Surely this is a misquote… right? He can’t possibly have said this (my emphasis):
Cheney said he now recognizes that the insurgency in Iraq was not “in its last throes,” as he said in May 2005. “I think there is no question but that we did not anticipate an insurgency that would last this long,” the vice president said.
“It’s still difficult. Obviously, major, major work to do is ahead of us. But the fact is, the world is better off today with Saddam Hussein out of power. Think where we’d be if he was still there,” Cheney said.
Okay… I’ll bite. Let’s just go down that road a ways for a minute, because while I don’t know where we would be, I can come up with any number of places we wouldn’t.
There are over 2800 American troops — and others beyond this from other countries — who would not be in a grave as a result of this war.
I’ve read that there are over 40,000 Iraqis dead from this war, but unfortunately, there are only estimates. However many it is, though, they wouldn’t be dead as a result of our actions.
Where else would we not be… let’s see…. We would not be trapped in an Iraqi quagmire of our own making, unable to leave, unable to help them. We might very well be trapped elsewhere, but it wouldn’t be Iraq.
We would not be doubting every report out of this administration, particularly regarding Iran, as a result of the lethal misinformation that led to Iraq.
And finally, our country would not be pulling itself apart internally — raging at one another with accusations and hostility — if Saddam were still there. We would not be spewing bile and venom across the partisan divide that widened into an uncrossable chasm because of Iraq.
By all means, Mr. Cheney, let’s imagine where we’d all be if Saddam were still there. He was an evil, vicious man, but tell me… have the last three years really improved the world, or even the United States?
No, there’s no telling where we would be had we not gone into Iraq, but the one place we would not be is where we are right now.
Or the nation could be attempting to recover from the death of Bill Clinton and the death of Senator Clinton as Saddam is successful in his second attempt to assassinate a former United States President. This time using a biological weapon that infects one-quarter of New York City with a disease that has a 90% fatality rate.
And my “what if” is just as valid as yours.
“Think where we’d be if he was still there,”
I prefer not taking that bait as I am neither a fortune teller nor an idiot. But it would be interesting to have heard where Mr. Chenney believes we would be. Does he really believe that in three years Mr. Hussein would have revived non-existent chemical, biological and nuclear programs? That he would have started having tea with Osama? That he would have offered Iran advice on how to obtain nukes, or circumvent U.N. resolutions?
The war was sold to us on WMD and links to Al Qaeda. If those did not exist and the Vice President still believes the war was the right action, what was the real reason we went to war; the possibility that someday, someone might have WMD or links to Al Qaeda. We cannot go to war every time we believe someone thinks these thoughts, as I fear the list is longer today than it was five years ago.
As for what the intelligence at the time said. Everyone believed that Saddam had nasty weapons. But I could find no independent expert who believed he was or would ever be connected with Al Qaeda. And I tried very hard to find that evidence. The closest I could get was one report by a U.S. intelligence agency speculating that if Saddam felt he was going to be attacked he might cooperate with Al Qaeda. Under that scenario, our invasion actually would have produced the outcome we were supposedly trying to prevent. But then again, there were no WMD, so there wasn’t anything to give to Al Qaeda, except the opportunity to kill American soldiers which we so gladly provided. And obviously, would do again if given the same opportunity.
As for Mr. Lazarous, wouldn’t it be kind of hard to attack anyone with something you don’t have? And no, your outccome has zero chance of being reality. I would rate Polimoms idea has some chance of occuring. But you provide an example why did not take the bait and propose a solution. Alternate realities are difficult to predict. But Lazarus, I would suggest you take a course in logic.
“We would not be spewing bile and venom across the partisan divide that widened into an uncrossable chasm because of Iraq”
I do not agree with this statement in general. It is true that party politics often become heated when the subject turns to Iraq and somehow both sides manage to make it a test of patriotism on this conflict alone. But think back to we were in Iraq, when it was just a discussion, or even further, go back to prior to 9/11/01. Think really really hard about how divided this country was after the 2000 election. Was everything really all rainbows and candy in Washington? No, it wasn’t. The Republicans were happy, but the Democrats were still, and still are, furious at the results of that election and how the Supreme Court “handed” the vote to Bush.
You have even mentioned in the posts prior about right leaning persons having the same blood pressure reaction to the word ‘Clinton’ that left leaning persons have now to the word ‘Bush’. Keep going back in history and think of party politics seriously, not in a dream state as though Americans have always just been happy when it came to politics and issues. The Iraq war does divide us around party lines now, but without Iraq I can garauntee you it would be something else.
The well oiled party machines always find something to stir up their base into fear of what will happen if the other side wins. I will grant you that there are elections in our history that were not passionate ones. But this is more the case when one of the candidates just can’t compare to the other (Bob Dole), and one party just has trouble supporting their guy.
The internet has allowed more people, and a greater variety of people, to express their opinions about candidates than ever before in election histories. But do not mistaken this new exposure as though the opinions of today’s citizens are new and angrier.
I know I took out one small part of your post to comment on, but it seems to be something you have mentioned more than once beofore. The rest was a well thought out reaction.
Good comments, I think, and here’s my personal view: http://www.mooredynasty.com/Blog/BlogComments.aspx?BlogID=BLOG0001&Period=2006_09&EntryID=ENTRY0688
One thing I take a bit of issue with is your comment about the partisan divide. I doubt seriously that Iraq has done anything to increase the political rancor in Washington. If anything, it seems to be less polarized than, say, during the Clinton/Lewinski debacle.
“We would not be spewing bile and venom across the partisan divide…”
Poli, I also have to disagree with this. The Left was spewing their hate concerning anything and everything Bush and Cheney were doing, even before the election. Somehow, I don’t think they would have changed that into a love-fest just because we didn’t go into Iraq. Iraq wasn’t the reason for the poisoned political atomosphere: it is simply a convenient excuse for continuing this behavior.
~EdT.
Jack, Ed, Marc…..
In terms of too general a statement, mea culpa. Because I agree that the partisanship has been fueling nastiness for quite a while, and without Iraq, there’d still be plenty of bile a’spewin. (I linked to a good post about where some of this may root a couple of weeks ago. It’s here.)
For instance, without Iraq, we’d no doubt be squabbling hard about illegal immigration. Certainly that’s a topic that lights a lot of fires. Without Iraq, though, we might have actually accomplished something about that.
But at the moment, (and I don’t mean right now, I mean over the last six months or so) it feels almost as if America is in the process of re-defining itself around the Iraqi misadventure. Sometimes I think I can almost hear a tearing sound as the partisans pull further apart..
It may very well be my own perspective, but I see Iraq as the straw that is breaking our political camel’s back. Perhaps it was already breaking….. or perhaps I’m simply over-reading things and we’re just dandy….. but it’s worrisome to me.
In looking at where we might be if Saddam were still in power, I would look to history for an example of a similar type of dictator: Benito Mussollini. While history may remember him as somewhat of a buffoon on the international stage, he succeeded in showing the world just how impotent the League of Nations was, and he set the stage for what became World War II. Like it or not, Saddam was showing the world that the UN is just about as impotent as its predecessor (a condition which has been validated in other theaters, e.g. Darfur), and it is not unreasonable to presume that Saddam might have created an alliance with North Korea (Iran is more problematic, as the two nations were bitter enemies) to cause further mischief.
One thing we do know: Saddam *did* have chemical/biological weapons, and he *did* use them – on his own people (actually, on some of the ethnic Kurds who lived within Iraq’s borders.) Given that our “intervention” in the former Yugoslavia was based on the need to protect the ethnic minorities (Muslims) in Bosnia/Herzegovina and Kosovo from being “cleansed” off the face of the earth, why is doing the same for the Kurds (and Shi’ites) in Iraq seen as so unreasonable? Could it be because of who was President when each of these operations was undertaken?
~EdT.
As a sophomore political science major in college, I feel out of my league actually posting a comment on this site that I have been reading religiously for so long. But something EdT. said made me decide to ask my question. “Why is doing the same for the Kurds (and Shi’ites) in Iraq seen as so unreasonable?” Is this really the reason we went to Iraq? I still find myself wondering why this administration (and the majority of the country at the time) found it necessary to intervene. Was it for oil, like some people say? Was it for humanitarian reasons? Or was it to prevent them from attacking us first? I’m confused, which is one reason I am so against the war. If I don’t know why we’re there, how can I support it? And even though I consider myself to be liberal, if a Democratic President had done the same thing, I believe I would disapprove of it just as much.
Jess,
Maybe it’s just Texas in me but I and many like me, see our presidents as a U.S. emblem, the closest we have to a head of state in the old terminology.
For me, the fact that Saddam attempted to assassinate a former President of the United States on a State trip is all the reason I need to send in the military and remove the fool from power.
You’re too young to remember, but after the assassination of JFK, there was great concern that the U.S.S.R. was behind it. We went to our highest defense readiness short of impending nuclear war DefCon 2 or (Defense Condition 2) and President Johnson was on the Red Phone hot line (the first American President to use it. It was installed following the Cuban Missile Crisis) to Moscow seeking assurances as well as all information the Soviets had on Oswald.
If the U.S.S.R. had been behind the assassination none of us would be here right now discussing the Middle East. As a student you probably don’t have much time, but when you can, get to the Johnson Library and read the recently released papers and try to get your hands on the transcripts of the tapes. People don’t understand how close we were to the end of the world that November long ago.
Robert, one alternate-universe fantasy is just as good as any other. There is no logic involved when dealing with alternate reality. That was my point
Jess,
You make an excellent point (As does everyone else). There were many reasons for taking out Saddam. And the attempted killing of a President is a valid reason (although, I recently read an account that indicated the CIA has reason to doubt that he was as involved is commonly believed).
Historians can and probably will debate at length when and why political discourse in the United States devolved into the equivalent of hurling stones and grunting at each other. But consider one important thing, we are at war. If you have studied any war, you will know that at the very heart of it, war is nothing more than killing. If you are for the war, you must be passionately for it. I hope no one supports casual killing of another human being. If you are against the war, you also will be passionate about it. So the current uncivilized discourse is very understandable; both sides are passionate about their positions. And passion tends to substantially reduce our IQ’s and our linguistic abilities..
Lazarus,
Thanks for the clarification. The one piece of advice I have for all Democrats regarding Iraq is, “We are commited now. Forget how or why we got there. Everybody needs to figure out the best way to extracate ourselves.” There are two reasons Democrats don’t really have an alternate plan: First, they cannot let go of how we got there. Okay, you feel abused. Get over it. Second, our options really are limited now that we are there. Walking away and letting it devolve further doesn’t feel right. Staying the current course is not all that appealing. The only other options I have heard are: more troups or a partitioning of Iraq into three states. And both of those have huge problems either here or in the Middle East.