1
   

Cheney in '94: "Invading Baghdad would create a quagmire"

 
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2007 02:30 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
I have heard from several third hand sources that Cheney has been a changed man since his first heart attack. I, of course, can't assess the validity or significance of that.



cheney timeline

Quote:
Vice President Dick Cheney's history of heart problems started in 1978, when he suffered his first of four heart attacks at the age of 37.


So he's been a changed man for close to 30 years. O.k.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2007 02:32 pm
Clearly I erred, and instead was referring to the second heart attack. Thank you for your helpful criticism.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2007 02:35 pm
Well, I don't know about this recent discussion of the last few pages, but I do know that I just watched the video. It was amazing. I thought, "who is this person?" Cheney at least knew the dangers. So if he did, why did he go for it this time?

Surely he didn't think that weak little "coalition" would make the difference.

I'm just adding my two cents to book mark.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2007 02:37 pm
Nice to see you, Lola!
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2007 02:37 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Back to Thomas' point -- I do wish I could confidently explain the errors of the Bush administration and understand the degree to which they arose from faulty analysis; illusion; the unanticipated side effects of the interplay of strong personalities; malevolance; or other factors. Sadly I don't - the best I believe we can do is assess the relative likelihood of some scenarios.

I am also mindful that the political critics of their policy, both in this country and abroad, have not themselves put their own ideas (if they have them) to the test of history. It is evident that the many conflicts and challenges that beset the world exist independently of our failure in Iraq, and that solutions for them, arising elsewhere, are not yet evident.

There are lessons to be learned from all of this and I am fearful that we may learn the wrong ones from it.


I can pretty much agree with this. Especially the last part, though I'm willing to bet that the wrong lessons we have in mind are significantly different.

It's entirely possible that all of the risks were foreseen and planned for but that, like everything else with this administration, the plans got crushed in favor of political interests. In the end it may well all boil down to cronyism and incompetence.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2007 03:03 pm
Chris Matthews just played the 1994 Cheney vid on MSNBC's Hardball.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2007 03:12 pm
FreeDuck wrote:

It's entirely possible that all of the risks were foreseen and planned for but that, like everything else with this administration, the plans got crushed in favor of political interests. In the end it may well all boil down to cronyism and incompetence.


Almost anything is "entirely possible".

Are you suggesting that the Bush Administration was more propelled by its perceived political interests than others? I believe that would be a difficult proposition to either prove or even demonstrate convincingly.

Your rather sweeping opinions & judgements are what they are, but expressing them does not particularly illuminate the subject to a rational observer.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2007 03:35 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:

It's entirely possible that all of the risks were foreseen and planned for but that, like everything else with this administration, the plans got crushed in favor of political interests. In the end it may well all boil down to cronyism and incompetence.


Almost anything is "entirely possible".

Are you suggesting that the Bush Administration was more propelled by its perceived political interests than others? I believe that would be a difficult proposition to either prove or even demonstrate convincingly.

Your rather sweeping opinions & judgements are what they are, but expressing them does not particularly illuminate the subject to a rational observer.


I will venture a suggestion...... that the Bush Administration was more propelled by it's perceived political interests than they should have been, given the dangers and lost lives. Whatever the reason could have been.....and I agree we can only speculate......I can think of none that would warrant the cost. Declaring war with the knowledge that Cheney so clearly demonstrates he had is unconscionable. I eagerly await Cheney's explanation that would lead me to believe otherwise. But I'm not holding my breath.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2007 03:55 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Are you suggesting that the Bush Administration was more propelled by its perceived political interests than others? I believe that would be a difficult proposition to either prove or even demonstrate convincingly.

I don't know what FreeDuck is suggesting, but I'd prefer to explain it by another key difference between Bush II on the one hand and Bush I, Ford, Nixon, and Eisenhower on the other hand (a comparison that controls for party partisanship). It is the denial of reality the Bush administration has cultivated even since before it took office. It starts with the tax cut whose math didn't add up, and that was marketed as the miracle cure for a handful of different problems: "It's about beating Steve Forbes". "Now it's about giving back the surplus." "Now it's about stimulating the economy in a recession." "Now it's about long term growth". The conception and marketing of the Iraq war displayed a similar combination of dishonesty, re-labeling, and bullying. As did the suppression of science on global warming etc.

The Bush/Cheney administration doesn't stand out for its devotion to political interests. It stands out for its utter disregard of reality, evidence and reason. In the light of this disregard, maybe Cheney didn't change his view of reality in Iraq. Maybe, for reasons I can't understand, he just stopped caring about reality.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2007 04:03 pm
Thomas wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
Are you suggesting that the Bush Administration was more propelled by its perceived political interests than others? I believe that would be a difficult proposition to either prove or even demonstrate convincingly.

I don't know what FreeDuck is suggesting, but I'd prefer to explain it by another key difference between Bush II on the one hand and Bush I, Ford, Nixon, and Eisenhower on the other hand (a comparison that controls for party partisanship). It is the denial of reality the Bush administration has cultivated even since before it took office. It starts with the tax cut whose math didn't add up, and that was marketed as the miracle cure for a handful of different problems: "It's about beating Steve Forbes". "Now it's about giving back the surplus." "Now it's about stimulating the economy in a recession." "Now it's about long term growth". The conception and marketing of the Iraq war displayed a similar combination of dishonesty, re-labeling, and bullying. As did the suppression of science on global warming etc.

The Bush/Cheney administration doesn't stand out for its devotion to political interests. It stands out for its utter disregard or reality, evidence and reason.


Agreed. You said it very well. It stands out for it's lack of conscience.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2007 04:24 pm
Thomas wrote:
I don't know what FreeDuck is suggesting, but I'd prefer to explain it by another key difference between Bush II on the one hand and Bush I, Ford, Nixon, and Eisenhower on the other hand (a comparison that controls for party partisanship). It is the denial of reality the Bush administration has cultivated even since before it took office. It starts with the tax cut whose math didn't add up, and that was marketed as the miracle cure for a handful of different problems: "It's about beating Steve Forbes". "Now it's about giving back the surplus." "Now it's about stimulating the economy in a recession." "Now it's about long term growth". The conception and marketing of the Iraq war displayed a similar combination of dishonesty, re-labeling, and bullying. As did the suppression of science on global warming etc.

The Bush/Cheney administration doesn't stand out for its devotion to political interests. It stands out for its utter disregard of reality, evidence and reason. In the light of this disregard, maybe Cheney didn't change his view of reality in Iraq. Maybe, for reasons I can't understand, he just stopped caring about reality.


I think you have overstated the proposition, but that it does contain some accurate and key elements. For example I can think of several very good arguments for the tax cuts that would properly include ALL of the elements that you listed -- in an attempt to demonstrate their lack of real purpose. However, I can't explain the near complete lack of restraint on discretionary spending that characterized the first six years of the Bush Administrations. I suspect those in power rationalized these things to themselves as necessary steps to keep the dreaded (ugh) Democrats from taking power through their persuasive sophistry. Even granting them this assumption, however, leaves one with the inescapable conclusion that they were not able or did not try to explain their real purposes to the people.

I'll also agree that the "marketing of the Iraqi war" involved gross over-simplifications of complex issues to the degree that one could justifiably doubt either their understanding or their honesty. The fact that these over-simplifications themselves resonate with some of the prejudices of some of their dedicated right wing supporters, notably right wing evangelicals (head nod here to Blatham & Lola) as well as the Israel lobby, adds a worrisome, additional element -- were they trying to imitate the Clintons in a "triangulation" of related issues to gain a new political coalition?

There was a good deal of "denial of reality" going on during the Clinton years as well, but, because Clinton's inclination was to avoid decisive action wherever possible, it took the form of needed things not done, as opposed to things done badly or unwisely.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2007 04:39 pm
georgeob wrote:
persuasive sophistry

Interesting, almost made me want to go and read Aristophanes all over again but, at my age, I can hardly stand the excitement of Socrates/Plato/Aristotle.
I just stick with "nabobs of negativity" while nattering away on these pork ribs.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2007 04:45 pm
dyslexia wrote:
I just stick with "nabobs of negativity" while nattering away on these pork ribs.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2007 04:47 pm
dys -- you are correct and I quickly tried to delete it - and then found myself deleting a second post as well.

In the other unintentionally deleted post I notewd that I have been eating a fair amount of crow here lately and It doesn't go down well at all.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2007 05:05 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
dys -- you are correct and I quickly tried to delete it - and then found myself deleting a second post as well.

In the other unintentionally deleted post I notewd that I have been eating a fair amount of crow here lately and It doesn't go down well at all.
Georgeob, there is almost noone on a2k I would rather exchange barbs with. It's always fun with you around.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2007 05:14 pm
Thanks Dys. I still think you are a crank,.... but not a sincere one - a pose you assume to amuse yourself and others. I, on the other hand, am truly overbearing.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2007 07:09 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:

It's entirely possible that all of the risks were foreseen and planned for but that, like everything else with this administration, the plans got crushed in favor of political interests. In the end it may well all boil down to cronyism and incompetence.


Almost anything is "entirely possible".

Are you suggesting that the Bush Administration was more propelled by its perceived political interests than others? I believe that would be a difficult proposition to either prove or even demonstrate convincingly.

Your rather sweeping opinions & judgements are what they are, but expressing them does not particularly illuminate the subject to a rational observer.


Well, far be it from me to attempt to illuminate your universe, but let me explain. And of course, this is entirely in my imagination as none of us are inside the administration and know for sure its inner workings, but can only guess at them based on events. But I see several factions at work in the administration. The ideologues, or PNACers, who had their reasons for wanting to remove Saddam, and the group of party loyalists whose main goal was to preserve the Republican majority. The latter group would be the people who thought it was a good idea to but Brownie in charge of FEMA, among other things. What I'm saying is that maybe the ideologues understood the risks and had some ideas on how to mitigate them. But that the people put in charge of running the country and handling the aftermath were incompetent because they got their jobs for their political connections and not for their abilities and experience and insight. In other words, I'm differentiating between their intentions in invading Iraq and the actual execution.

Of course, it's just an idea. I'm full of them and don't mind throwing them out there -- sweeping and judgmental as they may appear to you.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/06/2019 at 09:41:40