October 25, 32005
A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION
by
David Wyles
How wrong can one man be? And how many dead Iraqis and dead Americans is Dick Cheney already responsible for?
He only asked the questions that he already had the answers to in his own dark mind.
True Believers like Big Dick and Little George will be the death of us all.
May Patrick Fitzgerald get him before he can kill again.
Remember these words and weep for the Dead.
Meet the Press Transcript, Sunday, September 14, 2003:
MR.
TIM RUSSERT: Our issues this Sunday: America remembers September 11,
2001. In Iraq, six months ago, the war began with shock and awe. Vice
President Dick Cheney appeared on MEET THE PRESS:
(Videotape, March 16):
VICE PRES. DICK CHENEY: My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.
(End of Videotape)
MR.
RUSSERT: Did the Bush administration misjudge the level of organized
resistance, the number of American troops needed, the cost of securing
Iraq, and the existence of weapons of mass destruction? Those questions
and more for the vice president of the United States, Dick Cheney.
... MR. RUSSERT: The
Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and
this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the
September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it's not surprising that people make that connection...
We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade
Center bombing in ’93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to
Iraq after the attack of ’93. And we’ve learned subsequent to that,
since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that
this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi
government as well as safe haven.
Now, is there a
connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade
Center bombing in ’93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators
of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government
after the fact. With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story
that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the
lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official
five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop
anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting
it. We just don’t know.
MR. RUSSERT: We could establish a direct link between the hijackers of September 11 and Saudi Arabia.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: We know that many of the attackers were Saudi. There
was also an Egyptian in the bunch. It doesn’t mean those governments
had anything to do with that attack. That’s a different proposition
than saying the Iraqi government and
the Iraqi intelligent service has a relationship with al-Qaeda that
developed throughout the decade of the ’90s. That was clearly official
policy. ...
MR. RUSSERT:
Let me turn to the situation in Iraq. We all remember this picture from
May 1. The president on the USS Lincoln on May 1; "mission
accomplished." Since that time, these are the rather haunting figures
coming out of Iraq. ... Those numbers are pretty troubling.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, it's significant, Tim. Any loss of life or
injuries suffered by American military personnel is significant.
Everyone wishes that that weren't necessary. But from the standpoint of
the activity we're engaged in over there and what we've been able to
accomplish over the last two years, I think it's important to keep all
of this in perspective. ...
Remember, we lost 3,000 people here on 9/11. And what we've been able to accomplish — although I must say we regret any casualties.
You’d like to be able do everything casualty-free. ... the
price that we’ve had to pay is not out of line, and certainly wouldn’t
lead me to suggest or think that the strategy is flawed or needs to be
changed. ...
MR. RUSSERT:
... What is our plan for Iraq? How long will the 140,000 American
soldiers be there? How many international troops will join them? And
how much is this going to cost?
VICE PRES.
CHENEY: Well, some of those questions are unknowable at present, Tim.
It’ll depend on developments. It’ll depend on how fast it takes us to
achieve our objectives. Remember
when we went there, that we went there specifically to take down the
Saddam Hussein regime, to wrap up all WMD capability he had possessed
or developed, to deal with the threat that his regime represented to
the region, and the United States. Very significant challenge. But we
have, in fact, I think, been very successful at achieving that.
(Videotape, March 16, 2003):
MR. RUSSERT: The army’s top general said that we would have to have
several hundred thousand troops there for several years in order to
maintain stability.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I disagree. To
suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after
military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don’t think is
accurate. I think that’s an overstatement.
(End videotape)
MR.
RUSSERT: We, in fact, have about 140,000 troops, 20,000 international
troops, as well. Did you misjudge the number of troops necessary to
secure Iraq after major combat operations?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, you’re going to get into a debate here about—talking
about several years, several hundred thousand troops for several years.
I think that’s a non-starter. I don’t think we have any plan to do
that, Tim. I don’t think it’s necessary to do that. There’s no
question but what we’ve encountered resistance. But I don’t think
anybody expected the time we were there to be absolutely trouble-free.
We knew there were holdover elements from the regime that would fight
us and struggle. ...
So I don't think there was a serious misjudgment here. We couldn't know precisely what would happen.
There were a lot of contingencies we got ready for that never did
happen. ... So it's like any other process. A plan is only as good
until you start to execute, then you have got to make adjustments and
so forth. But I don't think there has been a major shift in terms of
U.S. troop levels. And I still remain convinced that the judgment that we'll need "several hundred thousand for several years" is not valid. ...
Tim, we can do what we have to do to prevail in this conflict. Failure's not an option. And
go back again and think about what's involved here. This is not just
about Iraq or just about the difficulties we might encounter in any one
part of the country in terms of restoring security and stability. This
is about a continuing operation on the war on terror. And it’s very,
very important we get it right. If we’re successful in Iraq, if we can
stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the
region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to
the United States, so it’s not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so
that it’s not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a
major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic
base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many
years, but most especially on 9/11. They understand what's at
stake here. That's one of the reasons they're putting up as much of a
struggle as they have, is because they know if we succeed here, that
that's going to strike a major blow at their capabilities. ...
America's going to be safer and more secure in the years ahead when we
complete the task in Iraq successfully, and we will complete it
successfully. And whatever the cost is, in terms of casualties or
financial resources, it's a whale of a lot less than trying to recover
from the next attack in the United States. So what we do on the ground
in Iraq, our capabilities here are being tested in no small measure,
but this is the place where we want to take on those elements that have
come against the United States, and it's far more appropriate for us to
do it there and far better for us to do it there than it is here at
home.
MR.
RUSSERT: ... Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of Defense, went
before Congress and said this: "We're dealing with a country that can
really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon. The oil
revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over
the course of the next two or three years." It looks like the
administration's truly misjudged the cost of this operation.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: ... We do know that we are prepared and need to be
prepared to do whatever it takes to make it work. But this is not a
situation where, you know, it's only a matter of us writing a check to
solve the problem. Iraq sits on top of 10 percent of the world's oil
reserves, very significant reserves, second only to Saudi Arabia.
The fact is there are significant resources here to work with, and the
notion that we're going to bear the burden all by ourselves from a
financial standpoint I don't think is valid. We've got a donor's
conference scheduled coming up next month, where the international
community will come together and pledge funds to cooperate and
supported with the Iraqi operation. The U.N. resolution now that Colin
Powell's been working on this weekend involves, as well, authorization
for the international financial institutions to come support that.
There's money at the U.N. left over in the oil-for-food program that's
going to be available. ...
MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to weapons of mass destruction. I asked you
back in March what you thought was the most important rationale for
going to war with Iraq. There's the question, and here is your answer:
"...the
combination of [Saddam's] development and use of chemical weapons, his
development of biological weapons, his pursuit of nuclear weapons."
VICE PRES. CHENEY: And the tie to terror.
MR. RUSSERT: Where are they?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I think that the jury is still out in terms of
trying to get everything pulled together with respect to what we know.
But we’ve got a very good man now in charge of the operation, David
Kay. He used to run UNSCOM, a highly qualified, technically qualified
and able individual. He’s in charge of the operation now. And I also
think, Tim, that if you go back and look at what we found to date, that
we—there’s no doubt in my mind but what Saddam Hussein had these
capabilities. This wasn’t an idea cooked up overnight by a handful of
people, either in the administration or out of the CIA. The reporting
that led to the National Intelligence Estimate, upon which I based my
statements to you, that was produced a year ago now, the essence of
which has since been declassified, that was the product of hundreds of
people working over probably 20 years, back at least to the Osirak
reactor in 1981. The conclusions in that NIE, I think, are very valid.
And I think we will find that in fact they are valid. What we’re
dealing with here is a regime that had to learn after we hit them in
’91 that anything above ground was likely to be destroyed in an air
campaign. They’d gone through many years of inspections. They knew they
had to hide and bury their capabilities in this region inside their
civilian structure. And I think that’s what they did. And if you
look—we’ll talk about the nuclear program. The judgment in the NIE was
that if Saddam could acquire fissile material, weapons-grade material,
that he would have a nuclear weapon within a few months to a year. That
was the judgment of the intelligence community of the United States,
and they had a high degree of confidence in it. ... the whole notion that somehow there’s nothing to the
notion that Saddam Hussein had WMD or had developed WMD, it just
strikes me as fallacious. It’s not valid now. Nobody drove
into Baghdad and had somebody say, "Hey, there’s the building over
there where all of our WMDs stored." But that’s not the way the system
worked.
MR. RUSSERT: There's real debate about those labs. But I want to talk about something very specific. And that was the
president's State of the Union message when he said that the British
had learned that Saddam was acquiring uranium from Africa.That was in January. In March the head of the International Energy Atomic Agency, ElBaradei, issued this statement: "A key piece of evidence linking Iraq to a nuclear weapons program appears to have been fabricated,
the United Nations' chief nuclear inspector said in a
report...Documents that purportedly showed Iraqi officials shopping for
uranium in Africa two years ago were deemed 'not authentic' after
carefully scrutiny by U.N. and independent experts, Mohamed ElBaradei,
director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told the
U.N. Security Council. Also, ElBaradei reported finding no
evidence of banned weapons or nuclear material in an extensive sweep of
Iraq using advanced radiation detectors. 'There is no indication of
resumed nuclear activities,' ElBaradei said.
Eight days after that, you were on MEET THE PRESS, and we...
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Right.
MR. RUSSERT: ...talked about that specifically. Let's watch:
(Videotape, March 16, 2003):
MR. RUSSERT: And even though the International Atomic Energy Agency
said he does not have a nuclear program, we disagree.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I disagree, yes. And you'll find the CIA, for
example, and other key parts of our intelligence community, disagree.
And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think
Mr. ElBaradei, frankly, is wrong. And I think if you look at the track
record of the International Atomic Energy Agency and this kind of
issue, especially where Iraq is concerned, they have consistently
underestimated or missed what it was Saddam Hussein was doing. I don't
have any reason to believe they're any more valid this time than
they've been in the past.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: Reconstituted nuclear weapons. You misspoke.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Yeah. I did misspeak. I said repeatedly during the
show weapons capability. We never had any evidence that he had acquired
a nuclear weapon.
MR. RUSSERT: Now,
Ambassador Joe Wilson, a year before that, was sent over by the CIA
because you raised the question about uranium from Africa. He says he
came back from Niger and said that, in fact, he could not find any
documentation that, in fact, Niger had sent uranium to Iraq or engaged
in that activity and reported it back to the proper channels. Were you
briefed on his findings in February, March of 2002?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I don't know Joe Wilson. I've never met Joe Wilson.
A question had arisen. I’d heard a report that the Iraqis had been
trying to acquire uranium in Africa, Niger in particular. I get a daily
brief on my own each day before I meet with the president to go through
the intel. And I ask lots of question. One of the questions I asked at
that particular time about this, I said, "What do we know about this?"
They take the question. He came back within a day or two and said,
"This is all we know. There’s a lot we don’t know," end of statement. And Joe Wilson. -- I don't know who sent Joe Wilson. He never submitted a report that I ever saw when he came back.
I guess the intriguing thing, Tim, on the whole thing, this question of
whether or not the Iraqis were trying to acquire uranium in Africa. In
the British report, this week, the Committee of the British Parliament,
which just spent 90 days investigating all of this, revalidated their
British claim that Saddam was, in fact, trying to acquire uranium in
Africa. What was in the State of the Union speech and what was in the
original British White papers. So there may be difference of opinion
there. I dont know what the truth is on the ground with respect to
that, but I guess--like I say, I don't know Mr. Wilson. I probably shouldn't judge him. I have no idea who hired him and it never came...
MR. RUSSERT: The CIA did.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Who in the CIA, I don't know. ...
In
terms of asking questions, I plead guilty. I ask a hell of a lot of
questions. That’s my job. I’ve had an interest in the intelligence area
since I worked for Gerry Ford 30 years ago, served on the Intel
Committee in the House for years in the ’80s, ran a big part of the
intelligence community when I was secretary of Defense in the early
’90s. This is a very important area. It’s one the president’s asked me
to work on, and I ask questions all the time. I think if you’re going
to provide the intelligence and advice to the president of the United
States to make life and death decisions, you need to be able to defend
your conclusions, go into an arena where you can make the arguments
about why you believe what you do based on the intelligence we’ve got.
MR. RUSSERT: No pressure?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Shouldn’t be any pressure. I can’t think of a single
instance. Maybe somebody can produce one. I’m unaware of any where the
community changed a judgment that they made because I asked questions.
MR. RUSSERT: If they were wrong, Mr. Vice President, shouldn't we have
a wholesale investigation into the intelligence failure that they
predicted...
VICE PRES. CHENEY: What failure?
MR. RUSSERT: That Saddam had biological, chemical and is developing a nuclear program.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: My guess is, in the end, they'll be proven right, Tim.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/
David Wyles
A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION
|