The Dick Cheney Thread: 'Former Vice-Presidential' Edition

[souvlaki]

The WMD justification came first because after 9/11 is when Bush was pushing hard for the UN inspectors to have full access to anywhere they wanted in Iraq. When they were being toyed with is when people started thinking that Saddam was hiding WMD's. That was way before anyone said anything about him being involved with 9/11. We went straight for Afganistan and pinned it on Bin Laden within a day of the attacks. All those other rumors were started after, it was mentioned by the press as a question of whether or not Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. The press perpetuated that rumor and made a spectacle of it. Mostly after we were already there, when the press was still on the presidents side before they decided to blame him for everything that went wrong in the world

Okay, so it was the liberal media that promoted the connection? Even if it was the media and the media alone promoting this idea (which it wasn't... the connection had been insinuated several times by the White House) the White House did nothing to downplay it. And it most certainly was floating around before the war. Maybe my memory is failing me, but in the weeks leading up to the war I clearly remember the connection to 9/11 being brought up far more than the WMDs.

 

[Schlosser85]

They talked repeatedly about an alleged meeting in Czech Republic between an advisor of Saddam and a member of AQ. Cheney said (on video) that it had been "pretty well confirmed", and then later (on video) denied ever saying that.

 

[Wiseman]

Okay, so it was the liberal media that promoted the connection? Even if it was the media and the media alone promoting this idea (which it wasn't... the connection had been insinuated several times by the White House) the White House did nothing to downplay it. And it most certainly was floating around before the war. Maybe my memory is failing me, but in the weeks leading up to the war I clearly remember the connection to 9/11 being brought up far more than the WMDs.

After 9/11 up until about 6 months into the Iraq war all media was trying to support the president cause they saw how patriotic americans were feeling and so they wanted to cash in on that. Nobody would've watched news channels condemning America after 9/11. Second, I swear to you that WMD's was what was said, 9/11 was not a reason named, what happened was journalists would ask if Saddam "could have" had something to do with 9/11 in some capacity, and the answer that was given was possibly. Then the various news stations would discuss the possibility on their talk shows and looking back it might seem like the White House was just sitting there everyday saying Saddam was responsible for 9/11. But it was really just overexposure from news outlets.


Anyway, my point is that this thread doesn't mean anything anyway because we've known for years that 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq so who cares about Cheney saying this now

 

[souvlaki]

After 9/11 up until about 6 months into the Iraq war all media was trying to support the president cause they saw how patriotic americans were feeling and so they wanted to cash in on that. Nobody would've watched news channels condemning America after 9/11. Second, I swear to you that WMD's was what was said, 9/11 was not a reason named, what happened was journalists would ask if Saddam "could have" had something to do with 9/11 in some capacity, and the answer that was given was possibly. Then the various news stations would discuss the possibility on their talk shows and looking back it might seem like the White House was just sitting there everyday saying Saddam was responsible for 9/11. But it was really just overexposure from news outlets.


Anyway, my point is that this thread doesn't mean anything anyway because we've known for years that 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq so who cares about Cheney saying this now

I never suggested that the official reason for invading wasn't WMDs. But the connection was insinuated despite the fact that the White House knew perfectly well in 2003 that there was no direct connection. It's still propaganda with absolutely no basis in reality used to justify a war. And the White House did play a large part in those rumors being spread.

 

[StorminNorman]

That's not the point. That was the justification used by the White House to go to war. I don't think anyone is denying that Hussein was an evil dictator and probably needed to be taken out of power at some point, but the White House rushed us into the war, and said we had to take out Hussein immediately using both WMDs and ties to 9/11 as why we had to go in immediately. Neither of those reasons were based in fact and because of that we got involved in a war that killed 4000+ Americans and pissed off not just our enemies, but our allies as well.

I have always had a problem with how Bush and Co. dealt with the media side of being President. He was a terrible salesmen, and his administration was worse still. They went the easy way with selling the Iraq War, not the right way.

I don't think the President being poor with his approach to selling the war, though, does not eliminate the fact that action against Iraq was more than justified.

 

[Matt]

In Bush's defense (and I feel dirty saying that), the media never gave him a fair chance and was always looking to sink the guy's ship. I mean, when he was just a candidate, you had reporters asking him to name the Prime Minister of small, obscure countries that I've never heard of. Unlike with Sarah Palin (whom the questions asked of were very legit), this was a case of the "gotchya media." From there it just escalated to them looking for any way to make him look dumb, from falling on his bike, to choking on a pretzel, to Rathergate. The media hasn't treated a president with such...disdain since Nixon probably. Of course, he wasn't exactly kind to them either.

 

[souvlaki]

In Bush's defense (and I feel dirty saying that), the media never gave him a fair chance and was always looking to sink the guy's ship. I mean, when he was just a candidate, you had reporters asking him to name the Prime Minister of small, obscure countries that I've never heard of. Unlike with Sarah Palin (whom the questions asked of were very legit), this was a case of the "gotchya media." From there it just escalated to them looking for any way to make him look dumb, from falling on his bike, to choking on a pretzel, to Rathergate. The media hasn't treated a president with such...disdain since Nixon probably. Of course, he wasn't exactly kind to them either.

Maybe even as early as 2004, or his first few months as President I'd say you have a point. But from September, 2001 to 2003 I'd say the media was consistently in his corner. Certainly in the weeks leading up to the war in Iraq.

 

[Matt]

That's true. The media really did give him a free pass on Iraq. Its ironic. They tore him apart on the littlest, dumbest things like trying to open a locked door but when they really should have been questioning him, they completely turned the blind eye. But in their defense Souv, the series finale of Friends IS important news that requires constant coverage for the month leading up to it (even if we are in war and reccession)!

 

[Wiseman]

That's true. The media really did give him a free pass on Iraq. Its ironic. They tore him apart on the littlest, dumbest things like trying to open a locked door but when they really should have been questioning him, they completely turned the blind eye. But in their defense Souv, the series finale of Friends IS important news that requires constant coverage for the month leading up to it (even if we are in war and reccession)!

Friends has only been off the air since 2003, seems like so much longer.

 

[souvlaki]

Friends has only been off the air since 2003, seems like so much longer.

I actually thought they had only been off the air for two or three years. I didn't realize they had been off the air for so long.

 

[DACrowe]

There are plenty of justifications for the Iraq War that had nothing to do with 9/11.

Like Saddam Hussein dismissing the peace treaties following the Gulf War.

Not really. To justify a preemptive war, a clear and immediate danger must be apparent and there was none from Iraq. The government took the kitchen sink approach and gave a laundry list of smaller reasons to go to war so as to appear that the evidence war overwhelming. Yet the major justifications for war were WMDs and the Bush Administration claiming there was a clear link between al-Qaeda and Iraq despite there being no real evidence to support this. We, frankly put, were wrong. So from a simple aspect of justifable war or just cause, the US failed miserably here.

Now, you bring up the UN resolution, which I would argue is not proportionate to a full-scale invasion and war. However, if you are to argue that POV, one must take into account that it was not a US treaty, but a UN one and the Security Council repeatedly VOTED AGAINST going to war with Iraq. As it was not a US treaty or singular effort in the first Gulf War, that justification is nullified. And besides that was never Bush's clear claim for war.

In an interesting consideration, when the 9/11 Commission in 2004 said there was no evidence that al-Qaeda was linked to Saddam or that his government had anything to do with 9/11, Cheney said they were endangering American lives by declassifying that information and that they were wrong.

He now claims he never saw any such evidence and denies ever reaching such a conclusion which makes him either a hypocrite or a liar. Nice to see those who proved this in 2004 he called liars who were endangering American lives, he now agrees with in 2009, albeit he still claims all of his political enemies "endanger American lives" or "Make Americans less safe." Some things never change, such as his excuse for piss poor and tyrannical governance being the vague veil of national security.

 

[StorminNorman]

Not really. To justify a preemptive war a clear and immediate danger must be apparent and there was none from Iraq and the government took the kitchen sink approach and gave a laundry list of smaller reasons to go to war so as to appear that the evidence is overwhelming.

Edit, I understand the difference between Iraq '03 and the other examples I gave.

Yet the major excuses for war were WMDs and the Bush Administration claiming they had them and there was a clear link between al-Qaeda and Iraq despite there being no real evidence to support this. We frankly put, were wrong. So from a simple aspect of justifable war or just cause, the US failed miserably here.

The major justifications turned out to be inaccurate, but they were not the only justifications. It's also hard for me to blame Bush for faulty intelligence. It's quite obvious George W. Bush believed Iraq had WMD's - if he was simply grasping for straws trying to validate war in Iraq, he could have easily planted WMD's to "discover".

Now, you bring up the UN resolution, which I would argue is not proportionate to a full-scale invasion and war. However, if you are to argue that POV, one must take into account that it was not a US treaty, but a UN one and the Security Council repeatedly VOTED AGAINST going to war with Iraq. As it was not a US treaty or singular effort in the first Gulf War, that justification is nullified. And besides that was never Bush's clear claim for war.

I don't think the UN being incompetent justifies America not taking action. America's security is weakened if the international body does not fear UN resolutions, therefore America should have the right to enforce UN resolutions whether the UN wants them to or not.

In an interesting consideration when the 9/11 Commission in 2004 said there was no evidence that al-Qaeda was linked to Saddam or that his government had anything to do with 9/11 Cheney said they were endangering American lives by declassifying that information and that they were wrong.

I have forgotten Cheney's comments, can you point me in their direction?

 

[Addendum]

The US's security was never threatened by Iraq in the 90s or 00s, nor by Vietnam in the 60s, nor Korea in the 50s.

 

[Matt]

Its not always about us. We were not threatened by Germany in the 40s. Unlike Japan they wouldn't have had the capabilities to cross the ocean, yet we fought them. Sometimes we must protect others as well. Not justifying any of the wars you mentioned, just saying.

 

[Marx]

Maybe even as early as 2004, or his first few months as President I'd say you have a point. But from September, 2001 to 2003 I'd say the media was consistently in his corner. Certainly in the weeks leading up to the war in Iraq.

Absolutely.

 

[BatMatt]

Yes, the media failed to ask the tough question in the events leading up to Iraq, I did a journalism presentation on it in April. They really dropped the ball on that one, seeing as it is their primary responsibility to be a watchdog

 

[Hobgoblin]

That is not even close to true. The 9/11 rumors were floating around long before the WMD justification was used. I can remember vividly the White House insinuating a connection as early as 2002 because it was a hot topic in my political science class that year.

Exactly. Bush was on record saying that Saddam would have liked to use al Qaida as a forward army against America.

Maybe even as early as 2004, or his first few months as President I'd say you have a point. But from September, 2001 to 2003 I'd say the media was consistently in his corner. Certainly in the weeks leading up to the war in Iraq.

Right. Every little thing in the news was regarding more evidence that Iraq had WMDs. I remember hearing CNN Headline News say that a group of men were found in Turkey with nuclear material 100 miles from the Iraqi border. The sensationalism was through the roof. Never heard about the men in Turkey again, though.

 

[hammerhedd11]

Or maybe we shouldn't place US forces in harms way unless we're 100% sure it's the right move.

Who would be 100% sure? That would never happen. There were some people who didn't want to fight against Nazi Germany and most people would say that's justified.

 

[StorminNorman]

Exactly. Bush was on record saying that Saddam would have liked to use al Qaida as a forward army against America.

I think Saddam would have liked to use Al Qaida against America. Whether he could or not is another issue, but he would be tickled pink if he could do that.

 

[souvlaki]

I think Saddam would have liked to use Al Qaida against America. Whether he could or not is another issue, but he would be tickled pink if he could do that.

Didn't Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden absolutely despise eachother? For that reason alone I doubt that would have ever happen. That was one of the reasons I remember thinking the whole 9/11 connection was so absurd back in 2003.

 

[Marx]

Didn't Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden absolutely despise eachother? For that reason alone I doubt that would have ever happen. That was one of the reasons I remember thinking the whole 9/11 connection was so absurd back in 2003.

I'm pretty sure that I remember hearing that as well.

 

[souvlaki]

I'm pretty sure that I remember hearing that as well.

Yeah, I just looked it up. I knew I wasn't imagining that:

The CIA learned in late September 2002 from a high-level member of Saddam Hussein's inner circle that Iraq had no past or present contact with Osama bin Laden and that the Iraqi leader considered bin Laden an enemy of the Baghdad regime, according to a recent Senate Intelligence Committee report.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/14/AR2006091401545.html

 

[StorminNorman]

Didn't Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden absolutely despise eachother? For that reason alone I doubt that would have ever happen. That was one of the reasons I remember thinking the whole 9/11 connection was so absurd back in 2003.

The 9/11 report stated that Saddam reached out to UBL and offered him asylum.

Again, though, I am talking about what Saddam wanted to do - not what he could do. Did Saddam want Al Queda to attack America? Absolutely.

Here is an interesting article about connections between Al Queda and Saddam (not Saddam and 9/11 - but Saddam and Al Queda)

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp

While I understand the Weekly Standard has a conservative bias, they use CIA reports and quotes from CIA officials.

 

[souvlaki]

The 9/11 report stated that Saddam reached out to UBL and offered him asylum.

Again, though, I am talking about what Saddam wanted to do - not what he could do. Did Saddam want Al Queda to attack America? Absolutely.

Well, wanting Bin Laden to do it, and working with him to do it are two different things.

 

[The Overlord]

The 9/11 report stated that Saddam reached out to UBL and offered him asylum.

Again, though, I am talking about what Saddam wanted to do - not what he could do. Did Saddam want Al Queda to attack America? Absolutely.

Irrelevant, I bet Kim Jong Il would like to be the king of world, but that's not going to happen. Not mention bin Laden hates Saddam with a passion, before the Gulf war he wanted to use Al-Qaeda terrorists to overthrow him, they don't like each other.

Ability matters more then intentions.

If you are willing to spend billions of tax payer dollars on a war the majority of Americans no longer believe in, why should I care if the government spends money on social programs you don't believe in.