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.”
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 b