Posted by Frank James at 1:28 pm CST
So what are we to make of President Cheney's appearance on CNN yesterday with Wolf Blitzer in the Situation Room?
Was it an attempt to fire up the conservative base by confronting a member of the supposedly liberal main stream media? Or was it a window into the level of denial that still exists in certain parts of the White House when it comes to Iraq? Was it both?
Just this week we had Gen. David Petraeus describe the Iraq situation as "dire." Late last year, we had the highly regarded, bi-partisan Iraq Study Group which said, in the first words of the executive summary of its report, "The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating."
But when Blitzer said to the vice president of Iraq "But there is a terrible situation," Cheney said:
"No, there is not. There is not. There's problems, ongoing problems, but we have, in fact, accomplished our objectives of getting rid of the old regime, and there is a new regime in place that's been there for less than a year, far too soon for you guys to write them off. They have got a democratically written constitution, first ever in that part of the world. They've had three national elections. So there's been a lot of success."
The exchange continued thusly:
MR. BLITZER: How worried are you --
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: We still have more work to do to get a handle on the security situation, but the President has put a plan in place to do that.
MR. BLITZER: How worried are you of this nightmare scenario, that the U.S. is building up this Shiite-dominated Iraqi government with an enormous amount of military equipment, sophisticated training, and then in the end, they're going to turn against the United States?
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Wolf, that's not going to happen. The problem that you've got --
MR. BLITZER: Very -- very -- warming up to Iran and Syria right now.
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Wolf, you can come up with all kinds of what-ifs. You've got to deal with the reality on the ground. The reality on the ground is, we've made major progress, we've still got a lot of work to do. There are a lot of provinces in Iraq that are relatively quiet. There's more and more authority transferred to the Iraqis all the time.
But the biggest problem we face right now is the danger that the United States will validate the terrorist strategy, that, in fact, what will happen here with all of the debate over whether or not we ought to stay in Iraq, with the pressures from some quarters to get out of Iraq, if we were to do that, we would simply validate the terrorists' strategy that says the Americans will not stay to complete the task --
MR. BLITZER: Here's the Nouri al Maliki --
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: -- that we don't have the stomach for the fight.
A little later in the interview, Cheney promised success if everybody just goes with the program as the president has laid it out.
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Now, the critics have not suggested a policy. They haven't put anything in place. All they want to do, all they've recommended is to redeploy or to withdraw our forces. The fact is, we can complete the task in Iraq. We're going to do it. We've got Petraeus -- General Petraeus taking over. It is a good strategy.
It will work. But we have to have the stomach to finish the task.
Actually, not to disagree with the vice president but redeployment would, in fact, be a new policy, just one the vice president doesn't like. If what he really means is that the administration's critics haven't come up with a plan that with a high likelihood of stabilizing Iraq, most of the experts would say the administration hasn't either.
But the eye-brow raiser was the vehemence with which Cheney guaranteed success. Petraeus, the new commander of U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq, made it a point to say earlier this week that success isn't assured.
"The only assurance I can give you is that if confirmed, I will provide Multinational Force Iraq the best leadership and direction I can muster." And that from the man Cheney seems to believe will make the new strategy "work."
So, again, what should we draw from Cheney's appearance yesterday? Rallying the base, denial, or both?
• 
• 
• 
Comments
...Denial is a river in Eygpt...and it would appear that VP Cheney is up to his neck in it...
Posted by: The Original BZ | January 25, 2007 1:56 PM
You expect honesty from this administration on Iraq? Why would they start being honest now.
Seriously, this is coming from the guy who told us the insurgency was in it's last throes two years ago.
Posted by: Tony | January 25, 2007 1:58 PM
What dark force is keeping this man alive?
Posted by: john | January 25, 2007 2:05 PM
Cheney needs to turn in his 25 he is madder then the mad hatter. He does not know his lies have him cought.
Posted by: Dale Peters | January 25, 2007 2:05 PM
"I really do believe we will be greeted as liberators"
"I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency."
Can you imagine the outrage if John Kerry had made those statements?
Posted by: Paul | January 25, 2007 2:20 PM
Cheney guaranteeing "success" with the President's "new" stay-the-course strategy is as credible as the people who said the Titanic was unsinkable. Isn't this the guy who said we were seeing the "last throes" of the insurgency? Isn't this the guy who said Iraq was behind 9/11? Isn't this the guy who said, we know precisely where the WMD's are in Iraq?
Oh shut-up, already! Somebody needs lock Darth up in Guantanamo and throw away the key. He has no credibility and he has no clue.
Just say 'no' to more troops for the Iraq meat-grinder!
Posted by: dt | January 25, 2007 2:20 PM
A true and telling interview. Out of the mouths
of boobs came the arrogance. Who would believe this is a man that "serves" the public. Hogwash..
a word to describe the many unbelievably stupid mistakes. Like disbanding the Iraqi army, what a colossal blunder. Who in the hell did they think would provide security? 150,000 troops?
His refusal to discuss his daughters shows once again it's do as I say not as I do. To preach the "family values" and ignore this question is very telling. He came off as a pompous aristocrat
so full of himself that he can't see, or doesn't want to see, the truth.
Posted by: bill r. | January 25, 2007 2:42 PM
I love it!
Everytime Cheney opens his piehole President Rambo's approval rating drops like a rock.
I just read yesterday that W. was at 28%.
He still has nearly two yrs left to go.
Can anyone say "IMPEACHMENT".
Posted by: John E. | January 25, 2007 2:48 PM
Smarmy Cheney can't handle the truth. Did you see him during Dubya's State of the Union Address...he had something in his mouth, then he took it out and put it back in, then took a sip of water. He had a queer smirk on his face.
No big large Hastert to sit next to this time.
Cheney told us all that democracy has been established in Iraq and the insurgency was in its death throes. He said that no blunders have ever been made in regards to Iraq. He told us Iraq had stockpiles of WMD's. What in the world is he talking about?? He has no credibility when it comes to Iraq. Zero. Here's a guy who has drunk driving convictions and numerous deferrments. He has zero combat experience whatsoever. He's a coward and a crook. He should go to Iraq or back to his secret undisclosed location.
Posted by: Doug R. | January 25, 2007 2:48 PM
The man needs a psychiatric evaluation.
Posted by: rje | January 25, 2007 3:22 PM
I watched the Cheney/ Blitzer interview through clenched teeth and thought my head might pop off. Mr. Cheney is the man behind the curtain, and incapable of adjusting to reality. You can feel his malevolent presence spread like a cancer anytime he speaks.
He actually had the audacity to say: "terrorists attacked us on 9/11 even though we weren't in Iraq." Oh dear lord, talk about a non-sequiter. We weren't in Chile, Ghana, or New Guinea either, why didn't we bomb the hell out of them?
It reminds me of an old Simpsons episode. Lisa is explaining specious reasoning to Homer. She tells him that the rock she is holding protects them from bears (here's to you Stephen Colbert). The reasoning being that there have been no bear attacks since she has been holding the rock. Of course, there is no causal connection. Homer says, "Lisa, I would like to BUY your rock." Lisa rolls her eyes and walks away.
Posted by: Bryan | January 25, 2007 3:50 PM
Is it just me or is this the strangest administration ever? I can't think of when another VP went on so many talk shows and news channels to "sell" a presidential blunder. I could be wrong but I don't recall Gore going around the news stations propping up Clinton. Set me straight if I am wrong.
The other thing that bothers me about Cheney is his condescending attitude. Like us little people can't possibly understand so go away and don't worry your little heads. The big boys will handle things. Just make sure you stay terrified of those "bad" people.
Posted by: lochnessmonster | January 25, 2007 4:13 PM
Cheney's been popping those pills:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwFPbuqKIro
Posted by: bb | January 25, 2007 4:22 PM
With his track record, you'd have to be crazy to believe a word Cheney says, but this is probably by design. Bush made his lame SOTU speech and now Cheney follows with arrogant, stupid comments in his interview to distract us from the lack of substance in George's speech. Cheney makes a pretty effective lightning rod for Bush, since people dislike him even more than Dubya.
Posted by: Tom O | January 25, 2007 4:30 PM
Here are some musings on war from
John Fogerty (CCR)
Whoa, thought it was a nightmare,
Lo, its all so true,
They told me, dont go walkin slow
cause devils on the loose.
Chorus:
Better run through the jungle,
Better run through the jungle,
Better run through the jungle,
Woa, dont look back to see.
Thought I heard a rumblin
Callin to my name,
Two hundred million guns are loaded
Satan cries, take aim!
Chorus
Better run through the jungle,
Woa, dont look back to see.
Over on the mountain
Thunder magic spoke,
Let the people know my wisdom,
Fill the land with smoke.
Better run through the jungle,
Woa, dont look back to see.
Posted by: C.Morris | January 25, 2007 4:40 PM
C thats good Cheney ran from the Jungle Five Times
Posted by: Dale Peters | January 25, 2007 4:55 PM
Oh these lame LIBune censors are classic. My post taking Frankie James to task does not make it. Really, Tribunites are you folks that afraid of THE TRUTH???
Posted by: John D | January 25, 2007 5:08 PM
We have said from Day One that we reserve the right to not publish unfair attacks, and that includes postings that are vicious. Stick to the facts, opinions and creative expression, express oneself thoughtfully and without bile and one will always find a welcome mat here.
Posted by: Mark Silva | January 25, 2007 5:13 PM
"Really, Tribunites are you folks that afraid of THE TRUTH???"
My God, that's it....
John D. is Col. Nathan R. Jessep from "A Few Good Men".
Posted by: Tony | January 25, 2007 5:17 PM
When you consider a typical 'John D' post, can you imagine what they don't print?
Posted by: C.Morris | January 25, 2007 5:34 PM
No Tony, but he thinks he is...
Posted by: Tom O | January 25, 2007 6:00 PM
John D,
Come on, we are curious of the gist of it.
Rework it and submit.
I've had to do it myself in the past.
Yep, a couple of mine
have been denied, but I didn't have a case of the
'vapors' over it.
It's called the 'free press'. Not free for you. Free for the
Tribune to print or not to print your posting.
Now, you are 'free' to buy all the Tribune stock you want and
become a majority holder of said stock, and then you will be
'free' to change the editorial policy of the Tribune cartel.
Hey, you could even fire Mark and Frank! You could deny every one of MY posts!
But always remember; In America 'money = free speech'.
The Supremes say so friend.
Posted by: C.Morris | January 25, 2007 6:07 PM
Re. John D's psychic break;
I guess criticizing VP Sneer is to right wingers like dissing 'Mom' to
Patrick Bateman.
It produces unpredictable results.
Posted by: C.Morris | January 25, 2007 6:22 PM
John D,
See? All mine got in.
Posted by: C.Morris | January 25, 2007 6:38 PM
John D,
You must be concerned about the omission of the segment of the interview in which Blitzer asked Blitzkreig about his remarks on family values in light of his forthcoming grandchild via his lesbian daughter. Out of line?
No, outta sight!
Posted by: Kenny Bunkport | January 25, 2007 7:19 PM
John D.,
Come on friend. You can't be the only person in America (beside president Bush and Cheney's wife), that still supports the commander of darkness, can you? My guess is that the editors got tired of your little 'love letters' to John E. Since most of your vitriol makes it through screening, I'm guessing this time it was really over the top. So come on, take a deep breath, and put some effort into it this time. We've all been censored, you know.
Posted by: dt | January 25, 2007 7:32 PM
I like it when Little Johnnys vile posts get printed.
I especially like it when I make one of Little Johnnys most hated "loony lefties" lists.
Admit it,I'm your worst nightmare Little Johnny.
Us new Democrats are not your daddys bleeding heart liberals of the old days.
I wouldn't even be posting on here except that your Republican Party decided in 1999 that the best way to win elections was to have KKKarl Rove swiftboat,swindle,and smear the Democrats.
Posted by: John E. | January 25, 2007 9:52 PM
C Morris, glad to see so many of your posts got on here. Trouble is, the bozos that censor this LIBune Swamp have no rhyme or reason for what they censor or consider offensive, but more often than not the posts from the Left will get through, no matter how vile. Mine that didn't took little ole Frankie James to task for NOT telling the truth and leaving out the FULL story. Frankie is real good at that.
Posted by: John D | January 26, 2007 8:21 AM
Johnny D, I'm sure your version of the FULL story is quite an exercise in creative writing.
Posted by: Tony | January 26, 2007 9:44 AM
"Was Cheney in Denial?"
"Bush Library an Embarrassment"
"Obama is the Bestest" (OK, I made that up but I wouldn't be surprised to see it here)
Couldn't help but notice that this is just a liberal blog. I wish the Swamp editors would just 'fess up and label it that way so conservatives won't be confused and come here thinking this blog is an opportunity for some open discussion about issues.
Posted by: Fred | January 26, 2007 10:17 AM
Fred,
Any reasonable conservative who can express their opinion without resorting to the type of hate-filled invective that is common place here is a welcome respite from the John D "leftist-scum" attacks or other childishness (anything from Paulo).
I've found that most conservatives do not have the fortitude to consistently argue their point without resorting to name calling. You can say the same of some liberals, but since there are a lot more of us here I think that at least a few reasonable voices are heard.
Come join us, the water is warm (and murky).
Posted by: Bryan | January 26, 2007 10:47 AM
I keep trying to stay retired but, oh well.
I couldn't help but comment, especially after your last post Bryan. Remember our discussions of plans or the lack thereof? Not to defend John D., but I wrote up a detailed response to your last post asking me to take a position and...the Swamp decided not to publish it. There were no insults, no profanity, no John E.-style angry comments. So, I am left to wonder why my response was not posted. Perhaps it was so good that the Swamp was afraid my words might change a few minds. I just can't be sure. At any rate, it's difficult for me to consider joining in on discussions here because I can't be sure my responses will be posted.
Posted by: no name | January 26, 2007 11:06 AM
No-Name.....I have written posts that also have not posted and these also were not at all demeaning to anyone. Computers are not 100% reliable and wrote it off as a glitch and not a conspiracy. After months and months of seeing John D's insults and name calling, I hardly think
it is due to silencing the right.
On another note, your point of no plan by the democrats, if you would read the thread entitled
I'm the decider Bush himself says he has listened to suggestions(plan)and has decided he is right. What more needs be said?
Posted by: bill r. | January 26, 2007 11:35 AM
no name,
I have no idea why your post did not go through. It has happened to me too, and as I'm sure you know, I am not a hate-hurler and am genuinely interested in conservative voice (though I disagree with almost every principle and will argue it forcefully until I am no longer capable) Though I agree with you on next-to-nothing, you are generally a reasonable voice. I hope to hear more from you in the future.
As for your plan, though the President will undoubtedly not listen to it (or anything that doesn't come from his inner circle of "yes" men), I'm certainly interested in what you have to say.
Posted by: Bryan | January 26, 2007 12:53 PM
Bill R., I would love for you to point out to me when your buddies like John E., Raving Loon or a host of other Lefties do not name call or insult.
I'll admit I do some but not near enough as those of your ilk do time and time again on here. Heck, your ilk even posts comments under MY NAME in which I tell myself that I am stupid, and your LIBune friends let that stuff go through. My issue with the Swamp here is that ole Frankie James says Gen. Patreus says the situation is Iraq is "dire," yet countless times Patreus says Iraq can be "won." I was asking why the always-biased James does not include those comments from Patreus.
Sorry, but when it comes to personal attacks, your leftist buddies are all in a classless field of their own. And when it comes to censoring, the LIBune censors have a much wider "we're offended" net for conservatives compared to their narrow "we're offended" net for leftists.
Posted by: John D | January 26, 2007 1:19 PM
Lets see,
Right Wingers in general say Liberals are baby killing, America hating, Satan worshipers and are all going to Hell.
What could be more hateful and hurtful than that?
John D,
The first words in most of your posts are insults, for G-d sake.
Posted by: C.Morris | January 26, 2007 5:55 PM
"Bill R., I would love for you to point out to me when your buddies like John E., Raving Loon or a host of other Lefties do not name call or insult."
Bill r,
Note that John D is asking you to prove a negative.
Note 2. I did not name call or insult in this post. This disproves John D's posit.
Here are more postings without insults or name calling;
John D,
Come on, we are curious of the gist of it.
Rework it and submit.
I've had to do it myself in the past.
Yep, a couple of mine
have been denied, but I didn't have a case of the
'vapors' over it.
It's called the 'free press'. Not free for you. Free for the
Tribune to print or not to print your posting.
Now, you are 'free' to buy all the Tribune stock you want and
become a majority holder of said stock, and then you will be
'free' to change the editorial policy of the Tribune cartel.
Hey, you could even fire Mark and Frank! You could deny every one of MY posts!
But always remember; In America 'money = free speech'.
The Supremes say so friend.
Posted by: C.Morris | Jan 25, 2007 6:07:37 PM
Re. John D's psychic break;
I guess criticizing VP Sneer is to right wingers like dissing 'Mom' to Patrick Bateman.
It produces unpredictable results.
Posted by: C.Morris | Jan 25, 2007 6:22:50 PM
John D,
See? All mine got in.
Posted by: C.Morris | Jan 25, 2007 6:38:43 PM
Posted by: C.Morris | January 26, 2007 6:02 PM
I have frequently had posts not get printed. Sometimes, I am sure it's because I am being a (witch). Other times I am really being restrained and they still don't go through. C'est la vie.
Posted by: Catherine | January 26, 2007 9:34 PM
I saw excerpts from the Blitzer interview last night.
Cheney is insane with power.
Posted by: C.Morris | January 27, 2007 6:26 PM
It reminded me of Willard's (Wolfy's) discussion with Kurtz (Cheney) in the final scene of Apocalypse Now.
(This is the end, beautiful friend, the end)
Posted by: C.Morris | January 27, 2007 10:40 PM