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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

persuasive sophistry

I just stick with "nabobs of negativity" while nattering away on these pork ribs.

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.

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.