Dick Cheney:
"I guess my general sense of where we are with respect to Iraq and at
the end of now, what, nearly six years, is that we've accomplished
nearly everything we set out to do...."
What has Dick Cheney really accomplished in Iraq?
An estimated 4 million Iraqis, out of 27 million, have been displaced from their homes,
that is, made homeless. Some 2.7 million are internally displaced
inside Iraq. A couple hundred thousand are cooling their heels in
Jordan. And perhaps a million are quickly running out of money and
often living in squalid conditions in Syria. Cheney's war has left
about 15% of Iraqis homeless inside the country or abroad. That would
be like 45 million American thrown out of their homes.
It is controversial how many Iraqis died as a result of the 2003
invasion and its aftermath. But it seems to me that a million extra
dead, beyond what you would have expected from a year 2000 baseline, is
entirely plausible. The toll is certainly in the hundreds of thousands.
Cheney did not kill them all. The Lancet study suggested that the US
was directly responsible for a third of all violent deaths since 2003.
That would be as much as 300,000 that we killed. The rest, we only set
in train their deaths by our invasion.
Baghdad has
been turned from a mixed city, about half of its population Shiite and
the other half Sunni in 2003, into a Shiite city where the Sunni
population may be as little as ten to fifteen percent. From a Sunni
point of view, Cheney's war has resulted in a Shiite (and Iranian)
take-over of the Iraqi capital, long a symbol of pan-Arabism and
anti-imperialism.
In the Iraqi elections, Shiite
fundamentalist parties closely allied with Iran came to power. The
Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, the leading party in parliament, was
formed by Iraqi expatriates at the behest of Ayatollah Khomeini in 1982
in Tehran. The Islamic Mission (Da'wa) Party is the oldest ideological
Shiite party working for an Islamic state. It helped form Hizbullah in
Beirut in the early 1980s. It has supplied both prime ministers elected
since 2005. Fundamentalist Shiites shaped the constitution, which
forbids the civil legislature to pass legislation that contravenes
Islamic law. Dissidents have accused the new Iraqi government of being an Iranian puppet.
Arab-Kurdish violence is spiking in the north, endangering the Obama withdrawal plan and, indeed, the whole of Iraq, not to mention Syria, Turkey and Iran.
Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi women have been widowed by the war and its effects, leaving most without a means of support. Iraqi widows often lack access to clean water and electricity. Aljazeera English has video.
$32 billion were wasted on Iraq reconstruction,
and most of it cannot even be traced. I repeat, Cheney gave away $32
bn. to anonymous cronies in such a way that we can't even be sure who
stole it, exactly. And you are angry at AIG about $400 mn. in bonuses!
We are talking about $32 billion given out in brown paper bags.
Political power is being fragmented in Iraq
with big spikes in the murder rate in some provinces that may reflect
faction-fighting and vendettas in which the Iraqi military is loathe to
get involved.
The Iraqi economy is devastated, and the new government's bureaucracy and infighting have made it difficult to attract investors.
The Bush-Cheney invasion helped further destabilize the Eastern Mediterranean, setting in play Kurdish nationalism and terrifying Turkey.Cheney
avoids mentioning all the human suffering he has caused, on a cosmic
scale, and focuses on procedural matters like elections (which he
confuses with democracy-- given 2000 in this country, you can
understand why). Or he lies, as when he says that Iran's influence in
Iraq has been blocked. Another lie is that there was that the US was
fighting "al-Qaeda" in Iraq as opposed to just Iraqis. He and Bush even
claim that they made Iraqi womens' lives better.
The real question is whether anyone will have the gumption to put Cheney on trial for treason and crimes against humanity.
© 2009 Juan Cole
Juan Cole teaches Middle Eastern and South Asian history at the University of Michigan. His most recent book Napoleon's Egypt: Invading the Middle East
(New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007) has just been published. He has
appeared widely on television, radio and on op-ed pages as a
commentator on Middle East affairs, and has a regular column at
Salon.com. He has written, edited, or translated 14 books and has
authored 60 journal articles. His weblog on the contemporary Middle
East is Informed Comment.
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
91 Comments so far
Show All"The Bush-Cheney invasion", caused by the WMD Lies, wasn't it?
Then came the Torture?
When will you and I do something about it?
Over 4,200 US Soldiers would still be alive,
and over 30,000 maimed would still be whole,
IF the Bush-Cheney WMD Lies had not persuaded Congress
to allow the invasion of Iraq, a country which did not
attack the US and did not have anything to do with 9-11.
The unnecessary wars will continue unless we apply the
Rule of Law to the Bush Crime Family.
Attorney General Holder must appoint a Special Prosecutor for Bush, Cheney
and the appointee lawyers that advocated Torture and violated Federal Laws,
our Constitution and the Geneva Convention on Torture.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE
Sign The Petition To Prosecute Them.
http://AngryVoters.org
Have your organization pass this url to members with a recommendation to sign it.
http://AngryVoters.org
SIGN THE PETITION
.
Reading between the lines of Vader's recent "I did what I came to killomplish" interview... it rang a lot of desperate school boy self preservation masked in poker face when-should-I-run-for-the-door inner thought process. Anybody else see that?
When this invasion was being set up, I was staggered - how do you unscramble an egg? It was the worst imagninable disaster-in-the-making, as millions around the world KNEW. There would simply be NO WAY OUT for the Iraqis - and I'm sure many of them, having lived under Saddam, could not imagine how much worst their lives could be. Of course, many now say they have 'hope for the future' - but I'm afraid that's just wishful thinking. Look at how long Iran has been in the grip of religious nuts - and Iran was once a real democracy. What the US did to Iran should have been fair warning to the Iraqis - and everyone else - about what was to come. But then, the MIC drools over wars that never end - they call it 'job security' - and these days, they're rolling in clover, while their victims choke on their turds.
Cheney had two goals: to plant a large, essentially permanent US force in the middle of the oil-producing region of the mideast, and to secure access to the oil for US companies. The first he clearly accomplished (note that 30-50,000 will stay on after the "withdrawal"); to judge the second, we'd need to know more about the current status of big US oil in Iraq. It is clear, though, the access could be compelled by virtue of the on-site US forces.
As for the other stuff -- casualties, displacement, destruction of the economy and the culture -- this never entered his mind as a criterion.
You are probably right--all that other "stuff" was just gravy on the side.
"The Lancet study suggested that the US was directly responsible for a third of all violent deaths since 2003. That would be as much as 300,000 that we killed. The rest, we only set in train their deaths by our invasion."
Thank you Prof. Cole for pointing this out! I think a lot of people here don't get it. The US is NOT directly responsible for 1,000,000 deaths! We are only directly responsible for as MUCH (maximum) of 300,000.
The Lancet said:
"31% of those were attributed to the Coalition, 24% to others, and 46% unknown.
I also really appreciated your reply to Amy Goodman on DN, about why we have to be careful about leaving Iraq:
"(T)he question is, what do they leave behind? And, you know, if you had a civil war break out between the Arabs and the Kurds over Kirkuk, it could bring in Turkey, could bring in Iran, could destabilize the whole eastern Mediterranean, would have implications for the world economy, the US could get drawn back in."
I guess all these people advocating "OUT NOW" just don't understand that the US has been keeping a lid on a massive civil war for the past 5 years. The Iraqi have already killed over 700,000 of their fellow countrymen, a full scale civil war would be much worse (i.e. large set piece battles and hundreds of people killed in a single battle, as was true in Lebanon in 1975-76). As Cole has pointed out on his piece "We're really leaving Iraq", even after we withdraw all of forces from Iraq (and I agree with him that it will definitely happen by 2011) the Iraqi government will still need US air support. So no one should count on us abandoning Iraq anytime in the near future.
"Iraq lacks an air force and it will take years to create one. One caveat about Obama's pledge to remove troops by the end of 2011 is that he cannot possibly be including the U.S. Air Force, which is almost certainly in for a longer mission, but can operate from bases outside Iraq."
As you pointed out:
"the issue is not so much the rate at which the United States withdraws from Iraq. "
and...
"Well, again, I’m not so worried about the timetable for withdrawals (from Afghanistan); I’m worried about what they leave behind."
Exactly! Let's not leave behind a genocide. We can all agree that we are definitely leaving at some point in the near future. So let's be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in.
"...the U.S. has been keeping a lid on a massive civil war for the past 5 years..."??!! One huge intention in the first place was to create as much civil bloodshed and chaos as possible in order to split Iraq up into 3 or 4 balkanized parts, all the better for U.S. control. Even your buddy Biden campaigned on this brilliant notion. That's why Viceroy Bremer was sent in to dismantle what infrastructure Iraq had left. That's why Negroponte was sent in to help organize the deathsquad apparatus, so that factional conflict could be maximized.
Yes! Of course we have been "...the U.S. has been keeping a lid on a massive civil war for the past 5 years..."!!!
Your assertion that our "huge intention in the first place was to create as much civil bloodshed and chaos as possible" is absurd and insulting to our troops (who are just trying to do the best they can in an impossible situation). Our troops are not unfeeling monsters, they are brave warriors, and I'm sure they would rather be hunting bin laden than stationed in Iraq.
Do yourself a favor and read what Dr. Juan Cole has written on the subject. He is far more knowledgeable than you are.
This is from his piece in Salon "We're really leaving Iraq":
"Obama cannot afford to make his calculations about Iraq solely with an eye to domestic American politics. He extended his original proposal of a 16-month withdrawal of active combat brigades to 18 months so as to leave more troops in place to help with the next Iraqi parliamentary elections, scheduled for December 2009. It is still the case that Iraqi elections can only go forward if the country is locked down and vehicular traffic forbidden, preventing car-bombings and coordinated guerrilla strikes. It might be possible for the Iraqi military to provide security for national elections in 2013 should the country's future ruler or rulers deign to hold them, but the Iraqi military cannot hope to do so this year.
Iraq's military also continues to need logistical support from U.S. forces. Australian commander John Snell warned Agence France Presse, the French news service, of supply chain problems: "If we were leaving today, [the Iraqi army] will be able to defend itself but it would rapidly disintegrate." Iraqi national security director Muwaffaq al-Rubaie listed for AFP other realms in which the new Iraqi army cannot stand alone: "[S]urveillance of frontiers, the air force, the navy, sophisticated counter-terrorism weapons, and we need to make serious progress in intelligence matters." An Iraqi military that altogether collapses, as Snell foresees, would prove a disaster for Obama and might well necessitate a return of U.S. forces to Iraq."
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/03/02/obama_iraq/
Also from Informed Comment 2005:
"Personally, I think "US out now" as a simple mantra neglects to consider the full range of possible disasters that could ensue. For one thing, there would be an Iraq civil war. Iraq wasn't having a civil war in 2002. And although you could argue that what is going on now is a subterranean, unconventional civil war, it is not characterized by set piece battles and hundreds of people killed in a single battle, as was true in Lebanon in 1975-76, e.g. People often allege that the US military isn't doing any good in Iraq and there is already a civil war. These people have never actually seen a civil war and do not appreciate the lid the US military is keeping on what could be a volcano."
http://www.juancole.com/2005/08/ten-things-congress-could-demand-from.html
joehope, I'm convinced you're hopeless.
Did I say that the intention to "create civil bloodshed and chaos to break Iraq into pieces" was the intention of the TROOPS--or could I have meant the intentions of the NEOCON ADMINISTRATION which sent the troops into Iraq?? This is typical of your diversions and distortions, and I swear, I still can't tell if it is your INTENTION or possibly a problem of something more organic. As for the TROOPS, I think a lot of them really don't have a clue why they are really there, except to protect the HOMELAND and "spread democracy". Many are there purely because of ecomonic hardship. As for the (dead) Bin Laden, I think many of them would just rather be out hunting, period. Many soldiers are "getting it", though they are still trapped in that cesspool of U.S. adventurism. For instance, Pat Tillman got it--three well-placed bullets in the forehead--after it became known that he planned to expose his experiences with the corruption he encountered with elements of the military and contractors. Then there was the incident with Coronel Westhusing, but that was explained as a "suicide". There is bravery and there are good intentions among the troops, but don't try to throw the subject off with the 'NOBLE WARRIOR' glorification--especially when they were sent to Iraq to serve as cannonfodder in a brutal, criminal mission.
I read the Salon.com link, and even though I thought this(CD)was a worthy article, the Salon article only gave me the impression of Doctor Juan Cole shilling for the Democratic Party and Obama's obeisance to the "conventional wisdom" of the Empire. The more Doctor Cole tried to delineate Obama's tack from that of his predecessor, the more it struck me in the actual continuity and similarity--despite Obama's stated desire to prevent civil war in Iraq. (I can somewhat see how Doctor Cole would trump the great Chomsky in your estimation.) Frankly, I really don't care what Obama (or his cheerleaders) have to say. It's pretty much puppet theatre to me. You can GOBAMA all you want. I'm not impressed, not that you should care about that, either. What I am concerned about is the ever-increasing militarization of our society and indications toward ever greater State Control as we watch in a mesmerized stupor while the Obama administration abets the final looting of the U.S. treasury by the international banking cartels. What's next? Another false flag incident? Martial law? An attack on Iran or whoever else might seem appropriate?
You recently asked me if I was "insane". It does make me "insane" when I find my energies being sucked into dialogueing with such slavish, authoritarian-worshipping mentalities. That's my problem. You Joe--you have Daddy Obama and your newly-discovered Zionist heritage going for you. Best of luck. I can hear the little clicking heels.
joehope. Don't twist Professor Cole's statements.
He said we were directly responsible for a 1/3 of million deaths, and that the US invasion indirectly but quite intentionally caused the rest, maybe 2/3rd's of a million.
This by ethnically cleansing Bhagdad from Sunni to Shiite w/ death squads, displacing millions, destroying the infrastructure, untreated disease and more death squads paid $300.00 a month to go on mass murder sprees.
Professor Cole agreed up to a million may well have died.
I think you are a treasure to CD for various reasons, but this twist insulted someone I respect so I clarify your prevrication!
Joe.
I'm not twisting his words. You are;
Cole did not say "the US invasion indirectly but quite intentionally caused the rest, maybe 2/3rd's of a million."
He said, "the rest, we only set in train their deaths by our invasion."
No mention of "quite intentionally caused" 700,000 deaths.
And he did list 300,000 as the maximum we are directly responsible for.
All of the one million excess Iraqi deaths are the result of the USA's invasion. The USA invaded knowing that there existed a certain death rate before the invasion and that the USA would bear responsibility for any change in the death rate post invasion. The USA chose to invade, and now the USA bears responsibility for the excess one million Iraqi deaths and much more.
31% of those were attributed to the Coalition, 24% to others, and 46% unknown.
100% to the invasion!
Sure, but not intentionally.
After all, remember that Dr. Cole supported the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.
And it is important to point out that OUR troops didn't directly kill over 300,000 people (that being the maximum figure, the real number is probably smaller).
Killing 300,000 is more understandable if you are in an environment in which your enemies have killed 700,000. If anything it signifies that we are being careful not to harm civilians.
Invasion or no invasion, there is no excuse for a homicide bomber blowing themselves up in a crowded marketplace.
I suppose it's part of the free will experiment, but for better or worse the human mind/body can come up with an excuse for anything: setting in motion a horrid form of death for 1,000,000 people, the maiming, disease and homelessness of millions more, the theft and squandering of trillions of dollars - all for the excuse of keeping a lid on a larger civil war? Do yourself a favor, when a large bald headed black man by the name of Morpheus comes up to you at a party and offers you a red pill or a blue pill, take the blue pill and save yourself the major headache you'll get from the shredding of denial veiled by your clever words and numbers. Yes, touching humanity is at times a very painful experience, advised only for the truly courageous.
Oh, and I'm sure there's a clever excuse out there for the hysterectomies (unintentional of course!) being suffered by the girl friends and wives of some returning vets because their sperm is uranium toxic. Yes, I seem to recall now that Laura Bush said this was a way to show Arab women how to respect their bodies. Yeah, do yourself a favor, go with the blue pill...aaargh.
There's no excuse for lying our way into a techno superior war that only allows the resistance to fight back with a last ditch kamikaze option, blowing themselves up in the market place...
That's it, exactly. No invasion, no deaths. End of story. (Unless you count the embargo which led to 500,000 dead children and old folk).
"Bill from Saginaw March 17th, 2009 11:09 am
Cheney says that after nearly six years of US occupation of Iraq, "we've accomplished nearly everything we set out to do.....""
I UNDERSTAND what you're saying, but you (and some other people who posted in this page) and Cheney evidently don't have the same meaning in mind when each of you says the 'we' word. While your 'we' didn't achieve what you thought you wanted to accomplish, and I certainly didn't, for what I would've wanted was for the war to not be launched at all and for the Bush-Cheney administration to have been legally reprimanded for f*cking with the UN weapons inspections that were working out very successfully (for us and clearly not the 'we' of Cheney et al) in late 2002 and early 2003; well, his 'we' succeeded very much, in their minds, given what their real plans were.
You and he just aren't talking about the same 'we' people. But of course he won't say this. Well, maybe he would, but I doubt that he would.
No matter what you say, Cheney won, and now he's laughing at all the stupid cowardly POOR people that have supported him all his life. There's no way any of you can touch him - HE WON. YOU LOST. And now he's giving you all the finger - and you're NOT going to do a damned thing about it. He has the last laugh... ha-ha ha-ha-ha
Not if you believe in Karma, armybrat. I'd hate to be Dick Cheney.
Sioux Rose
GEORGE M: Thank you for mentioning karma, a/k/a universal justice, a system of accounting that is inviolate, even if the full evidence of its expression is not seen on our particular time clocks (i.e. current lifespans).
armybrat,
Cheney has the last laugh?
Sure, known forever as a mass murder, gutter of the US consitution, neo-con enemy of America,
In Hiding. Go to Europe and be thrown in a cell.
Hated by most of mankind-
And Hiding from eternity too, Because he hears the little voices of...
Those Mass-Murdered Children of God,
And the Shrieks coming from Yawning Hell awaiting him,
He's a Tortured Scared Soul in Hiding, you call that winning?
Joe.
Dude, you are confusing his Last Gasp with his Last Laugh.
I can see him giving us all the finger in public. I can't see him laughing when he is alone.
He is probably drunk, and if he has not yet passed out he's probably crying.
You're probably right - he's a really messed-up freak of a psychopath. I don't even want to know what he does when he's alone... probably plays with himself...
Actually, he is much like De Sade, a Libertine, and lives by an amoral philosophical system, that while abhorent to us is rational to him. This is where the term Pure Evil should be applied. His death will provide an occasion for celebration by millions.
You are correct on all counts.
views oneself above the law... definite psychopath.
"We will act, and then you idiots will be studying what we did... and then we'll act again..."
And then we arrest you.
"Nietzsche March 17th, 2009 2:13 pm
The first time George Wallace ran for a local public office he lost. In a phone call to a friend the next day he said "I got out niggered in that election. That's never going to happen to me again." And it didn't. He knew the damage he was doing but his lust for power made all those lies worth telling. From his wheelchair he tried to apologize.
Jesse Helms was a dummy, but a true believer. He went to his grave believing he was right. Jesse had integrity. George didn't.
Which do you prefer?"
THERE ARE three basic answers to such questions and in this case they are: George; Jesse; and NEITHER!
Before I was backed into a corner the point I was trying to make was that there are all kinds of reasons for human behavior, but there are always always reasons.
Cheney is a human. I would love to believe he is a monster who did things that no decent human could do. It's just not true. Evil is not something that can be drug into the street and shot or hanged on a lamp post or tortured with a blowtorch.
Evil is something that lives in every one of us without exception. Anything you can conceive of you are capable of doing. Try to remember that torturing this sick fuck would do nothing to undo the damage he has done. It would only add to the total already-much-too-heavy suffering in the world at that particular moment.
Anybody think feeling pain would make him sorry for what he has done? Like the rest of us he would be able to think of nothing but how to stop the pain.
Whenever you see heroism, courage, self sacrifice; whenever you see cruelty, ugliness, careless hurting of another, remember: "I am equal to that. We are all equal to that."
Free will is a lovely illusion. I am no apologist for psychology but I believe it has proven that we have nowhere near the freedom we think we have. And let's not forget that few of us will ever be is the dick's shoes----with unlimited power and little need to fear retribution.
Want to use a torch on dick's dick? Want to see him writhe while being burned alive? Want to hear him beg for his life like so many innocent people in Gitmo surely did? You had better think about that.
Take a good look at yourself and think about that real hard.
I respect you and respect your thinking. However, beyond the negative effect of having fantasies about torturing evil people, there is a need, not because of deterrence but because of copy cat behavior by the populace, of punishing severely the cruel behavior of public officials. If the whole gang of wall street and government officials who aided and abetted war and cruelty in order to make a profit are not rounded up, imprisoned, humiliated and their assets stripped so that their families are left without money or influence, then very shortly the police will not be able to handle the vast increase in calloused criminal activity. We will return to castles with thick walls and small armies of people having to move in groups for safety even for a shopping trip. Some very smart people are aware of this and voice trepidation for the future of our country. So we either make an example of the Cheneys among us or the US is done.
The same could have been said during the Reagan/Bush years. Impeachment was kept off the table and we got the excesses of Clinton and then BushCo. The problem of too much power vested in the executive has existed ever since the second constitution's ratification, but the Bill of Rights wasn't nearly enough of a check on executive power, whose excesses are now very clearly seen. The only way to change that dynamic is to enact another constitution, a very democratic instrument that greatly limits executive power, completely does away with modern electioneering, creates new institutions and returns much power to the people and states.
Well, let's take it even further. Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon in order to, ostensibly "heal the nation." What a big fat lie Gerald Ford told. All it did was show people like Cheney and Rumsfeld that they could do whatever the hell they wanted to, without legal consequences.
Well-intentioned but so confused.
Sioux Rose
NIETSZCHE: While I agree that adding torture to Cheney's fate does nothing to heal the world, I do not agree that all souls are capable of the same levels of evil. Some will take the bullet rather than inflict suffering on another. It is mistake to take human nature for one homogeneous compound that can be expressed in equal parts by all.
What astrology has shown me over the course of 30 years of utilizing its complex systems of cosmic math is just why some people get plugged up and misuse energy. It demonstrates where fear and anger inhibit better response patterns. And I don't see the evidence found in birth blueprints as a matter of sheer caprice. The pattern is where the soul left off. If Mars configures violently with the moon, the individual will explode through their emotions. If Pluto negatively configures with Venus, they will not be able to love in a way that allows them to bare their themselves to true intimacy. The list of these conflicts is long, and tells so much about the twists that human character and personality can take. And just as a small, fixed number of notes make all kinds of music, we may all have started with the same basics, but some turn their lives into symphonies and others utter cacaphony.
It is said that there are some people that are more weak than evil, and others more evil than weak, meaning they are psychopathic and incapable of conscience. It is also said that the weak and ignorant (they go together) are easily led by those without a conscience. Both are spiritually asleep, but for the weak man or woman there is the possibility of awakening, while for the psychopathic eviler there is little or none. That has enormous implications in the karmic or eternal sense, especially when one realizes that one cannot escape the inward suffering that goes along with being in a state of darkness.
Sioux Rose
CHESSGAME: AS to your analogy, no one JUST arrives in that state of psycopathology or darkness without having set ample cause into motion... in prior sojourns perhaps.
That is likely true, Rose. Being relegated to live with the inner state that goes along with it, though, is punishment in itself. So there is a kind of unseen 'justice' after all.
Amen.
I am thinking you have a great ability for inner peace relative to the general populace. It was a few years back when a lady was touring the nation and telling her story of forgiveness for the perpetrator of the murder of her children, at least a daughter, on a camping trip that I gained a sense that justice was indeed immediate. A common tripping stone I see for a mass movement to change our collective behavior of selling and dropping uranium bombs as part of daily commerce is the desire for the vast majority of general state progressives to want to see the Bush/Cheney's of the world in pain. For most if you offered world peace and the abolishment of nuclear munitions and power tomorrow they would reject it if it did not include a display of pain by the Bush/Cheney's.
I've been studying Caroline Myss' work and she goes so far as to hint some have made "prior" arrangements to have a relation where the person helps push them over into the realm of sociopath potential for an intended spiritual development...hmm.
This may seem a little foreign to those who have not been exposed to the concept of essence versus personality. Simply put, what we acquire after birth is personality, while our essence was present before, perhaps even prior to birth. Personality generally encapsulates essence, and serves as our interface with the world. Problems arise when personality dominates essence, and can lead to its 'corruption.' According to some authors and mystics, if the corruption has gone too far and gone on for too long, that individual can no longer develop spiritually, and may even become a psychopath. And as Rose pointed out, it does not come about all at once without 'prior cause.'
The real answer: Probably not.
The real solution: Execution first. Trial later.
You, Juan are an asshole. While Cheney and Co should be tried and hung by their balls (what little they have), you are sparking anti-Iranian hatred which will lead to another brutal and probably much worse war. And this bullshit about "endangering the Obama withdrawal plan" is exactly that -- BULLSHIT! Obama was alot of talk about ending the war during the campaign and now he's retracting all of what was only rhetoric to begin with. And Juan, who's ass are you kissing, Rush Limbaugh's? We don't need more neo-cons like you parading themselves as progressives.
Dave
You are obviously not aware of who Juan Cole is. Certainly, the Bush antics has benefited Iran in terms of regional politics. And that is what Professor Cole is saying. Is Iran a problem for the militarists and Israelis who dominate American policies? You should believe that a strengthened Iran is indeed a problem for those who look at the world through Israeli lenses.
Dr. Cole is not "stirring" up hate, he is only explaining rather clearly how American foreign policy has actually made things worse in the Middle East in the exact way that policy makers wanted to avoid. Please think some more, so you can understand what is going on.
Obama has to work within the existing structure, since he is an popularly elected president, not the winner of a full scale revolution. Bush's foreign policy was only a crazy extension of a policy of American hegemony put into place since WWII.
Unfortunately, decades of misguided policies, both foreign and economic have shaped the world as it is. Maybe you are the one that has to pull his head out of his own ass to understand that we are lucky to have a President Obama. Jeeze o' pete, Dave, stop this attack on Cole. He is one of very few voices of real understanding of the situation in the Middle East.
damnliberal's right.
Dr. Cole is the new Chomsky. I'd say, he's even better than Chomsky.
We are tremendously lucky to have Obama as our Commander in Chief!
And, yes, Iran is a threat.
"There's no greater threat to Israel or to the peace and stability of the region than Iran,"
"The danger from Iran is grave and real and my goal will be to eliminate this threat,"
- Obama at AIPAC
"Iran is a grave threat," Obama said in Billings, Montana. "It has an illicit nuclear program, it supports terrorism across the region and militias in Iraq, it threatens Israel’s existence, it denies the holocaust. But this threat has grown, primarily — and this is the irony — the reason Iran is so much more powerful now than it was a few years ago is because of the Bush-McCain policy of fighting an endless war in Iraq and refusing to pursue direct diplomacy with Iran."
Davethered decries "Neocons parading as progressives....."
Could this possibly be what the shrinks call projection?
Bill from Saginaw
You seem a might too touchy about any criticism of Shia or Iran. While they're certainly not the worst governments in the world, they are nothing to emulate or praise. Every government in the world deserves at least some criticism. We must not mute our voices simply because we're worried that the crazies will take over. As a for instance in my case, I tend to mute my criticisms of Obama because I feel he is so much better than Cheney, etc. You're free to call me an 'asshole' too for that, but a little civility is often appreciated by most people.
How great is O'Bama? Was the Imperial Chimp and Darth Viper such a tough act to follow? Maybe we've traded a Theocracy for our very own Shah.
GaryA
With all due respect to Mr. Cole, Mr. Cheney is absolutely right - we've achieved beyond our wildest hopes with the war in Iraq.
* We've vastly enriched major sectors of our military industrial complex, many of whom have prospered without the nuisance of having to deal with competitive bidding.
* We've put a puppet regime in power in the country with the largest reserves of oil in the world.
* We've proven that, as David Barstow pointed out in shocking exposes in the New York Times, that the American media is subservient to military industrialists, not the public, willingly deceiving the public on behalf of said industrialists. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html (See also Salon.com's Glenn Greenwald for an excellent discussion of this, at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html)
* We've succeeded in masking from the public the true costs of our military, which is probably in excess of $1.5 Trillion per year ($10,000.oo per working woman or man).[See Marketwatch.com's Paul Farrell's discussion, at: http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/why-we-love-americas-outrageous/story.aspx?guid=%7B0D31C880-32CD...
* And we've established that no major political or media figure (except perhaps "comedians" such as Jon Stewart) will ever challenge the status quo, further guaranteeing that as we continue bankrupting America on military misadventurism, our political/media elites will call on the poor, the infirm and the elderly to sacrifice (on Medicare, Social Security, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Food Stamps, Education, healthcare, etc.) to delay complete financial collapse.
In sum, a stunning achievement. So if you're Dick Cheney, what's not to like?
"We've put a puppet regime in power in the country with the largest reserves of oil in the world."
This, being the exact same thing the CIA did in Iran in 1953. The wheel (samsara) just keeps on turning.
GaryA: the only problem that I have with your comments is that you are using the same "we" as Cheney. Do you include yourself in that "we"? I don't.
But your point is made. The Bush/Cheney administration was not a failure but a success to the class that they represent. But that doesn't include me or the overwhelming majority of Americans (let alone the world) - the other "we".
Cheney should be put to death by Israeli bulldozer while inside the Palestinian house being destroyed.
Cheney is probably right, in that the current state of affairs is exactly what they wanted. (Well....maybe they would have liked to have gotten their hands on the oil a little sooner). Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine" is probably one of Dick's favorite reads. Probably even raises a chuckle from him.
Freewheelin Franklin: Naomi's book is a great and incisive look at the current state of world capitalism. I would recommend it to all. SHOCK DOCTRINE: THE RISE OF DISASTER CAPITALISM by Naomi Klein -- a very brilliant young girl. I watched her debate Alan Greenspan back in Sept. of 08 and he was tongue tied. She ran circles around him. For a good look at an interview she gave back in Oct. of 08 visit "fora.tv.com/naomiklein"
The first time George Wallace ran for a local public office he lost. In a phone call to a friend the next day he said "I got out niggered in that election. That's never going to happen to me again." And it didn't. He knew the damage he was doing but his lust for power made all those lies worth telling. From his wheelchair he tried to apologize.
Jesse Helms was a dummy, but a true believer. He went to his grave believing he was right. Jesse had integrity. George didn't.
Which do you prefer?
What's your point, Nietzsche?
Yes, please fill us in.
Those pictures in the article, horrible as they are, are not worse than what blacks suffered under Jim Crow. And while the lynchings were carried out by white trash they were incited by people like Jesse and George.
Would you feel differently about Cheney depending on whether he was unable to tell right from wrong (Many sociopaths are very intelligent) and merely saw himself as a super patriot who was willing to do anything for his country, or whether his life was consciously dedicated to global instability on a financial, military, and moral level with all the human suffering he could possibly create---a true disciple of evil?
Dick belongs in an insane asylum along with all the people that voted for him and Bush and even if they stole 2 elections, look how many voted for another head case called Palin! The problem: around 50% of America is an insane asylum!
A superstitious person might believe that we were living in the Kali Yuga, where evil is rewarded and justice is no place to be found. Don't worry. It'll be over in a thousand years.
Someone once asked a very, wise man: " Is there really a hell someplace "? His reply: " Where do you think you are now "!
HAHAHA! Now that's good!!
My sentiments exactly.
Cheney's Mission Accomplished
Cheesedick Cheney's "Mission" will not be accomplished until he's dead. He will then be borne by a black helicopter onto the deck of an aircraft carrier large enough to contain everyone he's ever killed or robbed . . . who will then have their way with him.
If McCain was going to be Bush's third term, Obama's turning out to be Cheney's first. Endless wars, endless bailouts to Wall Street.
And those of you who think that the Obama's Justice Department will seriously investigate and prosecute Cheney or Bush are living in an "audacity of stupidity" fantasy world. Democrats (including Obama) were co-conspirators, accomplices, accessories, aiders, and abettors. Not to mention that Obama's committing the same Bush crimes against humanity in the Middle East, as I type these words.
So you see, Obama couldn't possibly prosecute Bush or Cheney, as this would also bring his OWN ass & party down.
I prefer to look at it a little differently. For a simple metaphor, it seemed that we were about to head off a cliff, morally, economically, and intellectually. I think Obama has managed to turn us, and now we're racing along the edge. The future is up to us.
It could be that. Or, it could be that, like Wiley E. Coyote, we've already run off the cliff, but the dust cloud has not yet dispersed to reveal, cleary, the fall to come. Or, perhaps, Obama helped the elite turn on the knife edge, but their dust will obscure the edge from those who are following as fast as they can.
Confusius said (OK, this is from a tee-shirt, but I like to think of Dick Cheney when I read it): "Sit by the river long enough, all your enemies will float by."
No, I agree w/cape_fear!
Great soundbites, you should be hired to write speeches for Obama. But empty words won't change the fact that Obama's covering and protecting the crimes of Bush & Cheney. Case closed. Spare me the apologies, excuses and Sunday mass rhetoric.
I also heard Cheney didn't get his degree at an Ivy league school! Probably got it at one of those hick state schools so he could crony his way to the bottom of the republi-crumb political aparatchik.
Cheney graduated from the University of Wyoming after having flunked out of Yale due to excessive drinking. Actually, George would have flunked out of Yale due to excessive drinking, but he was from "gentleman's" stock, unlike Cheney who was more of a commoner, and so George was able to receive "Gentleman's C's" that kept him from Cheney's fate.
I wonder whether they ever bonded over the recognition that they were both Yalee drunkards.
These are bitter truths about Iraq.
Cheney (and his boss) must be brought to justice, but how?
Frontier justice- in the form of a noose. Hang 'Em High.
Arrest & execute
NUREMBERG II 2009
%&!*blowtorch*%!%!!his m*f*@!dick!!
Best comment I have ever read regarding the Evil Doer, Cheney!!!
Cheney says that after nearly six years of US occupation of Iraq, "we've accomplished nearly everything we set out to do....."
Now wait a minute. You don't need to spend much time in the press or media archives to remember exactly what the stated reasons were for the American military attack upon Saddam Hussein's government, according to the text of the 2002 Congressional authorization for use of force and the White House's own propaganda run up to this disasterous war, a media campaign that Dick Cheney personally spear headed.
"We set out" supposedly to neutralize Saddam Hussein's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction - chemical, biological and/or nuclear. When was this accomplished?
"We set out" supposedly to prevent Iraq from harboring international jihadi terrorist networks like al Qaeda. When was this accomplished?
"We set out" supposedly to uphold international law, and to enforce UN Security Council resolutions authorizing the use of multinational military force in accordance with the UN Charter. When was this accomplished?
"We set out" supposedly to overthrow a tyrant dictator, and guide Iraq into becoming a model for spreading democratic government, modernity, and economic development based upon global free market principles throughout the Middle East. When was this accomplished?
"We set out" supposedly to bring stability to a region of the world often plagued by sectarian strife, unrest, and violence. When was this accomplished?
Juan Cole does an excellent job of reminding us all what the real facts are on the ground, and what the Bush/Cheney preemptive war legacy genuinely is. There certainly should be a full Congressional inquiry into the missing $32 billion in Iraq reconstruction funds, even though that amount now pales in comparison to the staggering sums already dispensed and unaccounted for (missing in action) in the great Wall Street corporate bailout of 2008-2009.
If what "we set out to do" was spread hate and fear, multiply America's enemies throughout the world, and bankrupt the US government while looting the public treasury for crony capitalist gain, then that mission, indeed, has been nearly accomplished.
Bill from Saginaw
Bill, Juan is spreading fear and hatred w/his anti-Iranian bullshit. Regardless of what you think of the current Iranian government, it would do well to trace US-Iranian relations back to the popular Mossedegh government of 1953 which was overthrown in a US-backed coup bringing to power another brutal thug (standard fashion), the Shah. This of course, led to the Iranian people rising up and overthrowing him in 1979. So Juan is just one more appologist for US imperialism regardless of how he coats his rhetoric.
Juan Cole "spreading fear and hatred"? "One more apologist for US imperialism regardless of how he coats his rhetoric"?
You are certainly correct that the CIA-sponsored overthrow of Mossedegh in 1953 was the grandaddy of fifty years worth of blowback against American black ops intrigue in the Middle East. From the Shah's SAVAK police state, through the Iran-Iraq War during the '80's, up to the occupation of Iraq today, US militarism and foreign policy machinations in the region have wrought incalculable hardship upon the locals. Professor Juan Cole's website Informed Comment, in my opinion, chronicles this history in a very even handed fashion and takes care not to demonize.
The bullshit here is Cheney's revisionist history, not anything anti-Iranian that Juan Cole writes about. Bush's invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq as part of a global war on terror has served only to strengthen the Shiite theocrats in Tehran domestically, and substantially expand Iranian political influence in southern Iraq and in Iraq's post-Saddam central government. Those are simply the facts on the ground, with no moral value judgments being drawn. Iran (and then Russia) are emerging as the big winners in terms of regiional realpolitik.
For Dick Cheney to now suddenly claim that the Bush regime's imperial crusade somehow succeeded in thwarting Iranian nationalism or has contained the spread of the Shiite version of Islam in the Middle East is the real, dangerous, self-serving bullshit that in my opinion needs to be vigorously exposed and condemned.
Bill from Saginaw
Sorry, but you address only the "reasons" as stated in their cover story, not the actual reasons. I believe the whole thing was to get a toehold in the Middle East to extract oil. And that was in fact accomplished. What so many liberals seem to miss is that there ARE people in the world who value human lives differently. It's not that they think all humans are equal, and just do a bad job of living that ideal. It's that they don't believe it in the first place.
Wasn't the original idea to Get Osama, the mastermind behind 9/11? Could he be living the life of leisure in a guest house at a ranch in Texas?
Who is more detestable?..Bush or Cheney?...Or is it a toss-up?
Not even close.
While Bush was out falling off his bike, Cheney and his secret 'task force' were setting into motion the Iraq oilfields grab -- long before 9-11.
On 9-11, while Bush was being flown as far from D.C. as he could get, Cheney huddled up with his crew to formulate the 'response'.
During Katrina, while Bush was playing air guitar and having birthday cake with McInsane, Cheney jumped immediately into action -- not helping victims, but arranging the no-bid, cost-plus 'rebuilding' contracts for his partners.
I doubt even today, looking back, that Bush has much of a clue what happened over the last eight years. This was never his show.
Cheney. Bush is a certifiable moron.
q
I agree quickstepper, the only ones I really feel sorry for are his two daughters who MUST realize what a complete bozo their dad really is! Where did those two girls come from anyway -- they are really pretty girls -- not from him!
And he ran our country for eight years...what does this make us?
Complicit.
CQ from Maine
Indict the treasonous weasel. And his dull, incurious boss. Placing even what we lost in 9/11 against what we lost in response to it makes us look stupid. But somebody gained. I wonder who? Oh, Haliburton, KBR, Dyncorp, Blackwater. And who were the bankers? How did the street make out? AIG make any side bets? Work with me here. . .
"Cheney avoids mentioning all the human suffering he has caused, . . ."
A trait that he shares with other republicans and neoconservatives.
He doesn't belong in jail; he belongs on a gallows.
q
Who in this government HAS apologized for all this suffering. The silence in this regard has been deafening.
Cheney's legacy is his enormous success in transferring billions (soon to be a trillion)of US Treasury dollars to the military industrial medai complex and creating an eternal revenue stream for the military industrialmedia complex.