Cheney the flip-flopper?

punchdrunk · 4th October 2004, 12:46 PM

an article from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer :

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.

fishbob · 4th October 2004, 02:00 PM

Hmmm - Cheney as a yes-man for Bush 1 and Bush 2. Of course this characterization throws a monkey-wrench at my 'Cheney, the evil puppeteer behind GW Bush' theory.

Maybe Cheney figured out a way to profit from Iraq in the intervening 12 years.

I find nothing admirable about the man. Except that his 1992 analysis was remarkably well thought out for 2004.

varwoche · 4th October 2004, 02:33 PM

I'm curious to see if Edwards cites this statement Tues eve.

pgwenthold · 4th October 2004, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by varwoche
I'm curious to see if Edwards cites this statement Tues eve.

I'd love to see someone in Kerry/Edwards come out and attack on this one. As soon as anything is mentioned about "changing positions" they just need to come out and say "We're tired of hearing accusations of having changing positions from Bush/Cheney, who have demonstrated time and again that they will change when the wind blows." Then use a couple of examples, including Bush's "the war on terror is winable, not winable, winable" stuff, his ever changing gay marriage opinion, and Cheney's view on what to do about Iraq. Close it up with something like, "We recognize that opinions can change, especially as years pass. If our positions have changed, we are not alone in that regard, as our opponents views have been just as maleable. Lets get back to issues."

Subsequent attacks based on flip-flops are just going to bring home the point that they don't have anything else to say, and are only going to bring down more critical evaluation upon themselves. If it's in a debate, and I'm Kerry/Edwards, I laugh it off with "There you go again..." (oh wait, that's Ronnie)

Tex · 4th October 2004, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fishbob
Hmmm - Cheney as a yes-man for Bush 1 and Bush 2. Of course this characterization throws a monkey-wrench at my 'Cheney, the evil puppeteer behind GW Bush' theory.

Maybe Cheney figured out a way to profit from Iraq in the intervening 12 years.

I find nothing admirable about the man. Except that his 1992 analysis was remarkably well thought out for 2004.

Well, he didn't join up with Halliburton until 1995.

pgwenthold · 4th October 2004, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tex
Well, he didn't join up with Halliburton until 1995.

Seriously?

That's funny.

Tex · 4th October 2004, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Seriously?

That's funny.

Yep. Here's a biographical timeline for anyone who's interested.

dsm · 4th October 2004, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fishbob
Hmmm - Cheney as a yes-man for Bush 1 and Bush 2. Of course this characterization throws a monkey-wrench at my 'Cheney, the evil puppeteer behind GW Bush' theory.

Not really. He might've been the puppeteer behind both Bush presidencies. He just might've flip-flopped in the intervening years.

Quote:

Maybe Cheney figured out a way to profit from Iraq in the intervening 12 years.

Can you say, "Halliburton"?

Quote:

I find nothing admirable about the man. Except that his 1992 analysis was remarkably well thought out for 2004.

The funny thing is I seem to remember these statements at that time, so I'm perplexed why they were not brought out sooner...

Dorian Gray · 4th October 2004, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Except that his 1992 analysis was remarkably well thought out for 2004.

That's the "wrong time" part of Kerry's stump.

SezMe · 5th October 2004, 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rhoadp
an article from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer :

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.

Cheney spoke to the DISCOVERY INSTITUTE!! Bush gets his science policy from Jesus and Cheney from Bruce Chapman. No hope.

AWPrime · 5th October 2004, 12:21 AM

Cheney = expendable bulletproof vest for bush

Rove = the real puppeteer

pgwenthold · 5th October 2004, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AWPrime
Cheney = expendable bulletproof vest for bush

Rove = the real puppeteer

What ever happened to Colin Powell? We haven't heard a peep from him since I don't know when.

AWPrime · 5th October 2004, 01:24 PM

OOoooo the other puppet.

peptoabysmal · 5th October 2004, 11:03 PM

It seemed like a good idea at the time. I wonder if they could have forseen the next 12 years of Saddam laughing at them and the UN, if they would have made a different decision. Personally, I think the decision to not take out Saddam at the timeof Gulf War I cost Bush senior the re-election, not the economy.

Patrick · 6th October 2004, 12:37 AM

This is a stupid charge. The difference between 1992 and 2004 is like night and day. There's a time dimension to everything.

gnome · 6th October 2004, 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Patrick
This is a stupid charge. The difference between 1992 and 2004 is like night and day. There's a time dimension to everything.

Mind if I use that the next time someone complains about a change of opinion in Kerry over a period of decades?

Crossbow · 6th October 2004, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AWPrime
Cheney = expendable bulletproof vest for bush

Rove = the real puppeteer

I know that Rove is very important, but after seeing the VP debate last night, I think that Cheney is the puppeteer.

Did anyone else notice how Cheney never really mentioned Bush at all? I was rather reminded of the Wizard of Oz:

PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTIANS!

4th October 2004, 12:46 PM	#1
punchdrunk Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 1,003	Cheney the flip-flopper? an article from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer : 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.

4th October 2004, 02:00 PM	#2
fishbob Seasonally Disaffected Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Chilly Undieville Posts: 5,666	Hmmm - Cheney as a yes-man for Bush 1 and Bush 2. Of course this characterization throws a monkey-wrench at my 'Cheney, the evil puppeteer behind GW Bush' theory. Maybe Cheney figured out a way to profit from Iraq in the intervening 12 years. I find nothing admirable about the man. Except that his 1992 analysis was remarkably well thought out for 2004.
	__________________ When you believe in things you don't understand, then you suffer . . . " - Stevie Wonder "Stupidity - a callow indifference to facts or data" - Stuart Firestein -neuroscientist. I hate bigots.

4th October 2004, 02:33 PM	#3
varwoche Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Puget Sound Posts: 7,230	I'm curious to see if Edwards cites this statement Tues eve.
	__________________ To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot (and/or Fat Jack)

4th October 2004, 03:21 PM	#4
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 12,067	Quote: Originally posted by varwoche I'm curious to see if Edwards cites this statement Tues eve. I'd love to see someone in Kerry/Edwards come out and attack on this one. As soon as anything is mentioned about "changing positions" they just need to come out and say "We're tired of hearing accusations of having changing positions from Bush/Cheney, who have demonstrated time and again that they will change when the wind blows." Then use a couple of examples, including Bush's "the war on terror is winable, not winable, winable" stuff, his ever changing gay marriage opinion, and Cheney's view on what to do about Iraq. Close it up with something like, "We recognize that opinions can change, especially as years pass. If our positions have changed, we are not alone in that regard, as our opponents views have been just as maleable. Lets get back to issues." Subsequent attacks based on flip-flops are just going to bring home the point that they don't have anything else to say, and are only going to bring down more critical evaluation upon themselves. If it's in a debate, and I'm Kerry/Edwards, I laugh it off with "There you go again..." (oh wait, that's Ronnie)
	__________________ "Baseball is a philosophy. The primordial ooze that once ruled our world has been captured in perpetual motion. Baseball is the moment. Its ever changing patterns are hypnotizing yet invigorating. Baseball is an art form. Classic and at the same time...progressive. Baseball is pre-historic and post-modern. Baseball is here to stay." (Stolen from the side of a lava lamp box, and modified slightly)

4th October 2004, 03:32 PM	#5
Tex Scholar Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 100	Quote: Originally posted by fishbob Hmmm - Cheney as a yes-man for Bush 1 and Bush 2. Of course this characterization throws a monkey-wrench at my 'Cheney, the evil puppeteer behind GW Bush' theory. Maybe Cheney figured out a way to profit from Iraq in the intervening 12 years. I find nothing admirable about the man. Except that his 1992 analysis was remarkably well thought out for 2004. Well, he didn't join up with Halliburton until 1995.
Tex Scholar Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 100

4th October 2004, 03:41 PM	#6
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 12,067	Quote: Originally posted by Tex Well, he didn't join up with Halliburton until 1995. Seriously? That's funny.
	__________________ "Baseball is a philosophy. The primordial ooze that once ruled our world has been captured in perpetual motion. Baseball is the moment. Its ever changing patterns are hypnotizing yet invigorating. Baseball is an art form. Classic and at the same time...progressive. Baseball is pre-historic and post-modern. Baseball is here to stay." (Stolen from the side of a lava lamp box, and modified slightly)

4th October 2004, 03:45 PM	#7
Tex Scholar Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 100	Quote: Originally posted by pgwenthold Seriously? That's funny. Yep. Here's a biographical timeline for anyone who's interested.
Tex Scholar Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 100

4th October 2004, 05:14 PM	#8
dsm Muse Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Silicon Valley Posts: 970	Quote: Originally posted by fishbob Hmmm - Cheney as a yes-man for Bush 1 and Bush 2. Of course this characterization throws a monkey-wrench at my 'Cheney, the evil puppeteer behind GW Bush' theory. Not really. He might've been the puppeteer behind both Bush presidencies. He just might've flip-flopped in the intervening years. Quote: Maybe Cheney figured out a way to profit from Iraq in the intervening 12 years. Can you say, "Halliburton"? Quote: I find nothing admirable about the man. Except that his 1992 analysis was remarkably well thought out for 2004. The funny thing is I seem to remember these statements at that time, so I'm perplexed why they were not brought out sooner...
	__________________ DSM

4th October 2004, 09:45 PM	#9
Dorian Gray Hypocrisy Detector Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Dayton, Ohio Posts: 20,195	Quote: Except that his 1992 analysis was remarkably well thought out for 2004. That's the "wrong time" part of Kerry's stump.
	__________________ "A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka "Rational arguments don't work on religious people. If they did, there wouldn't be any religious people." - House Additionally to Carlin being funnier than Izzard, I think Dorian is funnier than the Marquis. - Ron Tomkins

5th October 2004, 12:04 AM	#10
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 16,369	Re: Cheney the flip-flopper? Quote: Originally posted by rhoadp an article from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer : 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. Cheney spoke to the DISCOVERY INSTITUTE!! Bush gets his science policy from Jesus and Cheney from Bruce Chapman. No hope.

5th October 2004, 12:21 AM	#11
AWPrime Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,929	Cheney = expendable bulletproof vest for bush Rove = the real puppeteer
AWPrime Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,929	__________________ Sir Arthur C. Clarke - "Any sufficiently advanced technology, to the uninformed observer, is indistinguishable from magic." c4ts - "Jesus loves the little children, Nice and fat and honey roasted..." Lancastic = Demonstrative of outstanding personal effort in the exposing of frauds. Rob Lister - "The enemy of my enemy probably tastes yummy. "

5th October 2004, 01:16 PM	#12
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 12,067	Quote: Originally posted by AWPrime Cheney = expendable bulletproof vest for bush Rove = the real puppeteer What ever happened to Colin Powell? We haven't heard a peep from him since I don't know when.
	__________________ "Baseball is a philosophy. The primordial ooze that once ruled our world has been captured in perpetual motion. Baseball is the moment. Its ever changing patterns are hypnotizing yet invigorating. Baseball is an art form. Classic and at the same time...progressive. Baseball is pre-historic and post-modern. Baseball is here to stay." (Stolen from the side of a lava lamp box, and modified slightly)

5th October 2004, 01:24 PM	#13
AWPrime Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,929	OOoooo the other puppet.
AWPrime Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,929	__________________ Sir Arthur C. Clarke - "Any sufficiently advanced technology, to the uninformed observer, is indistinguishable from magic." c4ts - "Jesus loves the little children, Nice and fat and honey roasted..." Lancastic = Demonstrative of outstanding personal effort in the exposing of frauds. Rob Lister - "The enemy of my enemy probably tastes yummy. "

5th October 2004, 11:03 PM	#14
peptoabysmal Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 3,467	It seemed like a good idea at the time. I wonder if they could have forseen the next 12 years of Saddam laughing at them and the UN, if they would have made a different decision. Personally, I think the decision to not take out Saddam at the timeof Gulf War I cost Bush senior the re-election, not the economy.
	__________________ OBAMA: It's not that I want to punish your success; I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you that they've got a chance to success, too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.

6th October 2004, 12:37 AM	#15
Patrick Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 1,224	This is a stupid charge. The difference between 1992 and 2004 is like night and day. There's a time dimension to everything.
Patrick Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 1,224

6th October 2004, 05:18 AM	#16
gnome Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,869	Quote: Originally posted by Patrick *This is a stupid charge. The difference between 1992 and 2004 is like night and day. There's a time dimension* to everything.** Mind if I use that the next time someone complains about a change of opinion in Kerry over a period of decades?
gnome Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,869	__________________

6th October 2004, 06:17 PM	#17
Crossbow Seeking Honesty and Sanity Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 6,293	Quote: Originally posted by AWPrime Cheney = expendable bulletproof vest for bush Rove = the real puppeteer I know that Rove is very important, but after seeing the VP debate last night, I think that Cheney is the puppeteer. Did anyone else notice how Cheney never really mentioned Bush at all? I was rather reminded of the Wizard of Oz: PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTIANS!
	__________________ A man's best friend is his dogma.