Apparently, Dick Cheney was not an evil madman back in '94... actually pretty wise back then. Said toppling Saddam...

[Phokus]

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

Wow... just wow... about EVERY argument AGAINST invading and toppling the Saddam government was made by none other than Dick Cheney himself. He even recognized the

To summarize Cheney's "anti-American" position on Iraq:

If we gone to Baghdad we would've fought alone

Us Occuptation

None of the Arab forces willing to fight with us

What are you going to put in place of a Saddam gov't?

Very volatile part of the world

If you take down central gov't and you'll see pieces of Iraq fly off

Syrians want the west, Iranians want the east, North you have the Kurds spin loose and you'll threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey.

146 americans killed in action, it was not a cheap war for those families, how many dead americans was saddam worth? In our judgment, not very many and i think we got it right.

 

[lozina]

Fire up the spin machine...

Things were different back in '94. Back then Iran hated us, Saddam didn't have nuclear weapons. Syria hated us. No Arab forces wanted to join us in the occupation. So now you see why it was good to do it in 2003 after everything changed.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: lozina
Fire up the spin machine...

Things were different back in '94. Back then Iran hated us, Saddam didn't have nuclear weapons. Syria hated us. No Arab forces wanted to join us in the occupation. So now you see why it was good to do it in 2003 after everything changed.

?? 2003 was different from 1994?? Iran, Saddam, Syria, Arab? In what way?? OH! I get it, extreme sarcasm!

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: lozina
Fire up the spin machine...

Things were different back in '94. Back then Iran hated us, Saddam didn't have nuclear weapons. Syria hated us. No Arab forces wanted to join us in the occupation. So now you see why it was good to do it in 2003 after everything changed.

?? 2003 was different from 1994?? Iran, Saddam, Syria, Arab? In what way?? OH! I get it, extreme sarcasm!

Those nations formed the Axis of Evil and declared war on America. That's what changed.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: lozina
Fire up the spin machine...

Things were different back in '94. Back then Iran hated us, Saddam didn't have nuclear weapons. Syria hated us. No Arab forces wanted to join us in the occupation. So now you see why it was good to do it in 2003 after everything changed.

Don't forget: 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! ... did i forget to mention 9/11?

 

[kage69]

Those nations formed the Axis of Evil and declared war on America. That's what changed.

Damn, you can't even get your own bull straight!

Bush's Evil Tri-fecta was Iran, Iraq, and North Korea - no mention of Syria I'm afraid. And your 'declaring of war' is equally faulty. Faulty in the sense that no declarations were made by Iran and Iraq, and technically we're still at war with North Korea.


Lay off the FAUX Noise man, it's bad for your brain...



Edit: Wow, my bad. I was completely unaware ol Dubya made additions to his most stupid list, I thought we were talking about his 2002 SotU address. Guess Libya and Cuba need to be included to the discussion?

Additional Edit: Aha! I knew something didn't add up here, it was John Bolton who made additions to Bush's list - makes sense now as I usually ignore anything coming out of that grown-up brat's mouth, like Ann Coulter.

 

[Accipiter22]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: lozina
Fire up the spin machine...

Things were different back in '94. Back then Iran hated us, Saddam didn't have nuclear weapons. Syria hated us. No Arab forces wanted to join us in the occupation. So now you see why it was good to do it in 2003 after everything changed.

?? 2003 was different from 1994?? Iran, Saddam, Syria, Arab? In what way?? OH! I get it, extreme sarcasm!

Those nations formed the Axis of Evil and declared war on America. That's what changed.

yeah and they all got those cool Axis of Evil leather jackets 🙁

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Accipiter22

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: lozina
Fire up the spin machine...

Things were different back in '94. Back then Iran hated us, Saddam didn't have nuclear weapons. Syria hated us. No Arab forces wanted to join us in the occupation. So now you see why it was good to do it in 2003 after everything changed.

?? 2003 was different from 1994?? Iran, Saddam, Syria, Arab? In what way?? OH! I get it, extreme sarcasm!

Those nations formed the Axis of Evil and declared war on America. That's what changed.

yeah and they all got those cool Axis of Evil leather jackets 🙁

Prof John will mail you a Justice League jacket if you ask nicely.

 

[magomago]

I'm at the point where I think 99% of politicians say what will ensure that no action by the other party is taken.

Cheney said what he did because he didnt' want a Democrat to accomplish anything. Once the Repubs were in power, he didn't mind playing to a different fiddle because now the Republicans were the ones who took the action.

Before Bush, many democrats supported Clinton's ridiculous attacks on Saddam and talked about the need to "step up" on him. Of course once a republican is power, they want to bring everything to a grinding halt and opposed any action on Saddam.

Why? Because you don't want the other party to accomplish or achieve anything

edit:

if it was 1994 and a republican was in power instead - I would not hesitate to say that without a doubt Cheney would be spouting the B.S. that he currently does...

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: magomago
I'm at the point where I think 99% of politicians say what will ensure that no action by the other party is taken.

Cheney said what he did because he didnt' want a Democrat to accomplish anything. Once the Repubs were in power, he didn't mind playing to a different fiddle because now the Republicans were the ones who took the action.

Before Bush, many democrats supported Clinton's ridiculous attacks on Saddam and talked about the need to "step up" on him. Of course once a republican is power, they want to bring everything to a grinding halt and opposed any action on Saddam.

Why? Because you don't want the other party to accomplish or achieve anything

When Cheney was talking then he was referring mostly to the actions taken by the Bush 1 administration, and was explaining why they didn't go 'finish the job' with Saddam in the first Gulf War.

 

[Lemon law]

You have to realize the formative years of both Rumsfeld and Cheney were during the end of the Nixon and the beginning of the Ford administration. And a more morally bankrupt pair of turds of a feather can seldom be found in American history. And while the rest of the country was concluding that abuse of power was wrong, they were
learning the craft of abusing power and not getting caught at it.

They were always freeebooters and briggands out for what they could steal. In gulf war one they were part of a coalition and hence could not steal the Iraqi oil. Later on they
crafted a US Brit alliance where they could and changed position. But their entire history of government service has been engaged in doing the most morally reprehensible things behind everyones back and then posturing to claim the moral high ground.

Their over reaching lies have finally been exposed in the Iraqi occupation. And has finally gotten Rummy bumped off. Cheney still lies---maybe just for the practice---but has not been bumped off YET.

 

[daveshel]

In 1994 Cheney was considering a run for president. By 1997, his buddies had apparently changed his mind: he was a signatory to the PNAC, whose manifesto included removing Saddam from power.

 

[JD50]

How is this any different than the numerous videos and soundbytes of Democrats saying that Saddam had WMDs?

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: JD50
How is this any different than the numerous videos and soundbytes of Democrats saying that Saddam had WMDs?

I can call someone nasty names for a personal feel good. But when I go from stick and stones
may break my bones but words will never hurt me---you start to understand the difference.

There is a BID BIG difference between words and physically breaking bones and killing.

 

[maverick44]

How is this any different than the numerous videos and soundbytes of Democrats saying that Saddam had WMDs

Its different because for the 8 odd years they had the white house they never started a war let alone one in which they didnt believe in.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: lozina
Fire up the spin machine...

Things were different back in '94. Back then Iran hated us, Saddam didn't have nuclear weapons. Syria hated us. No Arab forces wanted to join us in the occupation. So now you see why it was good to do it in 2003 after everything changed.

?? 2003 was different from 1994?? Iran, Saddam, Syria, Arab? In what way?? OH! I get it, extreme sarcasm!

Those nations formed the Axis of Evil and declared war on America. That's what changed.

Do you honestly believe that?

The reason I ask is that Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc have hated us and worked against us for decades. Those nations had little to nothing to do with 9/11. Do you honestly not understand that?

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: lozina
Fire up the spin machine...

Things were different back in '94. Back then Iran hated us, Saddam didn't have nuclear weapons. Syria hated us. No Arab forces wanted to join us in the occupation. So now you see why it was good to do it in 2003 after everything changed.

so... you're saying that Saddam had nuclear weapons in 2003? HaHa.

actually, he was closer to having them in 94 than he was in 03. but I think it was around the end of the 90s when the "international nuclear expert" community--whatever the hell they're called--declared that Iraq's nuclear weapon-development program had fallen into the eternal crapper, thanks largely to sanctions. These aren't based on assumptions and mis-interpreted intelligence, but by credible info regarding their capabilities and finances.