Cheney in 1991:
By on Feb 23rd, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Cheney in 1991:
“For the U.S. to get involved militarily in determining the outcome of the struggle over who’s going to govern in Iraq strikes me as a classic definition of a quagmire.” Cheney today: “I stand by what I said in ‘91.“
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Cheney today: “I stand by what I said in ‘91.“
Good. Let’s get the hell out of there.
February 23rd, 2007 at 8:36 pmI am experiencing cognitive dissonance.
This is completely opposite positions combined with never admitting one is wrong.
February 23rd, 2007 at 8:39 pmNote to Democrats: Never apologize for anything.
The GOP never apologizes, no matter how big their mistakes. So why are we always the ones apologizing? And looking weak in the process.
February 23rd, 2007 at 8:40 pmCheney: Well, I stand by what I said in ‘91. But look what’s happened since then — we had 9/11.
Ahhh…of course…9/11. SOB.
February 23rd, 2007 at 8:40 pm*Slaps his head*
I’m in the twilight zone, aren’t I…
Aren’t I???
February 23rd, 2007 at 8:41 pmYeah, of course he goes into how invading Iraq was because they were connected with the the terrorists.
And as for them changing our policy, they changed our policy under Bushco who are slowly turning our country into a totalitarian state under the guise of increased protection from the terrorists.
Cheney is not good at BS, because good BS should not be so transparent.
February 23rd, 2007 at 8:44 pmYes Z,
February 23rd, 2007 at 8:45 pmHe stands by it and he was 100% correct. Unfortunately he does not seem to care about us being the central figure in the quagmire, or the seriousness of the consequences.
Once he figured that a quagmire would enable him and his war profiteering buddies to rape and pillage any and all for the almighty dollar, his destiny was formed.
I find it difficult to understand why this man is quoted in the newspapers and on TV. Everything he says is an effing joke, with no credibility whatsoever.
February 23rd, 2007 at 8:45 pmOK. So Cheney effectively says, yeah, we are in a quagmire today.
Hey…his words, not mine.
February 23rd, 2007 at 8:47 pmMiserable piece of shit…..Can I go hunting with your bloated ass.? And the winner is? Uppity old women unite……Blessings
February 23rd, 2007 at 8:48 pmOh, and I love this exchange (off topic, yeah, but part of the interview):
JONATHAN KARL: I want to ask you about another issue that’s been a subject of controversy here in Australia, global warming. Did you get a chance to see Al Gore’s movie?
CLINICALLY INSANE VP: I have not seen Al Gore’s movie.
JONATHAN KARL: Doesn’t surprise me.
CLINICALLY INSANE VP: He didn’t invite me to the showing.
JONATHAN KARL: The premiere, huh?
CLINICALLY INSANE VP: Not that I had planned to go anyway.
February 23rd, 2007 at 8:51 pmDick Cheney = Baghdad Bob
February 23rd, 2007 at 8:52 pmCheney today: “I stand by what I said in ‘91.“
So it’s official then, it’s a quagmire. Thanks for clearing that up.
February 23rd, 2007 at 9:00 pmthen his head exploded
February 23rd, 2007 at 9:03 pmCan we begin to call Chaney what Chaney truly is: A coward’s coward.
February 23rd, 2007 at 9:12 pm#12 Angry One
I believe you are confusing Cheney with Tony Snow
February 23rd, 2007 at 9:45 pmShouldn’t a list of the Vice President’s meds be available for public review?
February 23rd, 2007 at 9:51 pm#3: So why are we always the ones apologizing? And looking weak in the process.
Apologizing only appears weak to very stupid people. While I acknowledge there are some voters who are very stupid, I don’t necessarily think that pandering to the very stupid is a wise political strategy. I think it’s important to apologize when the situation clearly warrants it, which is why I think many voters will forgive John Edwards (for example) because he had the courage to apologize for his foolish vote to authorize military action against Iraq. (Of course, I’d prefer a candidate who doesn’t have to apologize for that foolish vote.)
February 23rd, 2007 at 9:58 pmDifficult quote from Cheney to explain away from ‘91, but his explanation lends some clarity.
Cheney: Well, I stand by what I said in ‘91. But look what’s happened since then — we had 9/11. We’ve found ourselves in a situation where what was going on in that part of the globe and the growth and development of the extremists, the al Qaeda types that are prepared to strike the United States demonstrated that we weren’t safe and secure behind our own borders. We weren’t in Iraq when we got hit on 9/11. But we got hit in ‘93 at the World Trade Center, in ‘96 at Khobar Towers, or ‘98 in the East Africa embassy bombings, 2000, the USS Cole. And of course, finally 9/11 right here at home. They continued to hit us because we didn’t respond effectively, because they believed we were weak. They believed if they killed enough Americans, they could change our policy because they did on a number of occasions. That day has passed. That all ended with 9/11.
I suggest that for him to say he ’stands by what he said’, doesn’t make much sense, although I agree with the sentiment that it is a different world than it was in ‘91. How about: I believed sentiment made sense in ‘91, but we were responding to a different world after the numerous attacks, etc.
February 23rd, 2007 at 10:00 pmIf this isn’t a quintessential example of Orwellian “doublethink”, then I don’t know what is!
Someone needs to inform Bush, Cheney, et al. — like, now — that Orwell actually intended “1984″ to be a cautionary tale…
February 23rd, 2007 at 10:06 pmOk, so what’s the process you need to take when it becomes painfully obvious that the Vice President is clinically insane? Any Constitutional experts out there? Does that make Nancy Pelosi Vice President?
February 23rd, 2007 at 10:09 pmJesus jumpin’ Christ, somebody PLEASE pull the plug on the microphone for this raving loon. His mental contortionist act is mind-boggling. You have to wonder if even he believes his own rantings anymore.
February 23rd, 2007 at 10:29 pmIt seems, in all sincerity, that Cheney was arguing that the 9/11 attacks justify the quagmire he predicted 16 years ago. Why? Just because.
Sixteen years ago, he didn’t work for Halliburton yet. He was CEO there from 1995-2000. That’s “why.”
February 23rd, 2007 at 10:53 pmSeems to me that the reason this bovine scatology succeeds is because the neocons exploit certain liberal assumptions. As libs, we engage in political discourse from a largely rationalist, empiricist perspective informed by the intellectualism of the Enlightenment. Thugs like Cheney know this, and they capitalize upon it. Rather than worrying about trivia like evidence or fact, they conjure a reality to suit their immediate needs, and while we scrutinize it from our rational point-of-view, they alter their reality—whereupon we scrutinize it anew, startled and confused by the fact that none of it makes any sense. “Making sense” in a rational way is not a priority for these people; it serves only as a tool with which to delay any substantive opposition to their nefarious schemes. While we become preoccupied with sorting through the bullsh*t, they destroy both this country and the world.
So here’s the Hobson’s choice: do we fight fire with fire, abandon any semblance of rationalism and attempt to fabricate a progressive reality more compelling to the public, or do we maintain our place in the “reality-based community” and sink slowly into this nonsense? I’m inclined to the latter, but I fear the American public hasn’t the attention span necessary to shatter the looking glass and get to the truth.
February 23rd, 2007 at 11:06 pm#23 BlueArkansas
Well, since the republicans seem to use labels against us so much (communist, liberal), I think it would be constructive to actually start calling them what they are, fascists. If it is repeated constantly, the way they do with the leftist labels, eventually it will stick. And I don’t think we have to worry about irrationality or unethical aspects of it since it is quite true.
February 23rd, 2007 at 11:12 pmIt depends on what the definiton of “quagmire”, is.
February 23rd, 2007 at 11:14 pmSome have said that Cheney’s activities leading us into an unwinable quagmire was tantamount to treasoln. But I don’t question his patriotism, I question his judgement.
February 23rd, 2007 at 11:54 pm#26 That would depend on whether choosing the dollar over your country is treason. I would say it is treason and established US law would agree with me.
February 24th, 2007 at 12:12 amCheney in 1991…
Cheney in 1991: “For the U.S. to get involved militarily in determining the outcome of the struggle over who’s going to govern in Iraq strikes me as a classic definition of a quagmire.†Cheney today: “I stand by what I said in ‘91.“…
February 24th, 2007 at 12:12 amSixteen years ago, he didn’t work for Halliburton yet. He was CEO there from 1995-2000. That’s “why.â€
Comment by impeachcheneythenbush #22
I BOLDED impeach’s post because it hits the nail on the head…
…PERIOD!
February 24th, 2007 at 12:22 amCheney must resign, or be impeached, and then be given life in prison.
February 24th, 2007 at 12:47 amCheney: “I stand by what I said in ‘91.“
Just then, you hear Dick on camera, fumbling for buttons and switches, typing in “1991 Obfuscations”
Suddenly, blasting trough his earbud so cleverly absorbed inside his fat little ear by the CIA at preinterview, these sounds comes wafting across the studio:
” 1991 Obfuscation Talking Points Chapter 2, paragraph 4, item 6b.” It’s in his own words, on his own recordings of his own voice.”
Interviewer as 6 CIA agents wisk Dick off camera while still in his chair …
“We’ll be back in a moment folks, and now a word from our sponsor” as he shakes his head in disgust.
February 24th, 2007 at 1:12 amLieberman: ‘Iraq is a bit more complicated.‘
Should read: “We don’t honestly know what the fu*ck to do anymore nor have we ever”
Should read: “If we would have told the troop strength “truth” in the beginning, the people wouldn’t have accepted it and would have begun to ask all sorts of “nasty” questions”
Should read: “Bush assured us in the beginning this would be a “slam dunk”
Should read: “They are tough little fighters and well, to be truthful, we are getting our asses kicked”
Should read: “If we used some sort of nuclear device this would be much easier. And quicker too.”
Should read: “When I signed off on this war I was privy to “closed session” senatorial proceedings, but I went along with this gaff anyway.”
Should read: “My corporate sponsors and corporate controller’s tell me that I am going along with this war and I am going to do whatever they tell me to do, after all this is what a Senator does, make deals.”
Should read: “I have sold my corporate soul to the Zionist devil and well, it is just out of my hands now.”
February 24th, 2007 at 1:23 amYet more evidence that Cheney is a full blown psychopath.
February 24th, 2007 at 1:40 amI.R.A.Q.–I Remember Another Quagmire–Vietnam.
February 24th, 2007 at 1:52 amMy fellow Americans. Vote for me and I will get us into another quagmire, because 9/11 demands it!
Gee, he should have said that in 2000, a lot of voters could have made a more informed decision.
February 24th, 2007 at 2:14 amUS Forbids Israel-Syria Talks
Must be part of an american future plan ???? mmmm
February 24th, 2007 at 6:16 amThe Dick says whatever benefits him and his at the time.
February 24th, 2007 at 9:50 amHe has several motives . . . money . . . money . . . money . . . and . . . money.
As we keep saying. He is a war criminal and should be treated as such.
Capture this criminal and send him to The Hague for trial and hanging. That should wipe his disgusting, evil sneer from his pig face.
February 24th, 2007 at 10:41 amThe really amazing thing about Cheney and his delusions is that even when he’s right, he’s wrong!
February 24th, 2007 at 11:09 amIMPEACH!
February 24th, 2007 at 11:12 amHow I long to see the look on “Dick’s” face, when he hears the metallic click of the handcuffs closing around his wrists.
February 24th, 2007 at 11:35 amAs the philosopher poet George Santayana so correctly observed, “Those Who Cannot Remember the Past are CONDEMNED to Repeat It.” Well, Mr. Santayana, I WOULD SETTLE FOR Cheney to be CONDEMNED, period! With a daffodil stuck in his repulsive arse as a FLOURISH!
February 24th, 2007 at 1:16 pmLisa,
After November 7, 2006, I haven’t heard any apologies coming from
Democrats.
Damn Cheney, he is so f**king stupid that he doesn’t even realize that he’s responsible for this quagmire… the very one that he predicted in 1991. Dick Cheney, proof positive of the Peter Principle.
February 24th, 2007 at 4:10 pmCheney is mentally ill.
February 24th, 2007 at 5:03 pmWhere is your citation for this quote? Not only is it not found ANYWHERE else online (google, media sites, other search engines), it simply can’t be found. You need to provide references or it’s considered bullsh*t. I can’t believe that there are 42 replies on this thread thus far and not ONE of you has doubted the source. No scrutiny, just blind Commander in Chief bashing.
February 24th, 2007 at 7:14 pmWe’ve won every single battle in Iraq, and in 5 years since 9-11, we’ve lost approximately 3200 soldiers. We lost 400,000 in WWII in less time. We’ve lost 22,000 since 9-11 to murders by illegal immigrants, another 28,000 to drunk driving accidents involving illegal immigrants. We’ve found WMD’s which former PA Senator Rick Santorum declassified, yet you still spew the “Bush lied -” or “Bush misled about WMD’s” hoping to revise history…or current events.
Having been in the Army for 5 years, worked at Chem Defense for 2.5 years, and now for an Assitant Secretary of Defense, with a D.V.M. and Ph.D., I can tell you all that you’re full of sh*t.
I can also tell you that saying you support the troops and not the war is a hollow gesture. Not a single service member I know feels ANY support whatsoever from that philosophy, especially since we overwhelmingly support the mission. Genocide is genocide, even if the immoral anti-American anti-Semitic majority at the U.N. doesn’t uphold their own resolutions, even if there are other interests in the region besides humanitarian (although 1.6million murdered is 4 times as many as in Darfur). We had no exit strategy in WWII or the Korean Wars either; we’re still there and for reasons that developed AFTER the objective. The objective now is to keep the terrorists funneling in where we’re mobilized to fight them and off our soil and to be in theater (Iraq and Afghanistan) and poised to fend off Iran. Ahmadinejad threatens Israel daily, as did Saddam by paying blood money to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers to the tune of $25K.
Have we learned NOTHING from WWII? When somebody says he’s going to exterminate you, he’s going to exterminate you.
Have we learned NOTHING from Vietnam an Somalia about allowing the troops to complete the mission unfettered by the media, ACLU, and Hollywood?
The next time you stick a knife in my comrades-in-arms backs by stating you “support the troops but not the war”, wipe the proverbial residual spit off your mouths and blood off your hands for “defunding us”. You’re pathetic.
P.S. You defend these ISLAMOFASCISTS at your own peril. Thankfully, none of you on here are in any position to effect a change in policy or morality when it comes to national defense or the War on Terror. You bang your heads in rants such as seen on this thread day in and day out, saying nothing to the face of your opposition, because you lack the courage to do so and you are extremely frustrated about your “combat ineffectiveness”. Tomorrow, and the next day, it will be as it was today and yesterday, and that gives me comfort. You change nothing in here, or likely in your real, everyday lives. Sorry if the truth hurts, but wake up tomorrow and see. You certainly didn’t wake up after 9-11; maybe you hit the snooze button and need to see that mushroom cloud rising over the People’s Republic of San Francisco to see the light. Unfortunately, the flash blindness will be the last thing your retinas process to your optic nerves.
February 24th, 2007 at 7:23 pmCome to think of it, having your head buried in the sand or up your a$$ might be a good strategy for flash blindness protection. None of you are speaking from being “in-the-know”, another thing that frustrates you Michael Morons. You’re selling out your own children’s futures.
One more thing…
February 24th, 2007 at 7:34 pm“War ciminal”? “Mentally ill”? Especially in light of this unsubstantiated quote, HOW?
Why does John F’n Kerry, who admitted to committing and witnessing far greater atrocities than pillow cases over someone’s head or Red Hot Chilly Peppers music, met with the Viet Cong IN uniform unauthorized in Paris, threw his medals/ribbons over the White House wall, said that troops were “terrorizing Iraqi women and children and kids in the dead of night” and further went on to call them stupid (I have far more education than Mr. Kerry), get to run for president while throwing our current military under the bus? THAT’S a traitor! THAT’S why 86%+ of the military voted for Bush.
You bang your heads in rants such as seen on this thread day in and day out, saying nothing to the face of your opposition, because you lack the courage to do so
Comment by majdvmphd #43
…would that I could L’il Bushie…
…would that I could…
…I’d gladly be your Huckleberry…
February 24th, 2007 at 9:19 pm“L’il Bushie”? Listen to yourself. No, far from it. Democrat even through the 2000 election, but no more. It is no longer the party of hawks with conscience, of Roosevelt, Truman, JFK, Miller, Lieberman. Now, a party of wealth, racism, history revisionism, anti-JudaoChristian values, entitlement, and appeasment that tricks others into thinking the shoe is on the other foot.
“Would that you could”? Precisely so. You can’t. I checked the status of the world this morning, and we’re still in Iraq, we’re still in Afghanistan, we’re still waging the War on Terror, and Bush and Cheney are still in office. LMFAO. Next will be Giuliani. The “Neo-Com” Dems are eating their own TWO YEARS before the election, like Christmas decorations on Labor Day. Try selfless service in the military before you make a mockery of yourself attempting to do so with others.
If you all want the last word that’s fine. I get the last laugh that you change nothing. I have a military and veterinary career and 3 children. I don’t have time to attempt to change the minds of half-wits on a prolonged basis. You’re beyond help in your blind nostalgia to a dead party and the MSM.
Thanks, Val Kilmer, but you’re more like a dingleberry, if you catch my drift.
February 25th, 2007 at 8:47 amWelll, far be it from me to not admit when I’m wrong about something. That said, the context of Cheney’s statement needs to be looked at. Most importantly, this is NOT 1991. This is a world post-9-11, a world you’re still not living in. Parameters and stakes have changed dramatically, but you’re still living in a Jimmy Carter post-Vietnam appeasement alternative reality. In 1991, in the first Gulf War, Bush Senior didn’t want to go into Baghdad and take out the Saddam regime because of the instability he knew it would cause between factions of the population (Sunni, Shia, Kurds). After 9-11, with Saddam still thumbing his nose at 17 U.N. resolutions and firing on our planes in the no-fly zone, still paying Palestinian families $25K for homicide bombings, still training Al Qaeda within his borders after his collaboration with Ramzi Yousef in the 1993 WTC bombing and Iraqi Intel meeting with Mohammed Atta in Prague, still funding Abu Saef in the Philippines, we HAD to take him out, even though the ensuing civil strife was predictable.
February 25th, 2007 at 7:49 pmmajdvmphd- better check under your bed tonight….
Just a concerned citizen.
February 25th, 2007 at 8:52 pmCheck under my bed for what, your left wing conspiracy theories? Typical hit-and-run Neo-Com comment with no substance to it. Just a grammar school comeback talking point. don’t enter a battle of wits unarmed, Comrade.
February 26th, 2007 at 9:18 amA “concerned citizen” might be a bit more concerned about the threat of Islamofascism, ushered in by the unelected 4th party of government, the ACLU.
February 26th, 2007 at 9:54 am