Somehow I'm not surprised by this:
"And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq... All of a sudden you've got a battle you're fighting in a major built-up city, a lot of civilians are around, significant limitations on our ability to use our most effective technologies and techniques. Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq."
That's Dick Cheney in 1992,via Andrew Sullivan. This doesn't surprise me either:
Cheney's office did not respond to requests for comment about his 1992 statements, nor did the White House. The Bush-Cheney re-election campaign, also asked about the 1992 statements, did not respond
The fact of the matter is that, however much he messed up the budget and the economy, George H.W. Bush was one of the best foreign policy presidents we've had in recent times; in many ways, he was as good as even Reagan. He had a hard-core realist policy team that expected the worst and planned accordingly. Colin Powell, Brent Scowcroft, and James Baker made a FP dream team. It's downright depressing that the only one of them who's currently holding office is repeatedly ignored by the White House and the Defense Department. If I were a conservative, I'd be opposing Bush on that alone.