I was intrigued by this 2004 article, first posted by Steve Newton over at Delaware Libertarian: Cheney changed his view on Iraq; He said in '92 Saddam not worth U.S. casualties.
In an assessment that differs sharply with his view today, Dick Cheney more than a decade ago defended the decision to leave Saddam Hussein in power after the first Gulf War, telling a Seattle audience that capturing Saddam wouldn't be worth additional U.S. casualties or the risk of getting "bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.""And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth?" Cheney said then in response to a question.
"And the answer is not very 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."
I wholeheartedly agree, Mr. Vice President. That's why I wrote this some two and half years ago. Perhaps the key line from that post: Removing a dictator and instituting democracy to a country that's never had it is NOT -- NOT -- a job for the US military. Not a single US soldier's life is worth it.
There was a little something that happened between VP Cheney's two positions that more than explains his change of heart.
Posted by: jef at May 11, 2008 02:37 PMjef: It didn't seem to affect Bush's initial position though, did it?
George W. Bush himself declared that "We're not into nation building. We're focused on justice" shortly after the 9/11 attacks.
That, from my original post two and half years ago.
Posted by: Hube at May 11, 2008 02:45 PM