• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Carter calls out Cheney

Do you take Cheney seriously?

  • Yes

    Votes: 3 23.1%
  • No.

    Votes: 10 76.9%

  • Total voters
    13
Well if Cheney was wrong so was every single member of the intelligence community, and a litany of Democratic Senators, Representatives, and former Presidents.

I think they were....wrong...nobody has ever denied this....it's just funny because almost everybody has admitted they were wrong except for the current administration.
 
"We believe Saddam has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." - Vice President Cheney, 3/16/03

Again all 16 intel agencies concluded this to be true.

Please provide an example of even a single one of our intel agencies that said Hussein had nukes.
 
"We believe Saddam has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." - Vice President Cheney, 3/16/03



Please provide an example of even a single one of our intel agencies that said Hussein had nukes.

A) Cheney didn't say that he already had nukes.

B) All 16 agencies agreed with Cheney's aforementioned assertion:

High Confidence:
  • Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding, its chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.
  • We are not detecting portions of these weapons programs.
  • Iraq possesses proscribed chemical and biological weapons and missiles.
  • Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons-grad fissile material
Moderate Confidence:
  • Iraq does not yet have a nuclear weapon or sufficient material to make one but is likely to have a weapon by 2007 to 2009. (See INR alternative view, page 84).
Key Judgments: Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction
 
From TOT's link:
The activities we have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons. Iraq may be doing so, but INR considers the available evidence inadequate to support such a judgment. Lacking persuasive evidence that Baghdad has launched a coherent effort to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program, INR is unwilling to speculate that such an effort began soon after the departure of UN inspectors or to project a timeline for the completion of activities it does not now see happening. As a result, INR is unable to predict when Iraq could acquire a nuclear device or weapon.
So there was apprehension within the intelligence community even in this document. Not a very good reason to invade resulting in a half million people dead.
 
So there was apprehension within the intelligence community even in this document. Not a very good reason to invade resulting in a half million people dead.

Ya post the whole thing next time bub:

"The Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research (INR) believes that Saddam continues to want nuclear weapons and that available evidence indicates that Baghdad is pursuing at least a limited effort to maintain and acquire nuclear weapons-related capabilities."
 
Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus
Ya post the whole thing next time bub:

"The Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research (INR) believes that Saddam continues to want nuclear weapons and that available evidence indicates that Baghdad is pursuing at least a limited effort to maintain and acquire nuclear weapons-related capabilities."
The "available evidence" doesn't indicate s.h.i.t! Your own link says that.
From TOT's link:
The activities we have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons.
Stop cherry-picking intel just so you can get your ya-ya's out!
 
I love it when Republicans try and blame Iraq on other people, truly hilarious.
 
billybobama said:
I love it when Republicans try and blame Iraq on other people, truly hilarious.
I think it's even more hilarious to hear some of the other nutty stuff, such as comparisons with the Revolutionary War.

According to some, the Revolutionary War and the current situation have a lot in common. Indeed they do. However, this thinking ignores the relevant point, ie., "what does the US stand to benefit from in this circumstance?"

In the Revolutionary War, it was everything. in Iraq, things aren't going that well, therefore, the US likely won't benefit.

Item A, topic #1, in every single discussion of a policy decision, foreign or domestic ought to be "are the benefits worth the costs?" Don't we do this in our own lives? Why not do it with our nation?

The War in Iraq, when measured by this simplest, this most logical of ways, doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Has it been worth the cost in lives? The trillions in funding? The ire of the entire world? A much more unstable Middle East? It hasn't been worth it.

And yet, to those whom this measure doesn't occur, we hear about how "Iraq is like, whoopee!, the Revolutionary War! Of course we should support it!"

Furthermore, the consequences didn't occur to Mr. Cheney at the outset. If you read the liberal media in '02-'03, you saw the debacle predicted. Cheney was wrong. Cheney didn't weigh the benefits against the costs, not this time. (see sig below). And this is how disaster was born.
 
I think it's even more hilarious to hear some of the other nutty stuff, such as comparisons with the Revolutionary War.

According to some, the Revolutionary War and the current situation have a lot in common. Indeed they do. However, this thinking ignores the relevant point, ie., "what does the US stand to benefit from in this circumstance?"

In the Revolutionary War, it was everything. in Iraq, things aren't going that well, therefore, the US likely won't benefit.

Item A, topic #1, in every single discussion of a policy decision, foreign or domestic ought to be "are the benefits worth the costs?" Don't we do this in our own lives? Why not do it with our nation?

The War in Iraq, when measured by this simplest, this most logical of ways, doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Has it been worth the cost in lives? The trillions in funding? The ire of the entire world? A much more unstable Middle East? It hasn't been worth it.

And yet, to those whom this measure doesn't occur, we hear about how "Iraq is like, whoopee!, the Revolutionary War! Of course we should support it!"

Furthermore, the consequences didn't occur to Mr. Cheney at the outset. If you read the liberal media in '02-'03, you saw the debacle predicted. Cheney was wrong. Cheney didn't weigh the benefits against the costs, not this time. (see sig below). And this is how disaster was born.
You are 100% correct. Anybody who knows anything about about the U.S. Constitution knows there is only one allowable reason for the U.S. Government to send U.S. Troops to war is - To provide for the common defence. Now you know why the Bush administration has to make up lies about WMD's and connect Iraq with Terrorism and 9/11. Of course we know they are all lies now.
 
The "available evidence" doesn't indicate s.h.i.t! Your own link says that.
Stop cherry-picking intel just so you can get your ya-ya's out!

You're the one whose Cherry picking because my source says the following:

High Confidence:
  • Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding, its chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.
  • We are not detecting portions of these weapons programs.
  • Iraq possesses proscribed chemical and biological weapons and missiles.
  • Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons-grad fissile material
Moderate Confidence:
  • Iraq does not yet have a nuclear weapon or sufficient material to make one but is likely to have a weapon by 2007 to 2009. (See INR alternative view, page 84).
Key Judgments: Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction

And it didn't say it "indicates sh!t" it says it indicates that they are reestablishing parts of their nuclear program.
 
I love it when Republicans try and blame Iraq on other people, truly hilarious.

You mean every intel agency that said Saddam had WMD? You mean like CIA director George Tenant who said it was a slam dunk? You mean like the litany of Democratic congressmen who concurred with the President? You mean like all the Dems who voted for the war? I love it when Democrats try to rewrite history as if they were against the war from the get go and not only when it was politically advantageous for them to be so, truly sad.
 
I think it's even more hilarious to hear some of the other nutty stuff, such as comparisons with the Revolutionary War.

According to some, the Revolutionary War and the current situation have a lot in common. Indeed they do. However, this thinking ignores the relevant point, ie., "what does the US stand to benefit from in this circumstance?"

In the Revolutionary War, it was everything. in Iraq, things aren't going that well, therefore, the US likely won't benefit.

Item A, topic #1, in every single discussion of a policy decision, foreign or domestic ought to be "are the benefits worth the costs?" Don't we do this in our own lives? Why not do it with our nation?

The War in Iraq, when measured by this simplest, this most logical of ways, doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Has it been worth the cost in lives? The trillions in funding? The ire of the entire world? A much more unstable Middle East? It hasn't been worth it.

And yet, to those whom this measure doesn't occur, we hear about how "Iraq is like, whoopee!, the Revolutionary War! Of course we should support it!"

Furthermore, the consequences didn't occur to Mr. Cheney at the outset. If you read the liberal media in '02-'03, you saw the debacle predicted. Cheney was wrong. Cheney didn't weigh the benefits against the costs, not this time. (see sig below). And this is how disaster was born.

lmfao, how exactly do you measure the worth of freedom for over 25 million people? Huh, how do you do that buddy?
 
You are 100% correct. Anybody who knows anything about about the U.S. Constitution knows there is only one allowable reason for the U.S. Government to send U.S. Troops to war is - To provide for the common defence. Now you know why the Bush administration has to make up lies about WMD's and connect Iraq with Terrorism and 9/11. Of course we know they are all lies now.

A) If Bush lied about WMD then so too did a litany of Democratic Senators, Representatives, and former Presidents, as well as, all 16 members of the U.S. intelligence community and many foreign intelligence agencies including MI6, MOSSAD, and DGSE.

B) There was a connection between AQ and Saddam, however there wasn't a connection between Saddam and 9-11 and no one in the Bush administration ever said there was.
 
A) If Bush lied about WMD then so too did a litany of Democratic Senators, Representatives, and former Presidents, as well as, all 16 members of the U.S. intelligence community and many foreign intelligence agencies including MI6, MOSSAD, and DGSE.

B) There was a connection between AQ and Saddam, however there wasn't a connection between Saddam and 9-11 and no one in the Bush administration ever said there was.

In making the false claim, Limbaugh overlooked Vice President Dick Cheney's suggestions of a connection between Iraq and 9-11. On the December 9, 2001, edition of NBC's Meet the Press, moderator Tim Russert asked Cheney if he "still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?" The vice president responded falsely that it was "pretty well confirmed" that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with September 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta shortly before the attacks. On the September 14, 2003, edition of Meet the Press, Cheney repeated his claim that Iraq and 9-11 are linked, saying: "If we're successful in Iraq ... we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9-11."


Media Matters - Limbaugh: "Nobody ever said there was" a connection between Iraq, 9-11 attacks

No connection between Saddam Iraq and 9/11 right?
 
TOT said:
lmfao, how exactly do you measure the worth of freedom for over 25 million people? Huh, how do you do that buddy?
lmfao, how exactly do you constantly twist my words into things that I didn't actually say? Huh, how do you do that buddy?
 

Nice out of context quote by the left wing hit machine "media matters," if you were to read the entire quote it was a clear "I don't know," answer to Russert's question:

RUSSERT: Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?

CHENEY: Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.

Now, what the purpose of that was, what transpired between them, we simply don't know at this point. But that's clearly an avenue that we want to pursue.

Furthermore; that interview was in the December of '01 the Mohammad Atta/Iraqi intel operative connection wasn't debunked until atleast 2002 and not totally debunked until 2004.

Atta in Prague - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As to the secondary quote made by Cheney are you denying that the Middle East, of which Iraq is in, is the geographic base for Islamic Fascism?
 
Last edited:
lmfao, how exactly do you constantly twist my words into things that I didn't actually say? Huh, how do you do that buddy?

You said that the cost did not outweigh the benefits, so like I said how do you measure the value of freedom for over 25 million people. How exactly did I twist your words?
 
Last edited:
As to the secondary quote made by Cheney are you denying that the Middle East, of which Iraq is in, is the geographic base for Islamic Fascism?

It's well know Saddam and Islamic Facists didn't see eye to eye.

Saddam Hussein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Saddam saw himself as a social revolutionary and a modernizer, following the Nasser model. To the consternation of Islamic conservatives, his government gave women added freedoms and offered them high-level government and industry jobs. Saddam also created a Western-style legal system, making Iraq the only country in the Persian Gulf region not ruled according to traditional Islamic law (Sharia). Saddam abolished the Sharia law courts, except for personal injury claims.

Domestic conflict impeded Saddam's modernizing projects. Iraqi society is divided along lines of language, religion and ethnicity; Saddam's government rested on the support of the 20% minority of largely working class, peasant, and lower middle class Sunnis, continuing a pattern that dates back at least to the British mandate authority's reliance on them as administrators.

Does this sound like Islamic Facism to you? Give me a ****ing break.
 
It's well know Saddam and Islamic Facists didn't see eye to eye.

Saddam Hussein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Does this sound like Islamic Facism to you? Give me a ****ing break.

No give me a fuc/king break:

STILL, some insist on saying it. Since early November, Senator Carl Levin has been spotted around Washington waving a brief excerpt from a February 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency assessment of Iraq. The relevant passage reads: "Saddam's regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control."

Levin treats these two sentences as definitive proof that Bush administration officials knew that Saddam's regime was unlikely to work with Islamic fundamentalists and ignored the intelligence community's assessment to that effect. Levin apparently finds the passage so damning that he specifically requested that it be declassified.

I thought of Levin's two sentences last Wednesday and Thursday as I sat in a Dallas courtroom listening to testimony in the deportation hearing of Ahmed Mohamed Barodi, a 42-year-old Syrian-born man who's been living in Texas for the last 15 years. I thought of Levin's sentences, for example, when Barodi proudly proclaimed his membership in the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, and again when Barodi, dressed in loose-fitting blue prison garb, told Judge J. Anthony Rogers about the 21 days he spent in February 1982 training with other members of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood at a camp in Iraq.

The account he gave in the courtroom was slightly less alarming than the description of the camp he had provided in 1989, on his written application for political asylum in the United States. In that document, Barodi described the instruction he received in Iraq as "guerrilla warfare training." And in an interview in February 2005 with Detective Scott Carr and special agent Sam Montana, both from the federal Joint Terrorism Task Force, Barodi said that the Iraqi regime provided training in the use of firearms, rocket-propelled grenades, and document forgery.

Barodi comes from Hama, the town that was leveled in 1982 by the armed forces of secular Syrian dictator Hafez Assad because it was home to radical Islamic terrorists who had agitated against his regime. The massacre took tens of thousands of lives, but some of the extremists got away.

Many of the most radical Muslim Brotherhood refugees from Hama were welcomed next door--and trained--in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Spanish investigators believe that Ghasoub Ghalyoun, the man they have accused of conducting surveillance for the 9/11 attacks, who also has roots in the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, was trained in an Iraqi terrorist camp in the early 1980s. Ghalyoun mentions this Iraqi training in a 2001 letter to the head of Syrian intelligence, in which he seeks reentry to Syria despite his long affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Reaching out to Islamic radicals was, in fact, one of the first moves Saddam Hussein made upon taking power in 1979. That he did not do it for ideological reasons is unimportant. As Barodi noted at last week's hearing, "He used us and we used him."

Throughout the 1980s, including the eight years of the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam cast himself as a holy warrior in his public rhetoric to counter the claims from Iran that he was an infidel. This posturing continued during and after the first Gulf war in 1990-91. Saddam famously ordered "Allahu Akbar" (God is Great) added to the Iraqi flag. Internally, he launched "The Faith Campaign," which according to leading Saddam Hussein scholar Amatzia Baram included the imposition of sharia (Islamic law). According to Baram, "The Iraqi president initiated laws forbidding the public consumption of alcohol and introduced enhanced compulsory study of the Koran at all educational levels, including Baath Party branches."

Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law who defected to Jordan in 1995, explained these changes in an interview with Rolf Ekeus, then head of the U.N. weapons inspection program. "The government of Iraq is instigating fundamentalism in the country," he said, adding, "Every party member has to pass a religious exam. They even stopped party meetings for prayers."

And throughout the decade, the Iraqi regime sponsored "Popular Islamic Conferences" at the al Rashid Hotel that drew the most radical Islamists from throughout the region to Baghdad. Newsweek's Christopher Dickey, who covered one of those meetings in 1993, would later write: "Islamic radicals from all over the Middle East, Africa and Asia converged on Baghdad to show their solidarity with Iraq in the face of American aggression." One speaker praised "the mujahed Saddam Hussein, who is leading this nation against the nonbelievers." Another speaker said, "Everyone has a task to do, which is to go against the American state." Dickey continued:

Every time I hear diplomats and politicians, whether in Washington or the capitals of Europe, declare that Saddam Hussein is a "secular Baathist ideologue" who has nothing do with Islamists or with terrorist calls to jihad, I think of that afternoon and I wonder what they're talking about. If that was not a fledgling Qaeda itself at the Rashid convention, it sure was Saddam's version of it.
In the face of such evidence, Carl Levin and other critics of the Iraq war trumpet deeply flawed four-year-old DIA analyses. Shouldn't the senator instead use his influence to push for the release of Iraqi documents that will help establish what, exactly, the Iraqi regime was doing in the years before the U.S. invasion?

Saddam's Terror Training Camps
 
Last edited:
TOT said:
You said that the cost did not outweigh the benefits, so like I said how do you measure the value of freedom for over 25 million people. How exactly did I twist your words?
what will it cost the US? How will it benefit the US? That's what I'm talking about. You're talking about something else.

This argument that the US is somehow interested in helping humanity over there is entirely bogus. the US assisted Saddam when he commited atrocities. Whoops, there I go addressing the results of your faulty logic. I'll drop it right there. I'm not willing to let the topic go spinning off into some outer-space tangent.
 
You people are arguing all the wrong points.
 
Back
Top Bottom