The Wondah Down Undah
Cheney, in an interview with The Australian’s Foreign Editor Greg Sheridan, puts another shrimp on the barbie:
… Cheney outlined the case against Iran: “We’ve seen Iran in recent years led by a man who is a radical by most definitions - Mr Ahmadinejad - who espouses an apocalyptic philosophy and has made threatening noises to Israel and the US and others.
“They (Iran) are the prime sponsor of Hezbollah, working through Syria in the conflict with Israel last summer in an effort to topple the Government of Lebanon.
“Working through Hamas they have added to the difficulties of getting some kind of peace process started with respect to the Palestinians and the Israelis. They clearly frighten most of their neighbours.
“We believe they have engaged in providing improvised explosive devices to insurgents in Iraq. We’ve taken action recently to crack down on identifiable Iranian agents operating inside Iraq. We’ve made it clear to them that their conduct has been inappropriate.”
Cheney also points out that 20 per cent of the world’s oil passes through the Strait of Hormuz and is vulnerable to Iranian military action.
He says the US does not believe Iran has nuclear weapons yet, but “we do believe they are working to enrich uranium to levels that would make it possible to produce nuclear weapons”. So, I ask, given all that, does Cheney share Republican senator John McCain’s view that the only thing worse than a military confrontation with Iran would be a nuclear armed Iran?
Cheney pauses just for a second, considering his words precisely, then says: “I would guess that John McCain and I are pretty close to agreement.” If I were a mullah in Tehran those words would just about make my blood run cold.
I still think he should have stepped down in 2004 so they could have a 2008 presidential candidate in the chamber. He could have hung around as … I dunno … secretary of defense. Back to Sheridan:
I have met Cheney a half-dozen times and in person he is avuncular, softly spoken, often deploying a little wry irony. I recall a corporate conference we attended in the early 1990s in which to make a point a young man undressed on the stage.
Cheney chuckles at the memory: “My wife and I still laugh about that. I was told later there was one other part of his act and that was to fire a blank and he looked down and saw my security detail and then decided not to do that.”
Meanwhile, regarding naked aggression:
“It’s my belief we all have a stake in getting the right outcome in Iraq. This isn’t just a US problem or a US policy. We all have a stake in getting the right outcome in Iraq.
“I think back to what happened in Afghanistan when in the 1980s we were actively involved in helping the mujahidin in their battle against the Soviets.
“After that was over with, what we got was a civil war in Afghanistan, followed by the emergence of the Taliban and by 1996 it became a safe haven for Osama bin Laden. Training camps were set up to train terrorists - maybe as many as 20,000 by the late 1990s. They struck us on 9/11 and killed 3000 of our people and killed a number of Aussies in Bali not too long after. And they struck lots of other cities.
“The world cannot afford to turn its back on what happens in that part of the globe any more and expect not to be affected by it.”
… There is something bracing about Cheney’s unrepentant attitude generally. After everything that has happened, does he still think the operation in Iraq was worth it?
“I do indeed: 9/11 changed things to the point where we could no longer afford to ignore what was going on in Iraq. Saddam Hussein had started two wars, he had violated 16 UN resolutions, he was a designated state sponsor of terror. He had previously produced and used chemical weapons and biological agents and tried to produce nuclear weapons. He was a significant danger. The world’s better off and there’s a democratically elected government in his place in Baghdad.
“The Iraqi people are on the road to establishing a viable democracy. I think given the scale of change we’re attempting here the fact that we’re not finished shouldn’t be surprising to anybody.”
You may not agree with Cheney but he certainly lets you know what he thinks. If the US fails in Iraq, it certainly won’t be because he lost his nerve.
By the way, that Pelosi al-Qaeda thing?
“She accused me of questioning her patriotism,” Cheney said. “I didn’t question her patriotism. I questioned her judgment.”
“Al-Qaeda functions on the basis that they think they can break our will. That’s their fundamental underlying strategy: that if they can kill enough Americans or cause enough havoc, create enough chaos in Iraq, then we’ll quit and go home,” Cheney added. “And my statement was that if we adopt the Pelosi policy, that then we will validate the strategy of al-Qaeda. I said it, and I meant it.”
Topics: Australia, Cheney, Iran, Iraq, al qaeda
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 11:43 pm on Friday, February 23, 2007
15 Responses to “The Wondah Down Undah”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
February 24th, 2007 at 12:41 am
Jules
MINDS READ
The Sydney Morning Herald’s Cynthia Banham reviews Dick Cheney:
In comments that could have been made in the months after the September 11 terrorist attacks, but which fell flat with his Sydney audience, he said terrorists “had ambitions of empire”.
I was there, and it’s true; not a single member of the audience laughed. In fact, most of the Veep’s routine “fell flat”, if that’s how Cynthia measures things.
http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/minds_read/
What’s up with this? Was the audience Britishly, polite? Or am I missing something ? (yeah, yeah…I know about the inside of my skull lacking gray matter)
I cross posted (OK, 5 finger discount) your Ahmadinejad’s Disinformation Service
http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/minds_read/#221832
February 24th, 2007 at 12:49 am
Damn. Hit “submit” and me post went poof, it did.
http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/minds_read/#221832
Posted your Ahmadinejad’s Disinformation Service @ Tim’s Blog Under this header, MINDS READ
and found this
The Sydney Morning Herald’s Cynthia Banham reviews Dick Cheney:
In comments that could have been made in the months after the September 11 terrorist attacks, but which fell flat with his Sydney audience, he said terrorists “had ambitions of empire”.
I was there, and it’s true; not a single member of the audience laughed. In fact, most of the Veep’s routine “fell flat”, if that’s how Cynthia measures things.
Were they being Brtishly polite? Or am I missing something (beside the gray matter, thingy)
February 24th, 2007 at 12:51 am
Brtishly, Shit! But I did tell you about the gray matter thingy.
February 24th, 2007 at 1:05 am
Jesus H. So now I have mulitples. Not bad in some things, posting isn’t one of those things.
February 24th, 2007 at 1:06 am
mulitples…REAL GOOD…screw it…bed time.
February 24th, 2007 at 5:16 am
Don’t worry, Cid, we all have days like that. I just posted a link that doesn’t work. I blame Bush. And global warming.
It is good to hear V.P. Cheney speak his mind. I think it falls on more deaf ears than Cynthia Banham’s, however. When things don’t happen, because of American (and Ozzie) action, every one sits around and damns us because they think it means there was no danger to begin with.
If I had my way, every news hour would open with the planes flying into the towers and Pentagon and the charred field in Pennsylvania; they’d show film of those removing bodies from the rubble of our embassies, and sailors from the Cole; pictures of the burning oil fields of Kuwait and mass graves in Iraq. People need to be reminded that we haven’t acted on sudden the whim of this one president. A little counter propaganda campaign wouldn’t be amiss–and WE would have the advantage of not having to fauxtoshop the pictures.
February 24th, 2007 at 6:21 am
So much for “politics stops at the water’s edge” I guess.
Cheney couldn’t even attack Pelosi face to face.
Five deferments and no class, either.
February 24th, 2007 at 9:22 am
alphie:
Oh puhleaze. I have been listening to lefties tell anyone and everyone on the planet all kinds of crap about the Bushies for years. Now the man gets asked a question and answers it and you people whine like the immature children you are.
I am a woman and I find this whiney ass cry baby routine to be an embarassment. I am woman hear me pitch another tantrum. And not only that for any Democrat to be babbling about politics ending at the water’s edge is utter hypocricy.
I hear Michael Moore’s propaganda was a big hit in the ME. It is said to be a great recruiting tool.
February 24th, 2007 at 9:26 am
As for Cheney’s deferments, at least he did not ignore the draft board while he chased women all over GB like Clinton did. Nor did he claim to have a bad back and then go skiing like Howard Dean did. As far as I know Obama has never been a war hero and so I guess that means that if he is elected and has to send someone off to fight he will be labelled a chickenhawk.
I will say this for Cheney, he knows what it is like to be poor. He knows what it is like to work a minimum wage job. He did not come from money or power or privilege and yet the Democrats nominate Mr. Ketchup and try to pass him off as a man of the people and Dick Cheney as some rich man who hates poor people. You guys are all about play acting. There is nothing real there.
February 24th, 2007 at 10:15 am
Some People Get It
Ah, don’t you just love the Aussies? It’s a shame some of the lightweights in this country don’t quite understand what’s going on. Well, at least someone who’s important does.
February 24th, 2007 at 10:37 am
“She accused me of questioning her patriotism,” Cheney said. “I didn’t question her patriotism. I questioned her judgment.”
Something I think we all should start doing.
February 24th, 2007 at 11:56 am
I fail to see why you can’t question the patriotism of these dolts.
Loosely defined, patriotism is ‘devotion to country’ but to ‘know’ it one should examine deeds not proclamations. Looking at a politician’s deeds then, I should see positions taken that are selfless, i.e. they risk position, fame, reputation, wealth, or life say, to advance what they feel is a proper course. Yet what did we see with the latest Murtha ’slow bleed’ or the surrender resolution?
Politicians and pundits went on the air to say, effectively, this was a proper strategy but it was politically untenable. Or, we heard, killing the funds for the war is the correct thing to do but there might be blowback from the electorate (in 2008???). Translation; It was the right thing to do but I didn’t want to risk losing votes on my next election cycle.
That’s not patriotism! It’s cowardice. If you really believe it is the right course and you don’t support it with real action then you are just a whore willing to put principal aside for a vote.
February 24th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
“I didn’t question her patriotism. I questioned her judgment.”
I question the judgement of all the Dhimmicrats in Congress. In some cases, I question their sanity. In Pelosi’s case, both.
So much for “politics stops at the water’s edge” I guess.
Just like when John Kerry’s sister went to Australia to politic against the Howard government in their last election, eh, alphie? Or that silly letter writing campaign the Guardian mounted in the 2004 presidential elections against Bush?
I smells me hypocrisy, I do. As usual when alphie drops his turds and scurries off into the woodline.
February 24th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
And I should say, I do question the Dhimmicrat’s patriotism. Some of their actions have been outright treasonous.
February 24th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
That we don’t call treason when we see it is another instance of fall-out from Viet Nam. We didn’t prosecute those like Kerry–who was a treasonous bastard under any statute, civilian and military, and not only got away with it, but did so while sitting in Congress and running for the presidency.