In 1992, the United States Secretary of Defense during the war, **** Cheney, made this point:

"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.

What about 3, or 4, or 5 thousand, VP Cheney???

Apparently soldiers lives have been devalued in the interim... yeah that must be it.

And here is another one!
People on here often ask, why didnt the first Bush go ahead, and take out Iraq in 1991?

In his memoirs, A World Transformed, written more than five years ago, George Bush, Sr. wrote the following to explain why he didn't go after Saddam Hussein at the end of the Gulf War:

"Trying to eliminate Saddam .. would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible ... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq ...there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."



We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq ...there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see!

Amazing, Thats exactly what we have now. HMmmmmmmmm........

Too many troops lost. So sad...

Which just goes to prove beyond a shdow of a doubt two inescapable facts:

1-Cheney and Rove are the two most evil, lying, sick bastards that this country has ever produced.

2-"President" S*** Stain is, without any fear of contridiction, BY FAR the single WORST President in history(and the most ignorant, but that goes without saying). Matter of fact, he's quite possibly a strong contender for the title of "Worst Leader In WORLD History".

Bush was NEVER known for being good with foreign relations. I think anyone who really followed politics should have known this before he was elected. I totally oppose using brute force to make our presence and power known, but that's his tactic.

It's too complicated to go into over a discussion board, but I just don't like how Bush is leaving his mess there for the next president to clean up and for the next generation to deal with.

Hrmph...!

Can't we all just get along???

How old is he Knox?
And he still doesnt listen to his Daddy, or the Military Experts that told him the same thing, before he went in!!!


I could show you some very interesting things about Cheney, and Offical Washington Policy before the first Gulf War!!
It will leave you wondering, who is really in charge now!


Like this, in the year 1991:

19 July: Secretary of Defense **** Cheney stated that the
American commitment made during the Iran-Iraq war to come to
Kuwait's defense if it were attacked was still valid. The same
point was made by Paul Wolfowitz, Undersecretary of Defense for
Policy, at a private luncheon with Arab ambassadors.
(Ironically, Kuwait had been allied with Iraq and feared an
attack from Iran.) Later, Cheney's remark was downplayed by his
own spokesman, Pete Williams, who explained that the secretary
had spoken with "some degree of liberty". Cheney was then told
by the White House: "You're committing us to war we might not
want to fight", and advised pointedly that from then on,
statements on Iraq would be made by the White House and State
Department.{8}
24 July: State Department spokeswoman Margaret Tutweiler, in
response to a question, responded: "We do not have any defense
treaties with Kuwait, and there are no special defense or
security commitments to Kuwait."

Read this, its full of interesting stuff.

http://members.aol.com/bblum6/iraq2.htm

I suspect that Bush primarily followed the direction of his advisers. The trouble with that is that his advisers were not elected, nor were their policies made public. Presumable the agenda had more depth than we have seen, but the puzzle remains about what their overall plan was intended to be.

Interesting stuff, I tell you! Is it more happen stance coincidence? Sure seems to be a lot of that!!!

31 July: Kelly told Congress: "We have no defense treaty
relationship with any Gulf country. That is clear. ... We have
historically avoided taking a position on border disputes or on
internal OPEC deliberations."
Rep. Lee Hamilton asked if it would be correct to say that
if Iraq "charged across the border into Kuwait" the United States
did "not have a treaty commitment which would obligate us to
engage U.S. forces" there.
"That is correct," Kelly responded.
The next day (Washington time), Iraqi troops led by tanks
charged across the Kuwaiti border, and the United States
instantly threw itself into unmitigated opposition.
Official statements notwithstanding, it appears that the
United States did indeed have an official position on the Iraq-Kuwait
border dispute. After the invasion, one of the documents the Iraqis
found in a Kuwaiti intelligence file was a memorandum concerning a
November 1989 meeting between the head of Kuwaiti state security and
CIA Director William Webster, which included the following:

We agreed with the American side that it was important to take
advantage of the deteriorating economic situation in Iraq
in order to put pressure on that country's government to
delineate our common border. The Central Intelligence Agency
gave us its view of appropriate means of pressure, saying that
broad cooperation should be initiated between us on condition
that such activities be coordinated at a high level.

The CIA called the document a "total fabrication". However,
as the Los Angeles Times pointed out, "The memo is not an obvious
forgery, particularly since if Iraqi officials had written it
themselves, they almost certainly would have made it far more
damaging to U.S. and Kuwaiti credibility." It was apparently
real enough and damaging enough to the Kuwaiti foreign minister
-- he fainted when confronted with the document by his Iraqi
counterpart at an Arab summit meeting in mid-August.
When the Iraqi ambassador in Washington was asked why the
document seemed to contradict US Ambassador Glaspie's avowal of
neutrality on the issue, he replied that her remark was "part and
parcel of the setup".

Bush was smart. He did have good advisors. That's usually what idiots do. They don't know anything so they surround themselves with smart people. However, I think he wasn't smart enough to know when his advisors would abuse (take advantage of) of his idiotic tendencies.

I don't know. As a "leader" he sucks. As a business guy who knows how to associate with sharp people, he's good.

Its thick.........

I find more interesting names when I look for the director of the CIA. Up until march 1989 it was Gates!!! HMmmmmmmmm......

More coincidence?........

Good job going thru history, Fanta. You're right, it is amazing how the same names continue to pop up throughout. All woven together into who knows what. It really is time for a washington housecleaning.

BayAreaGal:

I love the way you think. We have something in common already! Think I'm in love!!!!

Alright, Im done here. Time for the Bushies to tell us all the truth about this info.


Lets all turn a blind eye towards the ignorance that is, was, and will continue.

Why?

Because we allow it with our complacent attitudes, and belief in the Propoganda, and lies fed to us daily.

Fools..............

knox,

You had me at "lying sick bastards"!

Fortunately you don't have to be an idiot to surround yourself with smart people, otherwise I'd have to knock myself down a notch to qualify for the friends I have. But generally I think he had some smart advisers, and that yes, they did take advantage of him in some cases. Unfortunately I don't have the confidence that he would recognize this tendency in his cabinet. Tony Snow has done a lot to speak for the president, but it is a shame that he can not speak well for himself.

Knox, take a look at Carter when comparing worst presidents.

Shakes me haid n rollz me eyez.

That was special spelling for this circumstance.

Sorry, philosopher, while I respect you, your opinions, and the right to express them, I must disagree this time. You compare the worst of the Carter presidency with the worst of the Bush presidency, and while I won't ever be accused of calling Carter a good president, Bush's resume as President has been far more disastrous for us all than Carter's could ever hope to be.

Hmmm....Carter, Bush...

Don't even get me started on Reagan!