Cheney, '94: Invading Iraq invites a 'quagmire'

Funny how he knew NOT invading Iraq back in 1994 was the right thing to do, and yet in 2003 he forgot all that to support his Neocon fantasy war and occupation of Iraq for its oil reserves.

Ahh for the days when Cheney was sane.

Didn't we already know this? Oh, maybe not this particular video clip, but definitely Cheney's position regarding why Bush 41 didn't "finish the job." And didn't we already know it in 2002 and 2003 when Cheney and his sidekick were rattling the sabers? I mean, I hate to say I told you so, but we did try to tell you so at the time. Or did you think we anti-war types just like standing in traffic on Lake Shore Drive?

I'd be interested to hear his spin on this.

Oh well, we all make mistakes. What's a few lives one way or the other. We got Sadam and that's what counts. He tried to kill W's Daddy. We showed him who's Boss in the World!

Only 146 dead? And we are in the thousands and climbing to finish up a war that they wanted back in 94.

It's almost as if Bush and friends overlooked an impending attack in this country, just to get over there and finish the job!

I wouldn't doubt it or put it past these power hungry- take over the world- war mongers.

Fellow looney lefters, betcha y'all a quarter we won't be hearing from RNC Bruce, John D., Terry, Paulo or any of the rest of the 26% dead-enders on this thread.

Any takers?

A 1994 interview??? 13 years ago?

Hey, Swampies, a lot has changed since 1994.

For example, 9/11.

Ever hear of it? It was in all the newspapers. Even the Tribune.

RNC Bruce,

And Saddam had what to do with 9/11?

How's the Iraqi government political reconcilliation going?

Um, 9/11 has/had WHAT to do with Saddam/Iraq exactly?

Doug,
I knew one of those scumbags would show up and try to link Iraq to 9/1l despite President Bush's public admittal that IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11.

Bruce!!!

Yeah, the invasion of Iraq was CRUCIAL to getting the terrorists.

You've got to be kidding!

Hey Brucie!!

Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11!!

Remember that??

Yeah Bruce,

Huge link there between 9/11 and Iraq.

Hey Bruce;
Sadam and his country had nothing to do with 9/11.
Haven't you figured that out yet? Where do you get your information?

Just thought I'd drop this into the conversation.

http://www.slate.com/id/2172152/

Please note the line about how Zarqawi was already in Iraq before the U.S. invasion, having fled there from Afghanistan after the U.S. sacked the Taliban in 2001. Oh, and welcome to the ranks of the Wingnuts, Christopher Hitchens.

Oh, yeah - 9/11. Good thing we got Saddam so he couldn't send more terrorists like he did on 9/11. Oh wait, it wasn't him. Well then, we needed to get rid of the weapons of mass destruction. Oh wait, there weren't any weapons of mass destruction. Oh well.

A 1994 interview??? 13 years ago?

Hey, Swampies, a lot has changed since 1994.

For example, 9/11.

Ever hear of it? It was in all the newspapers. Even the Tribune.

Posted by: Bruce | August 14, 2007 11:07 AM

Bruce Whinerdyce,
You're off your game, you forgot to blame it all on Bill Clinton.
Maybe Little Johnny Dolittle will do it for you.

What does 9/11 have to do with Iraq, Bruce?

Care to tell us what Iraq and/or Saddam Hussein had to do with 9/11, Bruce?
If you can, the RNC would like to have a talk with you.

A 1994 interview??? 13 years ago?

Hey, Swampies, a lot has changed since 1994.

For example, 9/11.

Ever hear of it? It was in all the newspapers. Even the Tribune.

Posted by: Bruce | August 14, 2007 11:07 AM

Or even how 9/11 would change the "quagmire" analysis of an invasion of Iraq. Care to expound on that, Brucey?

Idiot.

Ah....1994. How many TIA's has Cheney had since then. This makes SO much sense now. He acts like some stroke survivors I've met: stubborn, combative and deluded. He USED to be sane (ie, avoid quagmire), and now is addled enough to not listen to advisers who still have blood flowing to their brain cells.

Oh, and Bruce.....Ever hear of Bin Laden? Ever find him in Iraq? Maybe we should have found him in Afghanistan or Pakistan FIRST, then take on a member of the "axis of evil".

Well Bruce, now that you brought that up again, enlighten me again upon how much did Saddam had to do with 911? I mean, does 1+1=2 become 1+1=3 after 13 years?

Oh yes, JohnD Paulo and Jerry White, Springfield, IL, feel free to jump in anytime.

A 1994 interview??? 13 years ago?

Hey, Swampies, a lot has changed since 1994.

For example, 9/11.

Ever hear of it? It was in all the newspapers. Even the Tribune.

Posted by: Bruce | August 14, 2007 11:07 AM

BRUCE!! SO WHAT!!!! What does Iraq have to do with 9/11?!?! How does 9/11 negate all the reasons that Cheney said made occupying Iraq a bad idea?
Doesn't it give you ANY pause that Cheney was proved correct in his assessment in '94, reversed himself 180 degrees, and was completely wrong on every assumption he made post-9/11? Were you lobotomized? Come on man.

Yes, interesting to hear his or anyone's spin. Bump this against him saying in 2003 that we will be greeted as liberators. Interesting quote about the cost to families. Ramp that up to 3,000 here.

The press deserves some pounding here. It was widely understood why GWHB didn't go into Iraq. His son was never appropriately questioned about the change in strategy and the possible consequences.

Sorry Bruce. It's that old pre-9/11 mindset.

Back then, we defended our arab allies from invaders and thought overthrowing our old ally Saddam in Iraq would leave us stuck there for years and damage our reputation. Imagine that.

That was way back before the "K" street project when Republicans were officially opposed to government corruption and before they became supporters of bigger government and irresponsible deficit spending.

Of course, that all changed after 9/11.

Hey, Bruce - - you're Right! After 9/11 Iraq was NOT a quagmire any more and none of the things he mentioned as cautions in 1994 came true. Great call, Bruce. Thank you for keeping us all honest.

Bruce, you moron, 9/11 didn't change the fact that destabilizing a country with deep ethnic divisions in the most volatile region of the world is not a good idea.

And of course, there's also the the nagging fact that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Oops.

Hey Bruce,

Iraq was behind 9/11? I didn't see that in the papers, even the Tribune. Thought it was this guy Osama Bin Laden...where is he anyway?

Bruce,
Got anything to say about Clinton while you're grasping at straws?
Cheney has been outed as the "flip-flopper" you try to paint democrats as everyday. Your double standard sickens me.

I guess to Bruce, 9/11 means that military planners didn't need to adequately plan for post-invasion occupation. You're so smart Bruce, tell us more.

PS I hope I spelled everything correctly for you, Bruce. Maybe you will respond.

[quote]
Hey, Swampies, a lot has changed since 1994.

For example, 9/11.

Ever hear of it? It was in all the newspapers. Even the Tribune.

Posted by: Bruce | August 14, 2007 11:07 AM
[/quote]

Yeah we have Bruce. Wasn't almost every one of the 9/11 hijackers from Saudi Arabia? So rather than go after the country that promotes a radical version of the Islamic religion which gave birth to Osama bin-Laden and al-Qaeda, instead we're trapped in a quagmire in Iraq created by Bush & Cheney. They've entrenched us so deeply into the civil war in Iraq - that they unleashed by killing Saddam Hussein - that it will be years, if not decades, before American troops can leave Iraq.

Tell us Bruce: how many thousands of dead Americans, and how many tens of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians, are necessary to support your version of the 9/11 "facts"?

Bruce took the bait.

Yes, some things have changed since 1994. Problem for Darth, though, is that nothing in his 1994 statement changed in any meaningful way by 2003. Everything he said was true in 1994 and in 2003. Only difference is that in 2003 they knew they could dupe the public into supporting the war. The only thing that changed on 9/11 is that the public became even more gullible than before (not me; I thought Bush was as worthless on 9/12 as he was on 9/10).

Doug,

Pay up.

Any historical evnets happen between 1994 and March, 2003? Think hard. Times change.

UN Resolution being upheld?

Was there a concern of being hit by a chemical/biological weapons in 1994?

Terry,

Send your self-addressed stamped envelope to...

Another reason why the Republican candidates should ignore/miss the much-hyped impending youtube "debate" . . .

Clearly, promoters of the clip on that site believe that it somehow contributes to the discussion of the Iraq dilemma now faced by this nation. My question - how do Cheney's 1994 comments, pre-9/11, and before Congress (including most democrats) authorized the invasion, shed any light on the issue at hand?? In my humble opinion, Cheney's 1994 assessement is completely irrelevant to the current issues we now face in Iraq. My only remaining question - why do lefty loons always miss the point when it comes to Iraq? Does their hatred of Bush and the Republican party prevent them from engaging in rational thought??

Terry,
Where exactly are those WMDs?

So Terry,
If 9/11 meant we had to go to Iraq, why didn't Cheney just be upfront with America and tell us it would be a quagmire but we had to go, 9/11 changed everything? His analysis was correct in 1994, but in 2003 he said we would be greeted as liberators.

Terry,
Where exactly are those WMDs?

Posted by: Mordechai | August 14, 2007 12:36

Mordechai,
Trickle Down Terry is a proud member of the W. 26% head in their arses fan club.
Truth and reality don't often collide in their little fantasy world.

My only remaining question - why do lefty loons always miss the point when it comes to Iraq?

Posted by: RT | August 14, 2007 12:31 PM

RT.. Please, tell me... What's the point when it comes to Iraq?

Cheney/Bush (as well as the left) have given us many different reasons over the years, depending upon which way the wind happens to be blowing that day. Every reason we've been given by our leaders has either turned out to be disproven by time or simply doesn't stand the test of reason.

Please tell me what the point of Iraq is. I really would like to know.

Was it WMD's? Was it oil? Was it because Iraq and Saddam were responsible for 9/11? Was it Neocon ideology? Was it because Iraq was an operating base for Al Qaeda when Saddam was in Power? Was it a personal family vendetta? Was it that Saddam posed the greatest threat to America at the time? Was it corporate profits? Was Iraq somehow more a hotbed of Islamofascism than any one of a dozen of it's neighbors?

What really was the point, because I honestly can't figure it out.

I'm being honest here.. I really don't know the point. And since, by your earlier post, you obviously know it, please tell me what it is. Be specific. Spell it out for me.

Another reason why the Republican candidates should ignore/miss the much-hyped impending youtube "debate" . . .

Clearly, promoters of the clip on that site believe that it somehow contributes to the discussion of the Iraq dilemma now faced by this nation.

Posted by: RT | August 14, 2007 12:31 PM

RT.. the internet is not a series of "tubes". And youtube doesn't have "promoters" who decide what gets play and what doesn't. It's a public forum with a few simple rules. Anybody is free to post a clip and anybody is free to look it up. There is no youtube producer or editor vetting the material for you and I.

Feel free to post a clip of Bill Clinton contradicting himself. Youtube will be happy to make it available to the pubic. It has no political agenda. There's absolutely no reason to believe that youtube is partisan or a more hospitable field to the right than the left.

"Where exactly are those WMDs?"

Clinton destroyed them when he bombed Iraq in 1998.

"What really was the point, because I honestly can't figure it out. I'm being honest here.. I really don't know the point. And since, by your earlier post, you obviously know it, please tell me what it is. Be specific. Spell it out for me. - david k"

Because you asked ---

In my opinion, the reality of Iraq is that we cannot simply hastily exit Iraq, as many lefty loons so urgently demand. I don't want to characterize such suggestions as "surrending," because I know that really fires up the lefty loons. However, we now have a responsibility to Iraq and its people, not to mention the world.

Yes, we undeniably made some mistakes going in, and yes, the Iraq situation presents problems we never imagined. And, most likely, many people (myself included) often wish we never went there in the first place.

However, regardless of wishful thinking, another reality is that Iraq is a terrible mess and one that will take some dedication and patience to resolve. How can anybody who claims to cherish liberty and freedom vehemently demand that American forces abandon Iraq? Moreover, instead of whining, name-calling, and finger-pointing, I really wish that the left would offer solutions.

In other words, we need solutions, not more soundbites, outdated youtube video clips, and name calling.

There is so much at stake in Iraq . . that's the point.

-RT

"QUAGMIRE NO AUGMENTATION"

"QUAGMIRE NO AUGMENTATION"

"QUAGMIRE NO AUGMENTATION"

OH WHATEVER, IT'S 1994 AND THE NO FLY ZONE WILL BUY US TIME.

"QUAGMIRE NO AUGMENTATION"

CONDI RICE IF YOU DON'T STOP, AUGMENTATION IS A BOOB JOB.

NO DICK A QUADMIRE IS A BOOB JOB.

FORGET IT! IT'S SHOCK AND AWE BABY, SHOCK AND AWE!

AND ABOUT 1 TRILLION DOLLARS AND THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE UNITED STATES.

SO, I'M MOVING TO DUBAI WITH MY COMPANY.

Doug,

I didn't take public school economics where I spend 40 cents to make 25.

John E, Mordechi, and anyother grey matter deprived person.

In March of 2003 politicians of all stripes thought there WMDs. See link - you'll love the source!

UN Inspector - I guess the dems didn't believe that the December, 1998 invasion of Iraq destroyed the WMDs.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/stacks/democrat.guest.html

Yes, we undeniably made some mistakes going in, and yes, the Iraq situation presents problems we never imagined.

-RT

Posted by: RT | August 14, 2007 1:52 PM

Well this obviously isn't the case. This very YouTube clip shows that our vice president imagined the very problems as long ago as 1994, hence the relevance of the post!

But good post, RT.. I can see you're not a partisan hack... I understand the feeling that we owe something to the Iraqi people... my opinion, however, is that there will be a power vacuum when we leave, whether it's tomorrow or 20 years from now, and the shait is gonna hit the fan in that country. We pretty much made that a foregone conclusion when we removed the established power there. Is it possible that staying longer simply prolonges the killing and keeps the country from stabilizing on its own? I'm not advocating a full withdrawal tomorrow, but I am of the opinion that something phased over a 6-12 month period would be best for the US and the Iraqis.

Was there a concern of being hit by a chemical/biological weapons in 1994?

Posted by: Terry | August 14, 2007 12:18 PM

Much more than there was in 2003.

Terry, if you could comprehend at all, you'd know Cheney was talking about the decsion to not depose Saddam in 1991. At that time he actually DID have WMD's, as opposed to 2003 when he not only had NONE, but had UN inspection teams operating all over the country finding NOTHING.

"Yes, we undeniably made some mistakes going in, and yes, the Iraq situation presents problems we never imagined."

Sorry RT, the whole point of this clip is that people DID imagine the problems. Cheney himself imagined the problems, yet we went ahead anyway with no plan to deal with the problems they knew would follow.

"RT.. the internet is not a series of "tubes". And youtube doesn't have "promoters" who decide what gets play and what doesn't. It's a public forum with a few simple rules. Anybody is free to post a clip and anybody is free to look it up. There is no youtube producer or editor vetting the material for you and I. Feel free to post a clip of Bill Clinton contradicting himself. Youtube will be happy to make it available to the pubic. It has no political agenda. There's absolutely no reason to believe that youtube is partisan or a more hospitable field to the right than the left." - David K

Mr. K, you are fun. And you have provided another example of a lefty loon missing the point.

I have no bone to pick with youtube. I actually enjoy it. Ditto for the internet.

Instead, I have issues with political candidates being asked questions by snowmen in the context of a "serious" presidential debate intended to inform the electorate. Selecting the leader of the greatest country on Earth is a serious matter . . . perhaps the entities hosting such "debates" should take that decision seriously.

The Democrat's youtube debate, at least in my opinion, contributed little, if anything. Sure, it was fun to watch at times, but it made a mockey of the all-too-important selection of presidential candidates.

C'mon now, you cannot honestly dispute that, even if you are a lefty loon.

-RT

Moreover, instead of whining, name-calling, and finger-pointing, I really wish that the left would offer solutions.

In other words, we need solutions, not more soundbites, outdated youtube video clips, and name calling.

There is so much at stake in Iraq . . that's the point.

-RT

Posted by: RT | August 14, 2007 1:52 PM

And RT.. the left has offered plenty of solutions. What you really want is for the left to capitulate fully to the Right's plans in Iraq, not alternative solutions. The "no alternative solutions offered" line is a bit tired and entirely untrue.

And don't get all hoity-toity accusing the left of using soundbites and name-calling. Neither side is innocent of that charge.

Selecting the leader of the greatest country on Earth is a serious matter . . . perhaps the entities hosting such "debates" should take that decision seriously.

The Democrat's youtube debate, at least in my opinion, contributed little, if anything. Sure, it was fun to watch at times, but it made a mockey of the all-too-important selection of presidential candidates.

C'mon now, you cannot honestly dispute that, even if you are a lefty loon.

-RT

Posted by: RT | August 14, 2007 2:14 PM

I can dispute that... So, you're saying that the selection of the President is way too important (i.e. "serious") to include the American people in the process? Questions must be asked by a moderator, always a 50-ish white male working for a major corporation... and he must be wearing a black or navy blue suit with a red power-tie. That's obviously the only person qualified to ask questions related to politics, right?

I'm glad we have the kind of technology that allows average individuals to get engaged on this level. The biggest current problem with our entrenched political system is that is speaks for and aims at a very slender demographic. And it shows in our voting numbers and generally apathetic (to political matters) citizenry.

I have no problem with the candidates being made to feel slightly uncomfortable by being asked direct questions from the unwashed masses, a father of a dead soldier, a college student, a bricklayer, a teacher, and, yes, a snowman.

There will always be debates with questions asked by a 50-ish white moderator from a major corporation wearing a black or navy suit with a red power-tie. What's wrong with mixing in other formats?

Some people, sadly, still try to deny that the Nazi Death Camps happened.

Others, also sadly, still try to deny that Saddam Hussein's Iraq had ties to Islamic terrorists, including al Quaeda.

Keep denying, guys. You just make yourselves look ridiculous.

"Well this obviously isn't the case. This very YouTube clip shows that our vice president imagined the very problems as long ago as 1994, hence the relevance of the post! But good post, RT.. I can see you're not a partisan hack... I understand the feeling that we owe something to the Iraqi people... my opinion, however, is that there will be a power vacuum when we leave, whether it's tomorrow or 20 years from now, and the shait is gonna hit the fan in that country. We pretty much made that a foregone conclusion when we removed the established power there. Is it possible that staying longer simply prolonges the killing and keeps the country from stabilizing on its own? I'm not advocating a full withdrawal tomorrow, but I am of the opinion that something phased over a 6-12 month period would be best for the US and the Iraqis." - David K

Mr. K, I hope you do not mind me referencing you as a lefty loon in another post, albeit it jokingly so . . . perhaps I assumed too much.

As for the merits of your post, I understand your position regarding the alleged relevance of Cheney's 1994 video clip. However, I'm sure many other politicians who authorized our use of force in Iraq post-9/11 shared similar views. Heck, anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the Middle East should be able to forsee a mutliple of complications that may potentially result from toppling any regime of a country in that region. However, no one can be expected to predict precisely what those complications may be, or how those issues may evolve with time. To me, that's a big "duh."

In my opinion, the issues pressing this country in regard to Iraq are not even getting considered by anyone in the media or the public, let alone getting resolved, because the entire issue is overshadowed by finger-pointing, name-calling, and blame-shifting.

Yes, in 1994, Cheney (and most everyone) was aware of the dangers associated with Iraq. Yes, those same dangers existed post 9/11.

BUT, our leaders, including Congress, and the majority of the public supported invading Iraq post 9/11. We did invade, and now Iraq has serious problems. We must make a valiant effort to fix Iraq. AND, we have to be able to talk about the issues involving Iraq like rational and sane adults.

A mature national conversation on Iraq is required. That's really my only point.

-RT

The Democrat's youtube debate, at least in my opinion, contributed little, if anything. Sure, it was fun to watch at times, but it made a mockey of the all-too-important selection of presidential candidates.

C'mon now, you cannot honestly dispute that, even if you are a lefty loon.

-RT

Posted by: RT | August 14, 2007 2:14 PM

RT,
The Republicans don't want to attend the YouTube debates because they can't answer questions from average ordinary Americans.

The Wingnuts are beholden to the wealthy elite, they could care less what anyone else thinks.

I see Toadie Terry is still trying to make the case that Saddam had WMD's in 2003....ahahaha..hohahahah....your killing me Terry...hahahoh..snort snort...hahahahahahaha!!!

and yes, the Iraq situation presents problems we never imagined.

Posted by: RT | August 14, 2007 1:52 PM

Umm... RT and anyone else who believes this, you may want to go to thisamericanlife.org and listen to Episode #333 The Center for Lessons Learned 05/28/2007.
Sorry to bring facts and perspective to the equation.

Doogie (for ole times sake), what happens in 1994 doesn't necessarily equate to 2003, 2010, 2020, etc. A lot changed since 1994, the biggest change being Sept. 11, 2001.

Also, once again, I must reiterate I am not a neocon, never have been. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

What I find funny about this is that Newsmax (a conservative news outlet you Loons like to deride) reported on this days ago.

Terry,
I have never pretended that the democrats haven't screwed the pooch. I could however, take the low raod, as you so frequently do, and claim that the quotes on your reference site were taken out of context. I will not.
This quagmire we're stuck in was the result of political gamesmanship gone horribly wrong. Doctored intelligence, complete ignorance & failed democracy have led us to this point.
You can blame whoever you want, choose sides & continue trying to one up everybody in this thread, but the point is that we should all be concerned that such federal incompetence exists. It's going to screw us all.

Terry,

Curses, foiled again!

Unemployed Tony,

"Much more than there was in 2003."

There was more of a concern that WMDs would be set-off in this country in 1994 than in 2003?

To quote Red Foreman "Are you on Dope?"

Who were these WMD perpetratiors in 1994?

In 2003, all the dems, and the GOP, thought he still had them. Do you need to see the quotes again? See above

Those same UN inspectors led by his officials all over Iraq?

Then why didn't Saddam comply with UN 1441 - just show us the proof that he had destroyed them?

Still awaiting that answer about what you do for the economy/society?

John D.,

If I ever called you a neocon, I was incorrect. I'll accept Wikipedia's definition that a neocon is former liberal who's now a conservative. Is that correct?

And I don't read NewsMax any more than I read Kos. I try to read what I regard as middle of the road. I don't buy in to the mutual admiration soceity. The lefty stuff I check out is mostly because some of it's funny (to me anyway).

Meanwhile back at the ranch: I reiterate for the zillionith time that invading Iraq was a massive mistake. Saddam was never anywhere remotely near a potential, imminent threat.

If that's your criteria, then logic dictates that we invade North Korea. Kim Jung Whack Job could sell warheads on the international terrorist market - and for all I know the scumbag may have done so..

And no, I'm not advocating that. I'm just saying that that would constitute consistent logic.

Or about Gerry Studds, who ACTUALLY had SEX with House male pages whereas Foley just e-mailed them? Hmmmm, Foley e-mails them but no sex. Studds actually has the sex.

Posted by: John D | August 13, 2007 9:31 PM

Doogie (for ole times sake), what happens in 1994 doesn't necessarily equate to 2003, 2010, 2020, etc.

Posted by: John D | August 14, 2007 2:38 PM

So which way is it Little Johnny D... when your defending a Republican congressman who likes to diddle little boys, an event that occurred 24 years ago is relevant as it fits your twisted attempt to justify your hero's actions.... but when your defending your Republican vice president, an event from 13 years ago is outdated and not relevant because it doesn't fit your twisted attempt to justify your hero's actions.

Which way would you like to have it? Both?

"Who were these WMD perpetratiors in 1994?"

The same ones there were in 2003. Al Qaeda did not spring into existance on 9/11/01. Or how about Saddam himself, who still had WMD's in 1991 (the time of the decision Cheney is talking about)

"In 2003, all the dems, and the GOP, thought he still had them. Do you need to see the quotes again?"

But he didn't, now did he? So there was zero chance of non existant WMD's being used against us. Secondly many of the Dems thought he had them, not all.

"Then why didn't Saddam comply with UN 1441 - just show us the proof that he had destroyed them?"

Terry they were. The UN inspectors requested time to finish verifying what they were being told. Bush chose to deny that request.

Terry, let me ask you this, if Bush truly believed that Saddam had WMD's shouldn't securing the WMD sites have been the highest priority of our armed forces when we invaded?

It wasn't.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2005/0313systematic.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-10-05-wagner_x.htm

So, my friend, if you believe Iraq still had WMD's at the time of the invasion, then Bush administration ensured that they got into the hands of the bad guys. Brilliant!

You got to wonder, with Karl Rove being a "witness to history", will he conveniently forget to mention this little flip-flop? What are the odds when his biography comes out, nothing is mentioned about this?

Some people, sadly, still try to deny that the Nazi Death Camps happened.

Others, also sadly, still try to deny that Saddam Hussein's Iraq had ties to Islamic terrorists, including al Quaeda.

Keep denying, guys. You just make yourselves look ridiculous.

Posted by: Bruce | August 14, 2007 2:30 PM

CIA Learned in '02 That Bin Laden Had No Iraq Ties, Report Says - Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and two GOP colleagues on the committee disclosed this information for the first time in the panel's report on Iraq released last week. They wrote in the "additional views" section of the report that the Cabinet-level Iraqi official "said that Iraq has no past, current, or anticipated future contact with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda" and that the official "added that bin Laden was in fact a longtime enemy of Iraq".

It wasn't until we deposed of Saddam that Al Qaeda of Iraq became a reality. What other falsehoods were you teaching our kids over at BF Community College, bruce?

Trickle Down Tery and Little Johnny D'Spoonfed,

Why are we in Iraq again?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aP9kEConB8&mode=related&search=

In response to all the posts exclaiming the virtues of youtube debates . . .

Choosing a president is a serious issue. And members of the public can become involved in a multitude of ways, but I guess that I do not understand why candidates should be subjected to members of the public dressing up in costumes, or using props, and then asking questions in a manner undeniably intended to incite laughter or ridicule without actually providing an avenue that fosters honest debate. Using costumes and props is distracting, and counter-productive to fostering a healthy debate of very real issues, not to mention rather juvenile.

The snowman was an absolutely ridiculous gimmick. If that constitutes serious debate, then perhaps we should have the candidates strip naked and mud wrestle.

Yes, that's hyperbole. But, seriously, where does it stop??

Unemployed Tony,

"Much more than there was in 2003."

There was more of a concern that WMDs would be set-off in this country in 1994 than in 2003?

To quote Red Foreman "Are you on Dope?"

Who were these WMD perpetratiors in 1994?

In 2003, all the dems, and the GOP, thought he still had them. Do you need to see the quotes again? See above

Those same UN inspectors led by his officials all over Iraq?

Then why didn't Saddam comply with UN 1441 - just show us the proof that he had destroyed them?

Still awaiting that answer about what you do for the economy/society?

Posted by: Terry | August 14, 2007 2:50 PM

Uh, terry... quotes from US politicians do not constitute a true threat of chemical attack. A country with actual chemical weapons does. Therefore, you are an idiot.

Are you really that much of a sheep? That, despite the fact that the FACTS have come out, your still in belief of the RHETORIC and soiling your pants at how closely we avoided the threat that Iraq posed to the US in 2003?

And do I really need to explain to you why a strong-armed military leader surrounded by unstable and hostile neighbors doesn't necessarily want to announce to the world (and his citizens) what weapons he doesn't have?

Interesting that the German publication Der Spiegel (spelling?), historically a very anti-U.S. publication, has an article that actually puts the situation in Iraq in a somewhat positive light. This falls on the heels of the Brookings Institution article in the NY Times by two Democrats also detailing the good news taking place there.

Let me ask you Lefty Loons a question or two:
1. If Iraq eventually does out to be successful and a stable more moderate government takes hold, will Bush and Cheney be right?
2. If that happens and the polls change to be in favor of Bush again (like they were three years ago), will you folks note the Americans approval?

David k: I do not ocndone Mark Foley's behavior in any way and he did the right thing in resigning. Note, however, how no charges were ever filed against Foley because no matter how wrong he was what he did was not a crime. My point also is that Foley never had sex with a male page, unlike Gerry Studds who did have sex with a 17-year-old male page. Another point is you folks were Ok with what Studds did but not Ok with Foley's actions. Major contradiction and hypocrisy.

In regard to Cheney's thoughts on Iraq. Mixing Iraq with sex or near-sex with pages (male or female) is mixing oranges and apples. Sex with pages or gooing at pages is wrong, whether Studds or Foley. Cheney's position changed on Iraq BASED on events. Depending on the basis of the change, there is nothing wrong with that (and please note the "depending on the basis of the change" OK? I am not adovcatin flip flopping.)

"OIL THEN NOW"

"AND THEN AFTER ALL THE RHETORIC IN 1994 THEN CAME THE NEW CIA DIRECTOR NAMED
GEORGE TENENT"

DADDY BUSH SENT HIM back to the future like ARNOLD IN THE TERMINATOR. 10 YEARS EARLIER. PROTECT MY WEALTH, PROTECT MY HALLIBURTON, PROTECT MY KUWAIT AND FIND ME SOME ANTHRAX. I'LL SHOW THOSE DAMN DEMOCRATS.

One may ask what are your implications.

SEPTEMBER 11TH, 2001 GEORGE BUSH READS "SEE AMERICA RUN" LITTLE BOYS AND GIRLS. 03, 04, 05, 06 AND HERE WE ARE IN 07 trying to figure out how to spell Gonzalez or Gonzales. BY THE WAY IS ALBERTO MEXICAN AMERICAN OR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT NEVER PROVEN TO BE AN AMERICAN. "papers please"

Now 3900 men and women dead while everyone is on VACATION, with nothing better to do than to check on what the mexicans are doing in America.

I don't know who or what a neocon is or a conservative is in this country, but I do know an American when I see one.
So if you are throwing stones from one american to the next. Thats a good thing. At least we still know who we are.

Can someone turn on the lights, I just want to know who these other guys are.

The snowman was an absolutely ridiculous gimmick. If that constitutes serious debate, then perhaps we should have the candidates strip naked and mud wrestle.

Yes, that's hyperbole. But, seriously, where does it stop??

Posted by: RT | August 14, 2007 3:24 PM

RT,
The Republicans are avoiding the YouTube debates because they don't have any answers for the ordinary average Americans who would be asking them....end of story.

"In March of 2003 politicians of all stripes thought there WMDs."

Terry,
Hundres of millions of people did not believe there were WMD in Iraq and could see plain as day that Team Blix was not finding any in spite of our intelligence agencies attempting to tell them the locations. There were no 'locations'.

Opposition to the war by many is not Monday morning second guessing.

" "How many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth?''

I guess Dirty Dick decided to answer his own question.

Yes, that's hyperbole. But, seriously, where does it stop??

Posted by: RT | August 14, 2007 3:24 PM

I see your point, RT. and agree on some level.. But until we get campaign finance reform such that it doesn't feel our President is so much "brought to you by Coca Cola, ExxonMobil, and Verizon Wireless!", then I welcome any attempt to shake up the current format a bit, even if a bit crude. It makes for somewhat of a counterbalance to the stodgy grandpa-smelling, money-influenced other-side of politics.

Yes Johnny Torture, the insurgency is on it's last legs, we've turned the corner, mission accomplished.

Same BS, different year.

Meanwhile the Malicki Government is falling apart, the Iraqi legislature is AWOL, The Iraqi power grid is about to collapse, hundreds of thousands of arms suppiled to the Iraqis by the US are missing (and probably in insurgent hands), Fewer Iraqi battalions are combat ready than there were in January, training of Iraqi forces has slowed, Basra is back in insurgent hands, the war czar wants to talk about resuming the draft, millions of Iraqis have fled their country, and thousands more do every day.

And the killing goes on and on....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20250066/

"The Republicans are avoiding the YouTube debates because they don't have any answers for the ordinary average Americans who would be asking them....end of story." - John E.

John. E -

You are not answering my question, but rather deflecting the point and accusing Republicans of being afraid/unwilling to answer questions from "ordinary average Americans." Your reply suggests that ordinary average Americans must dress in costumes and use gimmicky props to properly and effectually present their questions to presidential candidates. As an ordinary American myself, I find your suggestion insulting. Besides, in direct rebuttal to your assessment, I am 90% sure that Guiliani and McCain have agreed to participate in a CNN-sponsored youtube debate. Assuming that proves true, your characterization of the Republican candidates necessarily fails, eh?

David K.-

I understand your position, but respectfully disagree. I think that instead of carefully orchestrated and timed debates, we should have the candidates each answer questions posed by "ordinary" Americans (via online submissions if you prefer) and then allow the candidates to debate each other uninterrupted for an hour or so on each question/subject.

I know that N. Gingrich has proposed something similar. I know you probably do not like N. Gingrich, but I think his idea to have a meaningful debate is right on the money.

-RT

Tony,

Americans are sleepwalking through August right now. They don't want any bad news to disrupt their vacations.

In addition to the other disasters befalling Iraq, the Sunni minority portion of the Iraq parliament has walked.

Another point is you folks were Ok with what Studds did but not Ok with Foley's actions. Major contradiction and hypocrisy.

Posted by: John D | August 14, 2007 3:57 PM

Little Johnny D... you have an overactive imagination (explains a lot). Give me one example of someone being OK with what Studd's did?

The only dispicable thing going on here is your tired and overworn "look there!" whenever any Republican does something immoral or stupid. You are first one here to point to some historical instance of some Democrat doing something immoral or stupid, as though that somehow makes it less immoral or stupid when a Republican does it.

You're like a broken record..

"But, but Clinton!"
"But, but Studds!"
"But, but Clinton!"

I want you to look up a word, Little Johnny D. It's "Principled". It means that wrong is wrong. You should learn this. If what Mark Foley did was wrong, then it doesn't make it any less wrong that some other guy many, many years ago did something more wrong. Understand? Same thing with contemporary Republicans vs. Clinton. If today's republican president does something wrong, it's wrong. Period. Wouldn't make it any more right just because "but, but Clinton!". If tomorrow's Democratic president does something wrong, you won't find me in here saying it's OK just because George W. Bush was wrong as possible on just about everything he did.

Understand?

David K.-

I understand your position, but respectfully disagree. I think that instead of carefully orchestrated and timed debates, we should have the candidates each answer questions posed by "ordinary" Americans (via online submissions if you prefer) and then allow the candidates to debate each other uninterrupted for an hour or so on each question/subject.

Posted by: RT | August 14, 2007 5:09 PM

I would be fine with that... I am a bit turned off by the facts that our current "debates" don't really have any debating in them. It's like a game of catch between the moderator and candidates, with nothing but softball questions and pre-packaged responses.

Unemployed Tony,

First - how's the job hunt?

"The same ones there were in 2003. Al Qaeda did not spring into existance on 9/11/01. Or how about Saddam himself, who still had WMD's in 1991?"

What did the President from 1994-2000 do about this al Qaeda organization in that seven year time frame? NOTHING.

Look at the names of those dems in the quotes - that was the leadership: Kerry, Clinton - Bill & Hill, Gore, Kennedy, Durbin, Pelosi, Edwards,...

"The UN inspectors requested time to finish verifying what they were being told. Bush chose to deny that request."

For how many years did Saddam jack the Un inspectors around? The reason for the Dec, 1998 invasion of Iraq.

"if Bush truly believed that Saddam had WMD's shouldn't securing the WMD sites have been the highest priority of our armed forces when we invaded?"

If President Bush knew where the WMD sites were, I think he could have bombed them into oblivion. If Saddam had WMDs, they might have been smuggled out of the country, perhaps Syria, while the President was trying to build the coalition of the unwilling - the ones in bed with Saddam in the Oil for Food program.

David K,

"quotes from US politicians do not constitute a true threat of chemical attack. A country with actual chemical weapons does"

It is those politicians that are supposed to have the best intellgence information and make these decisions. If you want to call it an intellgence failure - go ahead.

CM,

"Hundres of millions of people did not believe there were WMD in Iraq and could see plain as day that Team Blix was not finding any in spite of our intelligence agencies attempting to tell them the locations."

And where were these 200+million located?

"How many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth?''

How many dead Americans would it have been worth if WMDs had been found?

juanjuanD

Let me ask you Lefty Loons a question or two:
1. If Iraq eventually does out to be successful and a stable more moderate government takes hold, will Bush and Cheney be right?
2. If that happens and the polls change to be in favor of Bush again (like they were three years ago), will you folks note the Americans approval?

Sure, as soon as you start telling us how great Clinton was because his polling numbers were much higher than earboy's.

Tony,
Trickle Down Terry and Little John D'Spoonfed have been told to call Democrats "unemployed" by their hero Rush Limpdick........the rightwing wankers call that some real "master-debatin'" skills.

Yo - - wasn't it pretty little donnie rumsfeld who went on international television to proclaim that he knew exact locations "north, south, east & west of Baghdad?"

Why, yes it was. "exact locations" folks, "exact locations."

Do not let anyone forget those were his and cheneybush's own words. No one twisted their collective arms - although, apparently, their minds were twisted.

You are not answering my question, but rather deflecting the point and accusing Republicans of being afraid/unwilling to answer questions from "ordinary average Americans." Your reply suggests that ordinary average Americans must dress in costumes and use gimmicky props to properly and effectually present their questions to presidential candidates. As an ordinary American myself, I find your suggestion insulting. Besides, in direct rebuttal to your assessment, I am 90% sure that Guiliani and McCain have agreed to participate in a CNN-sponsored youtube debate. Assuming that proves true, your characterization of the Republican candidates necessarily fails, eh?
Posted by RT

RT,
The Wingnuts are not used to REAL people asking REAL questions, their idea of a debate is to agree with each other, pat each other on the back, talk about how great it would be to bomb Iran and wishing that they could double the size of Gitmo.

The rightwing wankers are scared of real people with real problems.

"What did the President from 1994-2000 do about this al Qaeda organization in that seven year time frame? NOTHING."

No, not nothing. The perpetrators of the 1993 WTC attacks were found, arrested, tried, and convicted. Attacks were made against suspected Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan and Sudan. Was it enough? No. But it was not "nothing".

Nothing is what the current President did about Al Qaeda during his first 8 months in office.

"For how many years did Saddam jack the Un inspectors around? The reason for the Dec, 1998 invasion of Iraq."

Things changed between 1998 and 2003 Terry. Things even changed between the passing of the AUMF in 2002 and the start of the war in 2003. The fact that they did not cooperate in 1998 does not change the fact that they were cooperating in March 2003.

"If President Bush knew where the WMD sites were, I think he could have bombed them into oblivion. "

Terry these are the sites the UN was inspecting. we knew exactly where they were, and exactly what was there, yet we failed to secure them.

"If Saddam had WMDs, they might have been smuggled out of the country, perhaps Syria, while the President was trying to build the coalition of the unwilling - the ones in bed with Saddam in the Oil for Food program."

They also could have been picked up by the tooth fairy, but there is no evidence of either happening.

But lets get back to the topic:

1991 - We knew Sddam had WMD's, but Cheney knew, even though they did, toppling Saddam was a very bad idea.

2003 - Even though there was strong evidence that Saddam no longer had WMD's Cheney push toppling Saddam, ignoring his own arguements from 1991, which have turned out to be completely correct.

Tony,

Yeah, those 1993 WTC perps are still in jail.

Hey, what did Reagan do about the 214 dead Marines, or the attack on the USS Stark in '88.

Nothing. Saddam was our friend then.

******

"And where were these 200+million located?

"How many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth?''

How many dead Americans would it have been worth if WMDs had been found?

Posted by: Terry | August 14, 2007 6:16 PM"

At least two are located at my house, the rest, more than 200 million are located around the world. Perhaps 100 million in the US alone.

You were wrong Mr. Private school. The WMD were not there.

What private school did you attend? Do you think the world is only 6k years old? That may be the answer.

There were no WMD Terry. Your Mr. Bush got all those American troops killed for a lie. Their blood is on his hands.

Defend it all day for all I care. Apparently your elite, effete, liberal private education didn't help much. You can lead a horse to water, but....

"Why, yes it was. "exact locations" folks, "exact locations."

Do not let anyone forget those were his and cheneybush's own words. No one twisted their collective arms - although, apparently, their minds were twisted.

Posted by: snalg | August 14, 2007 6:38 PM"

snalg,

Yet as we write the history is being re-written, by Terry, John D, Jerry White, others.

Irony Time: Then Rummy had the US Army leave undefended and failed to destroy hundreds of tons of HEx, which fell into the hands of the insurgency, which has killed thousands of American GIs.

Even in Vietnam, the worst mistake of the 20th Century, the US Army ALWAYS destroyed any captured weapons or assets of the enemy.

But, the worst mistake of the 21st Century rolls on.

Let me ask you Lefty Loons a question or two:
1. If Iraq eventually does out to be successful and a stable more moderate government takes hold, will Bush and Cheney be right?
2. If that happens and the polls change to be in favor of Bush again (like they were three years ago), will you folks note the Americans approval?

1. If it happens, it won't be during the mis-administration of earboy and president chainsaw. Too late for that. So based on conventional wisdom, it'll the the administration that is in power at the time. OF course, if it's a D, the republitards will never give credit to them, but if it's a republitard, they will.

2. The polls will not change for the bc-boys. They'll be out of power by then, so any attempt to give them post-mis-administration credit is a waste of time and brainpower. They will continue to be the adolescents that killed over 3600 American soldiers for an experiment in democracy. That is their legacy. But oddest of all is, the middle east has been in revolt and struggle since BCE, and anyone that thinks that a few administrations can solve the issue is seriously deluded.

Unemployed Tony and Trickled On John E,

Let's us know what you occupations are?

"The perpetrators of the 1993 WTC attacks were found, arrested, tried, and convicted" I stand corrected, that is not nothing. It is very, very, very, very little; whioh had NOTHING for an effect.

"The fact that they did not cooperate in 1998 does not change the fact that they were cooperating in March 2003." Saddam continued to drag his feet and lead Hans around in circles at a very slow pace. He wasn't close to complying with UN 1441 or any other UN resolutions.

"Terry these are the sites the UN was inspecting. we knew exactly where they were, and exactly what was there, yet we failed to secure them."

If the UN was inspecting these sites, why weren't they found by the UN?

CM,

Saddam or the Ayatollas?

Sort of like the choice FDR had in WW2 - Stalin or Hitler - neither real good.

200 million out of 6 billion - 3 1/3%

"The WMD were not there." Just where would there be.

As far as the earth being 6,000 yrs old. See my arguments on Global Warming - the earth is at leats 300 million yrs old - sort of makes a 30 yr warming trend seemed insignificant, unless you are 30 yrs old. But I digress.

"There were no WMD Terry." If that is true, why did President Clinton invade Iraq in December, 1998?

Trickle Down Terry,
Why are you still trying to sell the old "Saddam has WMD's and he's going to use them on us" myth?

That dog quit hunting about 3 1/2 years ago.

Let's us know what you occupations are?

Posted by: Terry | August 14, 2007 10:36 PM

I notice that you have asked this question several times. What difference does it make? Perhaps knowing your occupation would be very illuminating. I figure that you work in the financial markets. That's why you're so anti social security,etc. Most of the market dudes really want that tax-payer money to play with. In fact most privatization proponents are people who have developed entire industries to take over some government agency. It's supposed to save us money and be efficient but it never is. Corporate welfare at its worst. Look at Halliburton. And please don't give me the " what jobs has -fill in the blank- provided. Why do you think Bushco wants guest workers so badly?

Time and circumstances changes things. We went in because the Dems folded and Bush used that sucker-punch known as 9/11 to scare 70% of you ditto-heads into approving of the war before you turned against it.

It is odd, though, how he "got it right" then as to what would happen "now."

It's not too late to nominate Cheney in 2008.

[quote]
the German publication Der Spiegel (spelling?), historically a very anti-U.S. publication, has an article that actually puts the situation in Iraq in a somewhat positive light.

Posted by: John D | August 14, 2007 3:57 PM
[/quote]

And interestingly, John D makes a reference to a source but refuses to post a link to his source so that others may actually read it themselves and form an opinion unencumbered by John D's biased opinion.

Where's the link John D?

They knew the war would be a failure, but bc 9/11 happened they were willing to conduct a doomed war, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of people? That's not self defense that's revenge. And Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 so even vengence has not been obtained.

Trickled on John E,

Saddam used chemical weapons in the past - remember the Gulf War, or ask the Kurds or Iranians.

Catherine,

As far as John E and Unemployed Tony and their source of employment - this goes back to their views on the economy - liberal. Which basically means they want to do things with other peoples money.

Social Security - I just want what I paid in back so I can invest it have a good retirement and leave some for my kids. Is there somethiung wrong with that?