I know that President Obama is headed to Egypt to try to begin a long overdue dialog with the Moslem World. But that will be everywhere – Television, Youtube, the Internet. Who needs another blogger commenting on his bravery in walking into the eye of the storm. I’m still back with the last Administration, thinking about how we got here. I’ve collected some of the landmarks along the Cheney Path – specifically related to Saddam Hussein and the Invasion of Iraq. First, there’s his retrospective thoughts about the Gulf War and George H. W. Bush’s decision to withdraw from Iraq. Then there’s the letter from the Project for the New American Century to President Clinton [Cheney was a Founder, but did not sign this particular document himself]. Then I’ve included a few quips from speeches he made while he was C.E.O. at Halliburton. Finally, there are serial comments concerning Saddam Hussein and possible ties with al Qaeda, justifying the Invasion of Iraq.
I found his confluence of American businesses and Foreign Policy in the CATO speech downright eerie – besides being a remarkable rationalization.And in the Petroleum Institute speech, he makes it clear where the future of the oil indistry lies – Middle East. Recall that three years later, he convened the still secret Cheney Energy Conference with Energy Company C.E.O.s probably to divide up Iraq’s Oil exploration [see map from conference below]:
I’ve posted these clips and their full links for a reason – maybe not to be read today, but in the future. Dick Cheney is on a trajectory that has everyone curious. Where’s he headed? Lots of people think he’s trying to stave off retribution. Others think he is driven by a colossal arrogance and narcissism. Is he a crook? a madman? a traumatized person? a candidate for president? a fool? a genius? I don’t really know what he’s about for sure. When I went back and read these documents, I wasn’t sure that he knows what he’s about either, other than thinking that whatever he’s doing is right. So, as he continues to dominate the airways, you might want to look back at where he’s been and see if he makes sense to you. One thing for sure. If he was after oil, he blew it big time!
FORMER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: DICK CHENEY
|
JANUARY 9, 1996 FRONTLINE
CHENEY: We deemed him a legitimate target as the commander of the Iraqi armed forces and the first night of the air war we took down his presidential palace with cruise missiles. We hit a lot of command centers where he might have been expected to be and if he had been in any of those centers he would have been a casualty. That would have been a perfectly acceptable outcome. I don’t think he went near a military facility during the Gulf War. I think he probably hung out in the civilian sections of Baghdad, he knew we’d never attack a civilian area and he was safe. I think in terms of the expectation of the time, as I say there was the view.. belief on the part of many of the experts and others in the region that if you administer a decisive defeat to his military forces that he will not be able to survive politically. There have since the war been a number of occasions on which there have been serious attempts to throw him out but he’s always defeated them because he has a very tight security service. He’s got a security service watching his security service. He’s a brutal, very harsh, tough, individual and so far he’s been able to survive
QUESTION: You find that personally frustrating?
CHENEY: No. I don’t. There’s this line that people use– well, George Bush is out of power and Saddam Hussein is still there– well, we have a democracy in this country, we elect Presidents, we unelect Presidents, people serve for four years or eight years, it’s not a dictatorship. It’s not like Iraq, it’s goofy even to make a comparison. I think if Saddam wasn’t there that his successor probably wouldn’t be notably friendlier to the United States than he is. I also look at that part of the world as of vital interest to the United States for the next hundred years it’s going to be the world’s supply of oil. We’ve got a lot of friends in the region. We’re always going to have to be involved there. Maybe it’s part of our national character, you know we like to have these problems nice and neatly wrapped up, put a ribbon around it. You deploy a force, you win the war and the problem goes away and it doesn’t work that way in the Middle East it never has and isn’t likely to in my lifetime.
We are always going to have to be involved there and Saddam is just one more irritant but there’s a long list of irritants in that part of the world and for us to have done what would have been necessary to get rid of him–certainly a very large force for a long time into Iraq to run him to ground and then you’ve got to worry about what comes after. And you then have to accept the responsibility for what happens in Iraq, accept more responsibility for what happens in the region. It would have been an all US operation, I don’t think any of our allies would have been with us, maybe Britain, but nobody else. And you’re going to take a lot more American casualties if you’re gonna go muck around in Iraq for weeks on end trying to run Saddam Hussein to ground and capture Baghdad and so forth and I don’t think it would have been worth it. I think the, the decision the President made in effect to stop when we did was the right one.
|
C.E.O. HALLIBURTON: DICK CHENEY
FOUNDING MEMBER – PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY: DICK CHENEY
|
JUNE 23, 1998 PNAC LETTER TO PRESIDENT CLINTON
Dear Mr. President:
We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.
The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.
Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.
Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration’s attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam’s regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.
We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.
|
C.E.O. HALLIBURTON: DICK CHENEY
|
JUNE 23, 1998 CATO INSTITUTE
I believe that economic forces have driven much of the change in the last 20 years, and I would be prepared to argue that, in many cases, that economic progress has been a prerequisite to political change. The power of ideas, concepts of freedom and liberty and of how best to organize economic activity, have been an essential, positive ingredient in the developments in the last part of the 20th century. At the heart of that process has been the U.S. business community. Our capital, our technology, our entrepreneurship has been a vital part of those forces that have, in fact, transformed the world. Our economic capabilities need to be viewed, I believe, as a strategic asset in a world that is increasingly focused on economic growth and the development of market economies.
I think it is a false dichotomy to be told that we have to choose between "commercial" interests and other interests that the United States might have in a particular country or region around the world. Oftentimes the absolute best way to advance human rights and the cause of freedom or the development of democratic institutions is through the active involvement of American businesses. Investment and trade can oftentimes do more to open up a society and to create opportunity for a society’s citizens than reams of diplomatic cables from our State Department.
I think it’s important for us to look on U.S. businesses as a valuable national asset, not just as an activity we tolerate, or a practice that we do not want to get too close to because it involves money. Far better for us to understand that the drive of American firms to be involved in and shape and direct the global economy is a strategic asset that serves the national interest of the United States.
|
C.E.O. HALLIBURTON: DICK CHENEY
|
NOVEMBER 15, 1999 INSTITUTE OF PETROLEUM – LONDON
Producing oil is obviously a self-depleting activity. Every year you’ve got to find and develop reserves equal to your output just to stand still, just to stay even. This is true for companies as well in the broader economic sense as it is for the world. A new merged company like Exxon-Mobil will have to secure over a billion and a half barrels of new oil equivalent reserves every year just to replace existing production. It’s like making one hundred per cent interest discovery in another major field of some five hundred million barrels equivalent every four months or finding two Hibernias a year.
For the world as a whole, oil companies are expected to keep finding and developing enough oil to offset our seventy one million plus barrel a day of oil depletion, but also to meet new demand. By some estimates there will be an average of two per cent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead along with conservatively a three per cent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from?
Governments and the national oil companies are obviously controlling about ninety per cent of the assets. Oil remains fundamentally a government business. While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greater access there, progress continues to be slow.
|
VICE PRESIDENT: DICK CHENEY
|
SEPTEMBER 16, 2001 MEET THE PRESS
MR. RUSSERT: Saddam Hussein, your old friend, his government had this to say: "The American cowboy is rearing the fruits of crime against humanity." If we determine that Saddam Hussein is also harboring terrorists, and there’s a track record there, would we have any reluctance of going after Saddam Hussein?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No.
MR. RUSSERT: Do we have evidence that he’s harboring terrorists?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: There is – in the past, there have been some activities related to terrorism by Saddam Hussein. But at this stage, you know, the focus is over here on al-Qaida and the most recent events in New York. Saddam Hussein’s bottled up, at this point, but clearly, we continue to have a fairly tough policy where the Iraqis are concerned.
MR. RUSSERT: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No.
|
VICE PRESIDENT: DICK CHENEY
|
September 8, 2002 MEET THE PRESS
TIM RUSSERT: One year ago when you were on MEET THE PRESS just five days after September 11, I asked you a specific question about Iraq and Saddam Hussein… Has anything changed, in your mind?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I’m not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can’t say that. On the other hand, since we did that interview, new information has come to light. And we spent time looking at that relationship between Iraq, on the one hand, and the al-Qaeda organization on the other. And there has been reporting that suggests that there have been a number of contacts over the years. We’ve seen in connection with the hijackers, of course, Mohamed Atta, who was the lead hijacker, did apparently travel to Prague on a number of occasions. And on at least one occasion, we have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center. The debates about, you know, was he there or wasn’t he there, again, it’s the intelligence business.
TIM RUSSERT: What does the CIA say about that and the president?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: It’s credible. But, you know, I think a way to put it would be it’s unconfirmed at this point. We’ve got…
TIM RUSSERT: Anything else?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: There is – again, I want to separate out 9/11, from the other relationships between Iraq and the al-Qaeda organization. But there is a pattern of relationships going back many years. And in terms of exchanges and in terms of people, we’ve had recently since the operations in Afghanistan – we’ve seen al-Qaeda members operating physically in Iraq and off the territory of Iraq. We know that Saddam Hussein has, over the years, been one of the top state sponsors of terrorism for nearly 20 years. We’ve had this recent weird incident where the head of the Abu Nidal organization, one of the world’s most noted terrorists, was killed in Baghdad. The announcement was made by the head of Iraqi intelligence. The initial announcement said he’d shot himself. When they dug into that, though, he’d shot himself four times in the head. And speculation has been, that, in fact, somehow, the Iraqi government or Saddam Hussein had him eliminated to avoid potential embarrassment by virtue of the fact that he was in Baghdad and operated in Baghdad. So it’s a very complex picture to try to sort out.
TIM RUSSERT: But no direct link?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I can’t – I’ll leave it right where it’s at. I don’t want to go beyond that. I’ve tried to be cautious and restrained in my comments, and I hope that everybody will recognize that.
|
VICE PRESIDENT: DICK CHENEY
|
SEPTEMBER 14, 2003 MEET THE PRESS
MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection.
MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn’t have any evidence of that. Subsequent to that, we’ve learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization. We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of ’93. And we’ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven. Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact. With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know.
MR. RUSSERT: We could establish a direct link between the hijackers of September 11 and Saudi Arabia.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: We know that many of the attackers were Saudi. There was also an Egyptian in the bunch. It doesn’t mean those governments had anything to do with that attack. That’s a different proposition than saying the Iraqi government and the Iraqi intelligent service has a relationship with al-Qaeda that developed throughout the decade of the ’90s. That was clearly official policy.
|
VICE PRESIDENT: DICK CHENEY
|
SEPTEMBER 10, 2006 MEET THE PRESS
MR. RUSSERT: You said Saddam Hussein was bottled up.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Mm-hmm.
MR. RUSSERT: And he was not linked in any way to September 11.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: To 9/11.
MR. RUSSERT: And now we have the Select Committee on Intelligence coming out with a report on Friday, it says here, “A declassified report released [Friday] by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence revealed that U.S. intelligence analysts were strongly disputing the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda while senior Bush administration officials were publicly asserting those links to justify invading Iraq.” You said here that it was pretty well confirmed that Atta may have had a meeting in Prague, that that was credible. All the while, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee in January and in June and in September, the CIA was saying that wasn’t the case. And then the president…
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, let me, let me—on that—well, go ahead.
MR. RUSSERT: No, go ahead.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No, I want a, I want a chance to jump on that.
MR. RUSSERT: OK, but, but you said it was pretty well confirmed that it was credible and now the Senate Intelligence Committee says not true, The CIA was waving you off.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No.
MR. RUSSERT: Any suggestion there was a meeting with Mohamed Atta, one of the hijackers, with Iraqi officials?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. The sequence, Tim, was, when you and I talked that morning, we had not received any reporting with respect to Mohamed Atta going to Prague. Just a few days after you and I did that show, the CIA, CIA produced an intelligence report from the Czech Intelligence Service that said Mohammad Atta, leader of the hijackers, had been in Prague in April of ‘01 and had met with the senior Iraqi intelligence official in Prague. That was the first report we had that he’d been to Prague and met with Iraqis. Later on, some period of time after that, the CIA produced another report based on a photographer—on a photograph that was taken in Prague of a man they claim 70 percent probability was Mohammad Atta on another occasion. This was the reporting we received from the CIA when I responded to your question and said it had been pretty well confirmed that he’d been in Prague. The—later on, they were unable to confirm it. Later on, they backed off of it. But what I told you was exactly what we were receiving at the time. It never said, and I don’t believe I ever said, specifically, that it linked the Iraqis to 9/11. It specifically said he had been in Prague, Mohamed Atta had been in Prague and we didn’t know…
MR. RUSSERT: Well, I asked you, I said, “is there a connection between Saddam and 9/11 on September ‘03” and you said “we don’t know.”
VICE PRES. CHENEY: That’s right.
MR. RUSSERT: So you raised that possibility.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: It was raised by the CIA who passed on the report from the Czech Intelligence Service.
MR. RUSSERT: All right. Now the president has been asked, “What did Iraq have to do with the attack on the World Trade Center?” and he said “nothing.” Do you agree with that?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I do. So it’s not…
MR. RUSSERT: So it’s case, case closed.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: We’ve never been able to confirm any connection between Iraq and 9/11.
MR. RUSSERT: And the meeting with Atta did not occur?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know. I mean, we’ve never been able to, to, to link it, and the FBI and CIA have worked it aggressively. I would say, at this point, nobody has been able to confirm…
MR. RUSSERT: Then why, in the lead-up to the war, was there the constant linkage between Iraq and al-Qaeda?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: That’s a different issue. Now, there’s a question of whether or not al-Qaeda, or whether or not Iraq was involved in 9/11. There’s a separate—apart from that’s the issue of whether or not there was a historic relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda. The basis for that is probably best captured in George Tenet’s testimony before the Senate Intel Commission, an open session, where he said specifically that there was a pattern of relationship that went back at least a decade between Iraq and al-Qaeda.
MR. RUSSERT: But the president said they were working in concert, giving the strong suggestion to the American people that they were involved in September 11th.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. There are, there are two totally different propositions here, and people have consistently tried to confuse them. And it’s important, I think—there’s a third proposition, as well, too, and that is Iraq’s traditional position as a strong sponsor of terror. So you’ve got Iraq and 9/11, no evidence that there’s a connection. You’ve got Iraq and al-Qaeda, testimony from the director of CIA that there was indeed a relationship, Zarqawi in Baghdad, etc. Then the third…
MR. RUSSERT: The committee said that there was no relationship. In fact…
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I haven’t seen the report; I haven’t had a chance to read it yet, but the fact is…
MR. RUSSERT: But Mr. Vice President, the bottom line is…
VICE PRES. CHENEY: We know, we know that Zarqawi, running a terrorist camp in Afghanistan prior to 9/11, after we went in to 9/11, then fled and went to Baghdad and set up operations in Baghdad in the spring of ‘02 and was there from then, basically, until basically the time we launched into Iraq.
MR. RUSSERT: The bottom line is, the rationale given the American people was that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and he could give those weapons of mass destruction to al-Qaeda and we could have another September 11. And now we read that there is no evidence, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee, of that relationship. You’ve said there’s no involvement. The president says there’s no involvement.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No, Tim, no involvement in what respect?
MR. RUSSERT: In September 11, OK. The CIA said, leading up to the war, that the possibility of Saddam using weapons of mass destruction was “low.” It appears that there was a deliberate attempt made by the administration to link al-Qaeda in Iraq in the minds of the American people and use it as a rationale to go into Iraq.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Tim, I guess—I don’t—I’m not sure what part you don’t understand here. In September—or in 1990, the State Department designated Iraq as a state sponsor of terror. Abu Nidal, famous terrorist, had sanctuary in, in Baghdad for years. Zarqawi was in Baghdad after we took Afghanistan and before we went into Iraq. You had the facility up at Kermal, poisons facility, ran by Ansar Islam, an affiliate of al-Qaeda. You had the fact that Saddam Hussein, for example, provided payments to the families of suicide bombers of $25,000 on a regular basis. This was a state sponsor of terror. He had a relationship with terror groups. No question about it. Nobody denies that.
The evidence we also had at the time was that he had a relationship with al-Qaeda. And that was George Tenet’s testimony, the director of the CIA, in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee. We also have a—had knowledge of the fact that he had produced and used weapons of mass destruction and we know, as well, that while he did not have any production under way at the time, that he’s clearly retained the capability, and the expectation from the experts was as soon as the sanctions were lifted he’d be back in business again.
Now this was the place where, probably, there was a greater prospect of a connection between terrorists on the one hand and a terrorist – sponsoring state and weapons of mass destruction than any place else. You talk about Iran, North Korea, they’re problems, too, but they hadn’t been through 12 years of sanctions and resolutions by the U.N. Security Council and ignored them with impunity.
|
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT: DICK CHENEY
|
JUNE 1, 2009 NATIONAL PRESS CLUB
Former Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday that he does not believe Saddam Hussein was involved in the planning or execution of the September 11, 2001, attacks. He strongly defended the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq, however, arguing that Hussein’s previous support for known terrorists was a serious danger after 9/11.
Cheney, in an appearance at the National Press Club, also said he is intent on speaking out in defense of the Bush administration’s national security record because "a clear understanding of policies that worked [in protecting the United States] is essential." "I do not believe and have never seen any evidence to confirm that [Hussein] was involved in 9/11. We had that reporting for a while, [but] eventually it turned out not to be true," Cheney conceded.
But Hussein was "somebody who provided sanctuary and safe harbor and resources to terrorists… [It] is, without question, a fact."
Cheney restated his claim that "there was a relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq that stretched back 10 years. It’s not something I made up. … We know for a fact that Saddam Hussein was a sponsor – a state sponsor – of terror. It’s not my judgment. That was the judgment of our [intelligence community] and State Department." Cheney identified former CIA Director George Tenet as the "prime source of information" on the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. Tenet "testified, if you go back and check the record, in the fall of [2002] before the Senate Intelligence Committee – in open session – that there was a relationship," Cheney said…
|
Thanks for putting all this together, Mickey. Terrific job.
No, I don’t know either what makes dick cheney tick nor where he thinks he’s going with this. But one thing is clear: he really is very very careful how he says things, so as to be factually correct but mislead like hell.
This is the first time I’ve really heard his distinction: he said all along that there was a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda; but it seems he was careful not to say it involved 9/11. But he certainly said it in a way that everyone would assume he meant 9/11, and he didn’t bother to correct that assumption — because that’s what he wanted people to believe.
So when cheney says now that there was no connection with 9/11, that’s not new. Well it is, sort of: because what he would always say is “we don’t know.” And then talk about what they did know of some connections, which turned out to be minor.
He seems even more diabolical now. It’s one thing to be a misguided zealot and believe the lies you’re spreading. But this sounds like he was calculating and manipulative in knowingly saying things that would be misconstrued — exactly as he wanted them to be.
Now, more than ever, I’d like to have a recording of the conversation between bush and cheney when he talked his way into be vice prez. I bet it was a masterpiece.
There are many smart crooks that cover their tracks but in the end they forget one small detail and they get caught. Who would have thought that Cheney the dark one would need to have his daughter defending his reputation etc. the search engines that we have on the web can beat Cheney and anyone else who tries to change history. Oh, and before I forget, in Ron Susskind’s book “One Percent Doctrine”, the author states that in the Bush administration, if there is a 1% chance about something, Cheney and others used it to their advantage to do what they wanted to do like go to war with Iraq.
Cheney’s getting caught in his own lies by a not-awake blogosphere forcing MSM journalists to pay attention reminds me of the old adage:
One advantage to telling the truth is that you don’t have to remember everything you have ever said.
Oops — I meant to write “now-awake,” but maybe my unconscious thinks they’re still “not-awake.”
For 7 years I suffered an illness doctors could not diagnose. I knew something was terribly wrong but I would go to a new doctor go throught the same nonsense and he or she woud take a blood test. The doc would leave a message on the phone , you will be happy to know that your blood test is normal, bye. One day I told my family doctor that someday something will grow on my face and hit the doc in the face and he’ll say ah I see it and we can treat it. As you can tell I was becoming a bitter and angry patient. I had a neuro-muscular disease that was quite debilitating but with medicine I’m fine. By the way something did happen to my face and the doctor said I know what it is. I bring up this long story to say after 8 years with Bush and Cheney, the reporters are finally catching on to their misdeeds and lies.Most reporters took dictation and published and reported what they were told by Cheney etc. Most that read Mickey’s blog and others like firedoglake.com etc have known this stuff for years. Reporters wanted to go along with Bush/Cheney so they could have access to them. I have always said that reporters like those at politico want to rub elbows with the big boys. I hope that the reporters on the major networks and papers will finally report what has been going on in Washington, DC.