| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Freedom Fries" |
| Date: |
18 Jul 2005 06:51:10 AM |
| Object: |
Cheney Flip-Flopped On Iraq |
Cheney predicted the outcome of the current Iraq invasion well.
Problem is he made his statements in 1992 not 2002. I wonder
how many lives have been lost thanks to his flip flopping? He really
is a *****.
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
Cheney changed his view on Iraq He said in '92 Saddam not worth U.S.
casualties
By CHARLES POPE SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT
Excerpts:
WASHINGTON -- In an assessment that differs sharply with his view today,
***** Cheney more than a decade ago defended the decision to leave Saddam
Hussein in power after the first Gulf War, telling a Seattle audience
that capturing Saddam wouldn't be worth additional U.S. casualties or
the risk of getting "bogged down in the problems of trying to take over
and govern Iraq."
Cheney, who was secretary of defense at the time, made the observations
answering audience questions after a speech to the Discovery Institute
in August 1992, nearly 18 months after U.S. forces routed the Iraqi army
and liberated Kuwait.
"..."And the question in my mind is how many additional American
casualties is Saddam worth?" Cheney said then in response to a
question.
"And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right,
both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the
president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we
were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take
over and govern Iraq."..." (Hmmm....what a difference a bait-and-switch
war makes).
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. (Exactly why today, we're embroiled in a
quagmire. No post-war planning for the bait-and-switch war)
"...."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..."
But in his 1992 remarks in Seattle, Cheney foreshadowed a future in Iraq
that is remarkably close to conditions found there today, suggesting
that it would be difficult to bring the country's various political
factions together and that U.S. troops would be vulnerable to
insurrection and guerrilla attacks.
"Now what kind of government are you going to establish? Is it going to
be a Kurdish government, or a Shi'ia government, or a Sunni government,
or maybe a government based on the old Baathist Party, or some mixture
thereof? You will have, I think by that time, lost the support of the
Arab coalition that was so crucial to our operations over there," he
said.
The end result, Cheney said in 1992, would be a messy, dangerous
situation requiring a long-term presence by U.S. forces.
"I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in
Baghdad today, we'd be running the country. We would not have been able
to get everybody out and bring everybody home," Cheney said, 18 months
after the war ended.
Full article http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/192908_cheney29.html
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Cheney Flip-Flopped On Iraq |
18 Jul 2005 08:29:05 AM |
|
|
More flip-flopping from current and former members of the present
admin:
"I think it's important to point out that for the last 10 years, the
policy
that the United Nations, the United States has been following, has
succeeded
in keeping Iraq from rebuilding to the level that it was before. It's
an
army that's only one-third its original size. And even though they may
be
pursuing weapons of mass destruction of all kinds, it is not clear how
successful they have been. So to some extent, I think we ought to
declare
this a success. We have kept him contained, kept him in his box."
-Secretary
Powell, February 23, 2001
"The first line of defense should be a clear and classical statement of
deterrence -- if they do acquire weapons of mass destruction, their
weapons
will be unusable because any attempt to use them will bring national
obliteration." -Condi Rice from Foreign Affairs, January/February 2000
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ScottLK" |
|
| Title: Re: . ***** |
18 Jul 2005 01:28:42 PM |
|
|
Stop Crossposting to the NE PATRIOTS NG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Charlie Wolf" |
|
| Title: Re: . ***** |
18 Jul 2005 04:08:57 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 14:28:42 -0400, "ScottLK"
<forgetitspamer@yahoo.com> wrote:
Stop Crossposting to the NE PATRIOTS NG
I guess your "*****" would be oh so much more meaningful if you
wouldn't have TRIMMED THE FUCKING HEADERS SO NOBODY KNOWS WHO THE *****
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!!!!
Regards,
.
|
|
|
| User: "Iain" |
|
| Title: Re: . ***** |
18 Jul 2005 04:15:08 PM |
|
|
Charlie Wolf wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 14:28:42 -0400, "ScottLK"
<forgetitspamer@yahoo.com> wrote:
Stop Crossposting to the NE PATRIOTS NG
I guess your "*****" would be oh so much more meaningful if you
wouldn't have TRIMMED THE FUCKING HEADERS SO NOBODY KNOWS WHO THE *****
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!!!!
Regards,
Aren't you a TalkSport presenter? Your name and list of interests
identifies you as a late night chat show fellow here in the UK.
~Iain
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
