PDA

View Full Version : Video Surfaces of Cheney, in 1994, Warning That An Invasion of Iraq Would Lead to 'Q


Spider
08-12-2007, 11:29 AM
http://editorandpublisher.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Video%20Surfaces%20of%20Cheney,%20in%201994, %20Warning%20That%20An%20Invasion%20of%20Iraq%20Wo uld%20Lead%20to%20'Quagmire'&expire=&urlID=23426246&fb=Y&url=http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003624798&partnerID=60
Video Surfaces of Cheney, in 1994, Warning That An Invasion of Iraq Would Lead to 'Quagmire'

By E&P Staff

Published: August 12, 2007 10:20 AM ET

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

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

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

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

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

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

A: No.

Q: Why not?

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

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

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

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

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

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

TailgateNut
08-12-2007, 11:54 AM
Not until he was VP did it make sense to DICK. That's when it made financial sense to him. ****ing CROOK!

Bronco Bob
08-12-2007, 07:00 PM
Q: Do you think the U.S., or U.N. forces, should have moved into Baghdad?

A: No.

Q: Why not?

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

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

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

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



Oddly enough, these are the same arguments those of us opposed to this war were using, and we were called traitors and unpatriotic.

Denver Crush
08-12-2007, 11:08 PM
I hope he burns in hell.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-13-2007, 01:58 AM
Dickless the prophet.

Who knew?

Willynowei
08-13-2007, 09:11 AM
Real entertaining stuff here.

RkyMtnThunder
08-13-2007, 02:31 PM
Oddly enough, these are the same arguments those of us opposed to this war were using, and we were called traitors and unpatriotic.

These ***kers make me sick.

Not that I liked the guy alot, but I remember in the 2004 campaign these guys labeling Kerry a 'flip flopper'

well this is one hell of a flip-flop!

Bronco Bob
08-13-2007, 03:07 PM
These ****ers make me sick.

Not that I liked the guy alot, but I remember in the 2004 campaign these guys labeling Kerry a 'flip flopper'

well this is one hell of a flip-flop!

They all flip flop. It's not Bush's fault Kerry was too stupid to point out all of Bush's flip-flops.

baja
08-13-2007, 03:12 PM
Where is Dman.

Weigh in Dman.

Garcia Bronco
08-13-2007, 03:14 PM
well this is one hell of a flip-flop!

They are all flip floppers. How somebody feels today doesn't indicate how they'll fell tomorrow.

TailgateNut
08-13-2007, 03:16 PM
They are all flip floppers. How somebody feels today doesn't indicate how they'll fell tomorrow.


...but when they labeled Kerry as a flip-flopper, it wasn't ok! Different strokes for different folks!

Garcia Bronco
08-13-2007, 03:19 PM
...but when they labeled Kerry as a flip-flopper, it wasn't ok! Different strokes for different folks!

I don't even remember why they called Kerry a flip-flopper.

RaiderH8r
08-13-2007, 03:31 PM
I don't even remember why they called Kerry a flip-flopper.

Because he voted for the war before he voted against it.

RkyMtnThunder
08-13-2007, 03:41 PM
I don't even remember why they called Kerry a flip-flopper.

I think it was because Kerry originally voted for the war, and then actively campaigned against it in 2004. All he had to say for himself is that he was misled along with majority of others. While it may have been true, it was still pretty weak IMO

Cheney's position is not even close to similar - he knew damn well it was a mistake over a decade ago. But apparently having vested interests is what changes things. Talk about selling out!

Still...its ironic to me that it appears its OK in the minds of some for republicans to 'flip flop' cause 'feelings change' (yeah, Haliburton contracts can really sway the heart!!).......when that same courtesy in regards to 'flip flopping' was not extended to the opposition, in fact, opposition was crucified for it.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-13-2007, 05:01 PM
Cheney's position is not even close to similar - he knew damn well it was a mistake over a decade ago. But apparently having vested interests is what changes things. Talk about selling out!


Bingo.

But hey - deflecting blame to Kerry makes the BushCo apologists feel better.

Who cares about facts?

Bronco Bob
08-13-2007, 05:15 PM
Bingo.

But hey - deflecting blame to Kerry makes the BushCo apologists feel better.

Who cares about facts?

That was pretty obvious when BushCo's lackeys swift boated Kerry.