punchdrunk
4th October 2004, 12:46 PM
an article from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/192908_cheney29.html) :
Cheney changed his view on Iraq
He said in '92 Saddam not worth U.S. casualties
By CHARLES POPE
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT
WASHINGTON -- In an assessment that differs sharply with his view today, Dick Cheney more than a decade ago defended the decision to leave Saddam Hussein in power after the first Gulf War, telling a Seattle audience that capturing Saddam wouldn't be worth additional U.S. casualties or the risk of getting "bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."
Cheney, who was secretary of defense at the time, made the observations answering audience questions after a speech to the Discovery Institute in August 1992, nearly 18 months after U.S. forces routed the Iraqi army and liberated Kuwait.
President George H.W. Bush was criticized for pulling out before U.S. forces could storm Baghdad, allowing Saddam to remain in power and eventually setting the stage for the invasion of Iraq ordered by his son, President George W. Bush, in March 2003.
The comments Cheney made more than a decade ago in a little-publicized appearance have acquired new relevance as he and Bush run for a second term. A central theme of their campaign has been their unflinching, unchanging approach toward Iraq and the shifting positions offered by Democratic nominee John Kerry.
A transcript of the 1992 appearance was tracked down by P-I columnist Joel Connelly, as reported in today's In the Northwest column.
"And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth?" Cheney said then in response to a question.
"And the answer is not very damned many. So 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."
About 146 Americans were killed in the Gulf War. More than 1,000 U.S. soldiers have died in the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath.
Going to Baghdad, Cheney said in 1992, would require a much different approach militarily than fighting in the open desert outside the capital, a type of warfare that U.S. troops were not familiar, or comfortable fighting.
"All of a sudden you've got a battle you're fighting in a major built-up city, a lot of civilians are around, significant limitations on our ability to use our most effective technologies and techniques," Cheney said.
"Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq."
Last week, Cheney attacked Kerry for his alleged inconsistencies. "Senator Kerry ... said that under his leadership, more of America's friends would speak with one voice on Iraq. That seems a little odd coming from a guy who doesn't speak with one voice himself. By his repeated efforts to recast and redefine the war on terror and our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, Senator Kerry has given every indication that he lacks the resolve, the determination and the conviction to prevail in the conflict we face."
Cheney's office did not respond to requests for comment about his 1992 statements, nor did the White House. The Bush-Cheney re-election campaign, also asked about the 1992 statements, did not respond.
Despite his reservations 12 years ago, Cheney was one of this administration's vocal and unrelenting supporters of invading Iraq. The decision was based on Saddam's reported development of nuclear, biological and other weapons of mass destruction that Bush and Cheney said posed a direct and imminent threat to the United States.
No weapons, however, have been found.
That debate will intensify tomorrow when Bush and Kerry square off in a debate that is expected to focus heavily on the future of Iraq and more broadly the war on terror.
The Bush campaign launched a new ad yesterday accusing "Kerry and congressional liberals" of "putting our protection at risk."
"Strength builds peace. Weakness invites those who do us harm," the ad says, a suggestion that Kerry would be a weak leader in wartime and a country headed by him would be vulnerable to terrorist attacks.
The ad accuses Kerry of "refusing to support our troops in combat" and trying to severely slash intelligence budgets and eliminate military weapons after the first attack on the World Trade Center.
Throughout the campaign, Bush and especially Cheney have ridiculed Kerry for changing positions on the war in Iraq and presenting a confusing and distorted picture of the future of that country.
But in his 1992 remarks in Seattle, Cheney foreshadowed a future in Iraq that is remarkably close to conditions found there today, suggesting that it would be difficult to bring the country's various political factions together and that U.S. troops would be vulnerable to insurrection and guerrilla attacks.
"Now what kind of government are you going to establish? Is it going to be a Kurdish government, or a Shi'ia government, or a Sunni government, or maybe a government based on the old Baathist Party, or some mixture thereof? You will have, I think by that time, lost the support of the Arab coalition that was so crucial to our operations over there," he said.
The end result, Cheney said in 1992, would be a messy, dangerous situation requiring a long-term presence by U.S. forces.
"I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today, we'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home," Cheney said, 18 months after the war ended.
Cheney changed his view on Iraq
He said in '92 Saddam not worth U.S. casualties
By CHARLES POPE
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT
WASHINGTON -- In an assessment that differs sharply with his view today, Dick Cheney more than a decade ago defended the decision to leave Saddam Hussein in power after the first Gulf War, telling a Seattle audience that capturing Saddam wouldn't be worth additional U.S. casualties or the risk of getting "bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."
Cheney, who was secretary of defense at the time, made the observations answering audience questions after a speech to the Discovery Institute in August 1992, nearly 18 months after U.S. forces routed the Iraqi army and liberated Kuwait.
President George H.W. Bush was criticized for pulling out before U.S. forces could storm Baghdad, allowing Saddam to remain in power and eventually setting the stage for the invasion of Iraq ordered by his son, President George W. Bush, in March 2003.
The comments Cheney made more than a decade ago in a little-publicized appearance have acquired new relevance as he and Bush run for a second term. A central theme of their campaign has been their unflinching, unchanging approach toward Iraq and the shifting positions offered by Democratic nominee John Kerry.
A transcript of the 1992 appearance was tracked down by P-I columnist Joel Connelly, as reported in today's In the Northwest column.
"And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth?" Cheney said then in response to a question.
"And the answer is not very damned many. So 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."
About 146 Americans were killed in the Gulf War. More than 1,000 U.S. soldiers have died in the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath.
Going to Baghdad, Cheney said in 1992, would require a much different approach militarily than fighting in the open desert outside the capital, a type of warfare that U.S. troops were not familiar, or comfortable fighting.
"All of a sudden you've got a battle you're fighting in a major built-up city, a lot of civilians are around, significant limitations on our ability to use our most effective technologies and techniques," Cheney said.
"Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq."
Last week, Cheney attacked Kerry for his alleged inconsistencies. "Senator Kerry ... said that under his leadership, more of America's friends would speak with one voice on Iraq. That seems a little odd coming from a guy who doesn't speak with one voice himself. By his repeated efforts to recast and redefine the war on terror and our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, Senator Kerry has given every indication that he lacks the resolve, the determination and the conviction to prevail in the conflict we face."
Cheney's office did not respond to requests for comment about his 1992 statements, nor did the White House. The Bush-Cheney re-election campaign, also asked about the 1992 statements, did not respond.
Despite his reservations 12 years ago, Cheney was one of this administration's vocal and unrelenting supporters of invading Iraq. The decision was based on Saddam's reported development of nuclear, biological and other weapons of mass destruction that Bush and Cheney said posed a direct and imminent threat to the United States.
No weapons, however, have been found.
That debate will intensify tomorrow when Bush and Kerry square off in a debate that is expected to focus heavily on the future of Iraq and more broadly the war on terror.
The Bush campaign launched a new ad yesterday accusing "Kerry and congressional liberals" of "putting our protection at risk."
"Strength builds peace. Weakness invites those who do us harm," the ad says, a suggestion that Kerry would be a weak leader in wartime and a country headed by him would be vulnerable to terrorist attacks.
The ad accuses Kerry of "refusing to support our troops in combat" and trying to severely slash intelligence budgets and eliminate military weapons after the first attack on the World Trade Center.
Throughout the campaign, Bush and especially Cheney have ridiculed Kerry for changing positions on the war in Iraq and presenting a confusing and distorted picture of the future of that country.
But in his 1992 remarks in Seattle, Cheney foreshadowed a future in Iraq that is remarkably close to conditions found there today, suggesting that it would be difficult to bring the country's various political factions together and that U.S. troops would be vulnerable to insurrection and guerrilla attacks.
"Now what kind of government are you going to establish? Is it going to be a Kurdish government, or a Shi'ia government, or a Sunni government, or maybe a government based on the old Baathist Party, or some mixture thereof? You will have, I think by that time, lost the support of the Arab coalition that was so crucial to our operations over there," he said.
The end result, Cheney said in 1992, would be a messy, dangerous situation requiring a long-term presence by U.S. forces.
"I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today, we'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home," Cheney said, 18 months after the war ended.