Dick Cheney was right in 1994.
You gotta watch it to believe it.
Discuss.
|
August 12, 2007 |
in the news 2007 | Comments (16 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 13, 2007 1:52:52 AM
Sorry, Jack. Didn't see your post until after I posted it here. It's also, well, everywhere.
Posted by: Neal Patel | Aug 13, 2007 4:56:15 AM
FLIP FLOP
Posted by: dmitry white | Aug 13, 2007 9:12:11 AM
Apparently, I agree with Dick Cheney on Iraq.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Aug 13, 2007 11:07:26 AM
In 1991 they wanted the Baathists stabilizing the land over the oil. In 2001, they wanted Iraq to fall into chaos. Both times they got what they wanted.
Times change. The power of the boys in charge does not.
Posted by: j_luthergoober | Aug 13, 2007 10:55:07 PM
Obviously this video was shot when Deferment Dick had a heart...
Posted by: David English | Aug 14, 2007 9:37:27 AM
Quite a change from the post 9/11 rush to invade Iraq. My question is what else besides 9/11 caused them to be so willing to invade?
Posted by: Nina | Aug 14, 2007 11:01:36 AM
"My question is what else besides 9/11 caused them to be so willing to invade?"
Back around 1996/1997, a group of folks formed Project For The New American Century, Cheney being one of the founding members. Study this group and I believe you will have your answer.
That being said, I believe Cheney to be a pathological liar. Something is truly "off" about this man. (Anyone see Leno last night and his "interview" with Cheney? Hysterical, but also frighteningly accurate.)
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Aug 14, 2007 1:33:13 PM
It should be deeply troubling to everyone.
Posted by: Lee Coleman | Aug 14, 2007 2:23:29 PM
The real questions here are (1) was it Bush or Rove who changed Cheney's mind or (2)was Cheney influenced by greed? I think it could have been both.
Save the nation, vote Democratic
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Aug 14, 2007 3:18:25 PM
In 1991 the majority of the oil extraction contracts were in the hands of US and UK based capitalists.
In 2003 they were in the hands of the Chinese, Russians, and the hated French.
Currently, the Kurds and the Shia are flat refusing the hugely unfair oil deals being offered by Global Oil. Only the Sunnis are willing to do these deals as they, of course, have no oil under their sand.
ANY QUESTIONS?
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Aug 14, 2007 3:45:08 PM
In the early '90's, Cheney represented the Bush I/Powell view that the US should not engage in military projects likely to lead to quagmire. Cheney brought the 'attack Iraq' mantra with him to the Cheney/Bush ticket. He got it from PFC crew, the hub of the Noe-con movement under Bill Kristol, one of the world's top f****heads.
Powell thought he would have influence over foreign policy as Secretary of State. He did not realize until too late that he was working for Cheney, not Bush.
Posted by: Tamerlane | Aug 14, 2007 10:41:39 PM
This is stunning. It took me years of being at war with Iraq in order to come around to study the nation and the relevant issues well enough to understand why our invasion was such a supremely stupid idea. At that point, I just felt sick with myself -- I mean, you get around to feeling that propoganda is more than a trope in literature. And what is this? Dick Cheney, nine years before the invasion, using the very same arguments I find myself using today. The thing is -- there were plenty of educated persons in DC who knew damn well where this war would go, before it even began; and that, somehow, didn't slow things down a bit!
Posted by: John | Aug 15, 2007 8:25:24 PM
I'm a Republican but a consistent Blue Oregon reader who appreciates a lot of the open and honest dialogue that happens on this blog. I've had disagreements with the current administration but do not wish to make this post spiral into an Iraq policy debate. Rather, I wanted to add my 2 cents to point out that I do not believe this interview necessarily proves, or even hints, that Cheney has pulled a 180 on his outlook in Iraq given the situation.
The question Cheney received is concerning an invasion, without an effort to stabilize the Iraqi government following an invasion. Under that context, nobody - NOBODY - could be intellectually honest and advocate for a direct invasion without taking care of the inevitable following mess...
The current Iraq situation, whether you agree with our reconstruction effort or not, has little to do with invasion and is primarily focused on stabilization. The scope is different. Cheney could very well have felt during the interview that providing direction to an immediate post Gulf War Iraq would have worked - but he wasn't asked that... he was simply asked if an invasion, without any other following action, was a positive move for America.
I typed this in a hurry but I hope the roots of my point are clear. Wish it could have been longer. Bottom line: You may feel the administration is wrong, but this does not prove that an ideological shift to adapt to political trends has occurred.
I hope some civil discussion can come from this, and sorry it took me a few days to read and post so more could discuss.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Aug 15, 2007 9:15:48 PM
I'm not sure what burped when I posted my last comment. the final sentence of the first paragraph should read:
"He got it from PfNAC crew, the hub of the Neo-con movement under Bill Kristol, one of the world's top f****heads."
That's PfNAC as in Project for the New American Century.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Jack Bog | Aug 13, 2007 1:51:11 AM
No linkie? Not nicey.