Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Cheney in '00: Invading Baghdad Would Make Us "An Imperial Power" [VIDEO]

Posted by Adam Howard at 4:57 AM on August 18, 2007.


Why is Dick Cheney contradicting statements he made not just in 1994 but also in the year 2000 about the foolishness of an Iraq invasion?
Iraq: A Tale of Two Cheneys

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Video in your
mailbox!

 

Recently an unearthed CSPAN video of Dick Cheney (then a former defense secretary and considering a '96 run for the White House) from 1994 where he quite reasonably and intelligently argued that invading Baghdad following the Gulf War would have let to a "quagmire" has exploded on the web. The footage has gathered so much steam, and pissed off so many Americans, Cheney's press people were confronted about his inconsistency. The best defense Cheney's defenders could muster: "He was not vice president at the time." Good one guys. Of course they fail to acknowledge that more recently, in August 2000 to be exact, Cheney again repeated the logical position that invading Baghdad would not be worth the loss of lives, money and stability in the Middle East.

Was he lying? Did 9/11 really "change everything"? What is with this guy? John Nichols of The Nation chats with Keith Olbermann and he argues that Cheney's thinking on Iraq has never changed privately even if it has shifted publicly. In '94 he didn't want to seem to hawkish when he was thinking of running for president and in '00 he didn't want to expose his ideology too much when campaigning to be the vice presidential nominee. Nichols feels that this reflects a political cynicism that he hasn't seen since Richard Nixon or maybe before too. This goes back to college in the early 60's where Cheney's old professors say he had a simplistic view of the world and dreams of unchecked presidential powers. He was simply giving the safe answers at a time when the public wouldn't have tolerated an invasion.

After 9/11, Cheney seized the moment, changed all this rhetoric and was rarely if ever called out on his lies. This is why Nichols says, "Dick Cheney is a dangerous man." Check out the video to your right for more.

Digg!

Tagged as: iraq war, cheney

Adam Howard is the editor of PEEK.


The GOP, McCain Fall Flat Online
So, instead of mocking them, perhaps I should be worried about their growing online activist army. Just kidding.
Post by Chris Bowers. August 8, 2008.
Ending the Iraq War Today on Meet the Bloggers (1pm ET/10am PT)
With special guest Darcy Burner, co-author of "A Responsible Plan to End the War"
Post by ZP Heller. August 8, 2008.
Paris, Tire Gauges, and Illegal Contributions: McCain's Bad Week
"The tenor of this race, aided by events, has changed. McCain is on the defensive."
Post by Digby. August 7, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
A "Cheney"
Posted by: frank69 on Aug 18, 2007 6:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A "Cheney" is what a "Rumsfeld" used to be. You can tell Dick is lying because his mouth is open! I'd call him a snake, but that woud demean snakes. I'll just keep calling him the worst name of all: a Cheney!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

shoulda learned never to trust a dick . . .
Posted by: KaptainSpiffy on Aug 18, 2007 6:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
shoulda learned that with nixon.

pointing a finger to blame it on his 'heart problems'? nah. i'm pointing a finger, but not my index.

it seems there are those who grew up in different times who want to control others based on their own personal experience, based on their own view of the world, who cannot see reality as it is today but need so desparately to grab onto something as they feel the world, as they would have it, slipping away from them. these old dinosaurs (cheney, liberman, bush etc.) need what the chinese called 're-education'. perhaps we boomers should learn something from the frailties of humans and not give up ourselves in their hand so readily: we all lose, for generations to come in doing so. it is so if you understand the history of governments and men.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cheney is dangerous
Posted by: Schroeder on Aug 18, 2007 8:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cheney is a dangerous man and one who will do as much as he can to grab power. That's why there is still sabre rattling about Iran when there are far more indicators of the importance of political solutions in Iran also. That is also why IMPEACHMENT is so important. Does anyone believe that Cheney, et al. haven't been mentoring the next generation of desiring global dominators?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Cheney is dangerous Posted by: sheena2u
timing?
Posted by: mcottriel on Aug 18, 2007 11:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why did it take so long for this video to come to light?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This could have roasted Wolf
Posted by: lamar on Aug 18, 2007 10:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Too bad Michael Moore didn't confront Wolf Blitzer with this video.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dick Cheney = Traitorous Liar
Posted by: sheena2u on Aug 19, 2007 4:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dick Cheney has betrayed the people of America, our Constitution, and standards of decency.

The name "Dick Cheney" will live in infamy with the names of his brothers Benedict Arnold and Judas.

Dick Cheney has earned a place of dishonor with the worst humanity has to offer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Interesting
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Aug 19, 2007 5:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In Bush, Rove, and Cheney, though in somewhat different ways you see the same things.... a clinging to simplistic ideas, an unwillingness to accept that there are consequences to actions taken, and a strong desire for unquestioned power.

Oh yes... you also see Ivy league educations, spectacular political success couple with spectacular policy failures, and a fascist bent.

No wonder our world is now so utterly fucked.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why is Dick Cheney contradicting statements he made not just in 1994 but also in the year 2000...?
Posted by: ShrubtheWarcriminal on Aug 20, 2007 5:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because he can. These sociopaths have been held to zero, ziltch, nada, accountability by the Democraps.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cheney is a liar!
Posted by: Doubtom on Aug 20, 2007 8:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He will change his story as it becomes necessary, as with the weapons of mass destruction, toppling a dictator, bringing democracy to the area, ad infinitum. How many "official" positions have these clowns taken with respect to Iraq alone?

The same routine is being employed with Iran. No one in his right, mind believes that any nation, which is just embarking on a nuclear program, can possibly be a threat to an established nuclear power. It would take years of preparation before Iran could possibly reach a point where it could be a threat to anyone and even then it would face total anihilation if it ventured to use its weapons. So Rabid Richard changed his tactics to claiming Iran is supplying Iraq with weaponry and training its troops. Whether or not there's any truth in this claim is unimportant to Cheney; only the goal of attacking Iran is important. Cheney/Bush desperately need to blame their total fuckup in Iraq on someone else and it provides a nice distraction form the continuing fiasco that is ongoing in Iraq.
And if that doesn't work, look for Cheney/Bush to switch to yet another story/excuse/claim/.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]