An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Cheney in 1994: Invading Iraq Would Create “Quagmire”
Senator Kerry’s flip flopping resulted in at least one casualty: his chances of becoming president.
How many casualties will ultimately result from Dick Cheney’s flip flopping?
14 Responses to “Cheney in 1994: Invading Iraq Would Create “Quagmire””
Thanks for the link, Nick. Pretty stunning.
…the lack of comments on here are disturbing.
I think the lack of discussion in general over this story is disturbing. The Beauchamp incident generating discussion throughout the blogosphere and merited four or five posts here at TMV, and yet TMV has been largely silent on what has arguably been the biggest political flip flop of our time.
I’m disturbed by how sane, comprehensive analysis fell away to sound bites (and by all accounts, it wasn’t just publicly, but behind the scenes as well) when Cheney got in a position of power.
I saw this at another blog yesterday – It is absolutely damning to Cheney, the “neocon” cabal, and all their punk-a** cheerleaders on the right.
Will the mental midgets at Powerline, Hot Air, PJM, ad nauseum even be able to honestly address such heresy by Dark Lord Cheney?
Nah.
Then And Now: Dick Cheney Edition…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I
In 2004 Kerry lost in large part because the media and his right wing attackers harped on the “fli-flopper” meme. What do you call it when the Iraq occupation war’s head cheerleader star…
I just don’t know what we’re supposed to say. I didn’t know that it wasn’t already common knowledge that Cheney reversed his position on this. Even at the time, although it wasn’t discussed enough, there was some awareness that in 91 we didn’t take Bagdhad because of concern of the instability that would result.
I guess you could say that more than likely, Cheney didn’t really believe that at the time and was just giving political cover to Bush 41- because it does seem like he completely forgot this reasoning quickly afterward. So in that sense, yes, most likely this is a political flip flop. But I guess in my view, it was perfectly clear that a lot of people flip flopped as they began looking at the Neocon rationale for overthrowing Saddam and ‘planting seeds of a democracy in Iraq’ after 9/11 changed our worldview. A lot of people were looking for a new vision in foreign policy, and they turned to this one, for better or worse (obviously at this points it looks more like it was ‘for worse’).
Every argument made in 1994 applied in 2003. In spite of claims to the contrary there was no strong evidence supporting the majority of the claims made by the Bush Administration as to why we should invade Iraq.
But even if you concede that the concerns were legitimate then why, if Cheney recognized the threat of the splitting of Iraq along ethnic lines did they screw it up so badly when it came to every move that might have averted it?
Jim’s last question was actually where I was headed. It’s not particularly a big deal to me if someone changes their minds. Where I AM concerned is why, if it was painfully obvious, even to the biggest proponents of the war what the dangers were, why we ended up with a “stuff happens” attitude when these things became reality, as well as no significant planning for them.
I assume one possibility why a proponent of the war would not prepare in a meaningful way for these things is if they were being dishonest back in 1994 and never really believed them. I guess that would lower my opinion of Cheney, but his substantive actions are far more damning than possible flipflopping. I would rather a flipflopper in charge than someone who consistently values torture to gain information, listening to the phone calls of anyone who calls overseas as they please, and revoking habeas corpus rights even to American citizens accused of the wrong crime.
It’s a question of credibility.
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney got a lot of political mileage by accusing John Kerry of being a “flip-flopper.” Yet both Bush and Cheney also “flip flopped” with regards to Iraq in particular and foreign policy in general, and their “flip flop” was arguably bigger and more disastrous than Kerry’s.
So the “flip-flopper” accusation against Kerry was a bad argument, but now its suddenly a good argument when used against Cheney and/or the dreaded “neocons”?
Once again, I am mystified by how so many critics of the administration seem to want to emulate the very same tactics that they object to.
Perhaps the better solution for ALL situations is to address arguments on the merits of the arguments themselves rather than ad hominum criteria of ANY type.
Well said Jason. I would only add that few politicians are innocent of some kind of flip-flop during their careers and excoriating them for it reminds me of partisans complaining about partisanship.
Jason,
No, the “flip-flopper accusation against Kerry was appropriate. I accused Kerry of flip-flopper and pandering with regards to Iraq on numerous occasions:
nicrivera, March 12, 2005:
nicrivera, October 10, 2006:
I’m arguing that Dick Cheney and his supporters a bunch of hypocrites for arguing that Kerry was a “flip-flopper†on Iraq without acknowledging Cheney “flip-flopâ€, which was arguably bigger and more disastrous than Kerry’s.
And I am mystified by the fact that you’re mystified. I call things as I see them. I have accused numerous politicians on both sides of the aisle of changing their positions (Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, John Kerry, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Mitt Romney), and if I offend someone by simply stating the truth, that’s too bad. I hold both the Democrats and Republicans accountable for their actions, which is why I generally vote third party as opposed to the “lesser of two evils.â€
Calling a politician on the fact that he has changed his/her position on an issue without acknowledging that he/she has done so is not an ad hominem attack. It’s calling holding our politicians accountable, something that’s been sorely lacking these last six and a half years.
I can agree with a more nuanced version of what Nick is saying on accountability for ‘flip flops’. I think that if a candidate changes a position, he’s responsible for explaining why.
Excoriating politicians for changes in position is wrong because sometimes it really is appropriate to change course and we leave them no latitude to do so if we insist that they stubbornly refuse to alter policy positions based on changes in the available information, changes in conditions, etc.
But I do think Jason has a point too in that if you criticize one party or group of politicians for getting excessive mileage out of the flip flop meme, then you should take care not to do the same in criticizing politicians with whom you disagree. And I agree with Jason too that this is a general habit of some on the left; complain about ‘dirty tricks’ and ‘hyperbolic, divisive rhetoric’ from the right, but then excuse it from the left on the basis that the other side started it. You can’t have it both ways; either insist on taking the high road (which gives you the right to criticize your opponents when they don’t) or just acknowledge that politics is a dirty business and allow both sides to get down in the mud.
So, I agree with Jason’s general critique but disagree on applying that to Nick because I don’t think that’s a pattern from him.