Last week in his column, George Will cited the rationale that then-defense secretary Dick Cheney gave the New York Times for not going into Iraq during the Persian Gulf War:
"Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it....It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that's currently there. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime, or a Kurdish regime? One that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists? How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when it's there? [Remember: this is the current Vice-President of the United States talking.] How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign onto that government, and what happens to it once we leave?"
So what changed Cheney's attitudes about going into Iraq? There has to be more to it than just 9/11.
2006-11-20 12:41:57 · 7 answers · asked by smoke16507 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Nothing to do with 9-11. The Bushies wanted to add power to the presidency. The easiest way to do that is to go to war somewhere. The whole thing was decided even before Bush was elected. Drum up a war with Iraq so he could be a "War President," and thus get the extra juice in constitutional powers...and get an extra bump as an incumbent pres, since most all wartime presidents are reelected.
2006-11-20 12:46:48 · answer #1 · answered by lucyanddesi 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
particular, he can, yet he has already reported he could below no circumstances do this because of the fact it may violate the character of the type. The vice chairman isn't the President, this adventure has below no circumstances surpassed off until now, yet its exceptionally clean that indoors the form the President died, the succession could omit bill Clinton and pass directly to the living house Speaker. Non-persons have held posts which includes Secretary of State indoors the previous, meaning they might below no circumstances be President, yet that does no longer avert them from protecting positions that are in line for succession to the Presidency. Brian, Vindikat make sturdy components. a individual can serve 10 finished years as President. 2 finished words of his very own, and a pair of years of yet yet another persons term.
2016-12-10 12:45:17 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ditto to Lucy, Osama and Socrates. They are right on target. And by now we ALL know that plans were in the making for invading Iraq long before Bush Jr became president. It's just too bad that we all know so much now and can do so little about it. But then again what goes around comes around.......it's all a matter of time...
2006-11-20 13:04:01 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Shot in the dark... Then he was talking about national and international ramifications of a war in Iraq. Now he's thinking about how much profit he can make for himself and his buddies under cover of chaos and to hell with the consequences.
2006-11-20 12:48:21 · answer #4 · answered by socrates 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Cheney is doing what he has done all last 6 yrs: Taking sick time off, vacationing and shooting birds, or doped off on meds. He has been as good as having no vice president at all, for the salary he makes
2006-11-20 12:45:08 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The war in Iraq must be stopped to avoid American casualties from increasing day by day.
2006-11-20 12:46:33 · answer #6 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
WHAT CHANGED? CHENEY AFTER THIS BECAME CEO OF HALLIBURTON AND SAW AN OPPORTUNITY TO PERSONALLY PROFIT FROM THIS ILLEGAL WAR!
2006-11-20 12:47:20 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋