He/They did it for the money and probably other ulterior motives. Most Americans see war in terms of deaths and losses, while some see it in terms of dollar amounts, I guess.

Wow, where'd you dig this one up? This would be great if most Americans had the capacity to give a damn. Cheney enjoys the rights and privileges of a person without the burden of personal responsibilty. He is truly Corporation-Man.

lol I think the writers of the daily show read your blog, they just used this piece.

They probably just found it where norm found it.

OGM is the most-hit-getting Daily Show clip blog on the internet. I think that they do log on from time to time. "Some crappy blog"? That's got to be OGM.

If only the Daily Show could give us some secret sign on the air that they do check out the blog from time to time. Or they could just email Norm.

That's brilliant! Why haven't I seen that before?

I remember seeing Cheney in a couple of interviews from the 80's and thinking that you could respect his realism and obvious intelligence, even if you didn't agree with his politics or what he was saying.

Somewhere that all got lost before he became VP though - does anyone know at which point, exactly, he went nuts?

There's similar stuff in another interview...

Maybe it's part of our national character, you know we like to have these problems nice and neatly wrapped up, put a ribbon around it. You deploy a force, you win the war and the problem goes away and it doesn't work that way in the Middle East it never has and isn't likely to in my lifetime... And you're going to take a lot more American casualties if you're gonna go muck around in Iraq for weeks on end trying to run Saddam Hussein to ground and capture Baghdad and so forth and I don't think it would have been worth it.

From Frontline

You've got to wish there were more people like Dick Cheney out there arguing against the national builders by pointing out some simple home truths about the fragile balance of power in the Middle East. If only someone like that was Vice President.

amazing, he knew, and he did it anyway. So was it just pure greed? Or did he delude himself into believing otherwise when the time came? All I know is that I want the 1994 Chaney back! We could actually use him.

Please give the source of this interview. Does anyone know who is doing the interviewing and on what program it was first broadcast?

I've seen a couple other versions of this clip and the graphics looks somewhat like C-SPAN's. Given how few people pay attention to CSPAN (and that number must have been microscopic in 1994!), it's not surprising it didn't surface until now.

I think the real problem is waiting until people are the prime age for health, hearing and memory lose before we put them in higher office.

I think Flemming put it best: "Do you want the United States to win in Iraq? It already did win. The U.S. armed forces ousted Saddam Hussein's regime and destroyed his army within weeks after the invasion began. The enemy was defeated. Ever since then, it has been an occupation. You don't "win" an occupation. You continue it, or you end it."

Erick, that may be so, but how come our government insists on calling it a, "War on Terror" and not an occupation?

Because they're of the mentality that if you call a piece of excrement a rose long enough it will turn into one. Scott Mcclellan agreed (after he left his job as Press Secretary of course) that all this bull is just a game of words.

thanks for clearing that up, erick. i thought the "war on terror" was the euphamism for the erosion/hijacking of american civil liberties, kind of like the "war on drugs".

if the "war on terror" has been successfully localized in iraq (and a bit of afghanistan) that's a good thing, right?

just kidding. really.