By Dan Kennedy • The press, politics, technology, culture and other passions

The sagacious Dick Cheney

I’m late to this, but offer it as a public service in case you haven’t seen it yet:
If only President Bush had advisers as wise and cautious as Dick Cheney was in 1994.

Discover more from Media Nation

Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.


Wilpers out (or not) at BostonNOW


A $2 million reward (II)


  1. Anonymous

    Priceless. Just how many sides does this guy’s mouth have?

  2. Peter Porcupine

    Dan – let me ask you a question.Do you think there was a difference in geopolitics between 1994, when Clinton was cutting back the military to spend the ‘peace dividend’ on the economy and 1981, when pundits chided Ronald Reagan for daring to refer to the Soviet Union as the Evil Empire for fear of beginning a nuclear conflagration, let alone suggesting the Berlin Wall be torn down?You do think circumstances might be different between 1981 and 1994?Then why is it so hard to grasp that circumstances might have changed AGAIN between 1994 and 2007?

  3. Dan Kennedy

    My, God, Peter. You’ve got to do better than that. Listen to what Cheney said in 1994. He said that if we had invaded Iraq in 1991, it would have been a disaster because we’d have been alone and we’d become enmeshed in a quagmire — his word. And that’s exactly what happened starting in 2003, isn’t it? Perhaps the circumstances had changed, but Cheney’s assessment was as dead-on in 1994 as it should have been in 2003.

  4. Peter Porcupine

    Dan – but we WEREN’T alone. The Brits, the Bulgarians, over a dozen countries went in with us. In Gulf I, the UN Forces would have let us go in entirely alone. At that point, we were more worried about Turkey’s status as an ally, rather than a harborer of terrorists.1994 is effectively before ALL large scale Al Quaida and terrorist activites swung into action. THAT is the piece of the puzzle that changed – the loss of the overcoat that protected us all those years, the Atlantic Ocean.

  5. Dan Kennedy

    What Cheney predicted in 1994 is exactly what happened in 2003. Why can’t you see that?

  6. metallicaMobes

    Sorry to agree with the libs here, but Pete, you’re dead wrong.

  7. Chris Helms

    Further proof that the most radical idea is a good memory. “The Daily Show” does an especially good job using clips of what politicians say now versus what they said before.

  8. Anonymous

    Interesting which politicians they choose to spotlight, though. Progressives highlight inconsistencies, they’re clever. Right-wingers do it, they’re pathetic. See how easy it is?

  9. Dan Kennedy

    Anon 5:14: Remove the scales from your eyes. Cheney’s being inconsistent is irrelevant. What’s relevant is that he predicted with uncanny accuracy what would happen if we invaded Iraq.

  10. mike_b1

    Mark Bowden’s account last year of the Iran hostage-taking situation from 1979-80 is striking for the enormous misconceptions the U.S. had of the region at the time — and why — and that we managed to make all the same mistakes just 20 years later.

  11. Anonymous

    Dan — this is too easy. Try these famous people speaking about Iraq.Vice President Al gore (kind of long) Pelosi (not so long) Nancy certain President whose wife is running for the same office. are some good quotes here from Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Reid, and Dodd.

  12. Dan Kennedy

    None of you folks get it. Clinton, Gore, Pelosi, et al. were wrong then but right now. Only Cheney was right then but wrong now. It’s not a matter of consistency. It’s a matter of Cheney’s outlining with perfect clarity what a disaster it would have been to march to Baghdad in 1991, and then watching it all unfold a dozen years later.

  13. Anonymous

    Danny Boy , I think maybe you want to do a little research Into GEOPOLITICS . 1 ) Why did we invade Iraq . 2 ) Why will we stay in Iraq at all cost . 3 ) What will get us out of Iraq 4 ) Why will we crush Iran . Give up ? Because we can

  14. Anonymous

    Aside from the fact that you remind people how willfully delusional were the pols who supported this abheration, from all stripes, you also remind us why the main stream media is having such a hard time to begin with, among other factors. Despite all the denials-nondenials on the campaign stomp, as far back as Kerry.All usurped trust.This video is not news. It is no revelation. They were fully aware of the unfeasability of this and that the optimistic hopes did not match up with the real ability/possibility to hatch it correctly.There is rarely a Democratic way or Republican way, or Christian way or non-Christian way ..etc of conducting US Foreign policy. Almost always there is one best option, one best value judgement that serves our interest best, that of our allies, and stays within our laws, values, fiscal solvency and international law standards. Many chose to ignore it.This argument of ‘willfully ignoring facts’ can be flipped on its head on today’s Democrats that are being contrarian for the sake of being just that, and demand a full pullout. Keeping things as they are cannot go on. Falling back totally is not a good option either and what they should do to make the best of the situation is not addressed and we won’t address it here for brevity (for a change, huh?)The many Generals and Diplomats who are siding with the pull-out position themselves are not confident of this admin or the next to properly handle the “fix-it” part, so pulling out is the second-best solution to stop the hemmoraging, with the hope that this gruesome episode will be a great learning reference point.Sadly, History won’t be kind. N.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén