tieguy said:
The rebuttal to this point may be Clinton getting us into Bosnia despite having a republican congress trying to hold him in check. No congress would have ever denied any president after 9/11. While I think Bush has weaknesses I don't think the Cheney working a bush puppet applies. Bush has one of the most talented cabinets I think I have ever seen. You can't give Cheney the credit for all the moves without somehow discrediting the rest of his staff.
This brings another thought to mind. Many have argued for political solutions to garner the love of muslims. Yet in 95 we went into bosnia to save the muslims from genocide at the hands of the serbs. Why did that action not get us the appreciation of the muslims. Why is that while we were saving the muslims from the serbs the Al Quiadas were still hard at work plotting attacks against us?
how is it that we can fight for the muslims in Bosnia , depose a leader who may have killed as many as a million muslims in Iraq and yet still not get the credit and appreciation we should have earned?
Oh I agree that crediting Cheney only for all things is not accurate at all but then we like to simplify our lives by focusing in singularities and not multiple targets. To understand the policies of today concerning Iraq you have to go back into the 90's during the Clinton years and read what was happening. To kickoff the proceeding, you have to look at 96' when Richard Perle at the Washington group Institute for Advanced Strategic & Political Studies issued a report to Israeli Prime Minister called Operation Clean Break that advocated the removal of Saddam Hussein from power.
https://web.archive.org/web/20060416082235/http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm At the time the report did not advocate or consider US involvement in this process but rather what were details in the specific interest of the State of Israel. Now David Wurmser, Middle East Advisor to Cheney, was a primary author of the Clean Break report, but his "Crumbling States" document in 96'
http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/1996_12_Wurmser_Crumbling_Iraq.pdf
was the center piece that advocated a combined US/Israeli partnership to remove Saddam and the point where the serious thinking on this began but for some reason it's always Richard Perle who gets the finger pointed at.
Now even though Perle introduced to Wolfowitz a Mr. Amad Chalabi back in 85' it was during this 96' era that Chalabi came into his own so to speak. Who is Chalabi? Chalabi, a secular Iraqi Shiite from a wealthy banking family, left Iraq in 1956 at age 12. Founded a Jordanian bank in 1978; fled country in '89; received 22 year sentence for embezzlement. At one point after the overthrow of Saddam he was Iraq's new oil minister but don't know it that is still the case. He is out of favor with the neocons after playing games with the Iranians.
OK, step back away from the picture and let's just look at the bigger scheme and ask a few questions. Chalabi is Shiite and Saddam and the Bathist are Sunni. Shiite's and Sunni's don't play nice. One holds power and the other doesn't. Also a 6/4/2004 Washington Post article gives some interesting details of a 95' plot by Chalabi to kill Saddam and Chalabi had CIA backing in this effort.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14020-2004Jun3.html Now how interesting during the Clinton years we had this going on and of course it was kept secret. Who's fighting right now with each other in Iraq? Who stands to profit from controlling Iraq? See any trends jump at ya?
OK, back to case at hand. This is just a scratching of the surface of the actions and the players in the game as it concerns Iraq in the mid-70's. Also at this same time you had a military industrial complex being forced to geardown as a result of the collaspe of the old Soviet Empire and the end of the coldwar. So again let's just again stepback as good detectives and consider the picture presented. You have an internal Iraqi conflict brooding over power and control of Iraq, you have a an external power Israel who views the removal of faction in their interest and you have an American military/industrial complex looking for something to make themselves meaningful again. Now jump forward to 97 and an organization called Project For the New American Century and who these folks might be.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
Now in June of 97' PNAC Chairman William Kristol, noted conservative commentator on FoxNews and son of Irving Kristol, the father of the American Neo-Conservative movement, along with other members of the PNAC issues a Statement of Principles and they are of interest to read but go to the bottom of the page and read the names of these members.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
Now consider a PNAC letter sent to then President Clinton in 98' on the situation in Iraq.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
Other PNAC documents to consider during the prior years to Bush entering the White House.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-013098.htm
From their UN expert who is now in the UN
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-032398.htm
Wolfowitz speaks on the matter
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqsep1898.htm
And you could spend some time reading at their website and I'd encourage it. Also look at the cast of characters at the American Enterprise Institute's website. In understanding what drives many of the people making decisions that could effect your and my life, it is IMO worth the few minutes. What's also interesting is that so far I've found no specific PNAC document with Cheney's name on it. Is he stupid? Oh hell no! Is he too busy running Haliburton during that time? Maybe but I doubt it. What gives then? Is this the standard MO of Plausible Denial on his part? I think that's a major part of it but that's JMO.
The bottomline is there is evidence to suggest something bigger than just reacting to circumstances at the time. Granted, you could say it's only circumstancial evidence but people have been placed in the electric chair on circumstancial evidence so there you go. It's also of interest that during this mid 90's timeframe, ole' GW is nowhere to be found on this political landscape other than tending to the affairs of State in Texas. History may clear Cheney's goodname or condemn him, time must bare that out but there is evidence at present that would clearly make one question the motives of people at the top including Cheney as to what is happening with our current foreign policy. When it comes to Iraq I do think Bush is a somewhat of a willing patsy and I also think Powell saw the light and got out of dodge after being used. As you can see when the CIA was trying to cap Saddam in the Clinton years, I think this thing is way beyond a single lone President and has become it's own beast. Rome was not alone in it's conspiracies and intrigue as we are learning as we look.
Concerning Bush and his spending habits, I found this 2 page Cato Institute report a very worthwhile read:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0510-26.pdf
c ya!