Sunday, August 12, 2007

Cheney on Iraq in 1994: Against Invasion BEFORE He Was For It

You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll want to punch holes in the walls.

(H/T Grand Theft Country: America)

Interviewer: "Do you think the US, or UN forces, should have moved into Baghdad?"

Cheney: "No."

I: "Why not?"

C: "Because if we'd gone to Baghdad we would have been all alone. There wouldn't have been anyone else with us. It would have been a US occupation of Iraq. None of the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq. "

And it goes on and on. The predictions he makes in 1994 are chillingly similar to the ones thinking conservatives who opposed the current war made. And a lot of them seem to be on the cusp of coming true. He even uses the term "quagmire" to describe what would happen.

And then there are US casualties:

"The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact that we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action, and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war. And the question for the President, in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad, and took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans was Saddam worth. And our judgment was 'not very many,' and I think we got that right."

So the next time someone points out that Al Gore was in favor of going into Baghdad to topple Saddam before he was against it... be sure to point out that Cheney was against it before he was before it.

What a difference a 9/11 makes.


Post a Comment

<< Home