Maybe listening to Cheney on Iraq isn’t a good idea

imaginethat

Forum Staff
Oct 2010
70,710
31,164
Colorado
Good, Cheney's editorial is having the opposite effect he intended, and those who usually run to his defense are notably absent.

I cannot stand Harry Reid, but regarding Cheney I agree with him.

He needs to go crawl back under a rock somewhere in the middle of nowhere in Wyoming and STFU. Criminal f*ck.

Maybe listening to Dick Cheney on Iraq isn’t a good idea

Today, on the Senate floor, Harry Reid said: “Being on the wrong side of Dick Cheney is being on the right side of history.”

Reid was responding to Cheney’s op-ed in the Wall Street Journal with his daughter Liz attacking the Obama administration’s policies in the Middle East and elsewhere, a piece that has already generated much discussion. The Cheneys have also formed an organization, the Alliance for a Strong America, to advocate Cheneyite policies (you can tell it’ll be strong and resolute, because in the announcement video, Dick is wearing a cowboy hat).

The Cheneys’ op ed and new organization capture a key facet of conservatives’ approach to the foreign policies of the Obama era: They ply their ideas from a strange place where history started in January 2009.

The Cheneys offer no discussion of the disastrous decision to invade Iraq in the first place (though they still surely believe the war was a great idea, they apparently realize most Americans don’t agree). But anything that happened afterward can only be Obama’s fault. They write, “Mr. Obama had only to negotiate an agreement to leave behind some residual American forces, training and intelligence capabilities to help secure the peace. Instead, he abandoned Iraq and we are watching American defeat snatched from the jaws of victory.”

Yes, he “had only” to do that, and everything would have turned out fine. But who was it who signed the agreement mandating the removal of all American forces from Iraq by the end of 2011? It was George W. Bush. When the time arrived, the Maliki government was determined to get all American troops out, and refused to negotiate a new agreement without putting American troops at the mercy of the Iraqi justice system — something no American president would ever have accepted.


Obama faces an almost impossible situation. Short of an outright invasion, whatever we choose to do military is only going to have a limited impact on how this all ends. Some argue that Obama should have tried harder to negotiate a new agreement, to keep a small force there. The administration claims that would have been fruitless, because Maliki wouldn’t have allowed it. But this is all a counter-factual — and it should be noted that even if we had left a smaller force there, it still might not have been enough to determine the course of events. The big picture is that, if you were for withdrawal, you were inevitably going to be for giving up our influence over the country’s future.

Maybe that’s why the Cheneys’ op ed is silent on what they would do differently in Iraq today. The op-ed contains nothing even approaching a specific suggestion for that , other than to say that defeating terrorists “will require a strategy — not a fantasy. It will require sustained difficult military, intelligence and diplomatic efforts — not empty misleading rhetoric. It will require rebuilding America’s military capacity — reversing the Obama policies that have weakened our armed forces and reduced our ability to influence events around the world.”

So to recap: we need a strategy, and though they won’t tell us what that strategy might be, it should involve military, intelligence, and diplomatic efforts, and rebuilding the military. Apart from the absurd claim that the armed forces have been “weakened” (we’re still spending over $600 billion a year on the military even with the war in Iraq behind us and Afghanistan winding down), the Cheneys are about as clear on what we should do now as they were on how invading Iraq was supposed to spread peace and democracy across the Middle East.

Watch closely as Republicans troop to the TV studios in the coming days, because they’ll be saying much the same thing. They won’t bring up what a disaster the war was; they’ll hope you forget that they supported it, and they won’t mention that it was Bush who signed the agreement to remove all the troops from Iraq. They will say almost nothing about what they would do differently now, other than to say we have to be “strong” and “send the right message” to the terrorists.

When it comes to being wrong about Iraq, Dick Cheney has been in a class by himself. It was Cheney who said, “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.”

It was Cheney who said: “it’s been pretty well confirmed” that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta “did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service.”

It was Cheney who said: “we do know, with absolute certainty, that [Saddam Hussein] is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon”

It was Cheney who said in 2005: “I think they’re in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.”

All those things, and many more, were false. There is not a single person in America — not Bill Kristol, not Paul Wolfowitz, not Don Rumsfeld, no pundit, not even President Bush himself — who has been more wrong and more shamelessly dishonest on the topic of Iraq than Dick Cheney.


And now, as the cascade of misery and death and chaos he did so much to unleash rages anew, Cheney has the unadulterated gall to come before the country and tell us that it’s all someone else’s fault, and if we would only listen to him then we could keep America safe forever. How dumb would we have to be to listen?
Maybe listening to Dick Cheney on Iraq isn?t a good idea - The Washington Post
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Oct 2013
148
69
Michigan
Cheney, and others like Rove and Norquist, are death to the GOP, why won't they see that?

Cheney should have been up on charges as soon as he left public life and started taking money from Halliburton again. Cheney should have been charged for shooting his friend in the face. If any "normal" person had done that they would have faced charges whether the victim wanted to press them or not, it happens all the time.

Cheney is a personification of what's wrong with the GOP right now.

Rant over :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people

imaginethat

Forum Staff
Oct 2010
70,710
31,164
Colorado
Gee, McCain said if he was CIC he'd give Petraeus a call as to what the US should do. And, Petraeus was quite a bit more clear over what to do than Cheney, thank goodness.

All Cheney knows, really, is just when the terrorists were in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency, Obama got elected and next thing ya know he's pulling all our troops outta Iraq, on GW's schedule, snatching defeat from, if you will, victory.

Plus, Obama just hasn't bombed as many brown people as GW did, so naturally that has weakened our armed forces and reduced our ability to influence events around the world.

In short, it's all Obama's fault that the Iraq invasion hasn't spread peace and democracy across the Middle East, as Cheney and the neocons planned back in 1998.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Oct 2013
1,597
1,261
*******
I still want to know why Cheney isn't in jail, he shot someone in the face.
Speaking seriously, it really was a minor accident. The guy he shot was more at fault than Cheney. He was not in a safe location relative to the shooter. There was responsibility on both sides but nothing rising to the level of a criminal offense. The friend he shot probably had so basis for a civil action but I'm not sure he wanted to get on Cheney's bad side.

To summarize, Cheney isn't in jail because a hunting accident, even with contributory negligence, isn't a crime...it is just an accident. Well, at least if you are a white good ol' boy billionaire with a bent toward world domination. No, seriously, no one would go to jail here for an incident like that...and I know a couple of folks who have been involved in almost exactly the same sort of situation. It seems to be something about bird hunting, particularly ducks, that causes these things. That is what all the guys I know that have been shot like this were doing.

I am repulsed by Cheney but he didn't do anything criminal in this particular case.
 
May 2013
9,714
2,659
Northeast
Maybe listening to Cheney on Iraq isn’t a good idea
Maybe.....just a little-earlier.....


"Good morning. Over the past several days, despicable un-American traitors, including members of the liberal media, along with Congressmen and Senators from both sides of the aisle, have taken conspicuous glee in publicly questioning the wisdom and motives of this administration in its desire to invade and conquer the Middle East - starting with Iraq. And so this morning, to put a stop to this dangerous, effeminate and unpatriotic climate of discussion and contemplation, I am going to throw national security doctrine to the close-to-being-filled-with-mustard-gas wind, and reveal sensitive intelligence about the six nefarious Iraqi plots which require that America waste no time starting to kick serious raghead ass."
 
Nov 2012
11,342
9,734
nirvana
Cheney, and others like Rove and Norquist, are death to the GOP, why won't they see that?

Cheney should have been up on charges as soon as he left public life and started taking money from Halliburton again. Cheney should have been charged for shooting his friend in the face. If any "normal" person had done that they would have faced charges whether the victim wanted to press them or not, it happens all the time.

Cheney is a personification of what's wrong with the GOP right now.

Rant over :)
Because their base of fools will follow them over a cliff without even asking a question. The Republican base is the epitome of the followers of Jim Jones to the jungle. And they will gladly dip those cups into the punch than to cooperate in a bipartisan fashion for the good of the country. There is nothing more dangerous to any civilized society than a true believer.