More prophecy from Cheney the Younger

[PixelPusher]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pT7Ik_X1HU0

This is somewhat of a retread of that C-SPAN vid posted a month ago, but he gives more detailed explanations in this one.

Question: Did Cheney have a brain fart after 9/11 and completely forget all of his previous concerns, or was he just "towing the line" for the Bush 41 administration back then?

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pT7Ik_X1HU0

This is somewhat of a retread of that C-SPAN vid posted a month ago, but he gives more detailed explanations in this one.

Question: Did Cheney have a brain fart after 9/11 and completely forget all of his previous concerns, or was he just "towing the line" for the Bush 41 administration back then?

I've said it before, looks like I must say it again. Different time and cir stances. Different objectives at the onset of committing our forces. Saddam continued violating the UN resolutions, and we choose to make it known someone would stand up to his arrogance and hostilities.

Why are the different cir stances so hard to accept?

[ChumpDumper]

Because there was nothing different as far as the consequences of removing Saddam were concerned -- consequences that Cheney forgot or ignored along with The Decider and The Transformer. They all ed it up badly.

[boutons_]

"Different time and cir stances"

The prediction was perfectly accurate, wasn't it? When he made that statement, the Coalition of the Billing had already destroyed Saddam's military and were in close surveillance of Iraq.

Nothing Saddam was doing justified the historic quagmire into which dubya has buried the US Army, and the effective sanctions had serverly weakened Saddam who was no threat to the US or anybody else, but a very effective counterweight to Iran.

Repeating the truth works as well as Repugs repeating lies:

head went into Iraq exclusively for oil. All his other reasons were totally fabricated, hyped bull .

"Violating UN sanctions" was no threat to anybody, compared to the AQ'threat. dubya and head took their eye off the AQ ball to take a swing the Iraqi oil, and they struck out disastrously.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I've said it before, looks like I must say it again. Different time and cir stances. Different objectives at the onset of committing our forces. Saddam continued violating the UN resolutions, and we choose to make it known someone would stand up to his arrogance and hostilities.

Why are the different cir stances so hard to accept?

You know what ? I agree with you about changing cir stances and the such. So why are Dems 'flip flopper's and Republicans changing their minds because the cir stances chaged? Fo most republicans Dems can't change views they held 30 yrs ago but yet in less than 10 it is perfectly acceptable to those same folks if they happen to republicans?

[Yonivore]

You know what ? I agree with you about changing cir stances and the such. So why are Dems 'flip flopper's and Republicans changing their minds because the cir stances chaged?

Well, exactly what cir stance has changed between September 11 (or the passing of the AUMF in Iraq) and now that would justify the number of Democrats that can no longer remember they were for deposing Saddam Hussein, invading Iraq, and pacifying the region?

That's the difference.

For most republicans Dems can't change views they held 30 yrs ago but yet in less than 10 it is perfectly acceptable to those same folks if they happen to republicans?

We're not talking 30 years. We're talking 3 years.