Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Cheney, Bush Disagreed Over Striking Iran

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 10:28 AM
Original message
Cheney, Bush Disagreed Over Striking Iran
Source: CBS News/AP

In Interview, Former VP Talks About Other Times He Disagreed With Bush

(AP) Did they disagree on national security policy decisions? Certainly. But was Dick Cheney frustrated or even disappointed when overruled by his boss, President George W. Bush? Not at all, the former vice president says.

"The fact of the matter is, he encouraged me to give him my view on a whole range of issues. I did," Cheney said in an interview broadcast on "Fox News Sunday."

"Sometimes he agreed. Sometimes he did not. That was true from the very beginning of the administration," Cheney said.

Among their disagreements: Cheney supported taking military action against Iran's nuclear program. Mr. Bush, however, wanted to try engaging Iranian leaders first.

"It was not my decision to make," Cheney said. "The president made the decision and, obviously, we pursued the diplomatic avenues."

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/31/politics/main5276303.shtml?tag=stack
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
AndyA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 10:31 AM
Response to Original message
1. Dick Cheney: War Monger.
Death and destruction are like mood-altering drugs to him. There's nothing he likes better than a good war. And even better if Halliburton gets big government contracts because of it. Puts lots of $$$$$$$ in his pocket.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
junior college Donating Member (290 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 10:33 AM
Response to Original message
2. Bullshit
Bush did whatever his master told him to do
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davepc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #2
14. So Cheneys is lying and he actually supported NOT attacking Iran?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
raccoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 10:34 AM
Response to Original message
3. I don't believe that about Bush-CHeney-Iran. I don't think Bush would stand up to CHeney and just

say no.

I could be wrong....but I don't think so!



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SkyDaddy7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. From the info beginning to leak out...
Bush did allow Cheney to run his Presidency, except the religious part that was Bush, up until Bush began to realize everything Cheney was doing was fucked up...Which took Bush 4-6 years to figure out! The books are just starting to come out we will know much much more with time.

I AM NOT DEFENDING BUSH!

I just want that to be clear I am saying Bush was an IDIOT and Cheney is a mad man! And now the right is trying to rewrite history!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bamacrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. I agree, I think they for once in eight years realized the mobs that would form
calling for not only their resignation and prosecution but their heads.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Soylent Brice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 10:38 AM
Response to Original message
4. more than likely scenario re Iran:
Poppy told jr it was a "no-no".

period. they both probably wanted to.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jawja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-01-09 06:21 AM
Response to Reply #4
20. And I think the Pentagon was very much against
attacking Iran as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Soylent Brice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-01-09 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. yeah.
for as stupid as the pentagon can be, they're not that stupid.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewAgeThinker Donating Member (43 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 10:48 AM
Response to Original message
5. Sureeeeeeeeeeeeee
And Bill O'reilly is a libertarian!

hahaha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 10:53 AM
Response to Original message
6. More more likely scenario. The Joint Chiefs said no to Bush and Cheney
Edited on Mon Aug-31-09 11:01 AM by leveymg
After the Iraq WMD deception was traced to Cheney's circle, Bush had another nervous breakdown, and Iraq turned into a quagmire. The professional military wasn't going to be pushed into an even more catastrophic optional war by these jokers. Besides, all the available troops were already tied up in Iraq. The President refused to reappoint Gen. Pace as JCS Chair in 2006 (unprecedented), but there was no budging the uniforms on that one.

Of course, the psywar to pressure Iran into doing something stupid and aggressive continued. But, it wasn't ever really in the cards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 05:29 PM
Response to Original message
8. I agree with Soylent Brice and leveymg, above. It was the Joint Chiefs and Bush Sr.
perhaps together with some other players, who nixed attacking Iran. Rumsfeld's resignation followed shortly afterward--late 2006. And within 3-4 months, Iran was "off the table." Big buildup--everybody thinking they were going to nuke Iran--then it just went away.

But I think there was more to it than even this. Remember, Bush Sr. first formed the Iraq Study Group--which was more about Iran than Iraq. Iran was to be Part 2 of the war. Leon Panetta was a member of Bush Sr's ISG. I don't believe that Panetta was a "civilian" (when Obama appointed him to head the CIA). I think he's been CIA all along. And one of the hidden purposes of the ISG was to rescue Bush Jr from the CIA's wrath for Rumsfeld/Cheney's outings of Valerie Plame and the CIA's entire WMD counter-proliferation project. Rumsfeld/Cheney were at war with the CIA. Big rumble behind the scenes in our government, circa 2005 (during Katrina). Part of it was Bush/Rove vs. Cheney/Libby about who would take the blame for the CIA outings. Bush Jr.'s White House was in shambles at that point. I think that's why Bush Sr and Clinton came out and stood behind Bush Jr when he finally gave a Katrina press conference--to try to bolster him up, because things were out of control. And sometime in the next year, prior to the Congressional elections (Nov '06) and Rumsfeld's resignation (Dec '06), a delegation representing some heavy players--Bush Sr, the CIA (Panetta?), the Joint Chiefs and possibly some corpo and political powers--went to Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, and made a bargain with them: They would receive immunity from impeachment/prosecution for their many crimes (and this group probably had them well-documented--including far more crimes than we know about) in exchange for not nuking Iran and for leaving the White House peacefully when the time came (and also, Rumsfeld's resignation). (I think Rumsfeld was the actual instigator of the CIA outings--Cheney just handling the political fallout--and a lot else, maybe 9/11.)

This may be where Nancy Pelosi's statement--"impeachment is off the table"--came from. I've always thought that statement was odd. (WHAT "table"?) It explains why/how attacking Iran went away so quickly; why Rumsfeld resigned with no change of policy in Iraq (the new Democratic Congress escalated it); why the government was so befuddled during Katrina (besides their wanting to "drown" our government "in the bathtub"); why Bush Jr looked so clueless during that event (eating cake with McCain, playing the guitar--I mean, really--where were his handlers?); why Cheney feels free to run around defending torture (Jeez!), and a lot of other things, including Constitutional lawyer Barack Obama's lame excuse for not prosecuting these fuckwads ("we have to look forward, not backward"). (Do we fail to prosecute a murderer because the murder took place in the past?! Criminy, Barack, you could've done better than that!)

It's just a theory, but I think it's a pretty good one. It was a formal, well-organized, behind-the-scenes counter-coup--by a powerful group who formed a coalition to do it, comprised of people with widely varying motives--some good, some bad--but with the main thrust being how to get Cheney/Rumsfeld's finger off the Armageddon button

I remember reading several articles about the Joint Chiefs' opinion of invading Iran. Iran is well-defended (unlike Iraq was). They couldn't do it without using nukes. Nukes might well have brought Russia and/or China into it, on Iran's side. Escalation to Armageddon. Using nukes is bad enough--especially since bombs often don't hit their targets exactly. Risk of serious radiation poisoning and blight of the Middle East. Then add two angry super-powers with big nuclear arsenals...* But a risk like that wouldn't stop Rumsfeld, nor Cheney. They are madmen, and they had to be curtailed, is my theory. After that date--sometime in 2006 prior to December (Rumsfeld's resignation)--Dick Cheney was no longer in charge of US foreign policy or the Pentagon. And Bush Jr had never been in charge of either. That is total Cheney bullshit.

It is quite interesting to me that Cheney is creating a narrative, on this same subject (Iran), that spins directly away from the points in my theory. He wants us to think that Bush Jr nixed his big oil war push into Iran. That is ridiculous. Bush Jr would have done anything Cheney told him to. And Cheney more than likely had plenty of dirt by which to blackmail Junior, if needed. (--which is why I think the counter-coup used their secret dirt on Cheney/Rumsfeld to threaten prosecution/impeachment and use that as the bargaining chip; they were doing the same thing to Junior. I think Daddy Bush's motive was mainly to rescue Junior from CIA retribution and from Cheney/Rumsfeld's clutches; I doubt that he cared a whole lot about irradiating Iranians, although he may have had a saner view of the matter than Cheney/Rumsfeld. Bush Sr's mode of diabolical power-mongering is subtler, more secretive, with more maintenance of the appearance of order and "playing by the rules.").

This statement of Cheney's (above) jumped out at me: "That was true from the very beginning of the administration" (that sometimes Bush Jr disagreed with him, and that he yielded to Bush Jr's opinion.) It is not believable on its face, but I wonder why he's trying to backdate his narrative to "the very beginning of the administration." Something lurking back there that he wants to blame Junior for? Or muddy up the "chain of command" for?

-------------------

*(I remember a little blip in the news--from Asia, I think--among my widespread reading during that period--a very short article, which merely said that Russia, China and (I think) India were holding a meeting on "how to curtail the US bully." This was circa 2006 amidst all the saber-rattling at Iran. I'm sorry to say I didn't think to save the article. For one thing, I thought that such a meeting would generate other news about it somewhere. But it didn't--it just vanished from the news. Anyway, it really stuck in my mind.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Drugs are bad, m'kay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unkachuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #8
15. very interesting....I love the way you think....n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drdtroit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #8
16. "but I wonder why he's trying to backdate his narrative to
'the very beginning of the administration'?"
"Something lurking back there that he wants to blame Junior for?
Or muddy up the "chain of command" for?"
Yes = 9/11
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mnemosyne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Bingo. Always kicks into cya mode when something comes too close. KnR n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
704wipes Donating Member (966 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #8
18. PP's response here is very well studied & excellent
It is absolutely once of the best analyses as a reply in a thread I have ever seen on DU.
Exceptional, PP>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 06:53 PM
Response to Original message
9. they are both sociopaths
don't ever make the mistake that either feel any guilt, remorse or empathy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. Indeed...it sad we have to listen to this stuff from Cheney.
They are both pathological and while one would hope to try to be empathetic...what was done to the country and it's citizens now being hashed over again, is very painful. Especially since we know they will never be held fully accountable for their criminal acts against humanity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scheming daemons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 08:34 PM
Response to Original message
13. Bullshit! When did Bush *EVER* pursue diplomatic avenues with Iran?

This is the rehabilitation of Dubya at work.

Cheney doesn't give a shit about his legacy... they're trying to protect W's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #13
19. Good point, about Bush and Iran.
However, remember in March 2007 (just after the scenario I sketched above--my theory of how Iran got taken "off the table"), when Iran captured the British sailors, then handed them back with a smile? I think that incident might have been set up as a "Gulf of Tonkin" thing--excuse to nuke Iran. It maybe went forward on "automatic" (harassing Iran's coast until an incident could be manufactured), but by March 2007, nuking Iran had been nixed. So the whole thing got de-fused. Nancy Pelosi went to the Middle East in the middle of that incident. I think she went to tell Israel that nuking Iran was off. So that's when diplomacy began--not at Bush Jr's initative--but at the initiative of those who had disempowered Cheney and fired Rumsfeld.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blandocyte Donating Member (830 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-01-09 06:47 AM
Response to Original message
21. Funny puppet acts always include an undercurrent
of "who's in charge, puppet or puppeteer." Every once in a while it did seem like W was running the show, but we still always knew the puppeteer was in charge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 08th 2024, 02:38 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC