Cheney said U.S. would get "bogged down" in Iraq -- [b]in 1992[/b]

Yet another flip-flop from the Bush administration....not that they'll ever own up to it. They have a hard time with personal responsibility, it seems.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/30/politics/campaign/30EDWARDS.html?oref=login&oref=login&oref=login

WEIRTON, W. Va., Sept. 29 - Seizing on a published report that Vice President Dick Cheney warned 12 years ago of getting "bogged down" in Iraq, Senator John Edwards on Wednesday accused the Bush administration of botching plans for occupying that nation.

"He knew - that's the worse part about this - he knew how dangerous this was," Mr. Edwards told a crowd here. "They knew that there were enormous predictors of what would be happening there, and they still didn't have a plan even though they knew what might be coming.''

Mr. Edwards referred to a report in The Seattle Post-Intelligencer that quoted from a transcript of a speech Mr. Cheney, then the secretary of defense, gave in 1992, 18 months after allied forces liberated Kuwait from Saddam Hussein's forces. "I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq," Mr. Cheney was quoted as saying.

He went on to suggest that ousting Mr. Hussein would preoccupy the United States for some time. "Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place?'' Mr. Cheney said at the Discovery Institute in Seattle. "You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq."

Here is what Bush Sr. wrote in '98

A World Transformed
by George Bush, Sr.
Chapter 19 (re: the Gulf War)

"Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well.

Under the circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different — and perhaps barren — outcome. "
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/gulfwar.asp

[quote name='CheapyD']Here is what Bush Sr. wrote in '98

A World Transformed
by George Bush, Sr.
Chapter 19 (re: the Gulf War)

"Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well.

Under the circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different — and perhaps barren — outcome. "
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/gulfwar.asp[/quote]

So some kid didn't listen to their father, what's new? I never listen to my parents, be damned with their "logic"!

[quote name='RedvsBlue']So some kid didn't listen to their father, what's new? I never listen to my parents, be damned with their "logic"![/quote]

This is not "some kid" that we are talking about.
And when you don't listen to your father, tens of thousands of people don't die.

Also, as usual, the parent is correct.

Father knows best, except when it comes to the economy and the environment.

[quote name='CheapyD']
And when you don't listen to your father, tens of thousands of people don't die.[/quote]

That's what you think.

That's what you think.

Click to expand...

Thats what George Bush Sr. thinks, a man I greatly respect for his intelligence, even if I disagree with him more often than not. He was head of the CIA, ambassador to the UN, he knows his stuff. And so far, Bush Sr's opinion about what would happen in 1992 has been correct about 2004

Yes in '98 Bush Sr. wrote this about his actions in '92. This is totally different from the situation we're in today.

The coalition put together for the gulf war was specifically created to liberate Kuwait. That's what other nations signed on for. They had a mandate from the UN to do just that. Had Bush Sr. gone on to Bagdhad everything he said then would have been accurate. They would have violated their mandate. Many nations would have then dropped out of the coalition because they were exceeding the mandate they had at the time. Notice the inclusion of the key phrase "Under the circumstances". Additionally, although they didn't have a mandate at the time to remove Sadaam, Bush Sr. did initiate the UN resolutions that Bush Jr. eventually enforced.

We're in TOTALLY different circumstances now. Bush Jr. had a mandate from the UN stating dire consequences for non-compliance. Not all the countries that voted for the resolution were willing to enforce it, but that doesn't make it any less of a mandate.

In both situations Presidents of the United States responded to what they and others believed to be a threat in Sadaam Hussein. He posed different threats at different times, that required different responses. But to try and compare actions between the two is not really fair.

[quote name='mathrandir']
In both situations Presidents of the United States responded to what they and others believed to be a threat in Sadaam Hussein. He posed different threats at different times, that required different responses. But to try and compare actions between the two is not really fair.[/quote]

I would say he posed much MORE of a threat back in 91. Back then he had the weapons, he had just invaded another country, etc. He hasn't really done much since then, but you suggest he posed more of a threat last year?

[quote name='dafoomie']

That's what you think.

Click to expand...

Thats what George Bush Sr. thinks, a man I greatly respect for his intelligence, even if I disagree with him more often than not. He was head of the CIA, ambassador to the UN, he knows his stuff. And so far, Bush Sr's opinion about what would happen in 1992 has been correct about 2004[/quote]

I was actually making light of how Cheapy said that when I don't listen to my parents tens of thousands of people die.

Now on a serious note, I'm really torn on this whole thing. This whole situation is a perfect example of why I wouldn't ever want to be president, too much that goes wrong no matter what you do or don't do. Its easy to say now that Iraq was a mistake because things are going so wrong. What would have happened if we hadn't taken Saddam out of power and another Sept. 11 type attack occured 5 years down the road that was linked to the Iraqi government? We would have all been asking why didn't Bush attack when we were poised to?

Bascially the middle east in general is one of those damned if you do and damned if you don't situations because no matter what we do over there is some negative but we can't just pick up and leave because of our dependence on oil.

[quote name='Backlash'][quote name='mathrandir']
In both situations Presidents of the United States responded to what they and others believed to be a threat in Sadaam Hussein. He posed different threats at different times, that required different responses. But to try and compare actions between the two is not really fair.[/quote]

I would say he posed much MORE of a threat back in 91. Back then he had the weapons, he had just invaded another country, etc. He hasn't really done much since then, but you suggest he posed more of a threat last year?[/quote]

I didn't say he posed MORE of a threat in either case. I said in both cases he posed a threat. In both cases the context of the threat he posed was very different, and both cases warranted different responses. To try and apply what anyone said in the context of the gulf war to Iraq in 2004 is tenuous at best. Yes the same murderous dictator was in charge of the country but the surrounding landscape was quite different.