Speaking of "Flip/Flops"...

[FlamesAllTheWay]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation..._cheney29.html

In an assessment that differs sharply with his view today, Dick Cheney more than a decade ago defended the decision to leave Saddam Hussein in power after the first Gulf War, telling a Seattle audience that capturing Saddam wouldn't be worth additional U.S. casualties or the risk of getting "bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

Some reporter dug this up after Gulf War I, as it occured in a low-key press conference. Wonder what's really changed from then and now that made Cheney pull a 180 on the whole issue of Iraq . White house and the Bush camp refused to comment when initially contacted.

Bet the Democrats will start using this to counter all the 'Kerry Flip/Flop' claims from the Bush camp...

[Kjesse]

Originally posted by FlamesAllTheWay@Sep 29 2004, 11:43 PM


Wonder what's really changed from then and now that made Cheney pull a 180 on the whole issue of Iraq .

Two office towers in New York got knocked down.

I don't think the US should be in Iraq at all, but the world was seen as a much different place after 9/11. I'm sure he'll respond now by saying something like he didn't appreciate the full danger of terrorists and rouge states at the time.

I don't really see his comments as a flip flop. At the time, he's justifying what had in fact happened.... the US stopped short of going all the way. He was one of Bush Sr.'s advisers at the time and you can't expect him to take a position contrary to his boss. Really, what was he going to say, "The president made a mistake"? Bye-bye Secretary of Defence.

I should add I don't like Cheney at all. (Or Bush, Kerry or Edwards, for that matter )

[Flame On]

Originally posted by Delgar+Sep 30 2004, 07:19 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Delgar @ Sep 30 2004, 07:19 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAllTheWay@Sep 29 2004, 11:43 PM


Wonder what's really changed from then and now that made Cheney pull a 180 on the whole issue of Iraq# .

Two office towers in New York got knocked down.

I don't think the US should be in Iraq at all, but the world was seen as a much different place after 9/11. I'm sure he'll respond now by saying something like he didn't appreciate the full danger of terrorists and rouge states at the time.

I don't really see his comments as a flip flop. At the time, he's justifying what had in fact happened.... the US stopped short of going all the way. He was one of Bush Sr.'s advisers at the time and you can't expect him to take a position contrary to his boss. Really, what was he going to say, "The president made a mistake"? Bye-bye Secretary of Defence.

I should add I don't like Cheney at all. (Or Bush, Kerry or Edwards, for that matter ) [/b][/quote]
It doesn't matter how you boil it down. When Cheney berated Kerry for; out of context, his use of the word sensitivity, he's essentially doing the same thing by pondering in hindsight with the statement of: "didn't appreciate the full danger of terrorists and rouge states at the time". That's being sensitive to change and adapting action. Though I realise that's your quote not his.
I d on't think he can win this one. Either that is a flip flop, or he's saying it's allright to reconsider, ponder, weigh options and adapt; something every good leader political, business or military should excell at. Which in turn is a denial that Kerry is at fault for doing that, which is one of their biggest "weapons" against him. IMO

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally posted by Delgar+Sep 30 2004, 01:19 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Delgar @ Sep 30 2004, 01:19 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAllTheWay@Sep 29 2004, 11:43 PM


Wonder what's really changed from then and now that made Cheney pull a 180 on the whole issue of Iraq# .

Two office towers in New York got knocked down.

I don't think the US should be in Iraq at all, but the world was seen as a much different place after 9/11. I'm sure he'll respond now by saying something like he didn't appreciate the full danger of terrorists and rouge states at the time. [/b][/quote]
Exactly, and I figured this would be brought up. But what did any of that have to do with Iraq? Seems like a bit of a flop to me, as nothing in Iraq has changed too much since 92. No progress on the WMD front (a regress if you ask me) was made, no new terrorist funding programs that had been developed (if any to begin with), etc.

Anyways, I just think it's funny to bring this up as a counter to all the accusations from Bush co. of Kerry flip/flops...

[Kjesse]

Originally posted by FlamesAllTheWay@Sep 30 2004, 10:02 AM

Exactly, and I figured this would be brought up. But what did any of that have to do with Iraq? Seems like a bit of a flop to me, as nothing in Iraq has changed too much since 92.

Anyways, I just think it's funny to bring this up as a counter to all the accusations from Bush co. of Kerry flip/flops...

OK, I'll concede its a bit of a flip-flop, although nothing like Kerry's flip-flopping - those ads are actually funny and make Kerry look like a moron (even though he's quite bright).

To pick on Cheney, you focus on the fact that he is "Mr. Establishment" with Halliburton and other ties that make him look bad -- which they are doing.

There probably isn't a politician out there who hasn't said opposing things on the same issue from time to time, Kerry just has a special knack for it-- he's getting the gears for it and he deserves it.

The Kerry campaign should focus more on highlighting Bush's lack of mental horsepower -- this has been a dirty campaign and there's just so much material on Dubya out there that they aren't using. The Republicans have been dirtier so far and maybe the Democrats don't want to stoop to their level, but c'mon --- I want to be entertained by campaign ads!!!!!