08/13/2007
Dick Cheney Warns of Iraq "Quagmire" in '94 Remarks
In a video from 1994 that recently surfaced on YouTube. In it, Cheney offers up all the reasons why it would be insane for the U.S. to invade Iraq.
Here's the transcript...
Q: Do you think the U.S., or U.N. forces, should have moved into Baghdad?
A: No.
Q: Why not?
A: Because if we'd gone to Baghdad we would have been all alone. There wouldn't have been anybody else with us. There would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq. None of the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq.
Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off: part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it -- eastern Iraq -- the Iranians would like to claim, they fought over it for eight years. In the north you've got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey.
It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq.
The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action, and for their families -- it wasn't a cheap war. And the question for the president, in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad, took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth?
Our judgment was, not very many, and I think we got it right.
Of course, the answer to that question would now be 3,689 and counting...
(transcript source)
Sphere: Related ContentPosted 1:00 PM EST by Andy in Dick Cheney, Iraq, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Karl Rove is not leaving the White House right now for nothing. You can bet he knows that the shit is going to hit the fan soon and he wants to be gone before it does. The Bush administration is going down rapidly.
Posted by: murderers | Aug 13, 2007 1:16:23 PM
Priceless. Well I'll give him one thing, he was dead right back in '94. Maybe he's smarter than we thought.
Posted by: Britton | Aug 13, 2007 1:24:40 PM
My guess is that KKKarl Rove left the White House so that he will be able to work on the campaign of one of the Republican presidential hopefuls...likely MItt Romney.
And can someone please explain this to me: if Dick Cheney believed in 1994 that invading Iraq would be a quagmire why did he go along with the decision to invade in 2001? Did they honestly believe they would be keeping the U.S. and the world safe from terrorists? Did they do it simply because they wanted to remove Saddam Hussein? Did they do it to control the supply of oil as so many have suggested (if so, invading in 1994 would've given them control of the oil which would have pleased Daddy Bush just as much as W)? Did they do it simply because after 9/11 they sensed a bloodlust among Americans and they knew invading Iraq would be a guarantee of two terms in office? I don't understand why Cheney's reasoned and informed approach to Iraq in 1994 changed so drastically. Can anyone here please explain?
Posted by: peterparker | Aug 13, 2007 1:30:48 PM
I never thought Cheney was stupid. Never. Sociopathic, maybe. A bully and a blowhard, most definitely. But stupid? No.
That makes it even more sinister. Cheney, Bush, and Rove (et al) knew exactly what would happen when they took the U.S. into Iraq. They had ulterior motives, to be sure. I won't venture to guess what those motives were, but this kind of hypocrisy and blatantly deceitful treatment toward the American people is most certainly deserving of impeachment.
I hate to bring it up because it's a low blow (pun unintentional), but this kinda makes Clinton's blow-job fibs pale in comparison, doesn't it?
Posted by: Brian | Aug 13, 2007 1:47:55 PM
peterparker - you have heard of Halliburton, right? And you do know who was in office in 1994, right?
This is all about money and power, and the greedy bastards couldn't loot the world with Clinton in office, the way they can/could right now.
Posted by: Gregg | Aug 13, 2007 2:39:34 PM
PeterParker-- Your heart is in all the right places, it's just that you need to read a little more than this blog.
Posted by: John | Aug 13, 2007 4:11:25 PM
SEVERAL YEARS TOO LATE!
This priceless video shol have been in Kerry's TV ads in 2004.
Posted by: ReasonBased | Aug 13, 2007 5:25:41 PM
Gregg...well, DUH! Thanks for reminding me that Daddy Bush had been long gone by 1994. When I saw the interview I jumped to the conclusion that someone was interviewing Cheney because George Herbert Walker Bush was still in office. Now this makes more sense.
John...I read The New York Times every day.
Posted by: peterparker | Aug 13, 2007 8:22:55 PM
Cheney was once a good man but, unfortunately, he was “Romneyized” (brainwashed, for those who don’t remember papa George R.). Do you suppose that Mitt was re-washed when it comes to choice?
Posted by: Ken | Aug 13, 2007 11:43:00 PM
Why did Dick go along with the invasion this time around? He didn't "go along" with it, he is the one who planned it.
Posted by: Stephen | Aug 14, 2007 11:56:14 AM
I can't believe the selective hearing I am witnessing. Do you not hear Cheney say "we would be all alone". This time we had, and still have many strong allies in our war with Iraq. Simple facts sometimes ellude. The facts and situations are different now. Why dredge this up? Why are gay people so quick to say "don't judge me", then turn around and do it to someone else? GET THE FACTS!
Posted by: Gregg | Aug 19, 2007 1:05:17 AM
Gregg, You are being sarcastic, right?
Posted by: Vi Agara | Aug 19, 2007 11:41:04 AM
GREGG is an idiot.
Posted by: nic | Aug 19, 2007 2:58:36 PM