Cheney debunks himself

February 23, 2007

Shortly after the first Gulf War, then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney was a little sensitive to charges that he failed to “finish the job” against Iraq. More than a few hawks thought that Cheney and the other Bush administration dropped the ball when it had the opportunity to take out Saddam but chose not to.

In a 1991 speech, Cheney delivered a rather defensive speech on the subject, noting the intense sectarian rivalries that dominate Iraqi society and the likely inability to maintain stability in Baghdad. As for replacing Saddam with a democracy, Cheney asked his audience, “How much credibility is that government going to have if it’s set up by the United States military when it’s there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for the government, and what happens to it once we leave?”

Cheney also said:

“The notion that we ought to now go to Baghdad and somehow take control of the country strikes me as an extremely serious one in terms of what we’d have to do once we got there. You’d probably have to put some new government in place. It’s not clear what kind of government that would be, how long you’d have to stay. For the U.S. to get involved militarily in determining the outcome of the struggle over who’s going to govern in Iraq strikes me as a classic definition of a quagmire.”

The ’91 Cheney sure was smart, wasn’t he?

To his credit, ABC News’ Jonathan Karl sat down with Cheney in Australia today for a fairly wide-ranging interview, amd asked the Vice President about his remarks from 16 years ago. Cheney’s response was not reassuring.

Karl: Back in 1991, you talked about how military action in Iraq would be the classic definition of a quagmire. Have you been disturbed to see how right you were? Or people certainly said that you were exactly on target in your analysis back in 1991 of what would happen if the U.S. tried to go in —

Cheney: Well, I stand by what I said in ’91. But look what’s happened since then — we had 9/11. We’ve found ourselves in a situation where what was going on in that part of the globe and the growth and development of the extremists, the al Qaeda types that are prepared to strike the United States demonstrated that we weren’t safe and secure behind our own borders. We weren’t in Iraq when we got hit on 9/11. But we got hit in ’93 at the World Trade Center, in ’96 at Khobar Towers, or ’98 in the East Africa embassy bombings, 2000, the USS Cole. And of course, finally 9/11 right here at home. They continued to hit us because we didn’t respond effectively, because they believed we were weak. They believed if they killed enough Americans, they could change our policy because they did on a number of occasions. That day has passed. That all ended with 9/11.

If someone can explain how and why this makes sense, I’m anxious to hear it. White House critics like to joke about the Bush gang overusing “9/11 changed everything” as a rationalization that justifies anything, but Cheney’s comments today seem to be unusually vapid.

He “stands by” what he said in 1991? Maybe Cheney is confused about what the phrase “stands by” means, but it suggests he still agrees with the remarks he made when he insisted that invading and occupying Iraq would be a “classic definition of a quagmire.” In the next breath, however, there’s 9/11.

It seems, in all sincerity, that Cheney was arguing that the 9/11 attacks justify the quagmire he predicted 16 years ago. Why? Just because.

If Cheney had said he was wrong in 1991, there would at least be something resembling coherence here. He thought Iraq would be a mess if we invaded, but we invaded, and lo and behold, everything is going great.

But that’s not what he said. Cheney argued that he was right before and right now, despite the fact that the two Cheneys appear to contradict each other.

I’m starting to think the Vice President isn’t well.

I think what Cheney is saying is that he knew it would be a quagmire but after 9/11 we need to get ourselves bogged down.

  • In Cheney Batshit Crazy World there are only two rules:
    1) No matter what the facts say, Dick Cheney is always right.
    2) If Dick Cheney is wrong, see rule number one.

  • You ask:

    “It seems, in all sincerity, that Cheney was arguing that the 9/11 attacks justify the quagmire he predicted 16 years ago. Why?”

    Cheney answered:

    “They continued to hit us because we didn’t respond effectively, because they believed we were weak. They believed if they killed enough Americans, they could change our policy because they did on a number of occasions. That day has passed. That all ended with 9/11.”

    That is, he was right in 1991 – all of the things he warned of were and are true. He really does seem to be saying, however, that while suffering those problems was not worth it then, in the meantime terrorists have come to believe we are weak enough for them to successfully attack. And his conclusion is that we have to show how strong we are by the amount of blood we are willing to shed, and how persist we are in our willingness to shed it. Iraq, to Cheney, is a giant Bally’s Gym, where we show off by the constant presence of our guns, ammo, helicopters, and soldiers. Shot down a few Apaches and Black Hawks this week? Jokes on you – we’ve got more. Killed 3,000 of our troops? That doesn’t scare us! We’ll send 21,000 more! We’re tough enough to take casualties! To his demented mind, that is how we protect ourselves from further terrorist attacks. Nevermind that an exact repeat of 9/11 would actually have cause less loss of American life than “fighting them over there” has.

  • Have you been disturbed to see how right you were?

    I love that more than “Have you stopped beating your wife?” Excellent!

  • #3 – Former Dan – Cheney also complied with the 2 rules you talk about when discussing global warming:

    JONATHAN KARL: I want to ask you about another issue that’s been a subject of controversy here in Australia, global warming. Did you get a chance to see Al Gore’s movie?

    CLINICALLY INSANE VP: I have not seen Al Gore’s movie.

    JONATHAN KARL: Doesn’t surprise me.

    CLINICALLY INSANE VP: He didn’t invite me to the showing.

    JONATHAN KARL: The premiere, huh?

    CLINICALLY INSANE VP: Not that I had planned to go anyway.

    JONATHAN KARL: But what’s your sense, where is the science on this? Is global warming a fact? And is it human activity that is causing global warming?

    CLINICALLY INSANE VP: Those are the two key questions. I think there’s an emerging consensus that we do have global warming. You can look at the data on that, and I think clearly we’re in a period of warming. Where there does not appear to be a consensus, where it begins to break down, is the extent to which that’s part of a normal cycle versus the extent to which it’s caused by man, greenhouse gases, et cetera. quaack quaack….

    JONATHAN KARL: So you think the jury is still out about whether or not this warming we’re seeing has been caused by human activity?

    CLINICALLY INSANE VP: Some of it has, I think. But exactly where you draw the line? I don’t know. I’m not a scientist.I talk with people who supposedly know something about it. You get conflicting viewpoints. But I do think it is an important subject, and it will be addressed in the Congress. I think there will be a big debate on it in the next couple of years.

  • Cheney is not well, he’s what’s known as a “pump head”. But Cheney’s opinion is also smokescreen. Many believe that his real thoughts on why we’re there were expressed in a 1999 speech at the London Institute of Petroleum when he was Chairman of Halliburton:

    …by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from? Governments and the national oil companies are obviously in control of about ninety per cent of the assets. Oil remains fundamentally a government business. While many regions of the world offer greet oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies…

    http://www.energybulletin.net/349.html

    Another interesting quote:

    “I’m often asked why I left politics and went to Halliburton and I explain that I reached the point where I was mean-spirited, short-tempered and intolerant of those who disagreed with me and they said’ Hell, you’d make a great CEO’.” …

    Of course he made a terrible CEO, despite his evil temper, his meanness and his intolerance of others’ opinions.

  • Let’s imagine Cheney isn’t impeached nor is he removed from office in a fiery cloud sent by Da Lawd. He’s forced to shamble off mumbling into retirement interrupted only by a few lucrative outings to board meetings. His megaphone gone, what’s he going to do with all this nutty, malign energy?

    Poor Lynn. Poor Mary.

  • I think someone needs to ask him point-blank if he thinks Saddam was involved AT ALL in the 9/11 attacks. Everything he’s saying indicates that he still connects the two.

    and then there’s this…

    “They continued to hit us because we didn’t respond effectively, because they believed we were weak.”

    Yeah, Dick, alQeada hit us again and again because we hadn’t attacked their arch enemy Saddam Hussein.

    “…There’s no reason in the world why the United States of America, along with our allies cannot [win the Iraq war]…”

    Our biggest ally is leaving, Dick. And we’re running out of troops and ammo. Maybe you’d like to go fight awhile, Mr tough guy?

    “…You can’t shut down the world economy in the name of trying to eliminate greenhouse gases…”

    What a load of crap, even for Cheney. No one is saying “shut down the world economy” and no one is saying we need to “eliminate” greenhouse gasses.

    His grandchildren will piss on his headstone. But what does he care, he’s “mean-spirited, short-tempered and intolerant”.

  • Cheney lists five reasons for getting stuck in a quagmire in Iraq in ’07: the ‘93 World Trade Center attack, the ‘96 Khobar Towers bombing, the ‘98 East Africa embassy bombings, the 2000 USS Cole attack and 9/11. Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with any these excuses to attack him! Completely f-ing delusional.

    Dick’s biggest asset in making his case is the fact that after 9/11 any brown person from any country that has Muslims living in them is fair game for an attack — and reporters and the general public in the US won’t question that assertion. Think people, think!

  • Cheney’s answer to the interviewer was great. He takes a question about whether or not he could have predicted that Iraq would become a quagmire when we invaded, and he redirects it to 9/11. It doesn’t make sense when you think about it (choosing a useless option like this quagmire is not justified by 9/11- he obviously changed his expectations of what would happen in regime change and occupation since 1991, and his change was a mistake) – his answer doesn’t answer the question- but it’s smooth as anything and to most people, who won’t think about it, it will be totally sufficient. It shows why he’s so masterful. Cheney isn’t “trying to say” anything, it’s just a bunch of misdirection and he does it smooth.

    It’s why Cheney did so well against Edwards in debate- people might like a younger man in politics, but if Edwards debated a lesser opponent, that opponent would have come off looking a lot worse.

  • I just saw this part, where the interviewer meekly lets him stonewall the Plame questions yet again:

    Karl: Now let me ask you about something that I know you don’t like to talk about, but the “Scooter” Libby trial, the CIA leak trial.

    Cheney: You got to ask. I’m going to give you the same answer I always give: I’m not going to comment on it.

    Karl: But there was an extraordinary statement that was made by the prosecutor —

    Cheney: I’m not going to comment on it, Jonathan.

    Karl: The prosecutor said, “There is a cloud over the vice president.” So don’t comment on the case, but do you think that there is a cloud over —

    Cheney: Jonathan, the matter is still before the jury. I’m not going to discuss it.

    So when the verdict comes in, will Dickhead discuss it?

    Let me guess… suddenly, his answer will change to “that verdict is being appealed, so I can’t discuss it.”

    etc. etc. forever.

    Hey lapdog media… YOU SUCK.

  • “We weren’t in Iraq when we got hit on 9/11”

    Yeah!! I mean, it’s not like there was a US military presence in a particular Gulf nation that bin Laden would use as an excuse to launch his attacks on America. None whatsoever.

  • Cheney continues to connect Iraq to 9/11. The big lie will not die. Goebbels and Goering would be proud…

    …the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger…

    …There was no point in seeking to convert the intellectuals. For intellectuals would never be converted and would anyway always yield to the stronger, and this will always be ‘the man in the street.’ Arguments must therefore be crude, clear and forcible, and appeal to emotions and instincts, not the intellect. Truth was unimportant and entirely subordinate to tactics and psychology…

    …If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

  • #3, Former Dan, cited my initial response to this post. Yes, I’m from the camp that believes Dick Cheney is anathema to our nation’s heritage, and he is poison to any world-wide effort for sustainable peace. He has vested too much interest into our military-industrial complex to advocate something so novel as diplomacy or international cooperation in pursuit of peaceful relations. Just my perspective, but based on the available body of evidence. -Kevo

  • PW: “…what’s he going to do with all this nutty, malign energy?”

    BP is going to need a new CEO soon. Though Cheney’s more of an Exxon “what is your bidding, Dark Lord?” type.

  • Of all the childish attitudes that Bush and Cheney display, their smirking refusal to see (or admit to seeing) An Inconvenient Truth is the most spoiled, sullen teenagerish. They’re so weak and insecure they can’t even see a documentary without feeling threatened.

  • Comment by Curmudgeon — 2/23/2007 @ 4:47 pm

    I watched a couple of minutes of the video you link to. Intriguing. I’m downloading it to watch later.

    Here’s what I always wondered up until recently: I couldn’t figure out why someone hadn’t designed a helicopter tanker that could have flown up to the floors that were in flames and put them out?

    Then I saw a documentary a few weeks ago on one of the Discovery Channel-based shows…may have been Modern Marvels. It was about a couple of wild skyscrapers being designed in Japan. One segment of the show talked about fire control. Lo and behold there it was — a helicopter tanker with what was essentially a water cannon that could be used to put out any fires.

    Betcha New York, not to mention any other cities in America with skyscapers, STILL doesn’t have even ONE of these.

  • Cheney’s 3/16/03 prewar MTP interview provides some useful context for his rambling answer to Karl’s question. Russert asked Cheney a question akin to the one which Karl asked. Here is the exchange.

    MR. RUSSERT: During the 2000 campaign you were on the program when we were talking about the Persian Gulf War and looking back and I asked whether you had any regrets about taking Saddam out at that time. And you said no. And then you added this, and I want to talk about it. Let’s watch:

    (Videotape, August 27, 2000):

    MR. CHENEY: Conversations I had with leaders in the region afterwards, they all supported the decision that was made not to go to Baghdad. They were concerned that we not get into a position where we shifted, instead of being the leader of an international coalition to roll back Iraqi aggression, to one in which we were an imperialist power willy-nilly moving into capitals in that part of the world taking down governments.

    (End videotape)

    MR. RUSSERT: “Imperialist power,” “moving willy-nilly,” “taking down governments.” Is that how we’re going to be perceived this time?

    VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I hope not, Tim. Of course, in ’91, there was a general consensus that we’d gone as far as we should. We’d achieved our objectives when we liberated Kuwait and that we shouldn’t go on to Baghdad. But there were several assumptions that was based on. One that all those U.N. Security Council resolutions would be enforced. None of them has been. That’s the major difference. And it was based on the proposition that Saddam Hussein probably wouldn’t survive. Most of the experts believed based upon the severe drubbing we administered to his forces in Kuwait that he was likely to be overthrown or ousted. Of course, that didn’t happen. He’s proven to be a much tougher customer than anybody expected.

    We’re now faced with a situation, especially in the aftermath of 9/11, where the threat to the United States is increasing. And over time, given Saddam’s posture there, given the fact that he has a significant flow of cash as a result of the oil production of Iraq, it’s only a matter of time until he acquires nuclear weapons. And in light of that, we have to be prepared, I think, to take the action that is being contemplated. Doesn’t insist that he be disarmed and if the U.N. won’t do it, then the United States and other partners of the coalition will have to do that.

    Now, I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. And the president’s made it very clear that our purpose there is, if we are forced to do this, will in fact be to stand up a government that’s representative of the Iraqi people, hopefully democratic due respect for human rights, and it, obviously, involves a major commitment by the United States, but we think it’s a commitment worth making. And we don’t have the option anymore of simply laying back and hoping that events in Iraq will not constitute a threat to the U.S. Clearly, 12 years after the Gulf War, we’re back in a situation where he does constitute a threat.

    So back in the Spring of 2003 Cheney had argued that the situation at that time was different from the one in 1991 on several counts. First, he thought that the sanction imposed after the first Gulf War should have driven Saddam from power which turned out not to be the case. He then invokes 9/11 as a segue to his second point which is that Saddam would eventually get nukes. Thirdly, and this is the point most relevant to the Karl interview, he thinks that things are so bad in Iraq that should we invade we will be greeted as liberators. Russert returned to the liberator point latter in the interview and Cheney held fast on the point and refused to consider the possibility that the post-invasion period would poorly.Unfortunately for him he was wrong on all three points and in particular the last on about being greeted as liberators.

    And it is likely that when Cheney began his response to Karl with,”Well, I stand by what I said in ‘91. But look what’s happened since then—-,” that he was about to refer go with that third talking point. He then paused to gather his thoughts and realized that wouldn’t fly, so he reflexively invoked 9/11 and segued into a different, but irrelevant, set of talking points.

    .

  • Fitzgerald: “There is a clooud over Dick Cheney”

    Fitz, as in Patrick Fitzgerald, recently finished making a case against Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff, Scooter Libby for lying and obstructing justice in the government’s investigation of who leaked the classified identity of a CIA NOC, Valarie Plame.

    It seems, from evidence presented at trial, that the who that leaked is Scooter Libby under the direction of Dick Cheney but Fitz can’t prove it yet because Libby is lying to protect the guilty parties.

    In Fitz’s closing argument he explained “There is a cloud over Dick Cheney.” Fitz has enough goods to question Cheney’s actions in this public forum. THAT is NEWS.

    If that son of bitch, Cheney, leaked classified info about a CIA NOC as an act of political retribution toward the CIA agent’s husband, Cheney must be impeached.

    Fitz! is the supportive cry for the principled prosecutor who doggedly pursued the case, in spite of all the right wing propoganda that would have him quietly walk away. Fitz is a rather conservative guy but he believes in the rule of law not partisan favoritism and cronyism.

  • Re: WC #21 – I hope you do watch it all. I hope everyone does. They present an airtight case that the Twin Towers were deliberately brought down by controlled explosions and not by the aircraft that hit them.

    Someone intentionally did this. Someone is going to pay for it.

  • You are right. He is not well…at all. He is a dangerous lunatic. I always hear about the “banality of evil,” but what about obvious, toxic evil that is right in your face?

  • Cheney has never admitted he was wrong about anything. I’m thinking a gay pregnant daughter has put him over the edge. He’s a classic authoritative personality who will change the subject or distract and confuse it so it never seems he is mistaken in such a way that seems almost a threat to you to challenge his rightness.
    The true irony of Iraq is that there were no terrorists or WMD , just Shiites getting revenge on the US for abandoning them to be slaughtered and tortured by Sadam. It all works out. Little Bush got revenge for Big Bush by killing Sadam while Shiites got revenge on Big Bush by watching our troops get killed by Sunnis. How many Shiites died as a result of Big Bush pull out Cheney? Is the score equal yet? Is there a larger Vendetta going on now that we know Basra is just mafioso and the Brits have been defeated there since 2005. Shiites must think it ironic to get involved in now what you wouldn’t do then, especially since we know Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11

  • Get it straight, folks, there’s no mystery here. The Neocons believe that maximum profit is derived from chaos. Under Daddy Bush, Cheney was not allowed to exercise this doctrine. But as Junior’s master, he can achieve the Neocon dream of total chaos in Iraq.

    Seen from this point of view, things are indeed “going great” in Iraq. Halliburton and its subsidiaries are making record profits. And Cheney is, indeed, quite insane.

    -dwvr

  • In 1991 there were 500,000 coalition forces in Iraq and it was obvious then they would be in a quagmire. Now with less than half that many and a civil war, what makes him think this would NOT be a quagmire. This war criminal just wants more war. Haliburton’s no bids will make him even more money than 3 generations of his lame family could spend. What could possibly satisfy this snake?

  • What are you bitching about? America is a fool nation. It should be (mis)led by fools if it wishes to be. That is democracy in action. Now if you want to object that we reguilarly interfere in other countries and overthrow democcratic governments there, what else should you expect? Fools are nnot noted for their consistency!

  • If you are among the very few observant people around, you will have noted that whatever these Neocon artists say what they want to do is the opposite of what they intend. For example, Bush promised to protect the environment, then eliminated protection. So when they said they were makng this war to establish stability, you should have automatically added a little prefix off IN- there to get at the truth. They sought to cause more INSTABILITY. They are simple when you know what to look for. In a sense, they are even truthful, but in code!

  • What Cheney and the Bush administration fail to reveal to the public is the real reason why terrorists were hitting American and American controlled targets. It isn’t because we were perceived as being weak, it is because we won’t stop poking our nose into other countries business in our ever expanding land grab. Terrorists don’t strike because they’re madmen, they strike because they’re fed up with U.S. intervention in their countries policies. Just keep up with current events, and learn to read between the lines. Read books like Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace by Gore Vidal and Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. Go on to the internet and read the newspapers circulated by other countries to get a broad perspective on what the U.S. government covertly involves itself in and one might begin to understand why we are so hated by other countries.

    We are not, as a nation, entirely without blame. Our government, in the name of capitalism, has conducted covert war almost incessantly since World War 2 and longer.

    If we want terrorism to stop, we must cease meddling in other countries affairs simply for the sake of making a buck for the priveleged few. We are trapped in a spiral of perpetual war because our government refuses to admit they’re wrong about policy and they don’t want to admit to the lengths they have gone to get other smaller governments in line with U.S. policy. If they did they would find themselves voted out of office and out of power.

    The current state we find ourselves in is a classic example as to why the government needs to be run by the people and not by those who can afford to buy their term in office.

  • #15 – Thanks…I sort of knew about much of this. I’ve actually read the NIST 9-11 report, and much of the commentary and objection to it. I didn’t know about the Marvin Bush aspect, though. The thing is, where this takes you is too horrible to contemplate.

    Maybe we need to get Larry Silverstein and Marvin “away from it all”…say, maybe, Romania. We can probably get some answers out of them there.

    Thanks for keeping the ball in play.

  • Let me guess Steriods in baseball also because of 9/11

    I am sick of them justifying my friends death for an act of war and anything else to make the people fall in line.

  • Regarding the author’s conclusion, “I’m starting to think the Vice President isn’t well.”

    This is not true at all. Aside from hie heart condition, Cheney is completely well.

    The Vice president just understands very well that he is completely non-accountable for anything he says or does. Neither Bush, nor the somnamulent Media will confront him with the words, “You, sir, are lying through your teeth. Please explain further.”

    Knowing that in the US he only has to face either fanatically loyal political partisians or FoxNews (but I repeat myself), why should Cheney bother to rationalizae, of even be logical in what he says?

  • Cheney is saying that, after 9/11, we need to make it clear to “them” that they can’t possibly kill enough of us. Logically, his next idea will be kamikaze or human wave attacks, because we’re tough, & we don’ need no steenkin brains.

    That works real will for the Bushes and Cheneys and Limbaughs of the world; but not so good for the schmucks who let themselves get talked into doing the heavy lifting, ie, bleeding. As one grunt said in Vietnam about saving Nixon’s face – “his face, our ass”.

    • Comments are closed.