Megyn Kelly to Dick Cheney: Wrong, sir

politico ^ | 6-19-2014 | Kendall Breutman

[yldstrk]

FOX News’ Megyn Kelly had some tough questions for former Vice President Dick Cheney on Wednesday night, after he and his daughter, Liz, offered a scathing review of the Obama administration’s foreign policy.

“In your op-ed [in the Wall Street Journal], you write as follows: ‘Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many,” Kelly said on her show “The Kelly File.” “But time and time again, history has proven that you got it wrong as well sir.” Continue Reading Text Size

- + reset

Latest on POLITICO

Kerry on Cheney: 'Please! Rubio: Obama is 'over' After uproar, paper drops Will column Playbook: Axelrod reveals book title Starbucks CEO brewed tuition deal Condi Rice: Wait for history to judge

Kelly then began listing shortcomings of the Bush administration, pointing out Cheney’s statements that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, that the U.S. forces would be considered liberators and that Iraqi insurgency was “in the throes” in 2005.

Cheney responded that invading Iraq was “the right thing” and that it would have been “irresponsible for us not to act.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/dick-cheney-megyn-kelly-fox-interview-108049.html#ixzz355ZX5OFe

[FreeAtlanta]

I believe Saddam or Iraqi security forces were intimately involved with 911 and the coinciding Anthrax attacks.

[FreeAtlanta]

He waited too long by getting congressional an UN approvals. He should have just done like our lawless current president did with Libya.

[Pietro]

"Energy Independence"

Its more complex than that.

If they would limit their lunacy to their own corner of the world I'd agree, but they're intent on poisoning the planet.

You either fight it at the source or invite it in and fight it here.

Once we've vacated the ME, expect these idiots to show up in the US.

[Jack Hydrazine]

Most of it went to Syria.

[vetvetdoug]

US EOD personnel encountered Sarin gas IED’s as early as May 2003 in Iraq. The WMD argument is valid if the MSM and facts were presented.

[NormsRevenge]

WoMenopause?

Crazy.. Fox has its loose wing nuts too.

[Scotswife]

Yes - correct

[Scotswife]

Right - & while it is understandable for the Bush family to be motivated by this - does it justify the cost in terms of lives lost & time & money spent

[Political Junkie Too]

But did she really used the “no chemical weapons” line with Cheney?

WMDs Found in Iraq

Deadly chemicals are found dumped in river

Evidence of WMDs in Iraq - Annonymous Freeper in Iraq

Cyanide Salt Block Found in Iraq

MSNBC - Cyanide & Mustard Agents Found in Euphrates River

EUPHRATES 'POISONED'

NBC Forces Out Bob Arnot Who Delivered Upbeat Stories from Iraq(Arnot Charges Bias)

-PJ

[Christie at the beach]

Sometimes, she can be over the top when I see her own view coming out into the discussion (on various social issues) and she seems kind of demanding for an answer. Eventually, if she doesn’t handle that well, it could turn into a negative (some do not like that type of questioning as we see here).

For that interview, I guess she wanted to give the Cheneys a platform to answer back to their many critics. If anyone could handle that type of interview, it would be Dick Cheney and his daughter, Lynn.

I think it was right to invade Iraq. With the intel that was coming in, and the intel from the Clinton administration, it would had been wrong to ignore it. Congress saw the same intel and many were on TV supporting the invasion. Now, the dems continue to blame Bush/ Cheney. They made mistakes indeed. Bush wouldn’t even defend all of the criticisms from the media. That was wrong, in my view. You don’t go to the highest level to the presidency and allow someone else to define you or your policies / or related convictions.( His brother would be even worse). It is wrong to forget 9-11 as the media has done.

I believe it not a certainty to nation build if a culture does not want to live with a constitutional authority. Nation building takes so many years, with a resolve and has any democrat ever did anything right once they become involved in a war effort. Obama was never in lead position. His leftist handlers were determined of any gain or good that we had there, they would never allow Bush any credit. Obama’s people have done this deliberately. Just too bad we did not finish the job sooner in the event such a leader as Obama got the CIC job.

And, I do realize, everything is political but what Obama brings to the table is weakness and a sense of pay back to this country. May God help us to be rid of him. What Bush did or did not do, will have to be answered for. What Obama is deliberately doing will be his downfall. Obama does not respect this country’s founding neither does his wife.

[Christie at the beach]

Well..one thing I do see now is that the liberal websites are rallying behind Meghan even though they are calling her a few choice names. They will turn on her completely in a matter of days. It’s strange how the libs see what they want to see from that interview. No wonder our country is full of lying democratic politicians. They are the image of the liberals they represent.

[TigersEye]

The WMD argument is a legitimate Bush gripe, no matter how you look at it. We went into Iraq with a primary goal being the removal of Saddam’s WMD’s. It turned out there were no WMD’s in Iraq, and we were all misled by bad intelligence.

• Wikileaks documents show WMDs found in Iraq
• Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq
• WMDs Found in Iraq Human Events
• Saddam talked of WMD attack in U.S.
• Saddam's WMD have been found
• Saddam's WMD Moved to Syria, An Israeli Says
• Saddam general: WMDs in Syria

[Corporate Democrat]

Bush himself came out and wrote in his post-Presidency autobiography that they couldn't find any WMD's in Iraq. He would have no reason to lie here, and as a man of integrity, I don't believe he would say that unless he truly believed it.

If Bush was deceived by Saddam, and the WMD's were moved to Syria or overlooked in Iraq, Bush still bears the responsibility for the failure to locate the WMD's, being hoodwinked by Saddam into believing there were no WMD's and for letting the WMD's fall into Muslim hands

If Bush was not deceived by Saddam, he bears the responsibility for failing to realize that Iraq did not have WMD's and consequentially overreacting. He had three years and the world's largest intelligence network at his fingertips to figure out whether Clinton's CIA guys were right or not.

Again, whether there were WMD's or not is really a moot point here; Bush messed up strategically either way you want to look at it.

[wardaddy]

She’s always been governed by estrogen

Chinny gal.

[TigersEye]

Sure. "Bush said" trumps literal tons of physical evidence. LOL

You Can't Fix Stupid

[TigersEye]

Again, whether there were WMD's or not is really a moot point here; Bush messed up strategically either way you want to look at it.

Let's set the context first. We were in a state of war with Iraq, under a cease fire.

• 1. Iraqi provocation of American planes patrolling the no-fly zone. "More than 42,000 sorties were flown during that time. Iraqi surface-to-air missiles and other anti-aircraft systems targeted ONW aircrews on nearly every flight." (That sounds like 42,000 reasons to me but I'll only count it as one. I doubt you care whether any American or British planes get shot down.)
• 2. Saddam defied 17 UN resolutions that were a result of his losing the war. (again, that should count as 17 reasons but you get a break because you're a liberal who would cry if you had to face reality.)
• 3. Saddam tried to assassinate a former U.S. President.
• 4. Saddam was killing the Marsh Arabs in southern Iraq that we had promised protection.
• 5. Iraq's nuclear weapons program.
• 6. Iraq's biological weapons program.
• 7. Iraq's chemical weapons program.
• 8. Saddam's extensive cooperation with terrorists.

I left out the 500,000+ people Saddam had killed because, after all, neither you nor I care about those filthy little brown people. Right? /s

[Corporate Democrat]

You think all this "physical evidence" somehow escaped Bush's notice? I would rather trust Bush, the President who actually oversaw the liberation of Iraq and spearheaded the subsequent search for WMD's, over a bunch of fringe websites and hearsay about "physical evidence".

Bush has no reason to say that there were no WMD's and every reason to say that there were. Besides, if Bush somehow didn't recognize "literal tons of physical evidence" of WMD's uncovered during his Presidency, it only proves my point that Bush badly miscalculated on this.

[TigersEye]

I would rather trust Bush,...

If Bush was not deceived by Saddam, ... Bush messed up strategically either way you want to look at it.

You're just full of Progessive double-speak aren't you?

[TigersEye]

...over a bunch of fringe websites...

fas.org (Federation of American Scientists quoting the IAEA), Fox News, GlobalSecurity.org, NYSun.com, IraqCoalition.org, wikileaks(U.S. military documents), JihadWatch.com and MSNBC are "fringe websites?" ROTFLOL

[Corporate Democrat]

Let me slowly break it down for you, as you seem incapable of doing that because of some strange compulsion to insult and insinuate.

I believe President Bush is a honourable and honest man.

Therefore I trust that he believes what he says is true.

But being an man, Bush is fallible and could be wrong.

I think he was misled by false intelligence reports in this case, which were widely believed, easily believable but ultimately false.

But once we actually had troops on the ground in Iraq searching for the WMD’s the chance that any potential WMD’s could escape the notice of the President became much lower in my view.

I don’t think Bush overlooked any WMD’s, but you apparently think so.

... I pointed out the irony of you apparently making my point for me.

It flies right over your head.