# Cheney's defense of Iraq Policy - successful or desperate? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 11, 2003, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheneys-defense-of-iraq-policy-successful-or-desperate/206862 "2003-10-11T17:22:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![AZCowboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/97f17d/32.png) [@AZCowboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AZCowboy)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2003, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheneys-defense-of-iraq-policy-successful-or-desperate/206862/1 "2003-10-11T17:22:28Z")
Vice President Dick Cheney addressed the Heritage Foundation on Friday October 10th. A significant portion of his speech addressed the administration’s policy on Iraq specifically, but also the _Bush Doctrine_ generally ([Transcript](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8205-2003Oct10.html)). The Washington Post [article](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7648-2003Oct10.html) described the speech as a “blistering rebuttal” to critics of the administration’s foreign policy. Was it, or was it simply more of the same spin that failed to address the core objections of the critics? As expected, like any political speech, it was a one sided representation of the issues. That’s understandable. But did it refute the substance of the criticism aimed at the current administration? I suggest that it did not, and I will lay out a few of the reasons I think that it failed to do anything besides making the administration look desperate. > [@](#): > > _Dick Cheney [said](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8205-2003Oct10.html):_ > Iraq has become the central front in the war on terror. It was crucial that we enforce the U.N. Security Council resolutions. Now, having liberated that country, it is crucial that we keep our word to the Iraqi people, helping them to build a secure country and a democratic government. And we will do so. Interesting choice of words to lead off this particular address. Consistent with a core criticism of this adminitration, cheney continues conflagrate Iraq and terrorism. Iraq is guilty of terrorism through guilt by association - not because those associations are clearly established, but because the administration continues to associate them with every available opportunity. Second, Cheney suggests here the crucial importance of enforcing UNSC resolutions. That’s all good and fine, but as you will see, he contradicts the assertion with later statements. Stay tuned. And finally, how many Iraqi’s feel liberated? How many feel conquered? > [@](#): > > _Dick Cheney [said](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8205-2003Oct10.html):_ > Our mission in Iraq is a great undertaking and part of a larger mission that the United States accepted now more than two years ago. September 11th, 2001 changed everything for this country. Draw your own conclusions. That’s what he’s hoping you will do. > [@](#): > > _Dick Cheney [said](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8205-2003Oct10.html):_ > From the training manuals we found in the caves of Afghanistan to the interrogations of terrorists that we capture, we have learned of their ambitions to develop or acquire chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. So **that’s** where our CBW intelligence came from! > [@](#): > > _Dick Cheney [said](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8205-2003Oct10.html):_ > Of those known to be directly involved in organizing the attacks of 9/11, most are now in custody or confirmed dead. With at least one notable exception… > [@](#): > > _Dick Cheney [said](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8205-2003Oct10.html):_ > And we are applying the Bush doctrine: Any person or government that supports, protects or harbors terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent and will be held to account. But the criticism isn’t so much this stated policy, it is the unequal application of the term “terrorists” that is used so selectively. > [@](#): > > _Dick Cheney [said](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8205-2003Oct10.html):_ > Our work there continues, confronting Taliban and Al Qaida remnants, training a new Afghan army and providing security as the new government takes shape. Under President Karzai’s leadership, and with the help of our coalition, the Afghan people are building a decent and just society, a nation fully joined in the war on terror. Afghanistan is still in shambles, and hardly any attention or resources are being devoted to rebuilding the country. The above statement could barely be applied to Kabul, much less the whole country. > [@](#): > > _Dick Cheney [said](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8205-2003Oct10.html):_ > In Iraq, we took another essential step in the war on terror. The United States and our allies rid the Iraqi people of a murderous dictator and rid the world of a menace to our future peace and security. Murderous dictator, sure. Does that fall into the definition of terrorist? And where is the evidence that Saddam Hussein represented a “menace to **our** future peace and security”? (emphasis added) > [@](#): > > _Dick Cheney [said](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8205-2003Oct10.html):_ > Saddam had a lengthy history of reckless and sudden aggression. He cultivated ties to terror, hosting the Abu Nidal organization, supporting terrorists, making payments to the families of suicide bombers in Israel. He also had an established relationship with Al Qaida, providing training to Al Qaida members in the areas of poisons, gases, making conventional bombs. Ah, to the heart of the matter. Did Saddam cultivate ties to terror? Did Saddam host Abu Nidal any more than the US hosted Zacarias Moussoui (or any of the other 9/11 hijackers)? Are families of suicide bombers terrorists themselves? Did Saddam establish relationships with Al Qaida? While I agree that some evidence supports each assertion, tying it neatly altogether is tenuous at best. But more importantly, if these are the criteria for war, we attacked the wrong country. The evidence against Saudi Arabia is much more daming on these same points. > [@](#): > > _Dick Cheney [said](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8205-2003Oct10.html):_ > Saddam built, possessed and used weapons of mass destruction. No doubt, at least prior to the 1991 Gulf War. Since 9/11, we have no evidence to support these assertions. > [@](#): > > _Dick Cheney [said](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8205-2003Oct10.html):_ > Twelve years of diplomacy, more than a dozen Security Council resolutions, hundreds of U.N. weapons inspectors, thousands of flights to enforce the no-fly zones and even strikes and against military targets in Iraq, all of these measures were tried to compel Saddam Hussein’s compliance with the terms of the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire. All of these measured failed. Absolutely false. Zero evidence suggests that Iraq failed to comply with the terms of the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire (which only included the condition that they withdraw from Kuwait, and literally, cease firing). > [@](#): > > _Dick Cheney [said](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8205-2003Oct10.html):_ > Last October, the United States Congress voted overwhelming to authorize the use of force in Iraq. Absolutely false. Last October, the US Congress authorized the President to work with the UNSC to enforce UNSC resolutions, and to take every step necessary to protect the national security interests of the US. While that authorization could be interpreted to authorize the use of force, it could only be interpreted in that manner if the US’ national security was threatened - something the administration has asserted, but that critics continue to question. > [@](#): > > _Dick Cheney [said](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8205-2003Oct10.html):_ > Last November, the U.N. Security Council passed a unanimous resolution finding Iraq in material breach of its obligations and vowing serious consequences in the event Saddam Hussein did not fully and immediately comply. When Saddam Hussein failed even then to comply, our coalition acted to deliver those serious consequences. Absolutely correct, but entirely misleading. “Serious consequences”, in UNSC parlance, is not an authorization to use force. And the use of force by “our coalition” was in direct violation of the UN Charter and the wishes of the UNSC. > [@](#): > > _Dick Cheney [said](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8205-2003Oct10.html):_ > We could not accept the grave danger of Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies turning weapons of mass destruction against us or our friends and allies. Such “grave dangers” are totally unsubstantiated. > [@](#): > > _Dick Cheney [said](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8205-2003Oct10.html):_ > And gradually, we are learning the details of his hidden weapons program. This work is being carried out under the direction of Dr. David Kay, a respected scientist and former U.N. inspector, who is leading the weapons search in Iraq. Shifting the burden of proof, which used to be “grave danger” posed by WoMD, to one of “weapons programs”. Cheney goes on an on about Kay’s report, but leaves a very misleading impression of the net result of the report - not a single WoMD found. Further, a clear statement that weapons inspections under the UN appear to have been entirely successful in hampering Saddam’s CBW programs. Cheney goes through a litany of details form the Kay report, implying a preponderance of evidence. However, he fails to acknowledge, bottom line, that the Kay report exonerates the UNSC and France of the positions they took. And it fails to show how Iraq posed an imminent threat to the national security of the US. > [@](#): > > _Dick Cheney [said](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8205-2003Oct10.html):_ > Now, ladies and gentlemen, each and every one of these findings confirms a material breach by the former Iraqi regime of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441. Taken together, they constitute a massive breach of that unanimously passed resolution and provide a compelling case for the use of force against Saddam Hussein. What a load of hooey. The first sentence is a factual error. Even if the programs and activities were banned by the UNSC (of which some are in doubt, see the Post story), Iraq would only have been in material breach if they refused to abandon the programs and destroy any violations. They do not constitute a compelling case for the use of force, much less a direct violation of the UN charter (to use force without UNSC authorization and short of imminent threat to national security). > [@](#): > > _Dick Cheney [said](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8205-2003Oct10.html):_ > Even as more evidence is found of Saddam’s weapons programs, critics of our action in Iraq continue to voice other objections. And the arguments they make are helping to frame the most important debate of the post-9/11 era. Some claim we should not have acted because the threat from Saddam Hussein was not imminent. Yet, as the president has said, ``Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intention, politely putting us on notice before they strike?’’ Gee, when haven’t they? Even earlier in this speech, Cheney acknowledged that Osama Bin Laden declared war on the US (although he failed to note that the declaration preceeded 9/11). > [@](#): > > _Dick Cheney [said](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8205-2003Oct10.html):_ > I would remind the critics of the fundamental case the president has made since September 11th. Terrorist enemies of our country hope to strike us with the most lethal weapons known to man and it would be reckless in the extreme to rule out action and save our worries until the day they strike. Strawman. No one has suggested that the US must wait until the terrorists strike. But we should be confident the threat even exists, otherwise, we are just international bullies. > [@](#): > > _Dick Cheney [said](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8205-2003Oct10.html):_ > Another criticism we hear is that the United States, when its security is threatened, may not act without unanimous international consent. Another strawman. Please show me where any critic has suggested that the US should not act unilaterally when its security is threatened. > [@](#): > > _Dick Cheney [said](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8205-2003Oct10.html):_ > This is the debate before the American people and it is of more than academic interest. It comes down to a choice between action that assures our security and inaction that allows dangers to grow. False dilemma. No one is espousing inaction. The arguments are over which actions to take. OK. I’ll stop here, even though he continues to misrepresent the positions of the critics in order to support the administration’s activities. So I ask: Was his speech a compelling defense, or an act of desperation, continuing the same course that the critics assail? What do you think? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2003, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheneys-defense-of-iraq-policy-successful-or-desperate/206862/2 "2003-10-11T17:40:20Z")
The Heritage Foundation? Any chance he could have found a more sympathetic venue anywhere, outside of a Cheney family reunion? Are they desperate? Not yet. Nobody really knows how far the poll numbers will drop. There is a hard core of immovable Bushiviks in this country, trouble is, they don’t know how many. My wild-ass-guess is about 33%, based on no reliable evidence whatsoever. You could likely identify such a person by a positive response to the question “Is it disloyal and/or unpatriotic to criticize the Commander in Chief in times of war?” If this latest round of propaganda blitz doesn’t do the job, and the numbers keep drooping, they may very well get desperate. How will we know? When they shift thier emphasis from justifying the war to waving the bloody shirt and squeeling in porcine rage about the disloyalty of thier critics, how any “real American” would back them up without question. Then you’ll know. ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2003, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheneys-defense-of-iraq-policy-successful-or-desperate/206862/3 "2003-10-12T18:07:49Z")
Woke up yesterday morning, flipped on the TV, and through the sleep haze heard that Cheney was blaming Clinton for not stopping Saddam’s WMD program (really? So where the hell are they?) and not doing anything about his (non-existent) ties to terrorists. Laughed uproariously. The man does not inhabit Planet Earth. Nor does the rest of this Administration. ---
**Author:** ![London\_Calling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2003, 9:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheneys-defense-of-iraq-policy-successful-or-desperate/206862/4 "2003-10-13T09:54:00Z")
3,595 words in that speech (approx), not one of which was ‘oil’. I’d guess that’s about all I need to know about his “blistering rebuttal” and the obedient Washington Post. ---
**Author:** ![Boo\_Boo\_Foo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@Boo\_Boo\_Foo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boo_Boo_Foo)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2003, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheneys-defense-of-iraq-policy-successful-or-desperate/206862/5 "2003-10-13T13:07:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > \*\*If this latest round of propaganda blitz doesn’t do the job, and the numbers keep drooping, they may very well get desperate. How will we know? When they shift thier emphasis from justifying the war to waving the bloody shirt and squeeling in porcine rage about the disloyalty of thier critics, how any “real American” would back them up without question. > > Then you’ll know. \*\* One of your better posts there Monsieur Luci. Witty and yet scathing concurrently. Prescient and yet cynical. Kudos.