Unbelievable Cheney quote, 1991.

[mistertrickster]

"I think for us to get American military personnel involved in a civil war inside Iraq would literally be a quagmire. Once we got to Baghdad, what would we do? Who would we put in power? What kind of government would we have? Would it be a Sunni government, a Shia government, a Kurdish government? Would it be secular along the lines of the Ba’ath Party? Would it be fundamentalist Islamic? I do not think the United States wants to have U.S. military forces accept casualties and accept the responsibility of trying to govern Iraq. I think it makes no sense at all.”

April 7, 1991

Remember this when Bush dead-enders start whining about "no one could have forseen the mess Iraq would turn into."

[spillthebeans]

1. yep, therefore it was planned, and neocons want ww3 now

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGIe1gPaTXY

[rpannier]

2. Great find

[L0oniX]

3. Typical of that ass carrot. Go f*ck yourself Mr Cheney ...go f*ck yourself.

[jgraz]

5. ASS CARROT -- LOL!

:rofl:

[Erika]

4. This should be posted on all the right wing sites

That was before Cheney teamed up with the big oil men/defense contractors and saw every day a profitable one in Iraq for them.

[upi402]

6. Yeah, Cheney knew... and Bush didn't know the 3 ethnic groups?

:shrug:

[jannyk]

7. Bravo! Well Done! K&R n/t

[Bobbie Jo]

8. EAT IT CHENEY....K & R

:kick: Kick ass find my friend....

[Olney Blue]

9. "literally be a quagmire." Imagine that.

[civildisoBDence]

32. Vietnam was a quagmire--the Big Muddy.

Iraq is more like quicksand.

Either way, we're screwed.

Newsprism

[leveymg]

10. Link or cite source, please. Great find. eom

[Nickster]

11. The Google tells me that it's from This Week, April 7, 1991 on ABC.

I believe he gave that same speech to the Washington Institute but it looks like they scrubbed the transcript from their web page.

It's quoted in this book as well:
http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl/display.pperl?isbn=9780385519939&view=quotes

[leveymg]

19. Thanks again for that.

:thumbsup:

[EVDebs]

34. Nixon's old plan to seize Saudi oil fields transferred to Iraq

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0102-01.htm

Cheney transferred the DOD's 1973 plans for Saudi Arabian oil field seizures to Iraq when that became possible after GHW Bush and Brent Scowcroft didn't want to "do Iraq" back in 1991.

[Jim Lane]

12. Here's a link for the quotation

In case anyone questions whether Cheney really said it, it was reported in The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/10/washington/10cheney.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5088&en=af5a4757f4db1194&ex=1315540800&adxnnl=0&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1164892133-mZD7If3UA9rVLnBlRzdC3A

[Jim Lane]

13. And a similar quotation from his Washington Institute speech (with link)

On April 29, 1991, Cheney (then the Secretary of Defense) gave a speech in which he used that word "quagmire", so beloved of the cut-and-run Defeatocrats who don't understand foreign policy:

"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 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 had 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 had 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."

Text of Cheney speech:
*
* http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/pubs/soref/cheney.htm|on the Internet Archive>

[underpants]

14. He's disgusting.

I wouldn't fuck him with Lynn Cheney's dick

[BikeWriter]

15. The entire * crime family has said that at least once!

[LeftHander]

16. That was before he became Halliburton CEO....

And acquired Dresser Industries with billions in asbestos liability....

[donkeyotay]

23. Bought Poppy's asbestos prob in exchange for dimson's cardboard cutout

for his presidency. Cheney's privatized military complex has done very well, thank you. I look at the misery being created around the world and realize how much money these warmongering shits have made. Never have so many people suffered so much for so few. And accountability??? Not going to happen. The BFEE goes from disaster to disaster, feeding off the world's misery and are never held accountable. Heck, "nice" people won't even discuss it.

[Raster]

41. Ding! We have a winner! n/t

[progressoid]

17. Hey, talk like that just emboldens the enemy!

[Scriptor Ignotus]

18. just curious why no major media outlet decided to

replay this audio during the lead up to the Iraq invasion, among other quotes. It should have been an easy story - what did former Bush 41 staffers think of the new Iraq war? It would have been a simple matter to see what Cheny, Powell, Feith, Rumsfeld and others had to say about taking Baghdad and removing Saddam.

But that's right, our exalted Fourth Estate consists of little more than pussies and shills. I almost forgot.

[Coes]

20. so put in perspective:

he perfectly knew where the turd was located, but decided to step in it anyway.

How many % did his Haliburton stock rise again?

[Kelly Rupert]

21. Well, see, the difference there is that

he was justifying not supporting Shi'a uprisings. You see, that business would have started out as a civil war--a Shi'a rebellion against a Sunni government. They recognized that starting and then controlling a civil war probably wouldn't work too well--and they haven't change positions on this, since the Bush adminstration has long held that civil war would be tantamount to failure of our democratization program.

They believed (or managed to convince themselves, at least) that a swift decapitation of the Ba'athist government without involving sectarianism followed by an immediate institution of a democratic framework would be workable. They were wrong, and tragically so.

Edit: To clarify, I'm not excusing him entirely. Many of the same problems he mentioned are problems that were just as valid in our invasion and occupation. But if you're going to try to use this in an argument, just be aware that this was said in reference to potential military support of the Shi'a against the Ba'athists in a then-hypothetical Iraqi civil war, not in reference to unilateral regime change.

[lumpy]

26. K & R

v

[mistertrickster]

27. You think BushCo. really thought they could establish democracy in Iraq?

I don't, sorry.

BushCo. dumped Garner when he actually acted on direct elections and put in Bremer who stalled the process as long as he could.

My theory is they wanted control of the oil, not to sell but to remove FROM the market so Big Oil could reap huge profits on the OPEC-like price rise.

And what happened?

Big Oil reaped huge profits--historically high profits.

Go figure.

[happydreams]

29. There was NEVER any intention of establishing

democracy in Iraq; it was always about permanent occupation.

[Ian_rd]

22. Sounds like a very intelligent and thought-out opinion, so what happened to him?

Was he wooed by Wolfowitz and Perle and other Neocons at PNAC into thinking that pro-western capitalism would flourish in the Middle East with a simple occupation of Baghdad? How did he lose this pragmatic insight? Is it possible that he actually bent to Bush's desire to invade Iraq because Bush is his boss in spite of the solid perception that he's actually the power behind the thrown?

I also want to know why Powell trashed his legacy with his bullshit speech to the U.N. on the case for war, and why Tenet allowed himself to become one of the most disastrous yes-men in our nation's history in spite of the intelligence in his possession which proved everything the Bush administration wanted to believe to be baseless and wrong.

For me these are powerful questions that must be pursued.

[Bridget Burke]

24. Cheney probably realized he had more to gain if we invaded Iraq.

Money & power. He knew that he would not, personally, be in any danger over there.

[happydreams]

28. ....

He suddenly developed a compassionate streak and decided, success or no, he was going to at least try to liberate Iraq.

[BlueEyedSon]

25. Not unbelievable.... obvious.

I bet if they hadn't figured out how to make a fucking fortune on the war, that would still be the conventional wisdom.

PS here is a piece from Poppy & Scowcroft
"Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998):
http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil/bushsr-iraq.htm

[cui bono]

30. Rachel Maddow played that a couple weeks ago. It's worse when you hear it.

Of course now he's had time to perfect war profiteering, so this time he was ready.

[leeroysphitz]

31. Funny how he had a full TWELVE years to think of answers to all

those questions and this current national nightmare was the very best he could come up with.

[Raster]

33. I. Do. Not. Understand! The "powers that be" ruled out invading Iraq years ago.

How in God's/Goddess' name did this band of miscreants talk the Mandarins into allowing bush*'s folly? george w. bush* was and is an unmitigated FUCK-UP with no redeeming value. Darth cheney is no better. Who the hell thought giving these idiots a shot at the Middle East was a good idea? Huh? I want someone to take ownership of this cluster-fuck! And most important of all, I want to

Bring Them Home!

[HardRocker05]

38. they realized the am. people wouldn't tolerate the losses/cost then; but post 911

but post 911, all of the sudden they imagined great new possibilities for the use of military power to achieve neo-con dreams.

[Raster]

39. Ya know, I get that; NeoCON America 101. Heavy emphasis on the CON.

What I do NOT understand is why THIS group of idiots got to play "RISK: The Planet Earth." I don't get it. Today's greatest minds--diplomats, historians, military strategists, Middle East experts--all warned against invading Iraq and advised EXTREME caution. The potential for creating a disaster of epic proportions in the most sensitive part of the world and at the worst possible times was at the highest level and the outcome practically assured. If no one else, couldn't the Saudis put one-and-one together? For the love of God, george w. bush* has failed MISERABLY at EVERYTHING he's ever done. It was like handing a loaded gun to a five year old. And this was the successor to ronnie the raygun, the great communicator?

Bring Them Home!

[louis c]

35. That is truly unbelievable.

That quote makes matters worse.

To F*ck up because you don't know better is one thing.

but to have it so down pat in 1991, and then jump into the brier patch, with full knowledge is inconceivable to me.

[BelgianMadCow]

36. "The Bush dead-enders" LOL

I bet they are in their last throes. They may last 6 days, or 6 weeks. I doubt six months :-)

[mistertrickster]

42. LOL, back at ya! I'm gonna use that Rumsfilled quote. Good one. nt

[Mr_Spock]

37. Holy hypocritical shit batman!

Cheney really IS the devil - he KNEW what he was doing and did it anyway.

[tpsbmam]

40. Add to the quote from Cheney

when people pull the "no one could have forseen" crap.....MANY people, mostly those with expertise on Middle East issues, predicted exactly what has happened. They tried to warn the Congress and Senate (since the Shrub cabal clearly wasn't going to listen) but sadly, too few listened. All of this was predicted, including increasing terrorism, civil war, and the spread of the war beyond the borders of Iraq.

[Not Sure]

44. Isn't it possible that quagmire is the desired outcome?

When you have someone who controls the forces that blow shit up and the forces that rebuild it, using one for "free" and making money hand over fist using the other, are you surprised to see him exercise that power?

Everyone in power knew that the WMD thing was bullshit, and my friends and I fully expected it to be bullshit (until either Cheney finished burying them in the sand or Rumsfeld found the receipts). And I really doubt Joe Sixpack was ever concerned for one second about a SCUD missle hitting his RV during a NASCAR race. But Joe Sixpack knows there's a lot of oil in Iraq, even after seeing all those well fires burning it off in the first Gulf War. Going to war for more oil doesn't seem like such a bad idea since all you need is a couple smart bombs and 83 soldiers to defeat the entire Elite Republican Guard. Hell, with all that oil available to the world (er, United States), the price has got to drop, and every Joe I know supported that notion.

But Iraq wasn't about opening the valve. It was about welding it shut and scaring up oil prices to levels nobody could have expected for another two or three more Clinton presidencies. It's about controlling all the oil valves in the region. Not owning it, but making sure everyone gets their cut. Remember, this is about securing America's position as the preeminent superpower in the world (wasn't that PNAC's wording?).

These people are the devil, and pretending they're stupid or forgetful is dangerous. None of this has happened by accident, except maybe those dang bribery and corruption and pedophilia scandals. But don't think the characters can't be changed for the sequel if they don't test well with the audience this time around.

[IDemo]

43. Sort of goes with a Bush 41 quote:

"To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day hero ... assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerrilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability."

George Bush Senior