Dick Cheney explains why attacking Bagdad is a bad idea ***1994 VIDEO-MUST SEE****

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Ganymede, Aug 11, 2007.

  1. Ganymede Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,322
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,799
    WOW! wow. Incredible, he actually makes sense. Just goes to show what massive frauds these guys are.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. hypewaders Save Changes Moderator

    Messages:
    12,061
    Indeed. It also shows the difference between Dick Cheney describing a reasonably-charted course (George Bush Sr. Administration) and Dick Cheney at the helm of a broached ship of state that is being gussied up to hide the reality that her belly is gashed open.

    Thanks for the link, Ganymede. "I told you so" is not so easy to say in this war debate, even when it's true. But it is effective pointing out how the neoconservatives' Iraq debacle was forseen by most people who were reasonably informed about Iraq and the Mideast.

    When Cheney was taking orders and not issuing them, there was reason, responsibility, and direct answers to questions. Not any more.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,799
    That's right. When BushChenCo says they didn't anticipate an insurgency, they are lying. They anticipated it years before.
     
  8. hypewaders Save Changes Moderator

    Messages:
    12,061
    I find it hard to believe that this Administration anticipated the disaster and chose to deliberately ram us onto the rocks. I think power, and perceived opportunities in the wake of 9-11 went to their heads, and they became irresponsible. They have obviously stayed irresponsible, because they are trying to hide.

    The extent of their ongoinng deception does astound me. They know this isn't going to work, but they will apparently sacrifice untold lives and fortunes (but not their own of course) in order to keep up appearances for as long as possible.
     
  9. Ganymede Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,322
    Not only that, Bush also anticipated the immense strain that this type of war would inflict on the troops.

    George W. Bush 2000 CNN Presidential Debate

    http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000b.html
     
  10. hypewaders Save Changes Moderator

    Messages:
    12,061
    Ganymede, keep in mind as you look back, that Dubya is not a smart man. During the 2000 Presidential Debates, when he denounced nation-building, he was repeating very conventional wisdom. It is not likely that he was mouthing those words while scheming in evil genius to bog this nation and his future administration down in an unworkable new variation on imperialism, that would render his legacy infamous.

    9-11 blew our American minds. In the case of Dubya's cabinet, events filled them with an unexpected sense of political initiative (power) and like failed leaders through the ages, they got drunk on it. They lunged for their wildest ambitions. The radical neoconservative ideology was out there before 9-11 (see PNAC) but there was little traction for such naked neoimperialism before 9-11. We don't have a cunning mastermind at the top- We have the wrong little person in the wrong place at the wrong time.
     
  11. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    The reason why Cheney changed his mind is : peak oil.

    Back in 1994 it wasn't so obvious.... Also the goal of the first gulf war was to establish a presence in SA, and that was already achieved... There was no point in going into Baghdad...
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2007
  12. Ganymede Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,322

    That's incorrect. They've known about peak oil since the early eighties. Because it was becomming exponentialy expensive to extract the oil they were selling.
     
  13. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,799
    So he changed his mind about a potential invasion of Iraq being a humanitarian disaster leading to chaos and civil war... because oil reserves will peak? Or he made the calculation that because peak oil was a serious phenomenon, we should invade Iraq and tell everyone it's about WMD's?
     
  14. Exhumed Self ******. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,373
    I briefly saw on CNN a preview that was going to show this piece, due to it going all around the internet. Looks like you helped spread it around enough Ganymede

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I missed the piece though.
     
  15. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671

    OK, let's say it this way: back in '94 it wasn't that important to get the hands on the Prize FAST. They thought sanctions would do the job. After 8 or so years and Saddam was still in power, they had to rethink the plan and decide for invasion...

    So we reach 2003, peak oil is WAY more obvious than 10 years earlier, and Saddam is still in power, and yes, oil is getting very hard to find. Thus we had the Iraq war...
     
  16. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    The post to Ganymade explained it...

    Come on, WMD was just the smoke and mirrors. They needed an excuse and that was the only one everyone (in the administration) agreed upon...
     

Share This Page