Cheney Speaks

Today VP Dick Cheney spoke at the American Enterprise Institute. You can get the text of his remarks from the White House or watch the video from Crooks and Liars. Lots of fun things in this one.

He began with a bit of a joke: "One thing I've learned in the last five years is that when you're Vice President, you're lucky if your speeches get any attention at all." If you look at his own website you see that since July 26th he's given a total of 11 speeches. One at a gala, one at a groundbreaking ceremony, one at a reception, one at a luncheon, one at the National Restaurant Association, and a few others.

He rails against those that suggest the administration "purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence". Read it carefully, he talks about how many of the people dissenting now voted for action and agreed that Saddam had WMDs. What he doesn't say is what info they had to make that decision. He didn't go as far as to say they had the same information, merely "These are elected officials who had access to the intelligence materials." I still don't know if the administration was deliberately lying or merely incompetent but I'm fairly certain those are the only two possibilities.

Here's a fun quote: "Although our coalition has not found WMD stockpiles in Iraq, I repeat that we never had the burden of proof; Saddam Hussein did." What can that possibly mean? Yes it's true that Hans Blix stated that Hussein was not being fully cooperative but is the rule now that other countries have to prove they're innocent before we attack them? I think there's a problem with this new pre-emptive war idea. Oh and Norway hasn't proven they don't have white phosphorus rounds to my satisfaction.

Then he says "we now know that the sanctions regime had lost its effectiveness and been totally undermined by Saddam Hussein's successful effort to corrupt the Oil for Food program." We also know that the sanctions are what kept Niger from selling yellow cake to Iraq. I'd call that working. And if he didn't have WMDs, isn't that working?

Here's what may be the closest admission to a mistake by the administration: "The flaws in the intelligence are plain enough in hindsight". I'll remember that one.

Here's a point that confuses me. He said "In the war on terror we face a loose network of committed fanatics, found in many countries, operating under different commanders...Their goal in that region is to gain control of the country, so they have a base from which to launch attacks and to wage war against governments that do not meet their demands." They seem to be doing ok without a country, why do they need one to attack us? He goes on to say "The terrorists believe that by controlling an entire country, they will be able to target and overthrow other governments in the region, and to establish a radical Islamic empire that encompasses a region from Spain, across North Africa, through the Middle East and South Asia, all the way to Indonesia" Wow, that's the first I've heard of a plan for a new empire. His evidence for this is: "Recently we obtained a message from the number-two man in al Qaeda, Mr. Zawahiri, that he sent to his chief deputy in Iraq, the terrorist Zarqawi." I'd really like to hear more details about this, cause

Cheney also said "They have made clear, as well, their ultimate ambitions: to arm themselves with weapons of mass destruction, to destroy Israel, to intimidate all Western countries, and to cause mass death in the United States." which I have heard before and understand to be their goals. This seems like a basic tactic of the administration, some crazy exaggerations peppered with correct information.

Then he goes off to la la land again. He said: "Some have suggested that by liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein, we simply stirred up a hornet's nest. They overlook a fundamental fact: We were not in Iraq on September 11th, 2001 -- and the terrorists hit us anyway." Let us not forget, those responsible for 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq; "the terrorists" refers to different terrorists. He's also playing the same game he's played for a long time, trying to claim a relationship between 9/11 and Iraq. The Senate Intelligence Committee report says on page 347: "Conclusion 96: The Central Intelligence Agency's assessment that to date there was no evidence proving Iraqi complicity or assistance in an al-Qaida attack was reasonable and objective. No additional information has emerged to suggest otherwise."

He asks "Would the United States and other free nations be better off, or worse off, with Zarqawi, bin Laden, and Zawahiri in control of Iraq? Would we be safer, or less safe, with Iraq ruled by men intent on the destruction of our country?" I haven't heard that that's bin Laden's goal before and it certainly wasn't before we invaded. He goes on to point out some progress we've made in Iraq. "There are more than 90 Iraqi army battalions fighting the terrorists, along with our forces." That sounds good, how many do they need and how much are they doing vs us? Apparently if we leave it's not enough to prevent them from being overrun. But Think Progress points out that Rumsfeld said yesterday: "People who denigrate their competence and capability are flat wrong. They’re making a mistake. They either don’t understand the situation or they’re trying to confuse it, but the Iraqi security forces are well respected by the Iraqi people. They’re doing a very good job."

"On the political side, every benchmark has been met successfully -- starting with the turnover of sovereignty more than a year ago, the national elections last January, the drafting of the constitution and its ratification by voters just last month, and, a few weeks from now, the election of a new government under that new constitution." Hmm, I actually think the constitution was a little passed the deadline but I'll give it to him. So what is the list of goals that when they are accomplished we're done? "We will continue the work of reconstruction. Our forces will keep going after the terrorists, and continue training the Iraqi military, so that Iraqis can eventually take the lead in their country's security and our men and women can come home." Thanks, that's specific.

"The terrorists lack any capacity to inspire the hearts of good men and women" That's strange, I thought their numbers have grown enormously. Maybe they were all bad people to begin with. And given the sentiment of other nations about the US I'd say the Bush administration has no capacity to inspire any good thoughts in others.