Who Said This

Superman · 09-30-2004, 05:40 AM

As we all know, John Kerry is the world's biggest flip-flopper. Dubya, by contrast, will not leave any child behind, once he makes a promise. But if Kerry said these things, then his position would be consistent, which we know could not be the case. Hmmmmm......

Here they are. They outline the reasons we did not invade Iraq during the first Gulf War. I'll even give you a clue. This person was Secretary of Defense at the time.

"And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth?.........And the answer is not very damned many."

(as a point of reference, roughly 1000 American soldiers have died in Iraq since Dubya's invasion, whereas something like 146 American troops were killed in the liberation of Kuwait.)

(by the way, phrases like "not very damned many" are okay to use as long as you're a conservative christian)

"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 take over and govern Iraq."

"All of a sudden you've got a battle you're fighthing in a major built-up city, a lot of civilians around, significant limitations on our ability to use our most effective technologies and techniques."

"once we had rounded him (Saddam) up and gotten rid of his government, then the quesiton is what do you puyt in its place. You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq"

(now, this guy clearly understood the situation, but this last statement is not correct. Dubya is showing us that he does not feel the need to take responsibility for what's going on there. He's pretending that Iraq is already self-governed, or nearly so. But the people in the world who THINK are not optimistic about the legitimacy of the partial-elections planned for January. But I digress. There's more)

"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."

"I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today, and we'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home."

The author of these remarks was also concerned about our troops being vulnerable to insurrection and guerilla attacks. Seems to me this person knew his stuff. I'd guess he'll be voting for Bush, except that I know who said these things. Yep, the author of these remarks has flip-flopped, but in this instance it's not John Kerry. It's a guy who calls Kerry a flip-flopper. Isn't politics interesting? Who said these things?

lendaddy · 09-30-2004, 05:59 AM

That would be George H W Bush, over a decade ago I believe. Perhaps Powell.

VaSteve · 09-30-2004, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superman

Here they are. They outline the reasons we did not invade Iraq during the first Gulf War. I'll even give you a clue. This person was Secretary of Defense at the time.

Cheney.

Superman · 09-30-2004, 06:20 AM

Bingo. Dick Cheney. The same guy that smirks as he calls Kerry a flip-flopper. Is this a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

Discuss or spin, depending upon your degree of objectivity.

lendaddy · 09-30-2004, 06:33 AM

He should certainly be asked to explain the change. I imagine he already has. There are many factors which have changed in the last decade. If he can't explain it effectively then ya it's a flip flop.

lendaddy · 09-30-2004, 06:37 AM

Like I said before though Soupy, if one changes their position on something over time in the face of changing circumstances and/or pressure/advice from those around him (and can explain it) it is not a flipflop. If one tells two different groups two different stories in a matter of days or weeks, that my friend is a flipflop. Make sense?

dtw · 09-30-2004, 07:22 AM

And here I seemed to recall outrage and disbelief from many corners when Bush, Sr. didn't go into Baghdad and "finish the job".

Superman · 09-30-2004, 07:43 AM

What would be the best time to march on Bagdhad? Then? Or now? In other words, if Cheney's reservations made sense when our troops had world and Muslim support and were standing on the Iraqi/Kuwaiti border with engines running, then did they make less sense after we exited, and after Saddam had already been "defanged?" (here is where I want to hear about the Weapons of Mass Distraction, and an explanation of how that's not an embarrassment for both my country's intelligence community, and for its leader's careless decision-making methods)

techweenie · techweenie's Garage

Hmmm... how's this for a change:

We start a war because of "WMDs."

But there are no WMDs.

So the administration retroactively claims the war was to 'stop a madman and liberate Iraqis.'

But we've now killed more than 12,000 of the people we are "liberating." And there's no end in sight.

The administration is now talking about 'stopping' Iran -- a country that was known to have nuclear material-creating capability years ago and was known to have used chemical weapons on Iraqis.

If Bush were to be re-elected, U.S. troops would be in Iran before the end of his second term. That will mean reinstating the draft, at the current rate of re-enlistment.

We didn't understand why Bush1 left Saddam in power at the time, but the man was right. You can't take a country whose citizens have no concept of democracy and force it on them.

billwagnon · 09-30-2004, 10:08 AM

Cheney's lesbian daughter made him do it!

dd74 · 09-30-2004, 03:30 PM

Bush I long established the objective with the Gulf War was to get Iraq out of Kuwait.

As for Iraq today, Kerry has a real feather in his hat if tonight he mentions:

Flip - it was first a war about WMDS...
Flop - then a war about Saddam, who was himself a WMD...
Flip - a war about extending democracy to people who are chomping at the bit for democracy; a task where we'll be regarded as liberators...
Flop - today Rumsfeld has established that elections may not happen in Iraq and that the violence will inevitably worsen.

There you have it: a pair of flip-flops Kerry can present to Bush in regard to his dogged belief Iraq is a keystone in the war on terror. But will he do so in tonight's debate? Who knows.

I could come up with more Bush-oriented flip-flops - one only has to think deductively to do this - but alas, the Dems aren't paying me for advice. So...

techweenie · techweenie's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by SoCal911SC
Cheney did say that 10 years ago.

But I would point out that there have been some intervening events since then.

Like the events of 9/11.

That could conceivably lead to a change of one's position on that statement.

Why?

lendaddy · 09-30-2004, 04:04 PM

Or even that although not "more" dangerous to us, one might come to the conclusion that these things cannot go undealt with or even dealt with through purely diplomatic means.

techweenie · techweenie's Garage

Khadaffi (sp?) was dealt with via purely diplomatic/economic means and he actually had a nuclear weapons program.

Saddam was no threat at all, and we are now fighting the very people we claimed to be 'saving.' If we stay, thousands more Americans will die over the next 10 years. If we leave, there will be chaos, civil war, and likely, a greater threat to US security.