Video of Cheney warning that an invasion of Iraq would lead to 'Quagmire' (1994)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projec...tury#Open_letter_to_President_Clinton_on_Iraq


Open letter to President Clinton on Iraq

On January 16, 1998, following perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections, members of the PNAC, including Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Robert Zoellick drafted an open letter to President Bill Clinton, posted on its website, urging President Clinton to remove Saddam Hussein from power using U.S. diplomatic, political and military power. The signers argue that Saddam would pose a threat to the United States, its Middle East allies and oil resources in the region if he succeeded in maintaining what they asserted was a stockpile of Weapons of Mass Destruction. They also state: "we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections" and "American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council." They argue that an Iraq war would be justified by Hussein's defiance of UN "containment" policy and his persistent threat to U.S. interests.

 

That's the problem with wikipedia. First, Cheney wasn't a signatory to that letter. Second, as you'll notice the conclusion is not part of the letter, but the editorial from the wiki writer. Go look at the original letter. It doesn't say anything about invading Iraq.

 

Again, you'll notice Cheney wasn't part of that letter. The funny part of the accusation of 'spin' is that you made a declaration that they were 'calling for invasion' and now you're talking about what you think was implied. One of us is certainly engaging in spin but it isn't me.

To start you should look at the letter - military action is separated from removing Saddam. It says in the near term we should consider military action and in the long term the removal of Saddam. That doesn't translate into your version which is 'let's invade Iraq.'

Also, no - removal does not imply invasion. We bombed Serbia to get rid of Milosevic but we didn't invade Serbia. Military action to remove Saddam could be many things that aren't a US invasion. It could be military support for the Kurds, or it could be (and this one is actually discussed in some literature) arming the Shiites to rise up in the South. It could be strikes to take out Saddam's command structure, assassination of Saddam or a lot of other options. It could be using our own military to enforce sanctions and squeeze Iraq to get Saddam out. You're conclusion that it can only mean invasion is simply false.

The other thing to think about is that military action to push Saddam out would not be inconsistent with Cheney's previous views where invasion would. One explanation provides a timeline that makes sense and one doesn't.

You're assuming every member of pnac agrees with everything put out by pnac, which is a big assumption. Many pnac members DIDN'T end up working for the Bush administration.

No, it doesn't say anything about military intervention. Please quote the passage in the letter that says military intervention.

 

the one thing that is certain is that cheney is as gay as a bonobo.

 

did your obsession begin in the dead gay navy guy thread?

 

I remember the feeling, not so long ago
The kids came dancin', their hearts were romancin'
And the music was live Poco
Some called it country, some called it rock and roll
But whatever the sound, it was sure to be found
With a heart, rhythm and soul

Do you remember then, how it was when it all began
Do you remember then, how the music made you feel,
when it all began
Ooh do you remember when, when it all began,
ooh do you remember when

New York and Boston, yeah we sure had some fun
Summer nights in the park, and when the music would start
Ooh what a time and then some
We sang together, "a good feelin' to know"
Yeah we turned it up loud, gave our hearts to the crowd
But then came the end of the show

To capture the moment, to make it ours for all time
I know we can just remember how it was,
when it all began

Oh now do, do you remember when - how the music played
Ooh, do you remember when - when it all began
Oh now ooh, do you remember when, oh now ooh, do you remember when
Do you remember, do you remember when,
do you remember...

 

I can agree that people can change their opinions and I can even buy in Cheney's case the idea that 9/11 changed everything what I have a hard time buying is given the knowledge that Iraq was going to be a tough situation is why go with such a poorly executed plan for occupation?

 

Hayes I know you have a whole thing going here, but the problem is not that Cheney could change his mind, the problem is that he could change is mind and then be so completely negligent and ignorant of the factors (which he was citing in 1994) that ended up causing the mess he got us into in recent years. Again, these are the very same factors he is implying (in 1994) that are problematic - yet by 2003, they magically don't exist, and he is proclaiming that we "will be greeted as liberators".

This is not a hard concept and one that anybody should be able to accept as problematic.

 

I'm not trying to absolve him of responsibility for the mistakes that have happened, so if that's what you mean then I agree. I don't think anyone can reasonably argue the intervention has been well run.

 

Most of the signatories of the letter were never in the administration, many have been critics of the administration, other key members of the administration like Rice are not neoconservatives or members of pnac. That some of these people joined the administration doesn't prove anything.

We know he was opposed to it in 1994, we don't have any statement from him pre- 9/11 advocating it. You're claim is that since he was associated with some people who talked about military action then he obviously wanted to invade Iraq pre-9/11. Do you see how silly that is? Especially when you can't even quote those you're condemning by association as advocating invading Iraq?

I already gave at least five other scenarios for military action, including empirical precedent, which you've ignored. I understand you are convinced they mean the same thing but they simply don't as I've shown with concrete examples. Further, you're position is fatally flawed because it ignores that Bush's foreign policy agenda was dominated by Cold War realists like Cheney and Rice, not neoconservatives like Wolfowitz, until 9/11. When 9/11 happened a more proactive approach was sought which is how we got to the intervention in Iraq.

You're just repeating the same thing over and over. That won't make it true.

No, it isn't validated because the same people also pursued tightening sanctions, stepping up bombing of Iraq and other military actions before we even got to the intervention. It isn't validated because in the interim there was a huge event that changed the political landscape and the urgency with which we wanted to act in the international arena. The problem for you is that you think the whole administration was Wolfowitz, when it wasn't. Further, you ignore the fact that some of the signatories were OPPOSED to the intervention, see Francis Fukuyama. Oops, there goes your argument!

What is all this about coincidence, lol? A couple of the people who signed the letter ended up in the administration, so what! Most of them didn't. A lot more people from other places ended up in the administration. You seem to see some big deal which I gather is from reading the boob and his Rubicon book, but there is nothing shocking or condemning in some of them being in the administration. Further, there is nothing odd or Nastradomus-like in the assessment of the timeline for changing our foreign policy. That passage says 'it will take awhile to change things unless there is a crisis.' WHOA! Step back! That is conclusive proof that the neocons PLANNED 9/11! Lol. That really is silly.

So here's the deal: stop saying Cheney or PNAC letter etc were calling for the invasion of Iraq in the 90s. It isn't true, and you can't provide a single quote that backs up your statement. If you want to say 'their writings implied they wanted to invade Iraq' then that is your opinion and that is fine, just stop claiming something is a fact when it clearly isn't. It is an oft repeated lie that is getting old, is misleading, and unnecessary.

The timeline of this argument has gone like this -

jo mama: they were calling for invasion in the 90s.
hs: cite this
jo mama: the letter
hs: not cheney, doesn't say invade
jo mama: ok, but it does say intervention
hs: no it doesn't
jo mama: ok, then it implies intervention
hs: no it doesn't
jo mama: they did intervene so that's what they meant

I don't think that's a convincing argument.

 

Well I'm glad we agree on something, although I noticed in the smoking ban debate we appear to be on the same side.

Ohh the horror... the horror.....

 

Yes, I would like you to be accurate. Hopefully you'll continue to offer your opinions on subjects as some of us find them enlightening and some find them amusing. I certainly don't want to discourage that effort. However, your rhetoric is important. If someone is evaluating your argument they might be persuaded by your opinion if it is masked as fact.

The letter doesn't say anything about invasion, it actually separates military action and saddam's removal into two different temporal planes (near term and long term) which means they aren't the same. You also still have never addressed the multitude of other examples of what military action means, some of which people ARE actually on record as suggesting.

Yes, actually it does make your argument go poof. You want to contend that it's the same thing and to do that you offer no evidence into their mindset except an action taken years later by a different administration with actors that may have included some of the same people. When I point out that at least one of the signators was against the intervention that shows that one can sign the letter and not be for intervention. Pretty straightforward stuff. If the letter meant intervention then FF wouldn't have signed it, since I will presume to believe he knows more about what it meant than you do. He was, after all, there and a participant in the letter.

Add to that the only record of Cheney speaking on the issue before 9/11, when he was clearly against invasion.

As for the breakdown on those who signed the letter, it doesn't get you anything in this argument. They could have all worked for the administration and it wouldn't prove anything, nor lend anything to your argument. That they were predisposed to consider military action still doesn't equate to invasion. OTOH, it can reasonably be argued that considering military intervention became much more pronounced post 9/11, and that the administration itself was decidely opposed to interventions pre-9/11. There is a clear timeline where the administration switched from anti-interventionist and that event is 9/11, not beforehand.

A more accurate breakdown, not that it matters, would be:

Jeffrey Bergner - not in the administration
Francis Fukuyama - not in the administration, opposed the intervention
Donald Kagan - not in the administration
William Kristol - Not in the administration
Richard Perle - said he wouldn't have intervened in Iraq at all
William Schneider - Chairman of the Defense Science Board, not in the administration and has been critical of the intervention in Iraq.
James Woolsey - not in the administration
Vin Weber - not in the administration

In some capacity in the administration (although even then people like Bennett weren't making defense policy):
Robert B. Zoellick
Paul Wolfowitz
Peter Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld
Zalmay Khalilzad
John Bolton
Paula Dobriansky
Elliott Abrams
Richard Armitage
William Bennett

 

From various sources on the web...

President George W. Bush appointed Abrams to the post of Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Democracy, Human Rights, and International Operations at the National Security Council on 25 June 2001. Abrams was appointed Special Assistant to the President and the NSC's Senior Director for Near East and North African Affairs on 2 December 2002.

Bergner currently serves as Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs

Fukuyama was a member of the President's Council on Bioethics from 2001-2005.

Weber is a member of the U.S. Secretary of Energy's Advisory Board.