Well, that's what the hypocrite said in 1991, from
Think Progress:
The true “slow bleed” strategy is leaving U.S. troops mired in the middle of an Iraqi civil war. There was a time when Cheney recognized that. On April 7, 1991, appearing on ABC’s This Week,
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/helenthomas/10956246/detail.html">Cheney said:
Well, just as it’s important, I think, for a president to know when to commit U.S. forces to combat, it’s also important to know when not to commit U.S. forces to combat. I think for us to get American military personnel involved in a civil war inside Iraq would literally be a quagmire. Once we got to Baghdad, what would we do? Who would we put in power? What kind of government would we have? Would it be a Sunni government, a Shi’a government, a Kurdish government? Would it be secular, along the lines of the Ba’ath Party? Would be fundamentalist Islamic? I do not think the United States wants to have U.S. military forces accept casualties and accept the responsibility of trying to govern Iraq. I think it makes no sense at all.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
