On Iraq Regime Change, 2007 Cheney Contradicts 2000 Cheney While Dismissing 1994 Cheney
On Iraq Regime Change, 2007 Cheney Contradicts 2000 Cheney While Dismissing 1994 Cheney
Earlier this week, a video from 1994 of Dick Cheney discussing why the first Bush administration didn’t move “into Baghdad” during the Gulf War surfaced on the internet and spread like wildfire. In the video, Cheney said disposing Saddam Hussein would have created a “quagmire” and suggested it would not be worth the loss of American life to conduct regime change:
How many additional dead Americans was Saddam worth? Our judgment was not very many, and I think we got that right.
Watch it:
A local CBS affiliate in San Francisco reached the Office of the Vice President for comment, but his office dodged the substantial contradictions between Cheney’s 1994 position and his position as Vice President:
“He was not Vice President at the time, it was after he was Secretary of Defense,” a spokesperson told CBS 5 San Francisco. “I don’t have any comment.”
But even after Cheney departed as Secretary of Defense, he still held strongly to his views that regime change in Iraq was not a strategically sound risk to take. He was the Vice Presidential candidate in 2000 when he reaffirmed his views that it wasn’t worth going into Iraq.
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]
Desperate to run from his previous statements, Cheney is offering excuses that don’t stack up. Cheney must answer why he told Americans in 2003 that we would be “greeted as liberators” when he had previously expressed concern that we would be perceived as an “imperalist power” that would get stuck in a “quagmire.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Cheney is a liberator not liberal.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:18 amHeyoooOOOoOoooOoo moonbats!
August 17th, 2007 at 10:19 amTalk about a flip-flop!
August 17th, 2007 at 10:20 amWhat more proof do the dead enders need that this war was a sham?
August 17th, 2007 at 10:21 amAnd the occupation of Iraq is a stunning success, most of our casualties are the result of flying chocolate and flowers.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:21 amNEOCOLONS SUCK!
Trying to connect Darth to reality and the truth is like comparing RUDEE to the Brave Fire and police men and women at Ground Zero! Or Mitt’s family commitment to the GOP occupation of Iraq!
August 17th, 2007 at 10:22 amA flip-flop that has cost tens of thousands of lives and billions of dollars. That he can now say that he didn’t think it would become a quagmire is an outright lie. Impeach already.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:23 amWhat a reversal. The Neocons brainwashed this guy big time.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:24 amHeyoooOOOoOoooOoo moonbats!
Comment by Bob — August 17, 2007 @ 10:19 am
Is that the best you can do? Your fearless leader is caught red-handed telling a gigantic lie that has cost 4,000 coalition lives and 1,000,000 Iraqi lives, and you wanna make fun of “moonbats?”
You people are pathetic.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:25 amIn 1994 Cheney’s involvement with Haliburton was about to begin. There was no profit motive involved in invading Iraq. That changed with the coronation of King George the W.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:25 amNo worse than the rants issued by leading dems when talking about Iraq in the 90’s.
Easily found if you dare to look (which I doubt you will), but Ill be kind and offer an example for the willing. Conveniently you dont even need to leave YouTube after watching the Cheney vid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64
August 17th, 2007 at 10:25 amImpeach? too late libbys
August 17th, 2007 at 10:26 amMust be Your Dem leaders are profiting from the war too.
When is Oil, Halliburton going to be mentioned 3,2,1…
August 17th, 2007 at 10:27 amWhat a despicable U.S. government official. Obviously he has great power in the Bush administration, more so than the president if reports are accurate. How can he be a leader of the free world and yet be so unprincipled as to flip-flop on an important issue such as Iraq. This is so mindboggling, equal to Powell’s silence since his departure from respectability as an American hero. And Cheney shows no regret, no hand wringing over his failure as a person.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:28 amWhen did it go from 650000 to 1,000,000?
You libs really are good at rounding off numbers.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:28 amMust be Your Dem leaders are profiting from the war too.
No no no, bob, Diane Feinstein steering defense contracts to her husband’s companies was all aboveboard and beyond reproach. Why? Because liberals care…and when you care you are allowed to get away with things that conservatives would be hanged for.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:28 amGeez — Cheney had it right in 1994, with remarkable clarity. Pity his lies since have forced him to backpedal from it.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:28 amBob, you sorry sack of republodung. He is accountable to the american people and this is a flip flop beyond flip flops. This man knew of the problems associated with attempting any take over of Iraq.
The f%$ked up reasons why this admin. said we had to go into Iraq doesn’t change the logistics in how to do it and the consequences. This is where Cheney, and this administration has failed us.
You stand by a traitor to this country. You are worse than the fool. you are the one that blindly follows.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:29 amNo worse than the rants issued by leading dems when talking about Iraq in the 90’s.
How many people have lost their lives because of these rants by dems? How much money have these rants cost Americans?
The ‘they did it too’ excuse is not going to get you anywhere.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:30 amBob – how much do you get paid for being the first Freeper to post on a TP thread? Is there a bounty? Are you paid by the post – you must be, since all your posts are crap.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:30 amWhen is Oil, Halliburton going to be mentioned 3,2,1…
0…Halliburton! The same Hallilburton that received no-bid contracts from the Clinton administration for work in Kosovo.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:30 amTo characterize this as a flip flop is to diminish the impact of Cheney’s words.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:32 amThe White House cabal was a conniving, lying, self-serving pack of thieves, and they began their long-planned nefarious activity the moment they stepped into office.
This is further evidence that the msm failed the public, and they failed the nation as a whole. They overlooked contradictions and all evidence that would have cast any doubt or skepticism on the Bush/Cheney regime, and instead they became cheerleaders for them.
Bush&Co are the worst affliction to this nation in my memory, no doubt, and they will be recorded as such in the annals of history, but the failure of the press throughout all of this is unforgiveable.
Having been embarrassed and used by Bush&Co, the press, incredibly, continues to neglect their mission.
Cheney was against the Iraq occupation before he was for it.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:32 amComment by Rump Ranger — August 17, 2007 @ 10:30 am
“Clinton did it too….!”
*yawn*
August 17th, 2007 at 10:33 amCheney is one of the most vile human beings the good lord made he needs to pray for all the blood on his and bushes hand.I pray that we can get out this mess.I would like to see congress step up and do something.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:34 amYou libs really are good at rounding off numbers.
Comment by Bob — August 17, 2007 @ 10:28 am
Bob, what level of deaths is ok for you? Obviously 4000 Americans is Ok because you only seem to care about the number stated for Iraqi deaths. How about the millions that have left Iraq to get away from the American quagmire? Oh, right, you don’t give a shit about them.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:34 amCheney’s word is like Texas weather.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:35 amGive it a couple hours, it will change.
The left’s hysterical reaction to the Jose Padilla verdict has caused me to ask: What do liberals love so much about terrorists? Is it their devil may care attitude? Is it their rebellious ways? Is it their hatred for the Jews (or, as liberals call them, neocons)?
I think it’s because they both dislike the same things, namely America. What say you?
August 17th, 2007 at 10:35 amThe left’s hysterical reaction to the Jose Padilla verdict has caused me to ask: What do liberals love so much about terrorists? Is it their devil may care attitude? Is it their rebellious ways? Is it their hatred for the Jews (or, as liberals call them, neocons)?
I think it’s because they both dislike the same things, namely America. What say you?
Comment by Frank J — August 17, 2007 @ 10:35 am
I say you try and prove your rants, Franky baby – or put your head back up your a** where you found it this morning, like every morning.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:36 amI think it’s because they both dislike the same things, namely America. What say you?
Comment by Frank J — August 17, 2007 @ 10:35 am
I say you’re a lying fool. There has been no “hysterical reaction” by the Left to the verdict. Take that particular piece of horsesh!t over to the Freeper site where they’ll lap it up.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:36 amYour media has become nothing more then entertainment driven. News has to be something that sells. Truth & integrity are interesting concepts but if they interfere with profitability then they can be discarded. The media learned from the Dixie Chicks example & realized that showing the govt for the fools they were wouldn’t put viewers in their chairs with their channels selected. Not when Faux News was busy supporting the govt at all costs. So they dumbed down their broadcasts so as not to hurt the sensibilities of govt loving Americans. Truth be damned, full speed ahead. And now the apologies limp in, followed by more dog & pony shows as the U.S. prepares for Iran. History repeats itself for those too dumb to study & learn from it.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:37 amCheney wasn’t the only one saying this.
Here is my video of Schwartzkopf and (now) Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in 1997 saying the same thing.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:37 amYea, I wonder what got him to change his tune!
http://OsiSpeaks.com or http://OsiSpeaks.org
August 17th, 2007 at 10:38 amThe people that post here that stood against the war and this administration from the beginning are the true patriots. It is time for all you to pat yourself on the back. Give credit where credit is due. Intelligence and wisdom prevailed over ignorance and idiotcy. While watching Jon Stewart he made a remark that his audience “gets it”. Meaning that they have taken the information processed it and came to a understanding agreement. Unlike other outlets(FoxNews) their viewers regurgitate their information. Like a trained parrot. There is very little intelligence required in this effort. These indivduals collapse quickly when confronted as all of you well know.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:38 am“0…Halliburton! The same Hallilburton that received no-bid contracts from the Clinton administration for work in Kosovo.”
Comment by Rump Ranger — August 17, 2007 @ 10:30 am
“but…but…but…Clinton did it too!”
August 17th, 2007 at 10:38 am“but…but…but…the war on terror!”
“we’re fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here!”
“there is nothing to see here — move on…”
“look — up there — something pretty and shiny!”
The left’s hysterical reaction to the Jose Padilla verdict has caused me to ask: What do liberals love so much about terrorists?
I think it’s because they both dislike the same things, namely America. What say you?
Comment by Frank BJ — August 17, 2007 @ 10:35 am
I say, try to stay on topic and defer from your derailement.
Answer me this. What changed recently that had Cheney agreeing with now, with which he strongly opposed?
August 17th, 2007 at 10:39 amWhat say you?
Comment by Frank J — August 17, 2007 @ 10:35 am
I say you forgot to look at the this news item. It’s Cheney’s Big Flip-Flop, already playing in a cemetery near you. Is it your hatred of off white skinned people? Is it your hatred of anyone who disagrees with the status you give Jesus? By the way, if Jesus was indeed an historical figure, he would have been off white. Sorry to burst your precious bubble.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:40 amDesperate to run from his previous statements, Cheney is offering excuses that don’t stack up.
Let me simplify this for the air temp IQ trolls…..
See Cheney.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:40 amSee Cheney run.
Run, Cheney, run.
There was absolutely no new intelligence gathered between Dick’s statement in 2000 and our invasion. The only thing that changed was the opportunity to attack.
Rump and Bob are following traitors that push our soldiers to the front while leaving the back door open for the weasels and rats to escape.
The world see’s this administration for the cowards and destroyers of democracy they are.
America won’t stand for it.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:42 amRumpRanger-
August 17th, 2007 at 10:42 amThe big difference here is that Clinton did not profit from using Helliburton. Your Dick boy on the other hand has his hand so far down into the cookie jar it’s disgusting!
“0…Halliburton! The same Hallilburton that received no-bid contracts from the Clinton administration for work in Kosovo.â€
Comment by Rump Ranger — August 17, 2007 @ 10:30 am
Oh you know the trolls have no argument when the “but Clinton” comes out.
Did Clinton have 200,000 dollars worth of stock in Haliburton? And after those no-bid contracts did they value 8 million?
August 17th, 2007 at 10:42 am0…Halliburton! The same Hallilburton that received no-bid contracts from the Clinton administration for work in Kosovo. “Rump ranger” (sounds gay)
What does Clinton have to do with this. Why do you find it necessary to obfuscate the issue by injecting Clinton into it. Do we bring up Nixon and watergate or Regan’s Iran Contra/arms for hostages debacle/crime.
You also assume that just because someone doesn’t agree with your slant on the issue that the person is a democrat. I was a republican for years believing in fiscal restraint and pay as you go. What happened? Why did you enable these right wing nuts to retain their control? Just party loyalty? You are a traitor…had you paid attention to history in school you might realize what a treacherous series of events have happened to this nation and the constitution since the coronation of King George the W.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:43 amCheney is a liberator not liberal.
Comment by Bob — August 17, 2007 @ 10:18 am
Indeed! Liberating “reality” from “the facts” and “the truth” daily!
Why do “the facts’ and “the truth” hate America so?
Anybody up for some pipin’ hot Freedom Fries?
August 17th, 2007 at 10:45 amNo Frank J, Padilla is simply a number in the American system of justice. Our system requires that all people be susceptible to and examined by a set of laws, onerous though that maybe. A speedy application of justice is a requirement. We have passed the days of stringing the unfavorable on a tree with a noose around the neck.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:45 amYour Dick boy on the other hand has his hand so far down into the cookie jar it’s disgusting!
Comment by a patriot acting — August 17, 2007 @ 10:42 am
Uh, patriot? that’s not a cookie jar he’s got his hand down, or up, as the case may be, and it’s to the elbow.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:46 amThe left’s hysterical reaction to the Jose Padilla verdict has caused me to ask: What do liberals love so much about terrorists? Is it their devil may care attitude? Is it their rebellious ways? Is it their hatred for the Jews (or, as liberals call them, neocons)?
I think it’s because they both dislike the same things, namely America. What say you?
Comment by Frank J — August 17, 2007 @ 10:35 am
19 Terrorists killed 3000 Americans on 9-11
GOP terrorists namely Bush, Cheney, Rice, Wolf, Gonzo have killed at least a million Iraq and Afghani citizens. You know INNOCENT men, women, children.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:47 amRun, Cheney, run.
Comment by Wayne — August 17, 2007 @ 10:40 am
Whoa… w/ his ticker? Not bloody likely!
August 17th, 2007 at 10:47 amLet me guess, Cheney will give one interview where he ‘allows’ questions regarding his amnesia and it will be on Faux and the interviewer will simply agree with whatever he says.
The rampant amnesia of the Bush Admin, both current and now gone, is simply amazing. Jon Stewart played a clip of Rummy recalling in detail some decision he make 30 years ago, but for recent events he is the leader of the ‘I don’t recall’ statements. And how about Gonzo! Here is a guy that is the top official in the US justice department that recall anything of importance and yet he is a lawyer? Someone please hold them accountable.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:48 amRun, Cheney, run.
Comment by Wayne — August 17, 2007 @ 10:40 am
Whoa… w/ his ticker? Not bloody likely!
Comment by Empire Burlesque
ok….
See Cheney waddle.
Waddle, Cheney, waddle.
Better? =D
August 17th, 2007 at 10:50 amAw Jeez. So Cheney lied, I’m so disillusioned. So Cheny’s a power whore, I’m so surprised. So Cheney’s a prick, Gollieee sarg.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:50 amfootsore
RumpRanger posted:
> No worse than the rants issued by leading dems when talking about
> Iraq in the 90’s.
>
> Easily found if you dare to look (which I doubt you will), but Ill be kind
> and offer an example for the willing.
Jebus Krikes RR, did you even LISTEN to what Gore is saying there??? He says that if Bush (Sr) had not befriended Saddam for all those years, we wouldn’t have needed to invade in 1991.
For YEARS, the Reagan/Bush Administrations funded their good buddy Saddam. They gave him money and weapons. In fact, the day AFTER Saddam invaded Kuwait, the State Department still had him listed as a U.S. ally.
Then suddenly, we are shocked (SHOCKED I TELL YA!) when he invades Kuwait and uses those weapons WE gave him against them.
Gore was NOT saying we should of “invaded” Iraq. He’s blaming Reagan and Bush for helping him out all those years! Yeesh!
August 17th, 2007 at 10:50 amCheney must answer why he told Americans in 2003 that we would be “greeted as liberators†when he had previously expressed concern that we would be perceived as an “imperalist power†that would get stuck in a “quagmire.â€
Umm . . . he saw dollar signs clicking ?
August 17th, 2007 at 10:50 amSee Cheney tick.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:51 amSee Cheney’s batteries die.
See Cheney fall down.
The left’s hysterical reaction to the Jose Padilla verdict has caused me to ask: What do liberals love so much about terrorists? Is it their devil may care attitude? Is it their rebellious ways? Is it their hatred for the Jews (or, as liberals call them, neocons)?
I think it’s because they both dislike the same things, namely America. What say you?
Comment by Frank J — August 17, 2007 @ 10:35 am
ahhh, I haven’t heard on news channel cover this much at all. I could care less about Padilla the arguement was about the unnecessary need for military commissions and suspending is right to a trial and not letting his lawyer have access to evidence and addmitting evidence obtained in torture. We argued that case against Padilla should be held before federal court and he should retain all his rights in the proceedings. If he is guilty show the guilt the american public can handle it. This administration keeps shielding us let the public are a bunch of 8 year olds and can’t handle the big bad real world.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:52 am“Uh, patriot? that’s not a cookie jar he’s got his hand down, or up, as the case may be, and it’s to the elbow.”
Comment by Empire Burlesque — August 17, 2007 @ 10:46 am
Well played, EB.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:52 amAre you refering to the Bush Puppet?
Dave C and michael comments on the media’s culpability in this are right on. Timmy Russert is supposedly widely regarded in the field and yet where is his attempt to run this huge contradiction in Cheney’s position down?
Too many media big dogs have decided to whore themselves out by accepting preconditions to not ask about certain subjects else their access (and therefore their ratings) will be curtailed. The White House correspondent who yelled an inconvenient question at Bush/Rove was widely attacked for basically doing his job.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:53 amWell played, EB.
Are you refering to the Bush Puppet?
Comment by a patriot acting — August 17, 2007 @ 10:52 am
Perhaps he is referring to the Lame Duck?
August 17th, 2007 at 10:54 amComment by Mugsy — August 17, 2007 @ 10:50 am
Mugsy 1, Rump Ranger 0
August 17th, 2007 at 10:54 amCheney’s words in those videos will get absolutely no traction in the mainstream media at all.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:56 amCheney was AGAINST the unnecessary invasion of a sovereign nation that posed no threat to the United States before he was FOR it (and could PROFIT directly by it).
August 17th, 2007 at 10:56 amCheney’s words in those videos will get absolutely no traction in the mainstream media at all.
Comment by kelso — August 17, 2007 @ 10:56 am
You’re probably right.
Interestingly, The Daily Show ran it on Wednesday night. Go figure!
August 17th, 2007 at 10:58 amCheney was AGAINST the unnecessary invasion of a sovereign nation that posed no threat to the United States before he was FOR it (and could PROFIT directly by it).
Comment by Republicans Can’t Govern. — August 17, 2007 @ 10:56 am
Turns out Cheney was also for trading (and did trade) with Iran, in violation of US law before he was in favor of bombing Tehran. Again – he stood to make money then.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:01 amWith the link: http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0722-02.htm
August 17th, 2007 at 11:01 amYou’re probably right.
Interestingly, The Daily Show ran it on Wednesday night. Go figure!
Comment by toasterhead — August 17, 2007 @ 10:58 am
yeah, an then tore Stephen Hayes, who wrote the Cheney book, and new one about his contradictions in the book. Imagine reading 400 pages about Cheney. I’ll only do that once it is his wrap sheet.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:01 amWhoa… w/ his ticker? Not bloody likely!
Comment by Empire Burlesque — August 17, 2007 @ 10:47 am
Let the man run!
August 17th, 2007 at 11:02 amyeah, an then tore Stephen Hayes, who wrote the Cheney book, and new one about his contradictions in the book. Imagine reading 400 pages about Cheney. I’ll only do that once it is his wrap sheet.
Comment by chad — August 17, 2007 @ 11:01 am
And how! I almost felt bad for the guy. Almost.
(Hayes, not Cheney.)
August 17th, 2007 at 11:04 amI love this quote:
“I think we Americans sometimes make mistakes…There seems to be an assumption that somehow we know what’s best for everybody else and that we are going to use our economic clout to get everybody else to live the way we would like.”
Can you believe that this is a Cheney quote?
“The American way of life is non-negotiable”
That’s more like it! Except not in the way you think Dick. Go f*** yourself Dick. I’ll dance on your grave first chance I get.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:05 amLet the man run!
Comment by Zooey — August 17, 2007 @ 11:02 am
Zooey,
Remember when our favorite troll, mr. p had that funny ticket of Darth and Tabcredo? Now that would be a great big juicy target for any of the Dem candidates to blow out of the water!
August 17th, 2007 at 11:05 amYou’re probably right.
Interestingly, The Daily Show ran it on Wednesday night. Go figure!
Comment by toasterhead — August 17, 2007 @ 10:58 am
yeah, an then tore Stephen Hayes, who wrote the Cheney book, and new one about his contradictions in the book. Imagine reading 400 pages about Cheney. I’ll only do that once it is his wrap sheet.
Comment by chad — August 17, 2007 @ 11:01 am
That was the best smackdown Jon has ever done. Jon made many very good points. This program should be watched by everyone.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:05 amChad,
Stewart was dead on about Cheney. It was good to hear. Don’t question our patriotism just because we question the actions of this administration. Especially when Stewart is pointing out the contradictions this thread is discussing.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:06 amLet the man run!
Comment by Zooey — August 17, 2007 @ 11:02 am
No MAKE him run. Cover him in bacon grease and turn him loose in front of a pack of underfed wolves.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:07 amThat was the best smackdown Jon has ever done. Jon made many very good points. This program should be watched by everyone.
Comment by Yikes — August 17, 2007 @ 11:05 am
I agree, and it is good to see Jon get some fire back in his belly. As we have commented on here before, it seems he was getting bogged down in all the continuing crap news coming from the Repugs, he just lost his spark.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:08 amthe main pont here is that cheney was clearly lying in order to attack Iraq and there is no way to dodge this fact
he can’t say;
“he saw evidence and had a differant interperataion” because he knew as a fact we would be in a quagmire yet he told us the oposite
a clear lie that he cannot back away from
August 17th, 2007 at 11:08 amLink yet for the Daily Show segment you are talking about?
August 17th, 2007 at 11:08 amGeorge W. Bush, 4/9/99:
“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.â€
George W. Bush, 6/5/99
“I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.â€
August 17th, 2007 at 11:12 amCheney is not “flip-flopping,†for much has changed since this interview was given, it’s an entirely different world today.
Comment by dumplings — August 17, 2007 @ 11:10 am
How so?
August 17th, 2007 at 11:12 amYou libs really are good at rounding off numbers.
Comment by Bob — August 17, 2007 @ 10:28 am
you cons are really bad at lying about everything; you get caught every time. the noose for Cheney!
August 17th, 2007 at 11:13 am“Cheney is not “flip-flopping,†for much has changed since this interview was given, it’s an entirely different world today.”
Comment by dumplings — August 17, 2007 @ 11:10 am
And yet events in Iraq came true pretty much as Cheney predicted in 1994! I suspect that it’s Cheney’s world that is entirely different from what it was back then, not ours.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:13 amComment by dumplings — August 17, 2007 @ 11:10 am
I agree that Cheney is not flip-flopping – he is consistently following his own venal greed, in 1994, in 2000, now. He’s nothing if not consistent.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:14 amThe reason why we cannot have a PC war.
When the Dems and Reps decide to go in we must do so with full throttle.
Otherwise we have what we have now.
Whatever Cheney, Hillary, Bush or any other politician says now versus then or then versus now neither party is gonna get out soon.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:14 amCheney’s own words brand him as an opportunistic warmonger.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:18 amFrom 94 – 2000 it’s untenable, a quagmire, then suddenly in 2003, it’s a cakewalk.
My LyingBastardometer pegged again.
Link yet for the Daily Show segment you are talking about?
Comment by TerrytheTurtle — August 17, 2007 @ 11:08 am
Here you go – enjoy!
The 1994 vs 2007 Cheneys:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/08/16/daily-show-1994-dick-cheney-vs-post-911-dick-cheney/
The Hayes Smackdown:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/08/16/jon-stewart-grills-cheney-biographer-stephen-hayes-calls-out-john-gibson-too/
I believe I saw a link to this interview in a comment the other day, if I am not mistaken. It hardly seems appropriate or even news-worthy to replay a video from the early 1990’s. Cheney is not “flip-flopping,†for much has changed since this interview was given, it’s an entirely different world today.
Comment by dumplings — August 17, 2007 @ 11:10 am
No. No, it isn’t. Cheney predicted a quagmire in 1994. Today we have a quagmire. Cheney discussed the problems of sectarian strife in Iraq in 1994. Today we have a civil war (five or six, to be exact). The only thing that’s “changed” is that we did the exact thing that Cheney said in 1994 we shouldn’t do.
Also – I look forward to you never mentioning the Clinton administration again, since things have changed since his administration and it’s an entirely different world today.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:19 amSo if Cheney thought it would be a quagmire in ‘94 and 2000 when he wasn’t vp, what or who made him change his mind? If Cheney and Addison are “handling” Bush, who is handling Cheney?
August 17th, 2007 at 11:19 amThe reason why we cannot have a PC war.
Comment by mizuno — August 17, 2007 @ 11:14 am
#
What is your definition of a “PC war”? We have no clear, defined enemy in Iraq, which is why we cannot carpet bomb large areas. We would kill the very people we went there to help. Also, our definition of enemy changes regularly. Those we were fighting against in 2003 are the same people we are trying to protect today, and those we were working to liberate then, we are now viewing as the enemy. This is not like the Korean war, where we had specific boundaries and a specific enemy. We don’t really even have a clear military objective. I served in Iraq from Feb ‘03 to May ‘04.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:19 ammizuno
Which is why we say leave. America isn’t going to accept the measures needed to win (EG: Instituting a draft, putting a general in charge of Iraq, raising taxes to pay for Iraq and most of all recognising that the Iraqis don’t see this as doing them any favours) so just leave.
Do or don’t do, don’t dither while soldiers die.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:19 amOil (oh..and the abilty to steal without repercussion) changes everything.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:20 amWhen the Dems and Reps decide to go in we must do so with full throttle.
Comment by mizuno — August 17, 2007 @ 11:14 am
I’ve seen you make this asinine argument several times in the last few days. I’d like you to explain tactically what a “full throttle” war means, besides more dead brown people.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:20 amWhich is why we say leave. America isn’t going to accept the measures needed to win (EG: Instituting a draft, putting a general in charge of Iraq, raising taxes to pay for Iraq and most of all recognising that the Iraqis don’t see this as doing them any favours) so just leave.
Do or don’t do, don’t dither while soldiers die.
Comment by Bruce Gorton — August 17, 2007 @ 11:19 am
#
Good point. How is your day (or evening) going?
August 17th, 2007 at 11:21 amWhatever Cheney, Hillary, Bush or any other politician says now versus then or then versus now neither party is gonna get out soon.
Comment by mizuno — August 17, 2007 @ 11:14 am
That’s just Repug apologist talk for covering up the truth about this illegal invasion and occupation. Nobody with any clarity and a shred of intelligence still feels we should have invaded and should still be there. ANd I do agree that the Dems have not done enough to clean up the BushCo sh!tpile.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:22 amI served in Iraq from Feb ‘03 to May ‘04.
Comment by Chris L — August 17, 2007 @ 11:19 am
You were in Iraq two months before the invasion?
August 17th, 2007 at 11:23 amI agree, and it is good to see Jon get some fire back in his belly. As we have commented on here before, it seems he was getting bogged down in all the continuing crap news coming from the Repugs, he just lost his spark.
Comment by upside00 — August 17, 2007 @ 11:08 am
Your right upside00. Perhaps having Denis Leary on the night before help him get his focus. That was a funny show, Denis is hilarious. Perhaps also, they had been very well prepared for Hayes’ appearance on the show.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:24 amThe Daily Show recently devoted most of their show to this, check it out:
VIDEO – Daily Show Cheney 1994
http://beta.redlasso.com/Community/ClipPlayer.aspx?i=06be2f59-1784-44f7-a4a2-cc88ef50a157
VIDEO – Stephen Hayes + Jon Stewart
August 17th, 2007 at 11:24 amhttp://beta.redlasso.com/Community/ClipPlayer.aspx?i=84200ac7-2241-4da2-94af-a96941008d4c
If Cheney and Addison are “handling†Bush, who is handling Cheney?
Uh, Satan?
August 17th, 2007 at 11:24 amToasterhead…I don’t care what color they are.
Bruce Gorton…I do believe you are right. America should not get involved in any full throttle war and let us see where the chips fall.
We should be isolationist. Let us see how great the world would be without America’s greed.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:25 amGreat posts today. This is concrete evidence of the passion of true americans fighting for democracy and accountability. I’m heartened by this.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:26 amChris L
It’s Friday, always a weak day for business news, plus strangely, with the drama going on with US sub-prime loans hitting everyone’s finance markets, today was oddly subdued on the international business news wire.
That said, TGIF, and one of our local union leaders is getting married. Kind of joyous news to go into the weekend with.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:26 amYou were in Iraq two months before the invasion?
Comment by toasterhead — August 17, 2007 @ 11:23 am
#
We sat on the Kuwaiti border waiting for the word to go in, at Camp Wolf. I was deployed Feb 8. When we arrived, Camp Wolf, Kuwait was the same tent and sand sh!thole it had been when I was there in 2000. When we left Iraq, Camp Wolf had been transformed to a permanent base – Camp Wolverine.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:26 amComment by Yikes — August 17, 2007 @ 11:24 am
Good point. Dennis was a great guest, as he really got Jon back engaged and in his quick-thinking mode. And Yes, it did look like they took some extra effort to prep for Hayes. (Me thinks it may have been the subject matter that got Jon wired, but what do I know?)
August 17th, 2007 at 11:27 amWhen the Dems and Reps decide to go in we must do so with full throttle.
Otherwise we have what we have now.
Comment by mizuno — August 17, 2007 @ 11:14 am
I agree. But it’s more than just going in “full throttle” — it’s also going in with a clear objective, and leaving when that objective is achieved.
When we invaded Kuwait in 1991, it was with a clear objective everybody understood — liberate Kuwait from Iraq. We went in full throttle, accomplished the objective, and we left. A great deal of the success of this mission is due to Daddy Bush trusting his generals and allowing them to do what they do best.
Fast forward to Iraq, 2003. We have had a “mission” that keeps changing, we invaded based on lies, and we have our politicians second-guessing our military. We have created far more chaos there than we ever “fixed”, we have started a civil war, and we’ve created a breeding ground for terrorists. Our training of Iraqi military has just turned into arming and training both sides of their own war. It’s become so muddy that we don’t even know what “victory” is over there anymore — much less how to attain it.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:27 amIf Cheney and Addison are “handling†Bush, who is handling Cheney?
Comment by Radarcat — August 17, 2007 @ 11:19 am
The fellow signers of PNAC!!!!!!!!
August 17th, 2007 at 11:27 amupside00
Yeah, the Dems lied to get Congress. They are paying us off with a minimum wage increase.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:27 amWhat say you?
Comment by Frank J
_________________________
It doesn’t matter what we say. Neocon Kool Aid is known to cause reality-deafness (and a bad case of echolalia of pundits’ neologisms).
August 17th, 2007 at 11:28 ammizuno
There is a big difference between isolationism and being cautious about entering wars you can’t afford. America should engage the world, listen to what the world has to say, and use more tools then just the blunt instruments when dealing with everyone.
A jackhammer is a very useful tool when you want to break ground, but it isn’t terribly good for baking a cake.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:29 amHey.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:29 amWhere did Frank BJ go to?
I asked him a specific question, and as of yet, have not seen a response.
He wasn’t here just to fling his own feces, was he?
I mean, he was here to offer an intelligent, but opposing, viewpoint, right?
Yeah, the Dems lied to get Congress. They are paying us off with a minimum wage increase.
Comment by mizuno — August 17, 2007 @ 11:27 am
#
As much as I would like to disagree with you, the Iraq Supplemental spending bill and recent changes to FISA tell me you are right.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:30 amIf Cheney and Addison are “handling†Bush, who is handling Cheney?
Comment by Radarcat — August 17, 2007 @ 11:19 am
The fellow signers of PNAC!!!!!!!!
Comment by Yikes — August 17, 2007 @ 11:27 am
OK, Satan and his Minions!
August 17th, 2007 at 11:30 amWe should be isolationist. Let us see how great the world would be without America’s greed.
Comment by mizuno — August 17, 2007 @ 11:25 am
A nit knee-jerk, don’t you think? Isn’t there some kind of happy medium between isolationism and imperialism? We need a foreign policy where we’re an honest broker in international conflicts and an unselfish participant in global campaigns.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:30 amTheir once was a man named Dick
August 17th, 2007 at 11:30 amA liar, but they couldn’t make it stick.
Try as they might
To bring truth to light
He just kept on being a prick.
well, it’s obvious that cheney’s in serious denial, and his string of heart failures are evidence of that.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:31 amWOW, talk about open mouth, insert foot…then insert head directly in anu$.
“Washington D.C. – You will never find a more retched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious…”
August 17th, 2007 at 11:32 amComment by DRxJ — August 17, 2007 @ 11:29 am
Hey, don’t be too critical. We have had about a 90% decrease in that feces-slinging and we have been having some good discourse here. Frank always goes on and off the radar, os don’t take it too personally.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:32 amTheir once was a man named Dick
A liar, but they couldn’t make it stick.
Try as they might
To bring truth to light
He just kept on being a prick.
Comment by Zimzone — August 17, 2007 @ 11:30 am
LOL Very good Zimzone. It’s not often I laugh out loud when no one else is around.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:33 amWe sat on the Kuwaiti border waiting for the word to go in, at Camp Wolf. I was deployed Feb 8. When we arrived, Camp Wolf, Kuwait was the same tent and sand sh!thole it had been when I was there in 2000. When we left Iraq, Camp Wolf had been transformed to a permanent base – Camp Wolverine.
Comment by Chris L — August 17, 2007 @ 11:26 am
Ahhh, okay. That’s what I figured. Thank you for the clarification and for your service!
August 17th, 2007 at 11:33 amIt sure is hard to be honest and upfront when you have no idea how honest the other country is being in brokering with you.
Either you have to do what is best for your country or be subject to the fact the other country will fall short on their promises, leaving us holding yet another bag of crap.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:35 amvery interesting interpretation dumplings…
August 17th, 2007 at 11:37 am… leaving us holding yet another bag of crap…
Comment by mizuno — August 17, 2007 @ 11:35 am
Hey, that “bag of crap” is still the POTUS, whether you like it or not, buster!
August 17th, 2007 at 11:37 amWe no longer wanted to take our chances with a hostile, threatening mad man from the Middle East.
I’ll call BS here, as the depiction of Sadaam as a threatening madman was made with cherry picked intel, and a generous dollop of pure BS on the part of the administration…
August 17th, 2007 at 11:37 amOh, yeah and the outright lies…Let’s not forget them, and the pure BS of the reply to the force authorization.. Whew.
paul and toasterhead thanks both.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:37 amWhere did Frank BJ go to?
Comment by DRxJ
_________________________
Off to find some more neocon cliches and talking points. He probably can’t remember them and doesn’t know how to write them down. He’ll likely return with a timely, fact-filled, erudite response later.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:38 amA jackhammer is a very useful tool when you want to break ground, but it isn’t terribly good for baking a cake.
Comment by Bruce Gorton — August 17, 2007 @ 11:29 am
You haven’t tried cutting my aunt’s fruitcake.
The decision to go after Saddam Hussein was made at a time when Americans were more willing to take pre-emptive military action against possible foreign threats. In ‘94 the USA had been successful and efficient in dealing with Saddam’s regime, and frankly, I don’t think Cheney saw Saddam as a real threat at that time.
Comment by dumplings — August 17, 2007 @ 11:31 am
Let’s stop referring to the Iraq Quagmire as a “preemptive military action.” It was never a preemptive military action. By definition, a preemptive military action is one taken against an enemy in order to prevent an IMMINENT attack. That means they HAVE weapons, the capability to use them, and the motivation to use them. The Iraq of 2003 had none of these.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:38 amComment by DRxJ — August 17, 2007 @ 11:29 am
Frank J ran out of poo to fling.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:38 amYikes,
Thanks.
It’s Friday, Franken’s running for Senate, & I felt the need to laugh.
Upside, I agree.
Good discourse this morning.
Dumpling,
August 17th, 2007 at 11:38 amThanks for your comments. Staying civil in discussions is nice, it even enhances the conversations.
Comment by DRxJ — August 17, 2007 @ 11:29 am
He’s put his head back up his a** to look for more.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:39 amwell, it’s obvious that cheney’s in serious denial, and his string of heart failures are evidence of that.
Comment by darla — August 17, 2007 @ 11:31 am
darla, Dick Cheney has a heart – it may be the best heart money can buy, but nonetheless, it’s a heart. He keeps it locked up in that “man-sized” vault in his office, for safekeeping.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:40 amHe’ll likely return with a timely, fact-filled, erudite response later.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:40 amBWAHAHA, you mean a timely, BS filled copy and paste??
The decision to go after Saddam Hussein was made at a time when Americans were more willing to take pre-emptive military action against possible foreign threats.
Dumplings (by the way, there are so many dumplings in this world and so many of them are so damned tasty), I think you are wrong to assume that the majority of Americans were willing to take pre-emptive military action. That assumption is one that has been beaten into us and is simply untrue. The people that gather intelligence were saying that Saddam wasn’t as great a threat as Cheney et al made it seem.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:41 amdumplings
Your post has a strong ring of truth. However, if Bush and Cheney were actually leaders of the whole country, they would have led Americans AWAY from engaging in the fool-hardy, impulsive reactions to 911 and actions toward Iraq.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:42 amWell, it’s been a wonderful morning, but I actually have to do some work now. Dammit. I’ll check back in later.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:42 amHe’s put his head back up his a** to look for more.
Comment by TerrytheTurtle — August 17, 2007 @ 11:39 am
Tell him to look around and see if he can find Gannon’s wristwatch while he’s at it. Jeff still hasn’t found it.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:44 amPLC
August 17th, 2007 at 11:46 amAnother interesting comment…interesting
You were in Iraq two months before the invasion?
Comment by toasterhead — August 17, 2007 @ 11:23 am
#
We sat on the Kuwaiti border waiting for the word to go in, at Camp Wolf. I was deployed Feb 8. When we arrived, Camp Wolf, Kuwait was the same tent and sand sh!thole it had been when I was there in 2000. When we left Iraq, Camp Wolf had been transformed to a permanent base – Camp Wolverine.
Comment by Chris L — August 17, 2007 @ 11:26 am
hey toasterhead you just questioned the man’s service and he responded with the facts. If you support our troops you should apologize.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:48 amEmpire
Cheney best hope that vault with his heart is not the same lockbox our future, non existent social security was suppose to be in.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:49 amIt is true that recently Iraq has been in the very same situation with the very same complications as Cheney predicted in 1994. But what changed was the sense of invinsibility and superiority in Americans. We no longer wanted to take our chances with a hostile, threatening mad man from the Middle East.
Comment by dumplings — August 17, 2007 @ 11:31 am
A couple of points:
August 17th, 2007 at 11:49 am1. Saddam Hussein was not a ‘madman’. Madmen do irrational things. Saddam was completely rational every step of the way, the same way your local neighborhood mobster is rational.
2. The essence of the lie that we are talking about here is the one that Jon Stewart ably shoved down Stephen Hayes throat on his show: Cheney in 1994 knew that Iraq would be a quagmire and in 2002 he told us that the US would be ‘liberators’ and that it would all be over quickly. If he had said that the invasion would be difficult etc etc, he would have told the truth.
3. This crap about ‘9-11 changed everything’. If Saddam supported terrorists that threatened America (note my distinction), and if he had the means to do attack America, and if he had the motivation to gain something by doing so – then why didn’t he attack America BEFORE 9-11? The only thing 9-11 did was to give the fascist right wind of American politics an excuse to advance their agenda. Finito Benito.
A nit knee-jerk, don’t you think? Isn’t there some kind of happy medium between isolationism and imperialism? We need a foreign policy where we’re an honest broker in international conflicts and an unselfish participant in global campaigns.
Comment by toasterhead — August 17, 2007 @ 11:30 am
Like when Clinton was prez? Why is the USA always better off domestically and internationally under Democrats? Are Republicans merely incompetent greedmongers, or are they in fact a 5th column always attempting to destroy the middle class so that the 1% can pretend to be Kings Of The World? Either way, they don’t belong in positions of power and reponsibility, as they prove every time they either lie their way into power or steal it outright.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:49 amIt sure is hard to be honest and upfront when you have no idea how honest the other country is being in brokering with you.
Either you have to do what is best for your country or be subject to the fact the other country will fall short on their promises, leaving us holding yet another bag of crap.
Comment by mizuno — August 17, 2007 @ 11:35 am
We know exactly how honest the leaders of most countries are. We installed most of them and continue to support most of them, including some pretty nasty dictators. That’s the part of our foreign policy that has to change.
“Doing what’s best for our country” means a lot of things to a lot of people. For too long, it has meant “doing what’s best for major corporations in our country and securing unlimited access to natural resources.”
August 17th, 2007 at 11:50 amhey toasterhead you just questioned the man’s service and he responded with the facts. If you support our troops you should apologize.
Comment by chad — August 17, 2007 @ 11:48 am
I asked for clarification and he responded with it and I thanked him. No apology will be forthcoming. Thanks for your interest!
August 17th, 2007 at 11:51 amA couple of points:
Comment by TerrytheTurtle — August 17, 2007 @ 11:49 am
Oh I just parodied myself.
“Nobody expects TerrytheTurtle! His two main points are: Saddam was sane, Cheney lied and 9-11 changed changed nothing. No wait. His THREE main points are….”
August 17th, 2007 at 11:51 amBollocks , Iraq was bombed the shit out off , long before the war
August 17th, 2007 at 11:51 amIf you support our troops you should apologize.
Comment by chad — August 17, 2007 @ 11:48 am
How about you, chad? Bush hasnt gone to a single military funeral, nor apologized for destroying the morale nd lives of the troops. When he does, maybe an apology can be issued for an imagined slight in a good question. In any case, nobody should volunteer for military service while Republicans are in office; they will just use you to murder, rob and line their pockets.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:52 amComment by ronjazz — August 17, 2007 @ 11:49 am
Modern Republicanism is essentially American Fascism. What’s the problem?
August 17th, 2007 at 11:52 am“1. Saddam Hussein was not a ‘madman’. Madmen do irrational things. Saddam was completely rational every step of the way, the same way your local neighborhood mobster is rational.”
I would take issue with this. Do you remember before the war, Saddam reviewed the countermeasures for defending the country?
Bows and arrows, and slingshots to defend against guns doesn’t seem too rational.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:52 amTest
August 17th, 2007 at 11:53 amRonjazz,
Jimmy Carter was not so great for the USA domestically or internationally.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:54 amIt isnt that simple.
BWAHAHA, you mean a timely, BS filled copy and paste??
Comment by RUCerious
______________________
DUH!!
I had this brief thought that maybe it’s not nice to make fun of the trolls when they are not here. But then I quickly also noted to myself that when they are here, they are not really “here” anyway. So, whack.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:54 amHe hem this was before the invasion
The MoD response shows that in April only 0.3 tonnes of ordnance used. The figure rose to 7.3 tonnes in May, however, then to 10.4 in June, dipping to 9.5 in July before rising again to 14.1 in August. Suddenly, in other words, US and British air forces were in action over Iraq.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:54 amI would take issue with this. Do you remember before the war, Saddam reviewed the countermeasures for defending the country?
Bows and arrows, and slingshots to defend against guns doesn’t seem too rational.
Comment by barfly — August 17, 2007 @ 11:52 am
“You go to war with the army you have, not the one you might wish to have.” Dumbsfeld, speaking of irrational.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:55 ambefore the war even started
What happened next was dramatic. In September, the amount of ordnance used in the southern no-fly zone increased sharply to 54.6 tonnes. It declined in October to 17.7 tonnes before rising again to 33.6 tonnes in November and 53.2 tonnes in December. The spikes were getting taller and taller.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:55 am“Doing what’s best for our country†means a lot of things to a lot of people. For too long, it has meant “doing what’s best for major corporations in our country and securing unlimited access to natural resources.â€
Comment by toasterhead — August 17, 2007 @ 11:50 am
Well said. I might add ‘how cheaply can we use their labour.”
August 17th, 2007 at 11:55 amLike when Clinton was prez? Why is the USA always better off domestically and internationally under Democrats? Are Republicans merely incompetent greedmongers, or are they in fact a 5th column always attempting to destroy the middle class so that the 1% can pretend to be Kings Of The World? Either way, they don’t belong in positions of power and reponsibility, as they prove every time they either lie their way into power or steal it outright.
Comment by ronjazz — August 17, 2007 @ 11:49 am
When did I mention Clinton? I said nothing about Clinton in my post. Our foreign policy, particularly in Africa, was just as bad under Clinton. Jimmy Carter did some pretty nasty things, too. I think we need to look more closely at people from both parties and their connections to the corporatocracy.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:55 amJimmy Carter was not so great for the USA domestically or internationally.
It isnt that simple.
Comment by mizuno — August 17, 2007 @ 11:54 am
Actually, he was. His deficit was squarely on the previous Repig amninistration, and he was undercut by traitors North and Reagan. Once again, shifting the blame to the competent shows what fools you Bush-fellators are.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:57 amWe know exactly how honest the leaders of most countries are. We installed most of them and continue to support most of them, including some pretty nasty dictators. That’s the part of our foreign policy that has to change.
“Doing what’s best for our country†means a lot of things to a lot of people. For too long, it has meant “doing what’s best for major corporations in our country and securing unlimited access to natural resources.â€
Comment by toasterhead
Good one Toaster! The big problem here is we didn’t know how DISHONEST our own “Leaders” were and continue to be in this whole mess. We may have the most dangerous leaders in the world right now.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:57 amYou are right, toasterhead, about nation building policies. Know doubt about it. Yet what is the answer?
We get upset when gases prices rise and we go on knee jerk reactions for natural resources but there is not enough natural resources in this country to keep is running and feed us all. So once again, we have to rely on foreign countries.
No one want so sacrifice their SUV, cell phones, drive thru eateries, etc. but they sure are ready to blame some one else for their problems.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:57 amhttp://www.newstatesman.com/200505300013
The war before the war
Britain and the US carried out a secret bombing campaign against Iraq months before the tanks went over the border in March 2003. Michael Smith pieces together the evidence
August 17th, 2007 at 11:58 amI’d like to congratulate the posters on this thread for their thoughtful contributions. Very little name calling, troll derailing. Nice for a change!
August 17th, 2007 at 11:58 amhey toasterhead you just questioned the man’s service and he responded with the facts. If you support our troops you should apologize.
Comment by chad
______________________
Hey, chad, you just insulted Chris L.’s ability to decide for himself whether he was “questioned” or not. If you support our troops, you should apologize. Then, perhaps you can do the real work of “supporting the troops” with more than empty slogans on bumper stickers and car magnets.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:59 amRonjazz
Yeah, Carter was not responsible for any of it. Totally innocent.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:59 amComment by barfly — August 17, 2007 @ 11:52 am
Nope, that’s not conclusive. Saddam was ‘mother of all battles’ kind of guy. Take a look a Churchill in 1940 – the ‘we’ll fight them on the beaches’ speech. Churchill was’nt mad too, was he? Drunk for 5 years, yes, mad no.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:59 amComment by RUCerious — August 17, 2007 @ 11:58 am
My comment about Frank J stands – I’m not withdrawing it. Frank J is a poo-flinging chimp. There. Back to your regular thread.
August 17th, 2007 at 12:01 pmWhat was going on? There were very strict rules of engagement in the no-fly zones. The allied pilots were authorised to fire missiles at any Iraqi air defence weapon or radar that fired at them or locked on to their aircraft. As was noted in Foreign Office legal advice appended to the July 2002 briefing paper, they were only “entitled to use force in self-defence where such a use of force is a necessary and proportionate response to actual or imminent attack from Iraqi ground systems”.
That May, however, Donald Rumsfeld had ordered a more aggressive approach, authorising allied aircraft to attack Iraqi command and control centres as well as actual air defences. The US defence secretary later said this was simply to prevent the Iraqis attacking allied aircraft, but Hoon’s remark gives the game away. In reality, as he explained, the “spikes of activity” were designed “to put pressure on the regime”.
What happened next was dramatic. In September, the amount of ordnance used in the southern no-fly zone increased sharply to 54.6 tonnes. It declined in October to 17.7 tonnes before rising again to 33.6 tonnes in November and 53.2 tonnes in December. The spikes were getting taller and taller.
In fact, as it became clear that Saddam Hussein would not provide them with the justification they needed to launch the air war, we can see that the allies simply launched it anyway, beneath the cloak of the no-fly zone.
In the early hours of 5 September, for example, more than a hundred allied aircraft attacked the H-3 airfield, the main air defence site in western Iraq. Located at the furthest extreme of the southern no-fly zone, far away from the areas that needed to be patrolled to prevent attacks on the Shias, it was destroyed not because it was a threat to the patrols, but to allow allied special forces operating from Jordan to enter Iraq undetected.
It would be another nine weeks before Blair and Bush went to the UN to try to persuade it to authorise military action,
August 17th, 2007 at 12:01 pmWhen did I mention Clinton? I said nothing about Clinton in my post. Our foreign policy, particularly in Africa, was just as bad under Clinton. Jimmy Carter did some pretty nasty things, too. I think we need to look more closely at people from both parties and their connections to the corporatocracy.
Comment by toasterhead — August 17, 2007 @ 11:55 am
well, I was parodying the usual trollcrap, and I agree, the whole point of checks and balances is to check and balance. No president can get away with what they do without the cooperation of the corporate-owned congress and media. the real fix is in decapitating the multi-nationals and cleaning the filthy stables of the rightwing mainstream media. In the meantime, had Gore not been ripped off by traitors, the Twin toweres would still be standing, ans Saddam would be gone by his own people. Bin Laden would, of course, still be hanging out with the Bush family. Some things never change.
August 17th, 2007 at 12:01 pmYeah, Carter was not responsible for any of it. Totally innocent.
Comment by mizuno — August 17, 2007 @ 11:59 am
Now you’re getting it. Keep it up, pretty soon you will deserve your citizenship.
Nah.
August 17th, 2007 at 12:03 pmWhy has it taken so long for this to come out?
August 17th, 2007 at 12:05 pmWhere was the oppo research during the Kerry campaign?
This video could have one Kerry the election!
I leave for a bit and now Carter is being discussed in a thread about Cheney’s out and out lies.
August 17th, 2007 at 12:05 pmMy comment about Frank J stands – I’m not withdrawing it. Frank J is a poo-flinging chimp. There. Back to your regular thread.
Comment by TerrytheTurtle — August 17, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
No problem. Agreed.
August 17th, 2007 at 12:06 pmThe general tenor of the thread has been quite nice, a few exceptions aren’t gonna dampen my parade!
I leave for a bit and now Carter is being discussed in a thread about Cheney’s out and out lies.
Comment by hellinabucket — August 17, 2007 @ 12:05 pm
And which thimble is the pea under now????
August 17th, 2007 at 12:07 pmRonjazz…
the real fix is to go the the voting booths and vote for that candidate that you never heard of…and vote all incumbents out. Conspiracy theories will only strengthen the other sides resolve.
That would send a huge message. Start at grassroots. Those candidates will have little to no connection to special interests. Weakening their control.
Then keep a hawk eye on the new candidates and remove them as soon as they stray.
If anyone is truly looking to clean Congress and the White House…lets turn the hose on and clean both houses.
August 17th, 2007 at 12:07 pmYet another indictment of Tim Russert who has a penchant for playing old tapes when whoever he’s interviewing says something contradictory. Why didn’t Russert call Cheney on this when Cheney said we’d be greeted as liberators, or when he said the insurgency was in its last throes,…
August 17th, 2007 at 12:07 pmIf you support our troops you should apologize.
Comment by chad — August 17, 2007 @ 11:48 am
How about you, chad? Bush hasnt gone to a single military funeral, nor apologized for destroying the morale nd lives of the troops. When he does, maybe an apology can be issued for an imagined slight in a good question. In any case, nobody should volunteer for military service while Republicans are in office; they will just use you to murder, rob and line their pockets.
Comment by ronjazz — August 17, 2007 @ 11:52 am
August 17th, 2007 at 12:08 pmwooooow settle down guys I just trying to note that there is HUGE difference between supporting the troops and supporting this adminstration and that is why I questioned toasterhead’s comment about how Chris L’s service had started two months before the war began. I thought I was actually sticking up for the guy. If I undermined Chris’ ability to think for himself I do rightfully apologize and I do understand the support the troops should not just be a bumber sticker that was my point I guess I just made it badly.
“Churchill was’nt mad too, was he? Drunk for 5 years, yes, mad no.”
Comment by TerrytheTurtle
Would Churchill have hid himself in a hole to escape detection?
August 17th, 2007 at 12:08 pmThis video could have one Kerry the election!
Comment by OxyCon — August 17, 2007 @ 12:05 pm
Kerry was a crap candidate wasn’t he? All I can remember about his campaign was. “I’m a Vietnam vet and a Democrat – vote for me”
His career as a prosecutor within the Senate committees showed his real colors, IMO. BCCI was a complicated subject, but Kerry’s role there and with Iran-Contra could have been communicated better:
John Kerry – took down the terrorists bank BCCI
George Bush – took money from the terrorists bank BCCI
John Kerry – defended the Constitution during Iran-Contra
George Bush – rewarded the wrongdoers of Iran-Contra
What happened to that?
August 17th, 2007 at 12:11 pmI do recall Iraqis shaking American troops hands and dancing in the streets when the US convoys went by after Saddam was ousted. Children smiling and waving, too.
When the insurgents came in is when it changed. So is it Iraqis wanting us out or perhaps “others”?
August 17th, 2007 at 12:12 pmWould Churchill have hid himself in a hole to escape detection?
Comment by barfly — August 17, 2007 @ 12:08 pm
He hid in coal sacks to avoid being caught by the Boers…. why not?
August 17th, 2007 at 12:14 pmDoes anybody know who did this interview what station? And why in this information age has this been hidden for over 13 years? Don’t you think anybody would have brought this up? Kind of blows the whole Liberal bias crap out of the water. The media as a whole is huge let down whatever happened to the Edward Murrow types you said this is the news damn it if you don’t like it but your head in the sand.
August 17th, 2007 at 12:15 pmWe get upset when gases prices rise and we go on knee jerk reactions for natural resources but there is not enough natural resources in this country to keep is running and feed us all. So once again, we have to rely on foreign countries.
No one want so sacrifice their SUV, cell phones, drive thru eateries, etc. but they sure are ready to blame some one else for their problems.
Comment by mizuno — August 17, 2007 @ 11:57 am
I have no problem with us trading with foreign countries to get the resources we need. I do have a problem when, say, one of our oil companies, in collaboration with our government, works out a deal with the government of a foreign and impoverished country to give them extraction rights to the oilfields of the foreign country, and they then route the transactions through offshore banks to avoid taxes both here and in the foreign country, wreak environmental and social havoc on the communities near where they do their drilling, and bribe foreign country officials so they can continue to get away with it.
I know it’s hard to do – it’s a system of corruption that’s entrenched in nearly every country on every continent on the planet. But we the people need to shed light on it at every opportunity and let the companies and politicians know that we’re watching them.
And part of it has to come from us – it’s appalling that with less than 5% of the world population we use 25% of the world’s natural resources. Some things about our standard of living are going to have to change, for the benefit of the environment and ourselves.
August 17th, 2007 at 12:16 pmWhen the insurgents came in is when it changed. So is it Iraqis wanting us out or perhaps “others�
Comment by mizuno — August 17, 2007 @ 12:12 pm
Come on, think for yourself a bit. Let me help you along with a few salient points:
August 17th, 2007 at 12:18 pm1. The Iraqi army of 300,000 were sent home with no jobs
2. The insurgency has never been more than 10% foreign inspired
3. The Sunni population was left out of influence in the CPA
4. Yes, the Iraqi do want the US out – http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601721_pf.html
TP, what’s up?
I’ve attempted to post the same comment several times. Each time, I get a “duplicate post” message, but my post never appears.
August 17th, 2007 at 12:19 pmDamn straight RUC, the shell game is used on a regular basis by the spineless Dick lovers.
August 17th, 2007 at 12:20 pmI thought I was actually sticking up for the guy. If I undermined Chris’ ability to think for himself I do rightfully apologize and I do understand the support the troops should not just be a bumber sticker that was my point I guess I just made it badly.
Comment by chad — August 17, 2007 @ 12:08 pm
For the record, I wasn’t questioning his service – I thought he may have been Special Forces or something. I know that we had people in Iraq prior to the invasion, and I was curious to see if he was one of them.
August 17th, 2007 at 12:22 pmComment by mizuno — August 17, 2007 @ 12:12 pm
Maybe many Iraqis believed at first that the US just wanted a regime change. Later, it became apparent that the US wanted to control the region and mainly for the OIL.
August 17th, 2007 at 12:27 pmComment by Keith — August 17, 2007 @ 12:27 pm
The kissing and celeration stopped as soon as the US secured the Oil Ministry and then watched the looting and lawlessness run riot all over the country without stopping anything.
August 17th, 2007 at 12:30 pmIIRC, a lot of those people were planted there by the DoD — I had a story bookmarked on my old computer from a former Army public affairs officer (who filmed most of it) who said as much. I’ll see if I can find a link (sorry I don’t have it right now).
A few problems:
1. The military itself admits that foreign fighters make up around 5% of the violence in the country. So an overwhelming majority of “insurgents” never came to the country — they are from the country.
2. The biggest factor that’s led to the abortion that is Iraq (other than gross incompetence at every level) is one simple fact: The people who live there don’t see themselves as Iraqis — they see themselves as Sunni, Shia, or Kurdish (with a few more specific sects within these top-level groups).
The notion of “Iraq” is nothing more than a colonial-era holdover that has no basis in reality for those who live in the country. Cheney knew this back in ‘94 — thus his statements — but decided to ignore it in 2003 (and the reasons why have been discussed over and over again).
In the end, it’s Bush Co.’s desire to impose a false sense of what Iraq is that is at the heart of the issues there, and NO amount of military action will ever change that fact.
.
August 17th, 2007 at 12:36 pmThe few Iraqis cheering at the bringing down of Saddam’s statue were staged. They were Chalibi’s people.
August 17th, 2007 at 12:38 pmFridays are by far the best days here. The hate filled trolls (or troll) for some reason aren’t here. Much less vitriol and fece splatter.
August 17th, 2007 at 12:38 pmZooey,
Remember when our favorite troll, mr. p had that funny ticket of Darth and Tabcredo? Now that would be a great big juicy target for any of the Dem candidates to blow out of the water!
Comment by upside00 — August 17, 2007 @ 11:05 am
We can dream…..
August 17th, 2007 at 12:39 pmNo MAKE him run. Cover him in bacon grease and turn him loose in front of a pack of underfed wolves.
Comment by TerrytheTurtle — August 17, 2007 @ 11:07 am
Yikes.
August 17th, 2007 at 12:40 pmComment by Zooey — August 17, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
Close your eyes Zoo, can you still his pudgy white frame, scampering through the dense undergrowth?
August 17th, 2007 at 12:42 pmBill Maher said that Paul Newman is five years older than Iraq!!
The western powers who were victorious in WWI split up the Ottoman Empire. But Iraqis are still mad at the British for treating them like a colony 87 years ago.
August 17th, 2007 at 12:45 pmClose your eyes Zoo, can you still his pudgy white frame, scampering through the dense undergrowth?
Comment by TerrytheTurtle — August 17, 2007 @ 12:42 pm
Yes — STOP!! :-D
August 17th, 2007 at 12:49 pmNo MAKE him run. Cover him in bacon grease and turn him loose in front of a pack of underfed wolves.
Comment by TerrytheTurtle — August 17, 2007 @ 11:07 am
Yikes.
Comment by Zooey — August 17, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
Yes, you called?
August 17th, 2007 at 12:52 pmNo MAKE him run. Cover him in bacon grease and turn him loose in front of a pack of underfed wolves.
Comment by TerrytheTurtle — August 17, 2007 @ 11:07 am
Terry be on fire this morning!
August 17th, 2007 at 12:53 pmI think you are wrong to assume that the majority of Americans were willing to take pre-emptive military action. That assumption is one that has been beaten into us and is simply untrue. The people that gather intelligence were saying that Saddam wasn’t as great a threat as Cheney et al made it seem.
Comment by Yikes — August 17, 2007 @ 11:41 am
I do not intend to speak for every or even just the majority of Americans. However I do know that many Americans were, and still are, more willing to strike pre-emptively now then they were back in 94. We all know that the intelligence was bogus, but the feelings of “many†Americans appeared to be more focused on regaining lost self-esteem than on assertaining whether or not the threat was as real as it seemed. Again, I do not mean to speak for other people here, I am just stating what I observed at the time, and even though no WMDs were found, I still see and hear some people just as willing to make the same mistake over again.
Thanks dumplings for the clarification. Yes indeed, there are far too many willing to make the same mistake – just listen to the Iran talk. It makes you wonder how you can change these peoples minds!
August 17th, 2007 at 12:56 pmDon’t listen to Terry, Z!
I’m not sure what he’s asking you to do, but is sounds icky.
August 17th, 2007 at 12:59 pmI don’t think you are seeing the big picture if that is the only significance you think 9-11 had on America and the World. First of all, the shock of a terror attack that size on US soil brought the whole country together (for a while at least). Not just “fascist†right wing politicians, but everyday people were affected as well. American men, women and children all were changed on 9-11 some more than others, but you’d have to be emotionally dead not to have been.
Comment by dumplings — August 17, 2007 @ 12:52 pm
Yes, but the world – and the underlying root causes that led to the 9-11 attack – were still the same. Since then, they’ve gotten worse.
August 17th, 2007 at 1:01 pmIn the end, it’s Bush Co.’s desire to impose a false sense of what Iraq is that is at the heart of the issues there, and NO amount of military action will ever change that fact.
.
Comment by MD — August 17, 2007 @ 12:36 pm
Perhaps the single most important point to make about that mess over there.
August 17th, 2007 at 1:02 pmComment by dumplings — August 17, 2007 @ 12:52 pm
Not sure I’m understanding the disagreement here on 3.: My position is that every time a Bushevik is challenged on why their statements before 9-11 and after contradict, they respond with ‘9-11 changed everything’. Now the thread deals with Cheney’s position on iraq and the excuse we hear about Iraq before and after is that ‘9-11 changed everything’ . That is and has been used to justify ‘pre-emptive war’ and specifically Iraq 2003.
My point is that ‘9-11 changed everything’ is a disingenuous statement, especially where Iraq is concerned. The Project for a New American Century, which is an American ‘Mein Kampf’ if ever there was one, states that a ‘New Pearl Harbor’ is needed to align the American public behind their agenda – one part of which was regime change in Iraq. Well 9-11 gave them that ‘New Pearl Harbor’.
Looking at it purely from Saddam’s point of view – again on September the 10th, presumably Saddam had means, motive and would be looking for opportunity to attack America, because on September 12th, the Busheviks tell us that he did have means, motive and opportunity. So why didn’t Saddam attack the US anytime from 1998 to 2001?
I think my argument stands: ‘9-11 changed everything’ was a disingenuous argument to scare the public into preemptive war with Iraq. That’s where my argument was going, – I think you read too much into what was saying. As Tobey Tall has pointed out with his Times quotations, Saddam did everything he could to avoid confrontation after 9-11, even though the coalition was tripling the bombing attacks on Iraq in 2002, trying to provoke a ‘causus belli’.
August 17th, 2007 at 1:04 pmYes, you called?
Comment by Yikes — August 17, 2007 @ 12:52 pm
Well, if I’m summoning people today, at least you’re not a troll. :)
I need to go poke my eyes out — TerrytheTurtle’s visual just isn’t fading….
Later!!
August 17th, 2007 at 1:06 pmBut Iraqis are still mad at the British for treating them like a colony 87 years ago.
Comment by Keith — August 17, 2007 @ 12:45 pm
Bang on Keith. Here’s a smarter man than I:
http://justagwailo.com/filter/2004/04/10/ignoramus
“What happened in Iraq last week so closely resembles the events of 1920 that only a historical ignoramus could be surprised. It began in May 1920, just after the announcement that Iraq would henceforth be a League of Nations “mandate” under British trusteeship. (Nota bene, if you think a handover to the UN would solve everything.) Anti-British demonstrations began in Baghdad mosques, spread to the Shi’ite holy centre of Karbala, swept on through Rumaytha and Samawa – where British forces were besieged – and reached as far as Kirkuk.â€
August 17th, 2007 at 1:08 pmZimzone, I hope you don’t mind that I have sent your limerick on Dick the prick to several friends. Thanks.
August 17th, 2007 at 1:09 pmThe few Iraqis cheering at the bringing down of Saddam’s statue were staged. They were Chalibi’s people.
Comment by Keith
So true; it was all staged.
August 17th, 2007 at 1:09 pmI think one of the Mahdi brigades is named “the 1920 brigade” in remembrance of their fighting the British then.
August 17th, 2007 at 1:11 pmPNAC…states that a ‘New Pearl Harbor’ is needed to align the American public behind their agenda – one part of which was regime change in Iraq. Well 9-11 gave them that ‘New Pearl Harbor’.
Comment by TerrytheTurtle — August 17, 2007 @ 1:04 pm
Yeah, wasn’t that a coinkydink.
August 17th, 2007 at 1:18 pmComment by Keith — August 17, 2007 @ 1:11 pm
Ooh, ooh, back to Churchill again: guess who was in charge of the ‘Iraqi Mandate’? And the first user of chemical weapons (mustard gas dropped from the air on the Kurds by RAF bombers in an early attempt to supplement low numbers of ‘boots on the ground’ with air power)? Winston S. Churchill. Fascinating historical figure – a white hat and a black hat, depending on who you talk to.
August 17th, 2007 at 1:21 pmI think one of the Mahdi brigades is named “the 1920 brigade†in remembrance of their fighting the British then.
Comment by Keith — August 17, 2007 @ 1:11 pm
They’re a Sunni tribal group in Anbar. Also one of the first ones we started arming to fight ISI.
British and American meddling in Iraq didn’t end in 1920, either. We need to also remember that Saddam Hussein was one of the assassins hired by the CIA to kill Iraqi Prime Minister Abd al-Karim Qasim in 1959 (he missed and got shot in the leg instead).
August 17th, 2007 at 1:22 pmThanks toaster and Terry.
I remember the story of Churchill and the mustard gas. Seem to remember him calling them “sand n**gers”.
US and Britain also overthrew the highly popular Iranian government in 1953 when they nationalized their oil.
August 17th, 2007 at 1:28 pmWinston S. Churchill. Fascinating historical figure – a white hat and a black hat, depending on who you talk to.
Comment by TerrytheTurtle — August 17, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
And didn’t he like to call the Indians – that is from the far east – sub humans? Winston certainly had some bad ideas.
August 17th, 2007 at 1:28 pmGoogle ‘Eric Blumrich’ and ‘Thanks for the memories’ for a retrospective of Saddam’s career. I’ve not seen hard evidence for the early Saddam/CIA link – if anyone has something, stick it up here. I think the links are probably more CIA/Baath party, not specifically with Saddam who was just a minor thug in 1950s Iraq.
August 17th, 2007 at 1:34 pmIt seems like the CIA knew Saddam would at least be one of the top men in Iraq after their coup:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2849.htm
August 17th, 2007 at 1:45 pmUS and Britain also overthrew the highly popular Iranian government in 1953 when they nationalized their oil.
Comment by Keith — August 17, 2007 @ 1:28 pm
And we overthrew the Iraqi government in 1963 for doing the same thing. It was a bloody coup followed by a show trial and a public execution. Funny how history repeats itself!
Google ‘Eric Blumrich’ and ‘Thanks for the memories’ for a retrospective of Saddam’s career. I’ve not seen hard evidence for the early Saddam/CIA link – if anyone has something, stick it up here. I think the links are probably more CIA/Baath party, not specifically with Saddam who was just a minor thug in 1950s Iraq.
Comment by TerrytheTurtle — August 17, 2007 @ 1:34 pm
John Perkins talks about it quite a bit in “The Secret History of the American Empire.” Fascinating read. Apparently the only reason we went to war in 1991 is because we trained Saddam too well on how not to get assassinated. We couldn’t find a bribable bodyguard anywhere, and they never knew when they were guarding a look-alike.
Also Reuters reported on it the day after the war started: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0420-05.htm
August 17th, 2007 at 1:45 pmkeith and toast – thanks.
August 17th, 2007 at 1:47 pmRumpRanger…..somehow that seems most appropriate for you!
August 17th, 2007 at 1:48 pmIt seems like the CIA knew Saddam would at least be one of the top men in Iraq after their coup:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2849.htm
Comment by Keith — August 17, 2007 @ 1:45 pm
I hadn’t seen this account of it – thank you!
Yeesh- it sounds like we hired the Keystone Cops for that job…
August 17th, 2007 at 2:01 pmSaddam was not “stringing” anyone along. He was completely disarmed of WMD and he gave us 20,000 pages explaining what happened to the 12-20 year-old stuff. He was not even a threat to Kuwait—much less the US. The Downing Street Memo is true. Neither Britain nor the US has questioned its veracity. It said the policy of invasion is set and the “evidence will be made later to fit that policy”. The yellowcake from Africa and the aluminum tubes were known lies 11 months before the SOTU. The drones was a lie. The mobile weapons labs was a lie. The shack in the north was a lie. The meeting in Prague was a lie. The Gulf of Tonkin was a lie. ‘Remember the Maine’ was a lie. Look at all the evidence and use some common sense. We wanted to take control of that part of the world—so we did.
August 17th, 2007 at 2:19 pm.Saddam was not “stringing” anyone along. He was completely disarmed of WMD and he gave us 20,000 pages explaining what happened to the 12-20 year-old stuff. He was not even a threat to Kuwait—much less the US. The Downing Street Memo is true. Neither Britain nor the US has questioned its veracity. It said the policy of invasion is set and the “evidence will be made later to fit that policy”. The yellowcake from Africa and the aluminum tubes were known lies 11 months before the SOTU. The drones was a lie. The mobile weapons labs was a lie. The shack in the north was a lie. The meeting in Prague was a lie. The Gulf of Tonkin was a lie. Remember the Maine was a lie. Look at all the evidence and use some common sense. We wanted to take control of that part of the world—so we did.
August 17th, 2007 at 2:20 pmsorry, thought I was censored again.
August 17th, 2007 at 2:21 pmBut to go the other route by saying that the attack was merely an opportunity or some opportunistic politicians and that is all, also cheapens the actual significance of the attacks, in my opinion. I know I was affected, and I certainly was not reading a neoconservative “Mein Kampf.â€
You might not have been reading PNAC, very few people were. But turn your comment on its head. Don’t you feel that for a group of people to use 9-11 as a pretext cheapens what you and many people experienced? The betrayal of 9-11 on the day of the Iraq invasion is what radicalized many around the world against America and against the PNAC fascists.
But, as you pointed out, Saddam was not insane, however he was paranoid and he felt that the best way to prevent an attack from his perceived enemies (Israel, Iran) was to let the world believe that he might have WMDs.
And funny how no one could put themselves in his shoes in 2002. Everything he did in 2002/2003 was for own survival. Being seen to give in to the UN/USA was suicide to him.
but there were very few Congress people who did not authorize military force to be used in Iraq in 2002.
Politics, nothing more. That resolution was timed to box the Democrats into a corner for the 2002 elections. It worked like a charm. Once you understand that the only elections that matter to Iraqis are the ones in the US, you are well on your way to understanding the Bushevik legacy.
August 17th, 2007 at 3:18 pmWhere was this video during the 2004 election campaign? I would have loved to see Dick the Snake try to slither his smarmy way around this. A political advertisement featuring only this video would have been enough. Whereas Chimp Fluffers tried to rely on lies and false innuendo to swiftboat John Kerry, a true bit of video footage would have been enough to expose Cheney and the entire sack of shit that is ChimpCo for the pathological liars, manipulators, and traitors that they have proved themselves to be.
August 17th, 2007 at 3:20 pmWhy hasn’t this been splashed on every news media available? Oooops I forgot about Rupert Murdoch controlling Big Brother access!
August 17th, 2007 at 3:28 pmWhat do you expect from the guy whose company was doing business with Iran under an offshore subsidiary – it was legal???!!!!
The man is simply incredulous.
August 17th, 2007 at 4:40 pmThe most interesting thing about the 1994 video on youtube was the posts underneath it. There are actually people so delusional that they were claiming the video was a fake and not really Cheney. It’s scary to think that these people walk amongst us. And by assuming that they walk, I’m being generous.
August 17th, 2007 at 4:44 pmIs this a Conservative or a Liberal argument anymore? All the politician preach the same things just slightly different versions of it. IF the current trends continue regardless of the party, this country will not have any borders left, a failed monetary policy, a non-existent middle class. You guys can argue left wing right wing all day long, instead of wasting your energy on that crap maybe you should step back and do some real comparisons of the people in Washington.
The state of our economy is that if we are not at war our economy will fail, this is the only real industry left in the US! Is this how it should be hell no! We are slowly becoming slaves to China, we depend on their products and if we try to impose tariffs so make it compettitive for us, they will cash in the debt we owe them and bankrupt us.
August 17th, 2007 at 6:11 pm***
just got here… this may have been covered…
but the other day i wondered about THIS:
W H O HAS BEEN SITTING ON THIS VIDEO ALL THIS TIME?
WHY ARE WE JUST NOW SEEING THIS???
August 17th, 2007 at 6:39 pm…
i wanna see that basstard HUNG by the BALLS,
with that schlong in the rope also…
.
“The same Hallilburton that received no-bid contracts from the Clinton administration for work in Kosovo.
Comment by Rump Ranger”
Link to proof please.
Boy, these trolls are really desperate. All they can do any more is the “they did it too” defense. Don’t they have any idea how idiotic they sound or don’t they care?
August 17th, 2007 at 6:43 pmCheney is a piece of chit.
August 17th, 2007 at 7:07 pmIts so easy to tell when the Dick is lying, his mouth is open. Just like his boss lil boots. The only thing that has changed is his profitability in terms of Halliburton (and whatever is ‘classified’)- in other words GREED. Wake the f*ck up people when has ANY politician EVER come thru on their promises? When has an ‘official’ gonvernment budget ever been truly accurate? NEVER!!!!!! They have sold us out eviscerating the constitution they were sworn to protect, bankrupting the country by excessive overspending while blaming it on ‘us’ and raking in excessive profits AND PENSIONS while lining themselves up for overpaid ‘consultant/lobbyist’ jobs when they make enough connections to steer contracts ala Randy ‘Duke(read turd) Cunningham. If you or I lied like our politicians do then we would be sued into bankruptcy and thrown in jail. Yet you all lay down and ask for more!!!!!
August 17th, 2007 at 8:01 pmhuh…
did you see the m o s c o w times piece i posted, bilbo?
huh…
August 17th, 2007 at 8:07 pm.
*
August 17th, 2007 at 9:21 pmfor some reason, this story gets blocked by this site…
can’t imagine why… can you?
i found it fascinating…
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2007/08/17/003.html
a great picture there also…
…
‘TerrytheTurtle would be interested to learn in “Fiasco” that the reason our soldiers watched the looting after the fall of Bagdad is because the DoD nor the military had a plan (Plan III) for once they got to Bagdad. Our military was waiting for orders. If fact they were waiting for orders to return home and for those “responsible” for Plan IV to come in and take over. There was no Plan IV. The civilians at the Pentagon were way over their heads, never had been in a war and wouldn’t listen to the military. Now the “Animal House” wants to put it’s spin on Gen. Petraeus’ and Amb. Crocker’s report to Congress. It doesn’t get any worse than this.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:14 pmkaty, thanks for the moscowtimes referral. It is interesting reading. The U.S. with it’s “free press” doesn’t get news reported as it is seen by the the rest of the world. If Americans want to know what is really going on in our country, we need to read European and other newspapers in the world.
When friends in Scandinavian countries and in Europe don’t want our kids go to visit, because of anti-American sentiment, you know we are out of whack with the rest of the world. We’ve lost credibilty in so many areas for which we were once looked up to.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:25 pmSick of Dick Cheney!! Sick of being lied!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEExcywFkQM
August 18th, 2007 at 1:44 amWhich Cheney are we supposed to believe the 1994, 2000 or the one in 2007? He is right though Iraq is a quagmire now that it has been unilaterally invaded. He was right, removing Saddam is not worth the life of even one American. He’s lost his credibility with these contradictions.
August 18th, 2007 at 1:59 amthanks for the information
August 18th, 2007 at 11:28 amI am freakin’ loser.
August 18th, 2007 at 12:26 pmVice is like the Wizard of OZ. Pulling the levers of power from behind a curtain.
August 19th, 2007 at 7:40 amCheney vs. Cheney vs. Cheney
I put my money on CHENEY
August 19th, 2007 at 4:53 pmCheney is no politician,he is an amoral and greedy bussiness man and how he succeed in becoming the vice president of the USA is beyond me but then how could glib bush become the president of the only super power is mind bogling and scary.
August 20th, 2007 at 3:16 amsaidarr
What is really disheartening to me is that there are some, actually many, who will defend the President and Vice President, regardless of their tresspass against the people, the Constitution, or the Rule of Law.
Conservative or not, liberal or not, when a public servant begins to act and talk like he/she is no longer a servant, their continued presence in office is repugnant to the ideals of American Democracy.
August 20th, 2007 at 6:25 amThere might be democracy in the US but increasingly the outside world sees the us of a as a facist state where the ideals of the new-cons are above all international laws and without international to protect them or the illusion of it the world esspecially the third world,people are scared of a US government running out of control.
August 20th, 2007 at 1:05 pmsaidarr.