This is (IMO) a pretty stunning admissionand is the first move toward making a virtually existential justification for the war disconnected from even the pretext of WMD evidence. Why is Cheney doing this now vs the “well we thought there were weapons” Kabuki dance that’s been the Administration party line for so long?
Well, what is there to lose, these days?
At the time I was surprised they bothered to add in the WMD stuff. If it was true, that was all well and good, but I never believed that was their intent nor that they needed to add it on.
That liberals felt it to be a massive issue really was a poor choice on their part since frankly at least half the country didn’t care whether there was or wasn’t WMD in Iraq. And while they were railing on about the lack of WMD they weren’t properly taking the Bush administration to task for the real issue, which was the complete bungling of everything on every consecutive step on the path. Firing the Iraqi army should have been the call when Kerry was making his run, not “Show me the WMD!”
Cheney bringing this out now is meaningless, but it was to begin with. I suspect he’s only doing it as a neener neener gesture to all the libruls.
Meaningless? I disagree. By dispensing with the WMD fig leaf the only answer left to the “Why?” of the invasion is effectively “Because we wanted to, and because we could” . That’s raw cynicism and something even more toxic that I can’t put my finger on.
Because oil is a financial concern, we were in the area, we couldn’t find Osama and there was this other olive-skinned dude over there who we could take down instead, daddy-o had wimped out, and hey the guy’s a genocidal maniac.
And what’s wrong with cynicism? “Oh no, he’s a cynic! Tar and feather! Tar and feather!” :dubious: Like I said, at least half the nation are cynics. Appeal to logic not optimism to make your points and you’ll fare better.
Just yesterday I happened on an old Bloom County strip where as an indication of Opus’s having reached middle age he goes to register Republican saying, “We shouldn’t be the world’s police!” Have Democrats stopped being the party of global policing?
He is admitting to the lies now that it does not matter: “We lied when we said there were WMD, we lied when we said we would not invade if Saddam met our conditions, we lied”. Yes, it is not news. Intelligent people everywhere knew they were lying and were saying so. Only the fools and the fanatics fell for the lies.
So, if not the WMD, what is now the rationale advanced to justify the war in Iraq? (I’d like to know if I guessed right, assuming they’re now giving the true reason, rather than just another lie).
So we decided to kill them for their own good ? We had to destroy Iraq in order to save it, hmmm ?
Because “cynic” is overly polite. “Predator” or “monster” would be more accurate in this matter. What else should people who kill tens of thousands for oil and malice be called ? Not to mention the torture and general destruction.
Attacking Iraq was stupid; if logic was going to work we wouldn’t have attacked at all.
Hard to be that when America is more interested in being the world’s criminal than the world’s policeman.
Loathe as I am to be a wet blanket, I do not in fact see this admission in the link.
Nor do I.
In the link there is a video from MSNBC where Cheney disagrees with: “if the intelligence had been correct, we probably would not have gone to war”.
When I saw that originally, I was going to post something at the SDMB about it. But when I looked at the actual transcript, I decided there’s much less to see here than the headlines claim.
Cheney was asked “You probably saw Karl Rove last week said that if the intelligence had been correct we probably would not have gone to war.”
Here was his response:
So he’s saying that if the intelligence had been correct, it would still have provided us a reason to invade Iraq. We were wrong about the stockpiles, he says, but what really was there was still reason enough. So he disagrees with Rove. Rove said with correct intelligence, we wouldn’t have gone in, while Cheney says that correct intelligence would have led us into Iraq.
I can’t speak to the factual claims he makes in his response. But his point doesn’t seem, in itself, to be as objectionable as the headlines make it out to be. He isn’t saying we would have gone in no matter what the evidence said. He’s saying that the actual facts, independent of our Intelligence breakdown, were in fact such as to have justified invasion if we had gotten it right.
It’s a lame thing to say, but not as outragious as people are thinking.
-FrL-
Just to parrot a few others, maybe you should go back and read the linked article as well as the actual question asked and answered by Cheney, then come back with a new and more accurate OP. Heck, even adding the slightest bit of accuracy in the OP would be an improvement.
Intelligence about the ‘stock piles’, not about WMD in general. He still thinks we should have gone in becuase they had to capability to quickly establish an arms program, had all the people, resources, technology necessary.
Basically the same situation as with Iran.
But, without WMD, and without any connection between Hussein and 9/11, and without any real public consensus in support of the PNAC agenda to make America the world’s sole hegemon and policeman for the indefinite future, the only conceivable reason to invade was to get control of Iraq’s oil. They couldn’t very well sell the war to the American people based on that.
This administration’s credibility is so low, in my opinion, that I don’t think he’s admitting anything at all. I think he’s saying this not because it has any connection to the truth, but because of the impression it will leave us with.
There are basically three messages that someone can deliver after a catastrophe like this:
- Cover your ass. (“There was a catastrophe, and it was someone else’s fault.”)
- Fall on your sword. (“There was a catastrophe, and it was my fault.”)
- Everything is fine. (“What catastrophe?”)
Bush is going with option 1; that the intelligence came to the wrong conclusions and everyone believed it. Chaney’s is a mix of 2 and 3. He’s out of politics anyway, so he’s trying to preserve as much credibility as he can for those neoconservatives who remain. He’s saying that the idea of the invasion is still sound, and therefore the errors of the intelligence community are irrelevant.
A most cautionary experience and lesson, then!
Toxic is a good word for it.
Unfortunately, some still do “buy it”, and others think it’s OK, just so long as we are the agressors instead of anyone else.
Am I mistaken, or has the thread title changed?
Regards,
Shodan
I think that the “[per Chris Matthews]” part is new.