Quote Of The Day

By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Bad Decisions, Cheney, History, Iraq

“The original intelligence was wrong, no question about it. But there were parts of it that were right. It wasn’t 100 percent wrong. It was correct in saying he had the technology. It was correct in saying he still had the people who knew how to build weapons of mass destruction. I think it was also correct in the assessment that once sanctions came off, he would go back to doing what he had been doing before.”
- Dick Cheney on Face The Nation today.

So let’s just get this clear once and for all…

By Cheney’s standard, the US could invade every single one of our enemies because they “know” how to build weapons of mass destruction and they “could” build them if given enough time. And that’s just crazy.

The refreshing part in all of this? Cheney actually admitted that the “original” intelligence was wrong. You know, the stuff that he and his neo-cons cherry picked and presented as the very best, top shelf info?

Goodbye Dick.


This entry was posted on Sunday, January 4th, 2009 and is filed under Bad Decisions, Cheney, History, Iraq. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

5 Responses to “Quote Of The Day”

  1. Jeremy from Oregon Says:

    “You know, the stuff that he and his neo-cons cherry picked and presented as the very best, top shelf info?” – Justin Gardner

    Excellent phraseology Justin. I must let it be known that it is not this administrations party affiliation that has me in opposition with it. It’s the actions that have been taken be these so-called “leaders” that have done so. Without the slightest bit of hyperbole I honestly believe this to be one of if not the most un-American, corrupt, constitutionally unlawful presidencies in U.S. history. Bush, you are exactly what America hates about itself. You are the embodiment of an arrogant, aggressive and utterly ignorant America. Enjoy your post-presidency kickbacks–you’ve served the corporate cabal well.

  2. Jimmy the Dhimmi Says:

    “Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

    And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.”

  3. kranky kritter Says:

    By Cheney’s standard, the US could invade every single one of our enemies because they “know” how to build weapons of mass destruction and they “could” build them if given enough time.

    He didn’t say that Justin, YOU did. I am no Cheney fan, but I don’t see why you have any right to put words into Cheney’s mouth.

    I opposed invading Iraq under the circumstances in which we did. But I didn’t view these actions as indefensible. The point Cheney makes is a valid one. The fact of faulty intelligence does not by itself make our actions indefensible unless we knew our intelligence was a heap of plumped BS. I’ll leave that one to the aluminum haberdashers. If they show me reliable evidence (in other words, something more than layer upon layer of anti-right wing suspicion and demonization of neocons) to support that hypothesis, I’ll listen. Until then, I dismiss the notion.

    As the preeminent global military power, America is stuck deciding what our policy will be in all cases where an overtly hostile nation is on the cusp of acquiring the ability to employ weapons with destructive capability on a global scale, such as nuclear weapons. It avails none of us to pretend this is not an important and difficult issue for the 21st century.

    Do YOU want to make the argument that, because America lacks the requisite moral authority, it has no choice but to allow unstable and hostile nations to acquire nuclear weapons? Or would you prefer to make the argument that international sanctions are sufficient to prevent such an eventuality? Both of these arguments are quite suspect.

  4. Vast Says:

    @Kranky

    He isn’t putting words in Dick’s mouth. He is suggesting that we could for all intent use the same “litmus test” that they used on just about any other country in the world.

    North Korea has nukes and is still technically in a state of war with one of our allies, should we invade them? North Korea is far more oppressive than Saddam ever was.

    Iran is on the verge of Nukes and is an oppressive regime that supports Terrorist activities in Israel. Should we add them to the invasion list?

    Brazil and Argentina both have the knowledge and capability to build a bomb in a few years if they choose to do so. Lets invade them, I always wanted to confiscate some land in Rio.

    The point is that the war, as sold to the American public, was so far off of reality that it could almost be seen as criminal negligence.

  5. kranky kritter Says:

    Vast, unless Cheney said it, he IS putting words in his mouth. The obvious point is that it is Justin, and now you, who are maintaining that Cheney advocates some sort of universal litmus test that works just as you describe it. Strawman constructed,

    What I am suggesting is that the events that unfolded as and after America chose to invade Iraq have NOT conclusively established what the proper response ought to be when and and if America believes that an unstable and hostile nation is on the verge of acquiring the ability to employ weapons to planet-level adverse effect.

    I am happy to acknowledge that it is possible that our government “sold” us a story that was different from what it believed the situation to be on the ground in Iraq. But I have seen no evidence that conclusively supports this hypothesis. They may have accentuated the things they found most concerning, but I don’t think anyone at a high level knew for example that those trucks and buildings Colin Powell was so worried about were just ice cream trucks and daycare centers, as it were.

    I wish more folks were willing to acknowledge that it is ALSO quite possible that we acted on an erroneous belief as to the nature of the threat that Iraq represented.

    My cardinal rule of attribution is never to attribute to malice that which can be accounted for by ignorance and fear. It has served me well. I live from day to day free from the worry that vast right and leftwing conspiracies are constantly unfolding right before my foolish trusting eyes. If I am wrong, well, it’s probably worth it just for all the extra sleep I get and anger i leave for everyone else to stomach.

    For what it is worth, I am extremely agnostic on the value of so-called “litmus tests” as applied to political situations. Politics and diplomacy are both more art than science. I am much more of a case-by-case guy. I would not agree with any rubric that insists that any hostile nation fitting criteria a, b, and c must always be invaded. That’s idiocy, and I do NOT believe that Dick Cheney, execrable though he may be, has advocated this.

    I think it’s just argumentative nonsense to say that anyone thinks we should invade Brazil or Argentina simply because they fit certain criteria. And I also think that it would be extremely irresponsible of any US adminstration to refuse to consider such an option if any given nation were hostile enough and unstable enough. So if I were President, I would not be entertaining imminent plans to invade either. Neither would I fail to consider what actions I’d be willing to take in regard to such nations given various eventualities.

    My threshold for getting involved would most definitely be higher than the one which President Bush and his eager cohort used. But that’s what elections are for. In part, Presidents are elected to exercise their judgement. When the judgement they exercise differs from yours, that’s not treason, and usually it’s not negligence either. Not unless you want to apply negligence standards to the practice of spying and surveillance, which by its very nature is supralegal almost by definition.

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: