Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The Cheney Iraq invasion Policy was to knock out SH along with his army and police. And the result of that would be to be greeted as liberators. The Cheney policy did not need fucking UN support because the secondary policy of nation building was to be no big deal and paid by Iraq’s oil sales. The Kurds Shiites and Sunnis and Christians in iraq would all come together and embrace a liberal Jeffersonian representative democracy.
The Cheney policy had no anticipation of a high cost and five year plus battle to do nation building while fighting a deadly insurgency.
You have indicated that you anticipated a high cost to do your policy of taking out SH primarily in order to do the grand scheme of nation building because Iraq was a good candidate for that.
So I want you on record that you support and still support Cheney’s Iraq invasion policy as opposed to Biden’s prewar argument against the notion that liberating Iraq would be as easy as Cheney was selling.
To refresh your memory:
*** Host Tim Russert asked whether "we would have to have several hundred thousand troops there" in Iraq "for several years in order to maintain stability." Cheney replied: "I disagree."
*** He wouldn't say how many troops were needed, but he added that "to suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don't think is accurate. I think that's an overstatement."
*** Russert asked: "If your analysis is not correct, and we're not treated as liberators but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?"
*** Cheney would have none of it. "Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I've talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. . . . The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want [is to] get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that."
Russert: "And you are convinced the Kurds, the Sunnis, the Shiites will come together in a democracy?"
Cheney: "They have so far." And the vice president concluded: "I think the prospects of being able to achieve this kind of success, if you will, from a political standpoint, are probably better than they would be for virtually any other country and under similar circumstances in that part of the world."
Ron Paul.I don't remember any republican at all what so ever, standing with me against the War in Iraq.
*** Russert asked: "If your analysis is not correct, and we're not treated as liberators but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?"
*** Cheney would have none of it. "Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators.
he literally tried to kill Bush Sr. That’s a threatSaddam was NO threat to the US or his neighbors. Iraq was crippled by 20 years of war and sanctions. Israel wanted the Iraq war. Read CLEAN BREAK STRATEGY.
when he pulled outTherefore you wanted Iraq war policy in your mind to be to liberate Iraq with a very clean and cheap limited number of Special Ops to kill SH and Sons and have nothing to do with the chaos that would follow and therefore absolutely nothing to do with helping ……
I’m wondering if Correll sees the fallacy in your ability to think and participate in a reasonable discussion about why struth supports the original architects of the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003 to disarm Iraq if WMD that turned out not to be there.2011
he literally tried to kill Bush Sr. That’s a threat
original.antiwar.com
Was Cheney stating facts. It appears not.What is nuts about presenting the facts?
"The point we were discussing was about changing a nation into something more useful to us as a goal of a war."
That's the soul of the UGLY AMERICAN. So why not attack Scotland or Nigeria?
Because I know Iraq and the Middle East. Your reasoning is disgusting.
You are lying. ....
No, I;m not
I there was a problem with his reasoning, why did you not address his reasoning, instead of bring up unrelated stupid shit?
Are you just a monkey throwing random shit?
Of course you are. It would be simpler if you just answered as a nation builder warmonger why you did not support the Biden argument that was focused on the difficulty to expect after knocking out the regime.
Why would you support the greeted as liberators policy nation building when you say you expected it to be difficult.
LOLOL.. No he didn't. Dubya was LYING.
So, Did Saddam Try to Kill Bush's Dad? - Antiwar.com Original
But a closer look at the 11-year-old plot, particularly in light of the findings by the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), the special team of experts that spent 15 months investigating Baghdad’s WMD programs and found they were all dismantled in 1991 shortly after the end of the Gulf War, may now be warranted, especially if Bush is still laboring under the impression that Saddam “tried to kill [his] dad.”So, Did Saddam Try to Kill Bush's Dad? - Antiwar.com
Now that President George W. Bush's allegations about former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's ties to al-Qaeda and ambitious weapons programs have been - Jim Lobe for Antiwar.com
3. I did not have those numbers, but I, of course considered the cost of the war. That is a weird question.
I realized at the time, that invasion was a costly gamble.
Building a functioning Muslim Democracy, as part of the war of ideas, that was/is the War on Terror, IS a matter of National Self Defense.
IMO, Saddam's failure to comply with the terms of the ceasefire, BY ITSELF, was legal justification to resume war, and the nation building was just what we choose to do afterwards, as a bonus.
Do you think that GWBush thought taking out Saddam and rebuilding Iraq into a democratic nation was the right policy for America and the World?
. You are trying the circular debating tactic again.
When it was clear that Dubya was going to invade Iraq I resigned the Republican party after 35 years. It was an insane foreign policy blunder and a disaster in the making. Completely unnecessary..
In 1998 Saddam's reserves were in terrible shape. He begged the US to let an oil services company in to do updates and reserve mgmt before they were ruined forever. The cost was NOTHING compared to Bush's idiot war.. and we basically had Saddam over a barrel. Those clowns didn't know anything about the oil business or the Middle East.
Dubya screwed up his oil venture in Qatar which was damned near impossible to do unless he was drunk or snorting coke.
Israel wanted Saddam gone.. Read Clean Break Strategy.
Bush didn't conclude that Saddam tried to kill his father...the Clinton Admin, Kuwait and the UN did...why do you lie? USDOJ/OIG FBI Labs Report
i consider Xiden’s former coworker in the obama admin assessment of xiden whenever i consider xiden and that is he’s been wrong on pretty much every foreign policy decision he’s ever hadDid you consider both Cheney and Biden’s widely differing assessment on the cost of reconstruction after taking SH down?
Does that mean Cheney was wrong and Biden was right?
Did you accept Cheney’s judgment that Building a functioning Muslim Democracy was going to be a cinch after being greeted as liberators?
But Cheney told you we didn’t have to do nation building or maintain civil order after knocking off SH. nothing. We would be greeted as liberators and he talked to Iraqis who were going to do the nation building on their own. That was Iraq invasion policy -right?
No. It was based on flawed reasoning and dishonest advertising to the general public.
Piss and moan all you want about format all you want. You need to answer the question - Cheney or Biden?
As a nation builder wannabee warmonger who knew it would not be easy I want to see it in writing that you happily followed Cheney into the Iraq abyss. Or you really listening to the wiser Biden??
Did you consider both Cheney and Biden’s widely differing assessment on the cost of reconstruction after taking SH down?
Does that mean Cheney was wrong and Biden was right?
Did you accept Cheney’s judgment that Building a functioning Muslim Democracy was going to be a cinch after being greeted as liberators?
But Cheney told you we didn’t have to do nation building or maintain civil order after knocking off SH. nothing. We would be greeted as liberators and he talked to Iraqis who were going to do the nation building on their own. That was Iraq invasion policy -right?
No. It was based on flawed reasoning and dishonest advertising to the general public.
Piss and moan all you want about format all you want. You need to answer the question - Cheney or Biden?
As a nation builder wannabee warmonger who knew it would not be easy I want to see it in writing that you happily followed Cheney into the Iraq abyss. Or you really listening to the wiser Biden??
