What's Really Important Take Our Vice President -- Please!
Dick Cheney, a man purported by Bob Woodward in “State of Denial” to have told Don Rumsfeld, soon after he took the job as Secretary of Defense under George Bush to “get it right this time,” apparently was also saying “do as I say, not as I do.” You have to sometimes wonder why, in this age of video recording, when just about everything a public official says at one time might come back to haunt him at another, that fact is so often ignored.
The latest YouTube rage making the rounds on the Internet is something you just "ain’t gonna believe." We have Dick Cheney in a 1994 interview giving very persuasive reasons why we couldn’t and shouldn’t have gone into Baghdad and toppled the central government in Iraq during the first Gulf War -- reasons that were just as valid in 2003 as they were back then, and still are. To see and listen to the actual video go to Cheney interview . I'm going to post the short interview in it’s entirety right here as well, because it's so interesting to see in print, and I couldn’t find it printed anywhere else.
Interviewer: “Do you think that US, or UN forces should have moved into Baghdad?”
Cheney: “No.”
Interviewer: “Why?”
Cheney: “Because if we’d gone to Baghdad we would have been all alone, there wouldn’t have been anyone else with us. It would have been a US occupation of Iraq. Remember the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait, were willing to invade Iraq. Uh, once you got to Iraq and took it over, and took down Saddam Hussein’s government, than 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 can easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off. Uh, part of it uh, the Syrians would like to have to the west, uh, part of it, eastern Iraq, the Iranians would like to claim – 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. Uh, everyone was impressed with the fact that, uh, 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 and took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth? And our judgment was, uh, not very many, and I think we got it right.”
In all fairness to Mr. Cheney he does state on December 22, 2003, “In a sense, 9/11 changed everything for us. 9/11 forced us to think in new ways about threats to the United States, about our vulnerabilities, about who our enemies were, about what kind of military strategy we needed in order to defend ourselves…”
We can all agree 9/11 did change many things, yet there are certain things it did not change. It did not alter the consequences of actually invading and occupying Iraq. It was still going to be a quagmire, especially since Cheney and Rumsfeld did not seem to heed Cheney’s 1994 assessment. Instead,they were rather cavalier, and threw all caution to the wind. Believing we would “be treated as liberators,” they acted more like Don Quixote assaulting windmills than professionals hoping for the best, but preparing for the worst.
Gone apparently was the previous concern about American casualties (what’s the body count now?). Gone was the concern that it was a volatile part of the world, and gone was serious consideration of the consequences of taking down the central government in Iraq, with the possibility of “seeing pieces of Iraq fly off.”
In response to Stephen F. Hayes, author of "Cheney: The Untold Story of America's Most Powerful and Controversial Vice President," attempting to use the “everything changed after 9/11” argument on the Daily Show, Jon Stewart eloquently stated “But, the Space-Time Continuum hadn’t altered.” In other words, nothing concerning the consequences of invading Iraq and taking out the central government had altered in the least.
I don’t disagree Saddam Hussein was a dangerous man, and a potential threat at some point; he certainly had several axes to grind, and oil revenues to help. Perhaps, even though 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq, or Hussein, and no connection between Hussein and Al-Qaeda was actually substantiated whatsoever (although this was another point on which we catch Cheney on video frequently, and on both sides of that question), the need to focus more on people like Hussein did increase.
If it had been "truly" decided that Hussein had to be toppled, it should have been done covertly. If the CIA couldn’t take it on, perhaps the Mossad would have. The old argument you don’t specifically go after leaders of other nations because of the threat of setting dangerous precedent, doesn’t hold water in this instance. How many times have we heard President Bush exclaim “we’d rather fight our enemies over there (in Iraq), than to fight them here (in the US).
Being intent on inviting the slaughter of thousands of Iraqis because of our presence in their nation, as opposed to catalyzing a possible attack against himself simply by going after their leader, seems rather brash. How in good conscience can any person who is willing to make targets of tens of thousands, not be willing to put himself at risk instead? It’s sure a hell of a double standard! I don’t condone going after leaders (or nations), but perhaps if more of them challenged each other instead of using us as pawns, it might put an end to war?
As citizens of a nation, it behooves us to scrutinize this “very” closely. Do our leaders really believe it’s better to sacrifice us (as troops), and the citizens of other natons, rather than confront any risk themselves? I seem to recall a time historically when the leaders of nations led their troops into battle, and at the head of their armies; now it seems they just start the wars, and call the shots safely from the very distant sidelines, not even behind the lines! Stupid us!!! I guess David Hannum (no it wasn’t actually P. T. Barnum) was correct -- “there is a sucker born every minute,” but "who’d a thunk" so many of us were among them?
So, here we are stuck in that quagmire anyway, and the present American body count is over 3,700, with probably ten times that wounded (many seriously), and no end in sight. If only the 2003 Dick Cheney had trusted the 1994 Dick Cheney!
Karl Rove convinced many that John Kerry was a flip-flopper. Imagine if Rove had been on the other side and Cheney had been the target!
Comments
I had seen the infamous video (who hasn't?), but reading it was indeed a different thing. It really is time to call this administration to account for the damage and harm they have done to us, to the Constitution, to the international rule of law with their "war of terror". Not only did they do these things, they always knew.
Posted by: Louise Casey | August 17, 2007 05:07 PM
This video proves this administration knew darn well the risks of invading and occupying Iraq. As Cheney said it is a quagmire and that is precisely what we have.
This leads us to what many of us have known from the beginning...the quest for controlling Iraqi oil was more important than the national security of this country, the lives of our men and women in the service and what we hold so dear, our country's reputation.
Posted by: Sparkles | August 17, 2007 05:26 PM
you as all us seem to forget who we are dealing with. Cheney-rummy, baker.etc. have all been a part of this neo world takeover for many years. They are the architects of whats happening globally now. It really started rolling when Bush Sr. was head of CIA. Research things that were done over the last 30 years that involved this same group. Most media and i am sorry to say are afraid of these dudes and rightly so. Therefore they will hide,deny,and destroy anything that would cast a shadow on their mission. Even if we could get enough evidence (which we now have) they have corrupted our courts, representatives and our very own constitution. I am afraid that somewhere down the line a small revolution is a brewing. "when leaders act contrary to conscienc - we need to act contrary to our leaders". I enjoy your blog as always; sometimes agree and sometimes not, but that's what its all about. One minor complaint though: this room smells like Ribs on the grill lmao
Ray
Posted by: mortimer | August 17, 2007 05:29 PM
I don't think we should give Cheney any slack for his comment that “In a sense, 9/11 changed everything for us." Let's not forget that Cheney was one of the neocons calling for invasion of Iraq back in the early 90s. The man is really a piece of work.
Posted by: Renee | August 18, 2007 08:17 AM
Indeed Renee, the guy is consistently inconsistent, and then inconsistently consistent (I think that makes sense on some planet); the only thing not quite changing is his arrogance.
Ray, you are so right about "the architects of what's happening globally now." How did we ever allow such a bunch of old, arrogant, cynical and "war is the only solution to peace" mobsters to gain so much power. I understand the world has some serious problems, but I feel we as a race are at a nexus between fear and love, and war and peace on this planet, and it will take the incorporation of BOTH, to issue Homo sapiens into the future, not just fear and power based mediocrity.
Mankind will only be united some day through understanding one another, when "we the people," the common folk worldwide, stop allowing the insanity of leadership to continue to make us all think we are different from one another, and therefore must hate each other. That is what will be at the core of your "small revolution" ultimately, if it is to have any possibility of success. War is only a bandage which stops the present bleeding; it can't heal the wound.
Sorry for the metaphysical back lash; didn't mean to give you a headache. lol
Louise, thanks for your comment. I sure hope that calling this government of ours on accountability will actually succeed at some point. I never cease to be amazed during the last two years, how in the Executive branch alone they have uncovered one scandal after another. The White House has basically cleared out, so all those wonderful, caring, and honest public servants can spend more time with their families and less time dodging subpoenas. And no one, accept one insignificant scapegoat, namely Scooter Libby, has been called to task; and he gets a reprieve of sorts. It's mind boggling.
Amen Sparkles, they knew from the beginning what the consequences would be, and didn't really care; they had bigger fish to fry.
While they continually praise the American troops for doing their bidding, at the same time they undermine their psyches and veteren's benefits, all the while using them as pawns. And as you mention, not to keep the USA safe from hits, but to keep the Oil companies safe from alternative energy sources. It's time for all government pawns to wake up. That includes the military, CIA, FBI, and NSA. They are taught to follow orders without question, and these orders are being given, in part, by all too many unscrupulous megalomaniacs. That, or simply mediocre individuals not much more aware than most, and people with no real idea how to deal with the real problems that face the world, basically those based on the lack of understanding of each other.
The War on Terrorism is a scam. Sure, the citizens of all the nations involved, including ours, have been led to believe we are in a war of ideology, but ultimately it's all about power and money. In the "true" hearts of the citizens of our world, the common people could care less about differences in how we worship, what we believe, and how we live. People are actually more concerned with living their daily lives, raising their families, and being left alone. There are more than enough resources on this planet for everyone. It's just that too many believe they are entitled to a lot more of them, than everyone else. These are people who as children obviously did not learn to share.
The real ideologues are that minority with power that keep stoking the fires of fear and separation in order to keep the rest of us at each other's throats in that Orwellian concept of "perpertual war." Obviously, even many of them have bought into their own delusion, without consciously being aware of same. Denial is such a comfort to ignorance and insecurity. Of course, there are those few who know exactly what they are doing, and they represent the real evil on the planet. You can recognize them. They are the ones continually calling others evil, and using that as a means to rile people up against one another.
Posted by: Stephen | August 18, 2007 09:07 AM
Yes, by all means, please take our Vice-President before he can do any more damage. It is scary to think about how much more he can do in the 16 months he has left. Cheney is the single largest threat to our Constitution. He has delusions of grandeur about his position and power and he acts accordingly.
We need to do more than continue to discuss and debate what he does. Not generally in favor of impeachment, I support it in Cheney’s case. It is the only way I can see to stop him. He refuses to be accountable to anyone, attempts to eliminate departments that try to hold him accountable, refuses to produce documents even when they are subpoenaed by congress, and lies even in the face of clear evidence that what he is saying is not true. He hides everything. He keeps his daily work product locked up in a safe and classifies thousands of documents at his own discretion but at taxpayer expense (approximately $460 per document). It will take years to undo the effects of his actions on our country and the longer he continues the more there will be to undo.
Posted by: Trish | August 19, 2007 01:09 PM
Stephen,
How many times have we've seen Cheney and Bush backpeddle on a subject. They flip flop more than a fish struggling on the bank of a river.
They can't keep up with all the lies they have told, nor all the reasons why we went to Iraq in the first place. It doesn't surprise me in the least that Cheney would say that in 94 then change and say the opposite. That is all we have seen from this administration.
I just don't understand and probably never will, why some still stand behind these two nutballs.
Peace,
Posted by: Katerina | August 19, 2007 03:20 PM
Trish, you left out one Cheney tactic. Remember the infamous "which branch do I belong to today gambit?" It appears Cheney switches the branch of government he's in on a daily basis, predicated on which branch might be safer from scrutiny on a given day.
I recall when he invoked "executive privilege' when he considered himself a member of the Executive Branch because he didn't want anyone to know who he had discussed our energy policy with behind closed doors. Then recently he declared himself not a member of the Executive Branch so as to avoid Congressional oversight and not have to disclose how his office handles classified documents.
Impeach him? Absolutely! The only challlenge might be determing which, or how many charges you might want to impeach him for. And for all his arrogance and bravado, he's rather incompetitent.
The only problem with giving him away is who would want to take him? -- no one comes to mind except his good buddies at Haliburton, and perhaps the oddballs on Planet X, and maybe the NRA and the "Shooters of Small Flightless Farm Raised Birds and Someimes Lawyers Society." I thought it was rather tacky when he shot his lawyer friend. Not so much for the shooting itself, but because they tied the poor guy to the hood of the car to take him to the hospital. Ba Dummp Bummp!
Katerina, no kidding on all the flip flopping and back peddling. That is why thought it would have been interesting if TurdBlossom had been on the other side and Cheney the target. There would have been enough fodder there for several mud slinging campaigns.
I can only think of one reason why anyone stands behind this crew, and that is because the political right has so successfully demonized the left. People who don't pay much attention to more than talking radio and TV heads and political sound bytes have been convinced that liberal means misanthropic, and the left is synonomous with satanism.
I guess they didn't consider Jesus to be very liberal minded, but just another staunch conservative totally against any sort of change.
Posted by: Stephen | August 19, 2007 04:20 PM
Hey hey Stephen great site. I have printed out the interview to use for debate topics in my politics class tutorial; we should have great fun today.
Posted by: lilyshorter | August 21, 2007 01:32 PM