Has this 1994 Cheney interview been posted?

August 13, 2007 5:34 PM

Has this 1994 interview with Cheney, in which he advises to not invade Baghdad, been posted yet? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I I couldn't find it using the search feature, but thought I would do a pre-emptive check here and get flamed before a smaller audience if I'm wrong.
posted by mecran01 to Etiquette/Policy at 5:34 PM (46 comments total)

/gets popcorn
posted by lazaruslong at 5:41 PM on August 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

I don't know that it's been posted to the front page previously, though it did get a great deal of visibility here, yesterday, which seems close enough. Aside from which, I reckon that it probably wouldn't produce a particularly unique thread as such—we're not hurting for bushco gotcha material, frankly.
posted by cortex (staff) at 5:43 PM on August 13, 2007

So you want to post stale news filter?
posted by Mitheral at 6:01 PM on August 13, 2007

Someone who would flip-flop like that is just the kind of guy who would shoot a friend in the face.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:09 PM on August 13, 2007 [3 favorites]

I am also wondering if this has been FPPd?
posted by Meatbomb at 6:13 PM on August 13, 2007 [2 favorites]

Metafilter: Were not hurting for Bushco.
posted by loquacious at 6:14 PM on August 13, 2007

“Were not hurting for Bushco.”

Speak for yourself. I'm in agony. Is it 2009 yet?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:25 PM on August 13, 2007

Thirteen years ago? Seriously? We have mefi members who weren't born then, get over it.
posted by hugsnkisses at 6:34 PM on August 13, 2007

Thirteen ways of looking at the ahistorical today:

1) How happy is the blameless vestal's lot!

2) Fuck it, I want a sandwich.
posted by Tuwa at 6:50 PM on August 13, 2007 [3 favorites]

> So you want to post stale news filter?

Yet another reason to avoid newsfilter in general -- almost all of it is stale several times over by the time it gets here, having already been linked on digg, reddit, shoutwire, linkfilter etc. etc. etc. yesterday or the day before.
posted by jfuller at 6:54 PM on August 13, 2007

I hate bushco as much as the next guy (probably more), but I don't think that link adds anything new to the discussion. Yes, Cheney's a liar, that's not really news to anyone who's paid even a little attention. Let's save our collective axe grinding for something special, like when Rove announces he's going to work for the Clinton campaign.
posted by doctor_negative at 6:55 PM on August 13, 2007

I don't think MetaTalk was intended to be used as a half-assed front page to try out your dodgy political post.
posted by majick at 6:59 PM on August 13, 2007 [2 favorites]

I don't think MetaTalk was intended to be used as a half-assed front page to try out your dodgy political post.
posted by majick at 7:59 PM on August 13 [+] [!

Ok, the front page it is.
posted by mecran01 at 7:07 PM on August 13, 2007 [7 favorites]

Has this been posted?
posted by growabrain at 7:10 PM on August 13, 2007

I think it would be perfectly appropriate, as long as it was accompanied by interviews with Al Gore and other Democrat leaders from about 1998 where he said we needed to invade Iraq. ("Regime change" in Iraq was formal policy of the Clinton administration at the time.)
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 7:11 PM on August 13, 2007

I think it would be perfectly appropriate, as long as it was accompanied by interviews with Al Gore and other Democrat leaders from about 1998 where he said we needed to invade Iraq. ("Regime change" in Iraq was formal policy of the Clinton administration at the time.)

Good point.
posted by mecran01 at 7:15 PM on August 13, 2007

Boo-Yah!
posted by rockhopper at 7:16 PM on August 13, 2007

Well, of COURSE it was wrong when THEY wanted to do it!
posted by yhbc at 7:23 PM on August 13, 2007

Please post it in the Bushco thread already in progress.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:23 PM on August 13, 2007

I'd like to see the video of Gore suggesting we invade Iraq.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 7:29 PM on August 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

I'd like to see the Gore video too. Anyway, the link is in the Bushco thread about three times, so never mind.
posted by mecran01 at 7:40 PM on August 13, 2007

I'd like to see the video of Gore suggesting we invade Iraq.

Yeah, Steve. Put up or shut up. Not that a lot of leading democrats didn't support the war, but I would actually be curious to see if Gore did, even in 1998. here he is bashing H.W. Bush on Iraq in '92.
posted by delmoi at 7:52 PM on August 13, 2007

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

Notice the word "support" in there? The "should" rather than the shall?

Regime change /= invading. It's never mentioned as an option for the U.S. in the Iraqi Liberation Act you didn't even bother to link to even though you, and I use this phrase generously, paraphrased it.
posted by Cyrano at 7:58 PM on August 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

I love that SCDB has a friend now. It warms my cockles.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 8:12 PM on August 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

"Ok, the front page it is."

Yep. Better deleted there than grinding on here!
posted by majick at 8:24 PM on August 13, 2007

Well, now that was very interesting and I had not seen it before. Whatever the issues with posting it here, thanks, although I agree with Jess that the appropriate place for something like this is probably an existing thread, and look, there it already is.
posted by caddis at 8:29 PM on August 13, 2007

Ya, the last part is pretty important:

SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.
posted by jmd82 at 8:49 PM on August 13, 2007

If you post this to Metafilter you could totally end the war!
posted by LarryC at 9:00 PM on August 13, 2007 [4 favorites]

since it's a YouTube link, that makes inherently fine, I'd go ahead and post it.

on the other hand, since as well know, as of late "bushco" has been investigated, impeached, and is about to be removed from office to be jailed, so I think a MeFi post about one of their many crimes could be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back, it's kind of excessive, and God knows liberals don't have to be mean, ever, because there's nothing worse than that, as the nice conservatives demonstrate every day with their kind restraint.

, having already been linked on digg, reddit, shoutwire, linkfilter etc. etc. etc. yesterday or the day before.

true but a lot if not most of the non-newsy stuff on MeFi has already been linked on digg reddit etc, so that doesn't cut it.
posted by matteo at 9:03 PM on August 13, 2007

Democrat leaders

i see what you did there, REEEEE-pub!
posted by Hat Maui at 9:23 PM on August 13, 2007

Has this been posted yet?

(better late than never)
posted by davejay at 9:34 PM on August 13, 2007

I'd like to see the video of Gore suggesting we invade Iraq.

Yeah, Steve. Put up or shut up.

If I may ... Gore doesn't say "let's invade Iraq" in this video, but here's Gore in 1992 taking to task Reagan and George H.W. Bush for ignoring Saddam Hussein's various interactions with terrorists and human rights abuses, and denigrating the efforts of those administrations to deal with Saddam via sanctions.

At about 8:05 in the video, speaking on the elder Bush's policies of containing Saddam, Gore says:

"It makes an heroic assumption of good behavior in the future, on the basis of an interesting theory. Namely, that Iraq would suddenly and completely change its ways out of a fear of economic and political sanctions. ... Why should Saddam Hussein be at all concerned about a threat of action in the future from George Bush, the same man that had resolutely blocked any such action in the past? ...

... (Saddam) had already conducted extensive terrorism activities, and Bush had looked the other way. (Saddam) was already deeply involved in the effort to acquire nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, and Bush knew it, but he looked the other way."

Clearly, Gore is advocating for something more, but it does fall short of "let's invade."
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 10:01 PM on August 13, 2007

Thank God that Gore guy wasn't elected, or we'd be really fucked.
posted by homunculus at 10:17 PM on August 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

So, in his last three weeks on the job, Rove is still emailing SCDB and CPB their required talking points, eh?
posted by wendell at 10:46 PM on August 13, 2007

Didn't this get posted?
posted by homunculus at 11:01 PM on August 13, 2007

Has this been posted yet?

(better late than never)
posted by davejay at 9:34 PM

I love Safari Stand, driveby rickrolling is a thing of the past, all I see is a harmless, noiseless, grey box. Although I do love the way that "rickrolling" sounds like something Scooby Doo would say.
posted by doctor_negative at 11:19 PM on August 13, 2007

So, in his last three weeks on the job, Rove is still emailing SCDB and CPB their required talking points, eh?

I'm sorry I don't always display the sufficient lefty shibboleths. I keep forgetting -- is it 14 separate pieces or 15 separate pieces of flair?
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 11:31 PM on August 13, 2007

...thought I would do a pre-emptive check here and get flamed before a smaller audience...
You may think of it as smaller but, really, it's just concentrated.
posted by dg at 2:13 AM on August 14, 2007 [1 favorite]

SCDB's comment is modern politics in a nutshell. I think it's OK to point out hypocrisy (which I don't think his unsupported claim does, but the Cheney interview stinks of it), but rather than admirers of the accused chinning up and saying "huh, maybe our guy was wrong" or explaining the conduct it's always about finding (or making up) an example of similar activity on the other side. It works on the playgrounds of elementary schools, but among rational adults this doesn't discharge the original accusation, and just makes the original party look even guiltier.

Example claim: "Gore made a movie about global warming but his sixty billion square foot ranch uses more energy than many third-world nations!"

The way to refute that is to either prove the claim wrong or show why the ranch can use that much energy and still be efficient (ie, "89 thousand people live there, it has a sixteen-mile diameter super-collider dedicated to making glow-in-the-dark troop-support ribbons and it provides all of Tennessee with fresh lemonade for free").

The way not to "refute" it is the shout "well, George's ranch in East Bumfuck, Texas uses all of the energy that is supposed to power the life support machines at every hospital in North America and caused Die Hard VII to be delayed seven years due to all of Hollywood only being allowed to use a single power strip!"

It's all so tiresome. Also, Clinton!!!!!!!!!!!
posted by maxwelton at 3:12 AM on August 14, 2007 [5 favorites]

So, in his last three weeks on the job, Rove is still emailing SCDB and CPB their required talking points, eh?

What's the point of this comment, other than trying to get favorited by members of your echo chamber?
posted by yerfatma at 3:43 AM on August 14, 2007

I think the point was to be both scornful and caustically sarcastic in the hopes that SCDB and CPB would shut up. Though maybe favorites entered into it too.
posted by Tuwa at 6:16 AM on August 14, 2007

That last part doesn't seem to be working out.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:29 AM on August 14, 2007

I don't think MetaTalk was intended to be used as a half-assed front page to try out your dodgy political post.

Nor was it intended to trot out this weeks version of self-righteous twattery but hey, knock yourself out.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 6:45 AM on August 14, 2007

Max— It's called the "tu quoque fallacy." It's one of those great things, because all it essentially is good for is arguing for inaction— if both sides do it, it must not be wrong, so let's not stop it.
posted by klangklangston at 7:56 AM on August 14, 2007

tu quoque

Latin for "you cock". The Romans beat cable news to the punch, there.

Anyway, it sort of looks like mecran01 got his answer, and I'm pretty sure there's idle sniping about the level and specifics of political discourse lurking in the Metatalk archives, so...
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:01 AM on August 14, 2007

so... what?
way to leave us hanging, mr cortex.
posted by mr.marx at 8:43 AM on August 14, 2007 [1 favorite]