Dick Cheney (nailed on house floor) on Baghdad, quote from 1991: MUST SEE THIS!
Edited on Thu Feb-15-07 01:22 PM by Danieljay
Appearing on ABC's This Week, Cheney was asked why Operation Desert Storm had not gone "all the way" to remove Saddam Hussein from power. "I think for us to get American military personnel involved in a civil war inside Iraq would literally be a quagmire," Cheney replied. "Once we got to Baghdad, what would we do? Who would we put in power? What kind of government? Would it be a Sunni government, a Shia government, a Kurdish government? Would it be secular, along the lines of the Baath party, would it be fundamentalist Islamic? I do not think the United States wants to have U.S. military forces accept casualties and accept responsibility of trying to govern Iraq. I think it makes no sense at all." Dick Cheney 2001
Charles Gonzales just read that quote on the house floor. It was awesome!
I hope some professional "reporters" ask the Vice President this question.
I hope they ask him about: 1) The civil war inside Iraq that would literally be a quagmire; 2) Once we got to Baghdad, what would we do? 3) Who would we put in power? 4) What kind of government? 5) Would it be a Sunni government, a Shia government, a Kurdish government? 6) Would it be secular, along the lines of the Baath party, would it be fundamentalist Islamic? 7) Why now can the United States have its U.S. military forces accept casualties and accept responsibility of trying to govern Iraq?
The media should be all over this like flies on shit on a hot, summer day...
28. Odd that Tim Russet hasn't asked him these things on Press the Meat
Long ago in the olden days before the military/industrial/prison complex bought up all the media, there were reporters who would have asked Cheney these questions. I wonder if these 1991 comments have been posted here at DU before.
29. Gruenemann is correct to predict this reply from Lord Vader
And you are correct to offer a very appropriate counter to that slogan. It's disgusting how the media lets them get off the hook if they just repeat the senseless slogan, "911 changed everything." What's with that? Might as well say, "Git 'er done!"
Well, 911 didn't change everything. Stupid is still stupid.
I noticed you're getting off to a good start here at DU. I like what you've got to say, Mr. Ected.
They decided that the climate in America was ripe to accept the price of US casualties and being entrenched in quagmire thanks to 9/11. They went in and ousted Saddam knowing full well they were creating an unstable nation that would plummet into a civil war, one in which the US military would be fighting.
What I've never been able to understand is how they thought they could keep the majority of Americans terrorized to a point that wouldn't question them?
The secretary of defense continued to push on us ... that everything we write in our plan has to be the idea that we are going to go in, we're going to take out the regime, and then we're going to leave," Scheid said. "We won't stay."
Scheid said the planners continued to try "to write what was called Phase 4," or the piece of the plan that included post-invasion operations like occupation.
Even if the troops didn't stay, "at least we have to plan for it," Scheid said.
"I remember the secretary of defense saying that he would fire the next person that said that," Scheid said. "We would not do planning for Phase 4 operations, which would require all those additional troops that people talk about today.
"He said we will not do that because the American public will not back us if they think we are going over there for a long war."
Brigadier General Mark Scheid, chief of the Logistics War Plans Division after 9/11
30. Here's a link to a speech in which Cheney says the same thing.
He's reflecting on the first Gulf War here: <snip> I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place.
What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable?
I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq. <snip>
snip Going to Baghdad, Cheney said in 1992, would require a much different approach militarily than fighting in the open desert outside the capital, a type of warfare that U.S. troops were not familiar, or comfortable fighting.
"All of a sudden you've got a battle you're fighting in a major built-up city, a lot of civilians are around, significant limitations on our ability to use our most effective technologies and techniques," Cheney said.
"Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq." snip
Therefore, since what Cheney said then has proven to be true and what he says now is clearly a lie, the sane Cheney of then has effectively delcared his present self insane and thereby signed his own committments papers right in the Congressional Record.
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.