Dick Cheney; The Leader NOT to Follow

Some months ago, I wrote an article about the Bush Administration and their track record over the past seven years (AmChronicle 02/20/07).

Needless to say, it was not a list of outstanding successes. In fact, after looking at it, it was more of a tribute to how NOT to run a government. Now Dick Cheney, the US VP, with his 9% approval rating, has decided to add to this track record by attacking the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid. The Vice President is doing his name-calling best to besmirch a Senator for attempting to follow through on what the public voted on in the national election last November. That being, that the people want a different direction in Iraq and that the “troops should be brought home ASAP”. Both the president and the vice president have made it clear that they “don’t care what the people voted for or what the military says, we know better and we’re doing it our way!”

This being the case, I decided to take the bull by the horns, (or as Harry Reid says “the president’s attack dog” by the ears) and to do some looking back at vice president Cheney’s track record of his past statements, and their outcomes. I think you will agree from this, that Dick Cheney is the last person that should ever accuse anyone of making uninformed or misleading statements.

Before the War in Iraq started, in 2002, Mr. Cheney announced; “Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapon.” Also, “Saddam is once again building and stocking more WMD’s in Iraq.” These of course have both been proven wrong.

Also before the war, Mr. Cheney stated; “The American troops will be greeted in Iraq as liberators.” Also, not true.

Two years ago Mr. Cheney said; “The insurgency is in its last throes.” I won’t even make a comment on this one.

Just last month, Mr. Cheney said; “Progress is being made in Iraq.” Unfortunately, this is also incorrect and to prove it we now have 320 troops killed (to date) since the “Troop Surge” began in Iraq.

This month, Mr. Cheney said “The US troops can win in Iraq.” This was being said while the head of the military in Iraq, US General Petraeus said; “We cannot win militarily in Iraq.”

Which one would you believe?

There are more statement examples, but I think you get the drift of why one might question following any direction given by this vice president.

One of the big reasons for this drive by the administration is that if the US pulls out now, the current administration will have to accept responsibility for the 3000+ US troops killed to date, the thousands of injured troops and the thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens that have died and will be killed, once the US pulls out of Iraq. As did occur in Vietnam, there is expected to be a major massacre when the US leaves and President Bush doesn’t want that as part of his Legacy. (As if he is already going to have a positive Legacy.) In this situation, I have to agree that an increased civil war killing will probably be the overall outcome, regardless of leaving now, or five years from now.

We must now acknowledge that the US invaded a country that was being held in check by a ruthless dictator. The only reason they were not killing each other under Saddam, was his strong grip on all those within his domain. By attacking the Kurds in his own country with nerve gas, he proved just what he would do if anyone under his rule got out of line. With a current government in Iraq that is virtually powerless and with the US gone, the different factions in Iraq will be loose to attack each other with no one to stop them.

The Sunni and the Shiite have been in a religious war for over 1500 years and they both feel they can win after the US leaves. A holocaust of enormous proportions is inevitable, once the US pulls out. The US initially caused this because the leadership used untruths and misleading statements to convince the people and the Congress to agree to the President’s plan for regime change in Iraq. No one seemed to think about what would happen afterwards if the US was successful. (Remember, before the war, the president didn’t even know the difference between the Sunni, the Shiite and the Kurds.) The real issue is; “Do we need to stick around and have our troops killed on a daily basis when virtually everyone, including the Generals agree that we cannot win militarily?” If the Iraqi’s are going to continue going to war against each other, what is the point of staying through 2008, just so it can be blamed on the next administration?

In a past life, this could have been a perfect issue for the United Nations, which was what it was originally organized to do. Unfortunately, the UN has become so corrupt and has lost so much of its power and respect, it could probably do very little good today. In addition, the Bush Administration has driven away so many of our regular allies, very little pressure could be administered by a small united front of the US and our few current international “friends”, even if we could entice them to join us.

I think the civil war in Iraq is inevitable and there is little we can do to stop it. To date, the US has also done nothing for working on a diplomatic solution or with trying to work with Iraq’s neighboring countries, which was recommended by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. I would like to say that there are other options, but I’m afraid that the current administration brought this one on the country and we have to live with the potential negatives that will eventually come with a US withdrawal.

This is what we have reaped from following the advice and the statements of these esteemed leaders, in particular Mr. Dick Cheney and his boss. You can decide for yourself as to whom you choose to believe.