A Tribute from Iraq to Dick Cheney

Newsweek ^ | Nov 8, 2025 | Tom O’Connor

[alternatives?]

Did they ask all the Christians that moved out of Iraq?

[CondoleezzaProtege]

[bigbob]

Oh, by the way, we had WMDs all along, we just hid them. Suckers!

[allendale]

Wonder if Cheney left the “Wounded Warriors” charity any money in his will.

[Steve_Seattle1]

Good work, Liz Cheney. Your hatred of Trump helped pave the way for the media rehabilitation of your dad’s legacy, from evil, lying warmonger to father of the new and improved Iraq.

[FreedomNotSafety]

Iraqi PM Susani:

“In my estimation, under the presidency of Mr. Trump, there is a real opportunity to build an ideal relationship between Iraq and the United States,

“President Trump’s powerful decision-making and the vision he possesses in developing economic relations makes it possible for us to invest in this characteristic for a development renaissance in Iraq, strengthen ties between the two peoples and at the same time make Iraq a stable economic center and a hub for the region and the world as well as a force for stability and security, combining all interests so that we may continue this stability.”

[BenLurkin]

None of this would have been necessary if Clinton hadn’t been elected.

[irishjuggler]

The election of Bill Clinton in 1992 was indeed a turning point for the country. I do see that as a dividing line between the old U.S. of my youth, and a new U.S. that is coarser and more degenerate. I don’t think it’s totally coincidental that it marked the end of the World War II generation running the country. From Eisenhower through Bush 41, we had an unbroken line of presidents who had served in the military in some capacity in WW2. That same generation also ran major institutions (business, universities etc) and by the early ‘90s that was all coming to an end... with the Baby Boomers taking over... and everything pretty much going to hell.

[dfwgator]

I don’t see a lot of difference between the Clintons and the Bushes.

[irishjuggler]

Fair enough. Yeah, the Bushes sucked... big time. But again I do think that ‘92 election changed the country a lot.

[dfwgator]

Fair enough. Yeah, the Bushes sucked... big time. But again I do think that ‘92 election changed the country a lot.

---

When I think of the 92 Election, the first thing that comes to mind is the “Pony-Tailed Guy” that Rush featured.

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2010/10/15/the_ponytail_guy_18_years_later/

[ChessExpert]

You are probably right.

[crusher2013]

Cheny was a horrible human being.

Pushed for an unecessary war that cost 5K+ American lives, countless Iraq lives and 2-3 trillion in cost.

2-3 Trillion, remember that when they want to raise the SS age to 70.

[MinorityRepublican]

It was messy. But Iraq’s economic expansion after 2003 wasn’t only about oil — it was also about a fundamental shift from Saddam Hussein’s state-controlled socialist system to a market-based economy.

So in a way, Iraq is a success while Afghanistan is a failure.

Of course, that can change tomorrow when a dictator emerges in Iraq. But for the time being, it's difficult to consolidate power in Iraq because three factions are keeping each other in check.

[irishjuggler]

Ah, yes... good ol’ Pony Tail Guy...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMJM4GoDOXM

[dfwgator]

Gee, that’s great. What about our country?

[ChessExpert]

WMDs were a big topic at the time.

Here’s a little refresher based on the way I saw it. According to the Congressional Declaration to Use Force, there were three reasons to go to war. They were the same reasons as used in prior wars by Clinton and Bush. Clinton was authorized by Congress to pursue regime change in Iraq through the use of soft power - a declaration of war in my eyes.

WMDs was one, not the only, reason for US wars against Iraq.

Saddam was almost certainly pursuing A bomb development. Bush did not have enough translators, so he put all captured Iraqi documents on the internet. One was technical specs for an atomic bomb.

The New York Times bloodied Bush’s nose over that because they claimed it advanced the plans of other nations to develop the bomb by many years. Why did Saddam have the blueprints if he had no plan to develop a bomb? We found stockpiles of Uranium that were in excess of peaceful needs.

There was evidence that WMDs were moved out of the country by truck, ship and plane. Some to Russia and some to Syria. Later there were mysterious explosions in Syria that many considered to be an Israeli attack on materials originally in Iraq.

Bush showed no interest in defending himself or America on charges of there being no WMDs. All I can remember is his saying in response that the world was better off without Saddam. Probably true, but an inarticulate response to the charge.

[bankwalker]

I think of how Perot gave us the gift of the Clintons ... twice ...

[dfwgator]

Bush blew that election all by himself.