Bush-Cheney Flip-flops Cost America In Blood

Joel Connelly
Seattle Post-Intelligencer

As George W. Bush has lately shown, the tactic of successfully defining your opponent is to political conflict what occupying the high ground is to waging war.

The Bush-Cheney campaign has gleefully labeled John Kerry a flip-flopper. But what of Bush-Cheney flip-flops? They're getting a lot less ink, but America is paying a price in blood.

Little noticed, and worthy of lengthy consideration, is a speech delivered by then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney in 1992 to the Discovery Institute in Seattle.

The words of our future vice president -- defending the decision to end Gulf War I without occupying Iraq -- eerily foretell today's morass. Here is what Cheney said in '92:

"I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.

"And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties. And while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war.

"And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

How -- given what he said then -- does Cheney get off challenging the judgment and strength of those who argue that we are bogged down and shedding blood today?

You Tell Me: Who Chooses Their Friends Poorly?

Clueless & (fortunately) Anonymous

“Don't bite the mouth that feeds you."

"Don't Change Horses In The Middle Of A Stream"

Conventional wisdom, that old saw.

But what if the horse is drowning in the quagmire?

By the way, the mainstream news (and, of course, the right-wing-nuts) have been giving the Prez a free pass for over 4 years. There is no way that they can let him off lightly after last night's debacle debate.

Customer Service, Part Deaux

I used to work in technical support for a 24x7 call center. One day I got a call from a client who asked what hours the call center was open. I told him, "The number you dialed is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.” He responded, "Is that Eastern or Pacific time?" Wanting to end the call quickly, I said, "Uh… Pacific."

And then he voted.
©2004, Scott Adams

Real Patriotism

Clueless & Anonymous

"We're treading on thin water here."

On this Day in History -- September 30

Famous people born on this day:

1924 - Truman Capote, a short short story writer (In Cold Blood, Breakfast at Tiffany's, Other Voices-Other Rooms, The Innocents; he appeared in Annie Hall as a Truman Capote look-alike)
1957 - Fran Drescher, (the Voice, the hideous Voice), The Nanny.
1971 - Jenna Elfman, actress, "Dharma & Greg".

Events on this day in history:

1846 - First tooth extraction under anesthetics, in Charlestown, Mass.
1878 - First immigrants from Portugal arrive in Hawaii.
1960 - The Flintstones Premier, (Yabba Dabba Doo!).

The Emperor's New Clothes

Yeah, I Hear 'Em, Too

Politics As If Issues Matter

Customer Service

I couldn't find my luggage at the airport baggage area. So I went to the lost luggage office and told the woman there that my bags never showed up. She smiled and told me not to worry because they were trained professionals and I was in good hands. "Now," she asked me, "has your plane arrived yet?"

And then she voted.
©2004, Scott Adams

Everything Is Fine in Iraq

Bush Attacks Kerry While Cozying Up To Dictators

President Bush earlier this week attacked his opponent, saying "It's hard to imagine a candidate running for President prefers the stability of a dictatorship to the hope and security of democracy." Yet, it is President Bush who regularly declares his personal friendship and gratitude to some of the world's most oppressive dictators, often wining and dining them at his ranch in Texas.

In June of 2004, Bush referred to the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia as "my friend," even though the Saudi Arabian government has been investigated for its financial ties to the 9/11 terrorists and is listed by the U.S. State Department as one of the world's most oppressive regimes on the planet.

In April, he referred to the Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak as "my friend" and welcomed him to the Crawford ranch by saying "I always look forward to visiting with him." Bush gave this praise to a dictator, even though Human Rights Watch notes that government "torture in Egypt is widespread and systemic" and the State Department says Mubarak has passed a Constitution in which the electorate is barred from being "presented with a choice among competing presidential candidates."

In 2002, it was Bush who said "I want to welcome the President of China to our ranch, and to Texas." Bush was inviting into his home a dictator who, according to the U.S. State Department, presides over a government that regularly engages in the "arbitrary or unlawful" murder of its own citizens, kidnappings of political dissidents, and repression of religious minorities.

Crawford, TX Newspaper Endorses Kerry

The weekly Lone Star Iconoclast criticized
- Bush's handling of the war in Iraq
- Bush's turning budget surpluses into record deficits
- Bush's proposals on Social Security and Medicare

"The publishers of The Iconoclast endorsed Bush four years ago, based on the things he promised, not on this smoke-screened agenda," the newspaper said in its editorial. "Today, we are endorsing his opponent, John Kerry."

It urged "Texans not to rate the candidate by his hometown or even his political party, but instead by where he intends to take the country."

Complete story.

Such An Odd Way To Fight Terrorism

Bush Repeatedly Rejected Plans To Go After Top Terrorist

In his effort to claim he is the strongest candidate on national security, President Bush has lately been speaking a lot about how he is doing everything possible to track down terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi - the man thought to be responsible for escalating attacks on U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

But according to NBC News, it was Bush who in 2002 and 2003 rejected three plans to strike and neutralize Zarqawi because he believed a successful strike would undermine the public case for targeting Saddam Hussein.

As NBC News reported, "Long before the war, the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself - but never pulled the trigger." In June 2002, the Pentagon drafted plans to attack a camp Zarqawi was at with cruise missiles and airstrikes. The plan was killed by the White House. Four months later, as Zarqawi planned to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe, the Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, yet "the White House again killed it." In January 2003, the Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the White House killed it.

According to NBC, "Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi's operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam."

Zarqawi is thought to be at least indirectly responsible for hundreds of U.S. casualties. Just yesterday, Zarqawi's terrorist group beheaded an American civilian in Baghdad.

Maybe I'm confused.... If the goal is to make the USA safe from terorists, shouldn't you go after terrorists? Or is attacking an uninvolved country a better way to make the USA safer?