What Cheney had to say about Iraq in 1994

[Det-riot]

Watch and discuss

[Gilby]

Not good in 1994, but OK in 2002 after having been CEO, from 1995 to 2000, of a company that is a huge part of the military industrial complex with lots of stock options and all. Fascism at it's finest.

[MuniAddict]

And here's what the libs said before we went into Iraq:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSbAc...elated&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUZ9Ttg05xE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_Cep...elated&search=

The examples go on and on and on.....Complete and utter hypocricy!

[maestro8]

Originally Posted by MuniAddict

And here's what the libs said before we went into Iraq.....Complete and utter hypocricy!

Such behavior pervades our government. There's no need to pin it to one party or another... unless you've an agenda of some sort.

[monkeyman]

Ah politics. Doesn't matter who's better, only who's not worse.

[BluntRM]

Here's a few guesses: Dick is/was well aware of the consequences that have come to be in Iraq, but political stability and the fallout of Soviet decay were not entirely clear in 1991-- That is, any number of possible configurations could have occurred at the time: The opportunity to "develop interests" in Eastern Europe, the reinstatement of a perceived hostile Soviet power, Chinese expansion (the Soviet Union balanced both the US and Maoist China), and there was probably a degree of caution towards any prolonged involvement anywhere based on the weakened US economy in '91 (which is why the first Bush administration couldn't jump on the task of dismantling and properly storing decommissioned nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union; Kazakhstan had one of the largest nuclear arsenals in the world through '95). If you were to look at the strategic global outlook in 1991, the next 5 years of developments were wide open and the first Gulf War was probably the best possible involvement for our military empire: The region was temporarily stabilized, US forces gained a stronger foothold in the energy market, and the small commitment required allowed for the military to be flexible while maintaining a battle ready stance; we could have re-deployed to any development on that side of the globe in half the time.

I think it should be obvious now that Dick's reasons for not deposing the Iraqi government in '91 were only tertiary concerns amidst the larger global context. A little more than a decade later and the political atmosphere has allowed for the US to attach interests to many regions, but the most strategic has been Iraq-- especially paired with our moral right to Afghanistan which is creating a strong presence towards Iran. This is a conquest.