Comments on: Invasion of the Cheney Snatchers

By: Fazsha

Fazsha — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 13:53:46 +0000

Cheney proves the old adage “Where you stand depends on where you sit.” People will disagree with you but respect you if your core positions don’t change. But if you argue one view as CEO of Halliburton, and it is to your company’s advantage, and then switch to argue the other view to ingratiate yourself to your party line, then people quickly realize you have no principles, and are merely arguing whatever serves you best on a personal level at that moment.

This is the number one reason people reject a leader; when he’s found to advocate ideas merely because they’re politically convenient. We need a leader who, by the age of 45 or so, only advocates his core principles, and never wavers.

By: The "Official" Politics thread. - Page 9 - Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums

Mon, 29 Oct 2007 13:08:40 +0000

[...] in 91. Cheney is even quoted as saying that it would be insane to remove Saddam back in 1991. Cheney advised against invading Iraq in 1994 And they call John Kerry a "flip-flopper" This is about the only time Cheney ever said [...]

By: Oh Great! Now What? » Blog Archive » Isn't video tape a bitch?

Oh Great! Now What? » Blog Archive » Isn't video tape a bitch? — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 07:25:10 +0000

[...] Isn’t video tape a bitch? Aug19 19 August 2007, mudslide @ 11:25 pm There you are, pretending to be all wise and thoughtful and then someone finds the videotape, and their you are arguing forcefully and intelligently for the exact opposite. You would think our dear Veep would get tired of this but once again, his “ultimate big lie” is outted. [Hat tip: Brink Lindsey [...]

By: Justin

Justin — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 19:45:36 +0000

Isn’t an obvious factor in the Iran change that Halliburton either wanted to or did trade with Iran? (I think I recall a stink a few years ago that they might have made illegal trades while Cheney was part of the company. I can’t remember if it was true). There’s no comparable vested interest in the case of Iraq, which makes it a more interesting about-face.

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 19:27:42 +0000

Mark:
“his defense of not occupying Iraq in 1991 was clearly to defend Bush 41 at the time.”

No, it was a clear, rational, fact based statement of how he perceived an occupation would go, and how it indeed went 12 years later. He at some point stopped believing it, or just stopped telling us. But it wasn’t a front then.

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 19:25:07 +0000

Christopher, I can appreciate your sentiments. Just remember that our fears about Saddam and Iraq were not validated.

By: Iran » Blog Archive » Invasion of the Cheney Snatchers

Iran » Blog Archive » Invasion of the Cheney Snatchers — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 18:56:08 +0000

[...] Unfortunately, Iran is sitting right in the middle of the area and the United States has declared unilateral economic sanctions against that country. As a result, American firms are prohibited from dealing with Iran and find themselves … …more [...]

By: Quote of the Day - Dick Cheney « The Good Democrat

Quote of the Day - Dick Cheney « The Good Democrat — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 18:07:21 +0000

[...] not let the delusions that were to come after 9/11 get in the way of sound thinking. Here he is in 1998 on sanctions on Iran: [O]ur sanctions policy oftentimes generates unanticipated consequences. It puts us in a position [...]

By: Marc Velletri

Marc Velletri — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:38:28 +0000

What do you mean “…1998 – when Iran’s nuclear ambitions were already well known”? Ahmadinejad wasn’t even elected yet. And where they are with centrifuges and enrichment today is like a different universe than in 1998.

Moreover, it seems pretty clear that however they felt in 1998 (and remember, they were still trying to counter Saddam’s Iraq) Saudi Arabia and the gulf states today are clearly agitated about Iran.

While Cheney’s change of opinion over occupation of Iraq is interesting, his arguments against sanctions when he was speaking as the CEO of a multinational and not as Defense Secretary/VP should be viewed in that context. And his defense of not occupying Iraq in 1991 was clearly to defend Bush 41 at the time.

By: Christopher Truss

Christopher Truss — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:13:19 +0000

Well it changed many of us. You may have forgotten but the US has not has such an attack on our soil since 1812. It changed many of us because we realized there is the will and there is a way for massive carnage within the US (smuggled nuclear weapons). And there was only one dictator in the world with both the tract record of foolish attacks and genocide AND the desire for nuclear weapons. As the santions were breaking down and we faced loss of control over a madman in a techno age of potentially transferable nuclear weapons from a state to terrorist groups, Iraq appeared to be the greatest long term threat to the world. Sorry it didn’t work out better but your reasons for supporting it are no less real for the subsequent failure. I appreciate Cheney and Bush getting rid of Saddam. Sorry.