Video: Cheney on Iraq (1994)

[JimmyConway]

Talk about a 180.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

I believe I posted that awhile back. Or someone did. Still amazing to watch though. But whatever.

[JimmyConway]

I believe I posted that awhile back. Or someone did. Still amazing to watch though. But whatever.

My bad

[Dance04]

I've posted this at least 3 times. It's sad really.

[portisizzle]

Get over it girls.

[JimmyConway]

wow people. don't get your panties in a twist.

[portisizzle]

wow people. don't get your panties in a twist.

Unwind yours then I will unwind mine.

[JohnLockesGhost]

It's really amazing how wise and prescient he is in this video. It's such a shame he didn't listen to himself.

[The_cavalierman]

And just think....this was the guy calling Kerry a flip flopper.

Cheney's flip-flop costs us the following:

1. trillions of dollars and counting

2. 4000 + dead

3. 14 Billion in tax payer dollars still unaccounted for under GOP leadership


I call Cheney the mother of all flip floppers....(MOAFF)

[Sarge]

Bill Clinton on Iraq in 96

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2iOVqYBqME&eurl=http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/

Your point?

[Dance04]

Bill Clinton on Iraq in 96

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2iOVqYBqME&eurl=http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/

Your point?

point is clinton didnt invade. ;)

[Sarge]

point is clinton didnt invade. ;)

That's why we kept getting hit in the 90's. Ragheads knew he was full of wind

[Predicto]

That's why we kept getting hit in the 90's. Ragheads knew he was full of wind


Oh, nice bob and weave there.

Didn't work of course, but it was nicely done.

[Durant35]

OK and compare our economy to from Clinton's era next to Bush, then add in the number of casualties both of them caused in total even if you consider getting hit in the 90s..maybe all we need is someone full of wind sometimes..not someone full of **** that blows **** up to cover his own ass at the expense of innocent lives.

[Sarge]

OK and compare our economy to from Clinton's era next to Bush, then add in the number of casualties both of them caused in total even if you consider getting hit in the 90s..maybe all we need is someone full of wind sometimes..not someone full of **** that blows **** up to cover his own ass at the expense of innocent lives.

Since I assume you were replying ot me, would it be too much to ask that I get that in English?

[Sarge]

Oh, nice bob and weave there.

Didn't work of course, but it was nicely done.

Been any WTC garage bombings, Kobar towers, USS Cole, embassy bombings lately?

[The_cavalierman]

That's why we kept getting hit in the 90's. Ragheads knew he was full of wind

We kept getting hit in the 90's because Reagan emboldened the terrorists when he cut and run from Lebanon.

That motivated the evil doers

[Spaceman Spiff]

We kept getting hit in the 90's because Reagan emboldened the terrorists when he cut and run from Lebanon.

That motivated the evil doers

Right, the whole Iranian Embassy Siege happened on Carter's watch.

Your turn! :)

[Sarge]

We kept getting hit in the 90's because Reagan emboldened the terrorists when he cut and run from Lebanon.

That motivated the evil doers


Yeah, bombing Lybia and intercepting the Achille Lahro hijackers in flight really emboldened them too :rolleyes:

[Predicto]

Been any WTC garage bombings, Kobar towers, USS Cole, embassy bombings lately?

Hard to do a WTC garage bombing now. :laugh:

I would venture to say that we are a little bit more vigilant than we were then, which is a good thing.

Doesn't justify the stupid invasion in Iraq in the least, of course.

[The_cavalierman]

Been any WTC garage bombings, Kobar towers, USS Cole, embassy bombings lately?

And what does that have to do with Cheney's flip-flop?

For that matter what does that have to do with Iraq or Afghanistan?

FBI Director Mueller said no matter what we do here or abroad "we cannot stop a determined attacker"

Are you crazy enough to claim that this occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq has ended all of the plots against us? The one things the terrorists have shown is that they are patient so I would not claim victory on Bush/Cheney's behalf yet.

You know what happened the last time your boys claimed mission accomplished

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[Spaceman Spiff]

I find it absolutely hilarious that people drudge up these videos and look to them as some kind of proof or something.

I'm sure every single one of us has flip flopped on something over the past decade or two.

Lighten up.

[The_cavalierman]

Yeah, bombing Lybia and intercepting the Achille Lahro hijackers in flight really emboldened them too :rolleyes:

They were at war so they have no problem with losses...

We had over 200 losses in Lebanon and MR. COLD WAR cut and run...

Are you denying that Reagan's cut and run did not embolden the terrorists?

[The_cavalierman]

I find it absolutely hilarious that people drudge up these videos and look to them as some kind of proof or something.

I'm sure every single one of us has flip flopped on something over the past decade or two.

Lighten up.


You are right...everyone flip-flops but......


Our flip-flops do not cost following:

1 trillion plus dollars
4000+ American lives
14 Billion in Tax payer money unaccounted for in Iraq under GW Bush's watch.
By comparison my last flip had something to do with the car I purchased. I think their are some slight differences.:laugh:

[Spaceman Spiff]

You are right...everyone flip-flops but......


Our flip-flops do not cost following:

1 trillion plus dollars
4000+ American lives
14 Billion in Tax payer money unaccounted for in Iraq under GW Bush's watch.
By comparison my last flip had something to do with the car I purchased. I think their are some slight differences.:laugh:

Cause that's not apples and oranges :thumbsup: ;)

[The_cavalierman]

Ain't it funny how (some) republicans can dish out labels but can't handle it when they get slammed for doing the same thing.

Obviously Cheney flip flopped and clearly the results have been shall we say a problematic to put it mildly.

[Durant35]

Since I assume you were replying ot me, would it be too much to ask that I get that in English?

what part of that was in a foriegn langauge?

[Spaceman Spiff]

Ain't it funny how (some) republicans can dish out labels but can't handle it when they get slammed for doing the same thing.



Is this not the pot calling the kettle black? Hell, this could be the definition right here. ;)

[The_cavalierman]

Cause that's not apples and oranges :thumbsup: ;)

It's always apples and oranges when you are clearly on the wrong side. :thumbsup: ;)

[saskin]

I think it would have been difficult to continue on to Baghdad in the 90s because we had countries fighting with us that would not go. Kinda hard when a portion of the fighting force will only go so far.


And it probably wasn't a popular thing seeing as how we liberated kuwait, we would turn around and be the aggressor and attack saddam.

although i do think we should have gone after him...it just would've been hard, I think.

[Spaceman Spiff]

It's always apples and oranges when you are clearly on the wrong side. :thumbsup: ;)

I'd look around to find some democrats flip flopping, but I clearly don't have a stiffy for bashing your side, like you do for ours at every given opportunity ;)

[The_cavalierman]

Right, the whole Iranian Embassy Siege happened on Carter's watch.

Your turn! :)

Thanks!


You aren't talking about the same Iran that had it's government overthrown as a direct result of US and British covert operations in 1953?

For the record Democrat Harry Truman rejected the plan but President Eisenhower (Republican) endorsed the plan and we have been sticking our noses in Iran's business ever since....



A short account of 1953 Coup
Operation code-name: TP-AJAX


http://www.iranchamber.com/history/coup53/coup53p1.php


Coup 53 of Iran is the CIA's (Central Intelligence Agency) first successful overthrow of a foreign government.

But a copy of the agency's secret history of the coup has surfaced, revealing the inner workings of a plot that set the stage for the Islamic revolution in 1979, and for a generation of anti-American hatred in one of the Middle East's most powerful countries. The document, which remains classified, discloses the pivotal role British intelligence officials played in initiating and planning the coup, and it shows that Washington and London shared an interest in maintaining the West's control over Iranian oil.


Your turn....:laugh:

[The_cavalierman]

I'd look around to find some democrats flip flopping, but I clearly don't have a stiffy for bashing your side, like you do for ours at every given opportunity ;)


Like you said...Everyone flip-flops. It's just that republican flip-flops have proven more costly of late.:D

[Dance04]

Thanks!


You aren't talking about the same Iran that had it's government overthrown as a direct result of US and British covert operations in 1953?

For the record Democrat Harry Truman rejected the plan but President Eisenhower (Republican) endorsed the plan and we have been sticking our noses in Iran's business ever since....



A short account of 1953 Coup
Operation code-name: TP-AJAX


http://www.iranchamber.com/history/coup53/coup53p1.php


Coup 53 of Iran is the CIA's (Central Intelligence Agency) first successful overthrow of a foreign government.

But a copy of the agency's secret history of the coup has surfaced, revealing the inner workings of a plot that set the stage for the Islamic revolution in 1979, and for a generation of anti-American hatred in one of the Middle East's most powerful countries. The document, which remains classified, discloses the pivotal role British intelligence officials played in initiating and planning the coup, and it shows that Washington and London shared an interest in maintaining the West's control over Iranian oil.


Your turn....:laugh:

your forgetting Iran Contra. :laugh::laugh:

[The_cavalierman]

your forgetting Iran Contra. :laugh::laugh:

Oh I didn't forget....I was just holding back...

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[The_cavalierman]

your forgetting Iran Contra. :laugh::laugh:


Wasn't Oliver North making all of our foreign policy decisions during Ronnie-Raygun's presidency?

I get confused....and Reagan couldn't remember:laugh: :laugh:

[Dance04]

I find it absolutely hilarious that people drudge up these videos and look to them as some kind of proof or something.

I'm sure every single one of us has flip flopped on something over the past decade or two.

Lighten up.

my problem is not with the flip flop, but with the accuracy with which he speaks. back in 1994, they knew EXACTLY what would happen.

What changed 10 years later? nothing. Everything he said would happen, has happened.

So, knowing exactly what would happen, they said **** it, were going anyways at the expense of our soldiers lives, our countries money and reputation.

[The_cavalierman]

my problem is not with the flip flop, but with the accuracy with which he speaks. back in 1994, they knew EXACTLY what would happen.

What changed 10 years later? nothing. Everything he said would happen, has happened.

So, knowing exactly what would happen, they said **** it, were going anyways at the expense of our soldiers lives, our countries money and reputation.


I am sure our GOP friends will say 9-11 changed everything. They use 9-11 to justify everything to include trampling our constitutional rights as well.

The fact that after 4 years and 4000+ American lives we have just experienced our first security gain in Iraq is proof that 9-11 did not change squat with regard Cheney's earlier position on Iraq. Bush (41) predicted exactly what Iraq would look like in his book but Bush (43) obviously did not read daddy's book.

Cheney saw dollar signs and new contracts for his defense and other business buddies. That is why he went from common sense as SECDEF to "we will be greeted as liberators"

[Dance04]

I am sure our GOP friends will say 9-11 changed everything.

9-11 did not change squat with regard to Iraq. Bush (41) predicted exactly what Iraq would look like in his book but Bush (43) obviously did not read daddy's book.

Cheney saw dollar signs and new contracts for his defense and other business buddies. That is why he went from common sense as SECDEF to "we will be greeted as liberators"

of course 9/11 will be used as an excuse. Of course, even tho no links have ever been made between 9/11 and iraq (unless your mad mike, who is convinced there was)

It was all about getting rich and having all their little friends get rich too.

oh and not to mention the strategic reasons for going to Iraq. The strategic reasons for having a permanent base there will not be seen for a couple years anyways

[PeterMP]

Cheney was just mouthing the Bush I party line there. It isn't clear that he ever believed it. Four years later he'd sign the letter witht the Project of the New American Century.

Generally, Cheney always to have stark differences w/ the rest of the administration and the military about how to deal w/ Iraq the in the Gulf War. Here's the polite post-war version by Cheney:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/oral/cheney/1.html

Not the part, about how Scharzkopff's aid delivers a breifing using forces that were then in theatre to remove Saddam, and that there expected casualties and time table were unacceptable. The subtext is that Cheney wasn't happy, and though they should have been able to do the job. I also love this line:

"I wanted to make certain that they had everything they requested. I did not want to be in a position where the civilians had denied our military leaders the resources they said they needed to do the job. I didn't want there to be any excuse there that "we can't do this because you won't let us have the reserves and haven't given us enough divisions" or whatever."

Funny how right after Rumsfeld was outed, it was well need more troops, but there is no way that the commanders were asking for more troops before that.

[The_cavalierman]

Cheney was just mouthing the Bush I party line there. It isn't clear that he ever believed it.

Cheney said it.....It is on record...and that is good enough for me.

Next someone will be saying Cheney didn't really mean it when he said "We will be greeted as liberators" and that "the insurgents were in their last throes....if you will"


I guess Bush didn't really mean mission accomplished either right?

:laugh: :laugh:

[Hardcoreskinsfan]

OK and compare our economy to from Clinton's era next to Bush, then add in the number of casualties both of them caused in total even if you consider getting hit in the 90s..maybe all we need is someone full of wind sometimes..not someone full of **** that blows **** up to cover his own ass at the expense of innocent lives.

You mean like the Chinese embassy? What was the record Stock market high during the Clinton years? 14198.10 10/11/07 was the record all-time High....2973 people killed on 9/11. I blame Clinton's inaction

You need to watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyUX6wV1lBQ&NR=1

[Hardcoreskinsfan]

Cheney said it.....It is on record...and that is good enough for me.

Next someone will be saying Cheney didn't really mean it when he said "We will be greeted as liberators" and that "the insurgents were in their last throes....if you will"


I guess Bush didn't really mean mission accomplished either right?

:laugh: :laugh:

Actually if you listen to what he said, it was a fairly accurate prediction, minus the fact that the country of Iraq didn't split up. It also points to the fact that all the things the Bush administration was accused of not foreseeing were, in fact, forseen and possibly the media's depiction of the current situation of Iraq is a bit skewed. But I'm sure you didn't jump to conclusions and actually analyzed the video and didn't take out the parts that you wanted to hear and ignore the rest.