Cheney Speaks Of Iraq QUAGMIRE! Must Read!
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
*
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.
***
- Login or register to post comments
Printer-friendly version- Send to friend
Join us & contribute
Proud members of the Democratic Party
Copyright 2006 Democrats.com. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy
Jon Stewart nails Cheney on
Jon Stewart nails Cheney on Wednesday's "Daily Show" Aug 15 2007
It's a segment called "Dick Don't Know Dick." (About the 1994 quagmire statement.)
http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/index.jhtml
Think they did the right thing?
So, in 1994, Cheney actually used to think about how many casualties of war were worth Sadaam?
I guess the oil was the right motivator to go in. I guess the 3670 soldiers killed in this, "Quagmire" were worth the oil revenues. I think Americans were right on target with the Oil companies agenda.
And what about that "New World" memo in 1999, before 911 was even on the table?
This is the most treasonous Bush It, any administration in America, has tried to shovel, on the Americans that did fight and die IN SERVICE to keep this country safe.
Everytime we find peace, they start wars to rob our treasure to fund the military industrial complex and profiteers making mad loot on the bodies of our children serving.
Now is it time to Impeach them, America?
Now do you see what we the powerless, have been going through for centuries?
This is what multiple US Presidents have warned of, and it's right in your face.
Now!
What are you prepared to do to stop it?
Impeachment is the cure for the Chronic Cancers on Capitol Hill in the White House.
IMPEACH THE BASTARDS BEFORE WE LOSE WHATS LEFT OF OUR DIGNITY IN THE WORLD!
mommapanther
Cheney tries
Cheney tries (unsuccessfully) to shrug off 1994 remarks about Iraq
by Pam Spaulding 8/17/2007
Remember that 1994 video of Darth saying what a disaster Iraq would be if we invaded Baghdad ("How many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth?"):
A CBS affiliate called the Dark Lord's office about the matter, and this was the response:
"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 then there's this bit of business unearthed by Think Progress that makes it even more difficult for the VP to blow off those remarks - Cheney reiterated his position again in August of 2000 on Meet the Press as Bush's VP nominee:
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]
The lying out of this White House is non-stop and shameless. But hey -- who's holding them accountable?
http://www.americablog.com/2007/08/cheney-tries-unsuccessfully-to-shrug.html