Cheney vs. Cheney

Which Dick Cheney is right about post-war control in Iraq? You’ve got two to choose from.

First there’s 1991 Dick Cheney (via Tapped):

“If you’re going to go in and try to topple Saddam Hussein, you have to go to Baghdad. Once you’ve got Baghdad, it’s not clear what you will do with it. It’s not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that’s currently there now. Is it going to be a Shi’i regime, a Sunni regime or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Ba’athists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists? 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?”

Then there’s 2003 Dick Cheney, from yesterday’s Meet the Press:

On U.S. credibility in Iraq: “I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators.”

On maintaining stability after a war: “[T]o suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don’t think is accurate. I think that’s an overstatement.”

On how long the U.S. presence will last: “There’s no question but what we’ll have to have a presence there for a period of time. It is difficult now to specify how long.”

On the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites coming together in a democracy: “I think the prospects of being able to achieve this kind of success, if you will, from a political standpoint, are probably better than they would be for virtually any other country and under similar circumstances in that part of the world.”

Now if only the new Dick Cheney and the old Dick Cheney could work out their differences, we’d all be in better shape.