Dick Cheney on Iraq 13 years ago

Thon · Post by **Thon** » Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:11 pm

they showed this on the Daily Show, and it's too fucking funny

you don't know dick

Tikker · Post by **Tikker** » Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:13 pm

shocking

Post by **Lueyen** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 12:45 am

I guess you only find it humorous if you see his statements as contradicting his positions today, but of course to do so ignores events and situational developments over the past 13 years.

Tikker · Post by **Tikker** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 12:56 am

and I guess it's only not funny/ironic if your head is planted firmly up your ass

Post by **Arlos** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 1:34 am

Well, it's ironic because every single item he predicted as being a problem in 1994 turned out to BE one now. Gotta wonder why, if he could forsee those problems THEN, why they failed so badly in nipping them in the bud NOW.

-Arlos

Evermore · Post by **Evermore** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 5:29 am

It's a conspiracy. Cheney planned this. Bush is a puppet and the iraq situation is all cheney's fault.

Post by **Tossica** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 11:28 am

I find this hilarious.

Lionking · Post by **Lionking** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 11:42 am

Evermore wrote:It's a conspiracy. Cheney planned this. Bush is a puppet and the iraq situation is all cheney's fault.

Based on the article, wouldn't it make more sense that Bush proceeded with his plans despite Cheney's objections, making Cheney, Bush's little bitch?

I think you "misunderestimate" Mr. Bush.

numatu · Post by **numatu** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 1:33 pm

That's hilarious. I think just about every politician is guilty of flip flopping and hypocrisy when it serves their immediate political advantages.

This one is good too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnceSIxxOYg

There are also many other clips from both sides from 5-15 years ago that are even better.

Evermore · Post by **Evermore** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 1:37 pm

Lionking wrote:
Evermore wrote:It's a conspiracy. Cheney planned this. Bush is a puppet and the iraq situation is all cheney's fault.

Based on the article, wouldn't it make more sense that Bush proceeded with his plans despite Cheney's objections, making Cheney, Bush's little bitch?

I think you "misunderestimate" Mr. Bush.

that was just some sarcasm sir

Tikker · Post by **Tikker** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 1:38 pm

I think the funnier part of the whole thing is that most people think politicians are really smart/knowledgeable people who actually know what they're talking about most of the time

Naethyn · Post by **Naethyn** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 2:00 pm

Ron Paul seems competent to me.

Evermore · Post by **Evermore** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 2:17 pm

Naethyn wrote:Ron Paul seems competent to me.

only worth wile candidate imo

Post by **Tossica** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 2:23 pm

He'd let corporations privatize the air if they wanted to.

Yamori · Post by **Yamori** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 5:41 pm

Lueyen wrote:I guess you only find it humorous if you see his statements as contradicting his positions today, but of course to do so ignores events and situational developments over the past 13 years.

And what developments would those be?

Even if you are in the belief that 9/11 changed everything and made Saddam a large enough threat to necessitate removal, it doesn't change anything about the ever-so-eloquently predicted fallout by Cheney of 1994. To go from that to "we will be greeted as liberators" is a pretty big step.

10sun · Post by **10sun** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:19 pm

Tossica wrote:He'd let corporations privatize the air if they wanted to.

and there is the strong possibility that the air would be cleaner & cheaper as a result. It happened with public water companies going private in Jersey.

Post by **Lueyen** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 9:10 pm

Yamori wrote:
Lueyen wrote:I guess you only find it humorous if you see his statements as contradicting his positions today, but of course to do so ignores events and situational developments over the past 13 years.

And what developments would those be?

Even if you are in the belief that 9/11 changed everything and made Saddam a large enough threat to necessitate removal, it doesn't change anything about the ever-so-eloquently predicted fallout by Cheney of 1994. To go from that to "we will be greeted as liberators" is a pretty big step.

Well let me first say that I did not agree with Bush seniors decision to end the Gulf War when he did. Calling for the people of Iraq to rise up against Sadam and for his soldiers to surrender and then turning around and leaving him in power to have his quiet revenge was a horrible thing to do, and I felt like we really put a lot of people who were supportive of our efforts in a bad spot in fear of their lives.

When I wrote that I wasn't thinking about 9/11, I was thinking of attacks on our military forces enforcing the no fly zone, the attempted assassination of a former U.S. President, the exploitation of the oil for food program, and the impediment and refusal of cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors, brutalization of the Iraqi people, basically all the violations of the cease fire agreement.

Indeed Cheney was spot on concerning some of the ramifications and situations that would arise with the removal of Sadam in power. Having talked to former Iraqi's who immigrated to this country who still had family over there at the onset of this war it was pretty obvious we would likely open up some serious cans of worms, I'm quite sure advisers expressed similar concerns to the administration before hand. In the end hind sight is always 20/20 and if the ramifications of the removal of Sadam were worse then leaving him in power in Cheney's mind over a decade ago, the results of that stay of hand proved otherwise over the course of time. He was obviously not in error in predicting many of the results of a toppled regime. Where I do think he was in error was in weighing the costs of removal vs Sadam's post war cooperation level.

As far as "being greeted as liberators" being a big step, I agree, considering our previous actions or rather lack of seeing them through. Put yourself in the shoes of an Iraqi citizen, how quick would you be to again openly support US intervention if previously having done so endangered your life, or you watched others who previously did so disappear to Sadam's torture chambers. I'll bet you would want good indication that the US was committed to stabilizing the country instead of leaving the country at the mercy of another tyrant or worse multiple ones.