"President {Bush} got it right both times" on Iraq

[eppur_se_muova]

"I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have had to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have to put another government in its place. What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable? I think it is vitally important for a president to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq."

-- DDDDDick Cheney, The Washington Institute's Soref Symposium, April 29, 1991

You know, these are VERY good questions, and a very good argument. But I guess that's all old news, and we've moved on.

(pssst--lifted from Al Franken's "The Truth, with jokes", for those of you who haven't read it)

[Dervill Crow]

1. K&R

:kick: