Whatever Cheney Says, Conclude The Opposite Is TrueFebruary 22, 2007
I think that much is obvious at this point. After years of being dealt spinmeister classics such as “greeted as liberators“, “last throes“, and the ever-famous “simply stated, there is no doubt“, Cheney still makes a lot of headlines when he speaks. It’s pure blog fodder for everyone, and I’m not exactly sure why I’m choosing to imbibe today, but nobody really takes him seriously when he says things like this (about Britain declaring victory):
“Well, I look at it and see it “is actually an affirmation that there are parts of Iraq where things are going pretty well,”*
Update: Low and behold, Cheney managed to give us two in a row:
Karl: Back in 1991, you talked about how military action in Iraq would be the classic definition of a quagmire. Have you been disturbed to see how right you were? Or people certainly said that you were exactly on target in your analysis back in 1991 of what would happen if the U.S. tried to go in —
Cheney: Well, I stand by what I said in ’91. But look what’s happened since then — we had 9/11. We’ve found ourselves in a situation where what was going on in that part of the globe and the growth and development of the extremists, the al Qaeda types that are prepared to strike the United States demonstrated that we weren’t safe and secure behind our own borders. We weren’t in Iraq when we got hit on 9/11. But we got hit in ’93 at the World Trade Center, in ’96 at Khobar Towers, or ’98 in the East Africa embassy bombings, 2000, the USS Cole. And of course, finally 9/11 right here at home. They continued to hit us because we didn’t respond effectively, because they believed we were weak. They believed if they killed enough Americans, they could change our policy because they did on a number of occasions. That day has passed. That all ended with 9/11.
I know, there’s really nowhere to begin with that statement. Not only does he not answer the question, he just doesn’t make any sense. But, hey, we’re talkin’ about 9/11 here, OK? Everyone knows that any argument makes sense as long as you slip it in there.
I’ll give it a quick, token try though: He’s either saying that the best way not to appear “weak” after 9/11 was to choose a quagmire in that “part of the globe”, or he’s saying that 9/11 has “happened since then” and has somehow changed the dynamic in Iraq so that his quagmire assessment is now invalid. This response looks to be more like a simple hodgepodge of mismatched talking points than a coherent argument. He continues:
In Iraq, what we’ve done now is we’ve taken down Saddam Hussein. He’s dead. His sons are dead. His government is gone. There’s a democratically elected government in place. We’ve had three national elections in Iraq with higher turnout that we have in the United States. They’ve got a good constitution. They’ve got a couple hundred thousand men in arms now, trained and equipped to fight the good fight. They’re now fighting alongside Americans in Baghdad and elsewhere. There are — lots of the country that are in pretty good shape. We’ve got to get right in Baghdad. That’s the task at hand. I think we can do it.
I ask again, why even bother interviewing him?
Other bloggers are scratching their heads as well: Carpetbagger: Cheney debunks himself