A truely remarkable interview...

Watch it.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I

So it stands to reason then that since Cheney knew exactly what would happen if Iraq was invaded that the excuses given were lies. Saddams death was not worth the lives of dead American soldiers, so what was?...

And what benefit comes out of the 'quagmire' for the US?

In 1991, Cheney was secretary of defence. He paid Halliburton about 9 million dollars to study if they could do 'support services' for the military.

Cheney breifly floated the idea of running for president in 94-95 but decided he liked the business world more.

In 1995 Cheney was hired as CEO (with no expirience) of halliburton, the year after this interview.

Then in 2000 Cheney left his job as CEO of Halliburton to be vice president. In this position he awarded no bid contracts to Halliburton to 'support' the occupation of Iraq. All the while Cheney was still being paid and still had stock in Halliburton.

I'd love to hear any theories as to why the US invaded and is occupying Iraq when the vice president clearly knew the outcome would be disasterous.

That would be funny if it were not so sad or infuriating.

My old signature:

Well, just as it’s important, I think, for a president to know when to commit U.S. forces to combat, it’s also important to know when not to commit U.S. forces to combat. I think for us to get American military personnel involved in a civil war inside Iraq would literally be a quagmire. Once we got to Baghdad, what would we do? Who would we put in power? What kind of government would we have? Would it be a Sunni government, a Shi’a government, a Kurdish government? Would it be secular, along the lines of the Ba’ath Party? Would be fundamentalist Islamic? I do not think the United States wants to have U.S. military forces accept casualties and accept the responsibility of trying to govern Iraq. I think it makes no sense at all.

~ Richard Bruce "Dick" Cheney

Cheney should have stuck to his original assessment as it was obviously more correct than the neoconservative fantasy they are pursuing in Iraq today.

I'd love to hear any theories as to why the US invaded and is occupying Iraq when the vice president clearly knew the outcome would be disasterous.

The public response would be that they felt Saddam posed such a large threat that we couldn't risk doing nothing. Real reason? Who knows.

...Giggity.

I'd love to hear any theories as to why the US invaded and is occupying Iraq when the vice president clearly knew the outcome would be disasterous.

Here's one. The "oil" excuse is just so the fundamentalists can "fund" the war. The real reason is that they want to shape the middle east and prepare it for the next coming of Christ. Temple, etc.

Operation Iraqi Liberation... O.I.L.

If it wasn't for Dick Cheney it wouldn't have been noticed and forced to...

Operation Iraqi Freedom

Here's one. The "oil" excuse is just so the fundamentalists can "fund" the war. The real reason is that they want to shape the middle east and prepare it for the next coming of Christ. Temple, etc. Well that's a scary theory and unfortunatly it certainly could be true! This is why I don't want religious nuts running our country!!:eek:

Well that's a scary theory and unfortunatly it certainly could be true! This is why I don't want religious nuts running our country!!:eek:

No a long time ago, before Tony Snow was white house spokesman, he was on a bill maher show. And maher joked about jesus coming back, and tony snow said, "what if its true?"

money money money !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh my, my, my, my, my. The man was actually talking good sense in 1994.

That was from the First Iraq War and President Bush Seniors decision not to go forward with the amount of troops we were able to commit at the time.

That resulted in Saddam being able to stay in power but not daring to invade his neighbors.

So he continued to defy the UN Inspectors and openly reported the development of biological weapons.

President Clinton decided he would attack Iraq again, but did not want to risk the political capital of a ground invasion or the trouble of getting a republican congress to declare war.

President Bush Jr came into the presidency and decided that Iraq should be dealt with once and for all. The decision to invade Iraq was made before Terrorism was a public issue. I fault the president for playing into the publics fear and making it into a terrorist threat. He attempted to change his position and make it not about terrorism, and he was double socked by the media and by the police.

A Cheney Bush quagmire.

President Clinton decided he would attack Iraq again, but did not want to risk the political capital of a ground invasion or the trouble of getting a republican congress to declare war. Nah.

Clinton decided that mass murder was a great distraction from front page BJs.

Dear Bubbas.And Bimbos.
Like Karl Rove articulated in a plain-spoken and easy to
comprehend fashion on -- Meet the Press -- this the 3rd sunday
of August.
Rove explained in an almost dumbdowned version for BiG Libby
David Gregory {MSNBC Poster boy WH Press Agent} that :
The recent Cheney statement drudged up from '94 was then.
This is Now.9/11 changed EVERYTHING.This isn't the same world
after the attacks in 2001.Saddam had repeatedly thumbed his nose,
resolution after resolution {16 + } and really had just to
admit he had what inspectors wanted.Plus he corrupted - Oil for Food -
to help build-up his Military and many Palaces.
He was offering shelter to Terrorists and funding Terrorism.
$25K to the family of suicide bombers in Israel.
And why on Earth would the same Dick Cheney in '94 want to
solve the Saddam problem,given 9/11 and a more complicated
set of incentives for Terrorists with a guy like Saddam still
in Power,and a viable corrupting influence.

Here's one. The "oil" excuse is just so the fundamentalists can "fund" the war. The real reason is that they want to shape the middle east and prepare it for the next coming of Christ. Temple, etc.

I disagree entirely.

I think you have some of the reasons correct, but you have it somewhat backwards is assessing just who is motivated by which reasons.

The far Right political leaders in this country ARE in it, very much so, for the control of oil resources in the Middle East. Money and power are their only two true "gods".

They are not using oil as an 'excuse' at all; they in fact have always steadfastly maintained (and are so adamant in their denials that some people actually believe it) that oil was not the reason.

The useful idiots that make up such a huge segment of the Public, the religionist nitwits who staunchly back the rightwing political leaders waging preemptive wars against Middle Eastern nations, are the ones motivated in part by their superstitious notion of some "next coming of Christ" and other irrational notions having to do with their religious beliefs.

So he (Saddam) continued to defy the UN Inspectors and openly reported the development of biological weapons.

It is a falsehood that Saddam did not comply with UN inspections.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

During his major speech in Philadelphia on Iraq on December 12, George Bush flat-out lied (http://impeachpac.org/disclose-or-disarm) to the world.

""And so we gave Saddam Hussein the chance to disclose or disarm, and he refused.""


Which part is the lie? Both. Saddam both disclosed and disarmed.

Saddam disarmed mostly in 1991 after Gulf War I, and the U.S. knew it because Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein Kamel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussein_Kamel), told us after he defected in 1995.

After Bush pushed the UN to adopt Resolution 1441, UN inspectors returned to Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_disarmament_crisis_timeline_2001-2003) and got full access to Iraq's presidential palaces and military sites. Saddam disclosed everything he had (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0909-01.htm), including medium-range Al Samoud missiles that had been upgraded to travel 30km beyond their 150km limit; under pressure from the UN, Saddam "disarmed" (destroyed) them.

Bush also lied about it on July 14, 2003:

"The fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power..."



This Administration has been so persisitent with their lies about Saddam not complying with U.N. inspectors that many in the Public have -incorrectly- become convinced of it.

I disagree entirely.

I think you have some of the reasons correct, but you have it somewhat backwards is assessing just who is motivated by which reasons.

The far Right political leaders in this country ARE in it, very much so, for the control of oil resources in the Middle East. Money and power are their only two true "gods".

They are not using oil as an 'excuse' at all; they in fact have always steadfastly maintained (and are so adamant in their denials that some people actually believe it) that oil was not the reason.

The useful idiots that make up such a huge segment of the Public, the religionist nitwits who staunchly back the rightwing political leaders waging preemptive wars against Middle Eastern nations, are the ones motivated in part by their superstitious notion of some "next coming of Christ" and other irrational notions having to do with their religious beliefs.


Good Point! I see what you are saying. They are using religion to get the backing of those CRAZE-CHRISTIANS.