussion on two threads.

Adept Havelock
08-17-2007, 05:47 PM
You can trot out 9/11 as an excuse all you'd like, but that still doesn't address his original assessments that we wouldn't be able to control Iraq on our own.

Well, post 9/11 the Iraqis wouldn't have been nearly as angry about being occupied. That's why we needed far fewer troops for the occupation than when we made Kuwait safe for 10'th century Islamic Fiefdoms.


Or something like that.....

patteeu
08-17-2007, 07:24 PM
You can trot out 9/11 as an excuse all you'd like, but that still doesn't address his original assessments that we wouldn't be able to control Iraq on our own.

Some of the changes between then and now could relate directly to that issue. If he believed that the Iraqis had become ripe for a democratic revolt in the interim it might have changed his thinking, for example. IIRC, this is the scenario that Ahmed Chalibi was selling.

Ultra Peanut
08-17-2007, 09:58 PM
Ah, Chalabi. Now there's a bastion of honesty and reliability.

Ugly Duck
08-17-2007, 11:28 PM
Ah, Chalabi. Now there's a bastion of honesty and reliability.

Chabati? Now who would be dufus enough to believe that guyz bullshiet?

Nightwish
08-17-2007, 11:33 PM
He may still agree with that stance. It's pretty likely that in 1994 and 2000, he was still saying what he needed to say to get elected, and now safely in office, can afford to let his true colors show.
FYP

Logical
08-18-2007, 12:21 AM
I have 3 initial thoughts about this:

1) This doesn't fit in very well with the narrative about how the administration came to power gunning for Iraq.

2) I wonder what changed his mind. Hopefully the man will write a memoir to explain his roles and his rationales throughout his political life.

3) I'll be darned if Dick Cheney isn't right about everything. Even when some might think he's been wrong about something (like how difficult toppling Saddam could be), a video like this shows up and proves he was, in fact, right. :thumb:

Actually toppling Saddam was easy. Running an occupation was the disaster.

CHIEF4EVER
08-18-2007, 01:31 AM
Actually toppling Saddam was easy. Running an occupation was the disaster.

And do you know why Jim? Easy, and I am guessing you already know this.....because the same dickheads who planned to win the war with the fewest troops possible failed to plan for what happens after the shooting stops. It almost appears to me like they stood out in the White House Garden with outstretched hands saying "well, are 130,000 enough to keep the peace? SURE! Our boys are bad as a MOFO!".

|Zach|
08-18-2007, 03:23 AM
In 2000, Tim Russert asked Vice Presidential nominee Dick Cheney, “Do you regret not taking Saddam out nine years ago?” Here’s how Cheney responded:

CHENEY: I don’t, Tim. It was–and it’s been talked about since then. But the fact of the matter is, the only way you could have done that would be to go to Baghdad and occupy Iraq. If we’d done that, the U.S. would have been all alone. We would not have had the support of the coalition, especially of the Arab nations that fought alongside us in Kuwait. None of them ever set foot inside Iraq. Conversations I had with leaders in the region afterwards–they all supported the decision that was made not to go to Baghdad.

They were concerned that we not get into a position where we shifted instead of being the leader of an international coalition to roll back Iraqi aggression to one in which we were an imperialist power, willy-nilly moving into capitals in that part of the world taking down governments. So I think we got it right, so suppose it’s one of those things that’ll be debated for some time. But I thought the decision was sound at the time, and I do today. [Meet the Press, 8/27/00]

Ultra Peanut
08-18-2007, 03:40 AM
And do you know why Jim? Easy, and I am guessing you already know this.....because the same dickheads who planned to win the war with the fewest troops possible failed to plan for what happens after the shooting stops. It almost appears to me like they stood out in the White House Garden with outstretched hands saying "well, are 130,000 enough to keep the peace? SURE! Our boys are bad as a MOFO!".Well, the mission was already accomplished. Who could have foreseen the quagmire that er--wait.

patteeu
08-18-2007, 05:17 AM
In 2000, Tim Russert asked Vice Presidential nominee Dick Cheney, “Do you regret not taking Saddam out nine years ago?” Here’s how Cheney responded:

CHENEY: I don’t, Tim. It was–and it’s been talked about since then. But the fact of the matter is, the only way you could have done that would be to go to Baghdad and occupy Iraq. If we’d done that, the U.S. would have been all alone. We would not have had the support of the coalition, especially of the Arab nations that fought alongside us in Kuwait. None of them ever set foot inside Iraq. Conversations I had with leaders in the region afterwards–they all supported the decision that was made not to go to Baghdad.

They were concerned that we not get into a position where we shifted instead of being the leader of an international coalition to roll back Iraqi aggression to one in which we were an imperialist power, willy-nilly moving into capitals in that part of the world taking down governments. So I think we got it right, so suppose it’s one of those things that’ll be debated for some time. But I thought the decision was sound at the time, and I do today. [Meet the Press, 8/27/00]

Timeloop. See post 59.