Dick Cheney '94: Invading Baghdad Would Create Quagmire

[Emproph]

Check this out!

(about 1 min)


Transcript:

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.

Short article and transcript source here.

Also thanks to TeachtheFacts.org where I discovered it.

[u-dog]

Originally Posted by Emproph

Check this out!

(about 1 min)


Transcript:


Short article and transcript source here.

Also thanks to TeachtheFacts.org where I discovered it.

Thanks for posting this Emproph. These characters are such lying sacks of S***. They knew 14 years ago that this is what would happen in Iraq. So what changed? Iraq? The value of Saddam? The value of American Lives? Or the fact that 9/11 gave them an excuse that America might actually buy?

This really IS about the OIL isn't it? I've always been a skeptic about that theory but my skepticism is starting to crumble.

[Emproph]

It was posted on YouTube last Friday and it's averaging 100k hits a day. It's over 400,000 now.

I keep wondering how they're going to spin this one, assuming MSM even picks it up. It's not like they can even say it was said out of context (not that they wouldn't try).

PS, congrats on the movie.

[Steven E. Webster]

Originally Posted by u-dog

Thanks for posting this Emproph. These characters are such lying sacks of S***. They knew 14 years ago that this is what would happen in Iraq. So what changed? Iraq? The value of Saddam? The value of American Lives? Or the fact that 9/11 gave them an excuse that America might actually buy?

This really IS about the OIL isn't it? I've always been a skeptic about that theory but my skepticism is starting to crumble.

One would think that if we spent the same amount on getting beyond oil-dependency as we are spending on the war we could solve a couple of big problems. Trouble is Cheney/Bush etc. are heavily invested in oil.

Then there is the existence of neoconservative philosophy. Google Shadia Drury's work on neoconservatism. It's a strange belief (from my point of view). War is good and perpetual war is even better. They didn't understand that they could actually break the U.S. military. Somehow these neoconservatives got in control without people with other views/knowledge being able to check their authority and keep them from going over the cliff.

Steven Webster

[revtj]

It's a strange belief (from my point of view). War is good and perpetual war is even better. They didn't understand that they could actually break the U.S. military. Somehow these neoconservatives got in control without people with other views/knowledge being able to check their authority and keep them from going over the cliff.

I agree, Steven. The global economy means something entirely different to these people than it does to the average person. You would think it would inspire philanthropy and a desire to lift up the rest of the world to a higher standard of living.

These people are hyper-capitalist billionaires and philanthropy is just a photo-op to them. They really DO want to control the world, they want to buy it lock, stock & barrel (of oil).

When Kurt Eichenwald did his expose of Archer Daniels Midland in 2000, he exposed the hideous underside of global-national corporate philosophy. Basically, they teach their people that the consumer is the enemy, your competetion is your friend, and that the goal is nothing less than world dominance in the marketplace.

The consumer is the enemy because they can drive prices down by demand. The competetion is your friend because if you get in bed with them first you can make a deal to control the price which insures excess profits.

In the Bush administration we've seen an effort to run government by this same philosophy. The people have become the enemy because they want democracy and freedom, neither of which are overly profitable. The (true) enemy has become necessary (perhaps secretly a friend? maybe that's why we don't care where Osama bin Laden is...) because war with the enemy nets huge profits and access to the oil. So we armed them to the max and protect only our oil interests...America itself seems to be merely another commodity to them, and I don't see that they are particularly loyal to the preservation of us but rather to the preservation of their greed.

God help us.

[Gregory_de_Bois]

I saw this through MoveOn.org. Boy was I surprised, but strangely delighted.

[Emproph]

From Crooks and Liars

Well at least it's gotten national exposure now.

[wmanion]

It makes one want to ask "What changed in such a short time?' Of course there was 9/ll that served as the catalyst but what really did change? Could it have been lost lives back then were not as profitable as they are now? Or maybe the people who stood to gain profit from the war were not yet in a position where they could dictate where the profits would go and who would benefit?

Bill

[revtj]

Far be it from me to defend Republicans, but it seems to me at least one thing that was different in 94 is that the president at the time (Bush the 1st) had a moral compass and a sense of global community (the "New World Order" was quite humanitarian). Bush 1st didn't want to invade because he weighed the morality of it; little shrub isn't (in my humble opinion) morally sensitive personally, nor on a global scale.

The current president is controlled by corporate interests. His father actually DID stand on principle numerous times. His son seems to stand on a bong, a bottle of vodka, a few lines of high-grade coke and a growing bank account.

OK, is anyone dialing 911 at the sight of me defending Republicans?

[BrianB]

Originally Posted by revtj

Far be it from me to defend Republicans, but it seems to me at least one thing that was different in 94 is that the president at the time (Bush the 1st) had a moral compass and a sense of global community (the "New World Order" was quite humanitarian). Bush 1st didn't want to invade because he weighed the morality of it; little shrub isn't (in my humble opinion) morally sensitive personally, nor on a global scale.

The current president is controlled by corporate interests. His father actually DID stand on principle numerous times. His son seems to stand on a bong, a bottle of vodka, a few lines of high-grade coke and a growing bank account.

OK, is anyone dialing 911 at the sight of me defending Republicans?

Bush senior had a broad-based international coalition to go into Iraq. When that coalition started to crumble He got the troops out. Bush senior paid attention when support for the first war waned.

IMHO Bush junior has his ego way too involved. He wants to prove to daddy that he can finish the "job" in Iraq because he hasn't finished too much else.
I also think he's convinced himself that he personally has to put an end to terrorism no matter how many soldiers get killed.

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by revtj

The current president is controlled by corporate interests. His father actually DID stand on principle numerous times...

OK, is anyone dialing 911 at the sight of me defending Republicans?

Lol, that's how I feel now when comparing the two Bush's. I just saw a commercial with Clinton and Bush Sr, sitting side by side talking about how to prepare for an emergency. It was heartening just to see them sitting in such close proximity 'working together' so to speak, like with the tsunami. And here I thought Sr. was the antichrist when in office and that things couldn't possibly get any worse.

Originally Posted by BrianB

IMHO Bush junior has his ego way too involved. He wants to prove to daddy that he can finish the "job" in Iraq because he hasn't finished too much else.

That reminds me of an article this guy links to:

"As with many other aspects of the president's sometimes odd behavior, the root of this new self-subverting plan lies not in political expediency, in the advice he's received, or in his intellectual abilities as such, but in a psychological twist that begins with his long and well-documented history of failure (and his sense of his own failure) within his family of origin. Where his father was a standout as a scholar, athlete and businessman, the son, following with remarkable fixedness in his father's footsteps, stumbled repeatedly. In November 2006, the father's emissary, James A. Baker III, co-chair of the Iraq Study Group, came to deliver what must have been a familiar verdict: "The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating." Read: Son, once again you failed.

Originally Posted by BrianB

I also think he's convinced himself that he personally has to put an end to terrorism no matter how many soldiers get killed.

Personally I say it's about global domination, as revtj spoke of earlier. Especially with talk of war with Iran now.

They can always reinstitute the draft, and then we've got all those nukes just lying around waiting to be used. I don't think they even want a WW III though, it would only take one strategically timed and placed nuclear strike to get the rest of the world to stand down if it came to it. Check out the movie Deterrence with Kevin Pollack. Then again, I don't see these guys as being quite that clever.

It's a good article above, he comments on the implications of an attack on Iran, nuclear and otherwise.:

One author, writing in Daily Kos, has suggested that the real purpose of the surge is to deal with the consequences in Iraq of an attack on Iran. That the surge really has nothing to do at all with the current situation in Iraq, but what could happen in Shi'ite areas of Iraq if the predominately Shi'ite Iran were attacked - including possibly even an assault on American forces by the Iraqi population.

[BrianB]

Don't kid your self. Bush senior is into global domination as well. Remember one of his favorite phrases was "A new world order". He is just a better politician than his son.

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by BrianB

Don't kid your self. Bush senior is into global domination as well. Remember one of his favorite phrases was "A new world order". He is just a better politician than his son.

That's how I felt about Clinton, and Reagan for that matter, at least they knew how to lie. Not that that was a good thing, but at least it showed that their brains were working...

[revtj]

IMHO Bush junior has his ego way too involved. He wants to prove to daddy that he can finish the "job" in Iraq because he hasn't finished too much else.
I also think he's convinced himself that he personally has to put an end to terrorism no matter how many soldiers get killed.

Anybody up for a Freudian analysis of Dubya's salvation experience?

I'm thinking his Memoirs should be titled something like...

The Cross of Christ and Castration Anxiety

The Prodigal President

Jesus and the Dry Drunk Do DC

I'm Sorry for the Drugs and Screwing Around, God, But Look How Many
Muslims I Killed For Ya!

Barney is a Better Best Friend Than Buddy Because Barney is Born Again and in a Monogamous Relationship with Mrs. Beasley (say that 10x fast)

26% is as Good as I Ever Did at Yale or Harvard, and I Do Christianity Just as Well

Gotta Laugh, it's the only thing left they haven't ruined!

[u-dog]

This speaks for itself: