Cheney says war critics are "reprehensible."

[MSgt]

Exposed?

This is the original Lucidthots Avatar.

I used the Rockefeller 8.5 million to Communist "T.Lie" at UN in order to shake some people up.

The "imp" took on the Deaths Head after I told him S & B does not accept Jews into their fraternity and that the Swastika is the symbol for Chase Bank.

So you're schizophrenic? You change personalities as you change avatars? Not very credible.

 

[aps]

I am not obnoxious. I am Protestant.

OMG, that was so funny that I forgot to laugh.

(I used to say that when I was in elementary school, which is appropriate in this case....)

 

[MSgt]

OMG, that was so funny that I forgot to laugh.

(I used to say that when I was in elementary school, which is appropriate in this case....)

I figured it was equally as elementary as stressing out over speeches.:roll:

 

[aps]

I figured it was equally as elementary as stressing out over speeches.:roll:

I'm not stressing out over speeches. I am being completely honest here--I actually feel sorry for Bush and Cheney right now. I thought that Bush's speech on Veterans Day and how long he addressed the issue of those who question the intelligence showed a desperate man. He was so defensive in the accusations that he went on and on and on.

That's how I felt about Cheney's speech as well.

They know that the majority of Americans are unhappy with them right now. And don't tell me that they don't care about the polls because they do. Otherwise, they would not be out on the attack right now. They see their poll numbers going down and they want to bring them back up, those poor guys.

 

[Iriemon]

Cheney Aug. 26, 2002:
“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.” Speech at VFW 103rd Natl. Convention.

Cheney Nov. 16, 2005:
In the sharpest White House attack yet on critics of the Iraq war, Vice President Dick Cheney said on Wednesday that accusations the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to justify the war were a “dishonest and reprehensible” political ploy.

 

[KCConservative]

Cheney Aug. 26, 2002:
“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.” Speech at VFW 103rd Natl. Convention.

Cheney Nov. 16, 2005:
In the sharpest White House attack yet on critics of the Iraq war, Vice President Dick Cheney said on Wednesday that accusations the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to justify the war were a “dishonest and reprehensible” political ploy.

And in 2002 that is what he believed. So did I. Unlike Cheney, I still do. I see the mistake, but where is the lie?

 

[Iriemon]

And in 2002 that is what he believed. So did I. Unlike Cheney, I still do. I see the mistake, but where is the lie?

How do you know what he believed?

He did not say: "I believe..." He asserted it as undisputed fact ("there is no doubt"). When you assert something as undisputed fact, and that is wrong, that is a lie in my book, regardless of whether you believe it or not.

 

[aps]

And in 2002 that is what he believed. So did I. Unlike Cheney, I still do. I see the mistake, but where is the lie?

KC, see your thread entitled " Bush Lied: The Evidence." Simon did a very thorough job of addressing this issue.

 

[KCConservative]

KC, see your thread entitled " Bush Lied: The Evidence." Simon did a very thorough job of addressing this issue.

Yes, thank you. I saw that even without your gloating reminder. I also saw you chiming in after he did the work for you. Would it be okay with you if I took a few minutes to compose my rebuttal? Hmm?

 

[KCConservative]

How do you know what he believed?

He did not say: "I believe..." He asserted it as undisputed fact ("there is no doubt"). When you assert something as undisputed fact, and that is wrong, that is a lie in my book, regardless of whether you believe it or not.

We know what he reported after reviewing the intel. If he said it, then one would have to surmise that he believed what he was saying. [Split hairs much?] I see the mistake. He sees the mistake. Now where is the lie?

 

[Iriemon]

We know what he reported after reviewing the intel. If he said it, then one would have to surmise that he believed what he was saying. [Split hairs much?] I see the mistake. He sees the mistake. Now where is the lie?

Again, the difference is between making an unconditional statement (there is now no doubt) and a conditional statement (we believe, based on the intel ...).

Cheney statement was unconditional. It was an affirmation of fact. It allowed no room for error or the contingency it was simply a belief and not a fact.

Had he wanted to be honest and upfront, he would have said something to the effect: While the intel is sketchy and inconsistent, there is reason to conclude that Iraq may still possess WMDs ...

And, IMO, if he *really* wanted to be honest, he would have said: Recent data suggests strongly that Iraq does not have WMDs, but Iraq is a threat to Isreal, has a lot of oil, Hussein embarrassed the prez's dad by not getting overthrown, and we get a lot of political points by acting tough, so we are going to invade Iraq before the truth comes out and we lose our justification for invading.

But I admit I do not have a lot of evidence for the last supposition.

 

[Old and wise]

Maybe if Cheney were intelligent enough to tell the difference between his ass and a hole in the ground, we might be able to believe him.:roll:

 

[aps]

Yes, thank you. I saw that even without your gloating reminder. I also saw you chiming in after he did the work for you. Would it be okay with you if I took a few minutes to compose my rebuttal? Hmm?

Gloating? I was not gloating.

My chiming in within that thread was solely to compliment Simon for doing such a good job. Those are my complaints as well, but he laid them out in a way that I would not have been able to do. I wasn't attempting to address your question in that thread.

 

[scottyz]

Cheney Aug. 26, 2002:
“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.” Speech at VFW 103rd Natl. Convention.

Cheney Nov. 16, 2005:
In the sharpest White House attack yet on critics of the Iraq war, Vice President Dick Cheney said on Wednesday that accusations the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to justify the war were a “dishonest and reprehensible” political ploy.

Colin Powell February 24, 2001:
"He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq..."

Condoleezza Rice July 29, 2001:
"But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

 

[Lucidthots]

So you're schizophrenic? You change personalities as you change avatars? Not very credible.

No, you fail to make distinctions.

You see people as "masses" because you have no discernment.

My opinions change from one issue to another.

 

[Lucidthots]

since We Know There Are No Weapons There We Can Leave Now Right?

 

[cnredd]

since We Know There Are No Weapons There We Can Leave Now Right?

If the war was just about Weapons the answer would be "Yes!"....

But it's not!

And why are you yelling?!?

 

[Inuyasha]

If the war was just about Weapons the answer would be "Yes!"....

But it's not!

And why are you yelling?!?

What's it about this week?

 

[Australianlibertarian]

If the war was just about Weapons the answer would be "Yes!"....

But it's not!

And why are you yelling?!?

Interesting that George Bush, Tony Blair, and John Howard were not exactly putting the whole neo-con idea, that in reality we are attempting nation building.

Why didn't they just say that in the first place. It is not lying, but it is certainly DECEPTION.

Problem is that maybe the U.S public may have objected to the war more strongly if they had been told that the main purpose of the war is to set into motion a Washington think tank's idea of how the middle east should look.

It's a lot easier to sell a war based on fear, rather than selling it as a neo-con's social experiment.

Lastly I wish that the war been publically declared as a middle east socio-experiment. That way our leaders would have had to generate goals, and tasks for the improvement of Iraq, that they would have been held accountable for.

If the United States wants to be the world police so be it. But I believe that America can become a highly prosperous and safer nation if the country becomes isolationist.

Lastly if the American government believes in democracy, why did previous administrations support Saddam? Why did previous administrations support General Pinochet? Why did the U.S.A support millitary juntas in South America, or in Africa?

We have to stop excusing U.S administrations for using a do whatever it takes attitude, to win in the battle against communism, Shia theocracy or Sunni terrorism. Because it is exactly this international policy that supported the evils, of Bin Laden (indirectly through the Pakistani Intelligence services), Saddam or Pinochet.

The end result does not always justify the means.

 

[MSgt]

What's it about this week?

The same thing it has always been about. I love how people pretend to be stupid to the issues at the expense of the nation's security. The worst of the lot is not the Democratic sheep and the Republican weaklings. It's the politicians who's only agenda is 2008.

I'll qoute myself...

"These politicians ask questions for what they know they can't get answers to, because they are very well aware of all of the issues behind terrorism. They are very well aware of the decay that runs throughout the Middle East and they know the President can't come on international TV and discuss these matters. Not, while we still have to receive a substantial amount of oil from this region for American interests and a certain amount of diplomacy must remain open. They know that a Saddamless Middle East is in our best interest in the end and they know that change in the Middle East is in our best interest regarding this "War on Terror." Yet, they will act stupid for the public and to their constituents and ask the same old stupid questions for which they already know the answers. What they do is use any mundane detail along the way to put a Republican President on the spot." Any President from any political party that finally chose to listen to what our government has been warned about since the 80's, would take heat for it.

It is completely stupid for you people to pretend that you are not in a global war as your enemy is killing you. What we are seeing today is more than the routine clash of civilizations. What we are up against is a civilization that has been raised to hate you for your beliefs and attack you through their extremists. They do not care that you do not wear a uniform, for they do not. They do not care that you are a messenger of peace for your God, because it is not their God. They do not care for peace unless it is in their image. These "rogues" of Islam come from a civilization that cheers for their "martyrs." These "martyrs" are Palestinian, Syrian, Saudi, Iranian, and Iraqi. It doesn't matter who was on those planes on 9/11. We have 30 years of history being attacked from a plethora of terror groups of all Middle Eastern nations all blaspheming against Islam and claiming to do the work of "Allah" by murdering civillians. Saddam was very much a part of this problem. Iraq was the only country in the Middle East that was not open to change and no amount of diplomacy was going to change that. He was a pillar of defiance and strength for the Islam community. It wasn't until after Baghdad fell, that the scandels of the UN were even lightly revealed and how deeply involved Saddam was concerning the world's leadership. Without Saddam's Regime falling, change in Syria (Baath Party) and Iran would never change. Not to mention, policy in the UN. I recommend that no one expect change from the Arab elite inside Saudi. The Islam of the Middle East is as fixed, as unreflective, and ultimately as brittle as concrete. The "House of Saud" is the orchestrator.


It doesn't matter what got us there. If "WMD" was what got us there, so be it. If Saddam's tyranny is what got us there, so be it. If "oil" got us there, so be it. The fact is, until this civilization embraces change, nothing will change. Terrorists will continue to recruit from one specific region in this world and as long as we look the other way as their oppressive masters continue to brutalize their religion as we receive our oil you will forever remain a target for "Allah." Because it is not their fault their civilization is failing...it is yours.

 

[TwoPops4Sure]

deleted post

post deleted..

 

[Mr. D]

Colin Powell February 24, 2001:
"He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq..."

Condoleezza Rice July 29, 2001:
"But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

I love theses quotes! I guess they hadn't had a team meeting on WMD yet!

The real issue is, did Congress get "all" the intelligence available from the CIA andother sources or was it filtered and assessed importance to support the Wolfowitz Defense Plan's need to invade Iraq? Based on the selection of intelligence presented to Congress I would have voted for war too! Remember Bush's suggestion that Iraq might have the ability to strike Israel or the U.S. within 45 minutes of launch! There's no rewriting of history, just a remembering of what was said and done and how it hasn't lined up with the facts!

Can you say :spin: ?

 

[MSgt]

I love theses quotes! I guess they hadn't had a team meeting on WMD yet!

The real issue is, did Congress get "all" the intelligence available from the CIA andother sources or was it filtered and assessed importance to support the Wolfowitz Defense Plan's need to invade Iraq? Based on the selection of intelligence presented to Congress I would have voted for war too! Remember Bush's suggestion that Iraq might have the ability to strike Israel or the U.S. within 45 minutes of launch! There's no rewriting of history, just a remembering of what was said and done and how it hasn't lined up with the facts!

Can you say :spin: ?

I would have voted for war in Iraq also. Though it would have had nothing to do with WMD. Iraq is only a battle field in a long war that will be mostly aggressive diplomacy. Iran and Syria are already involved. Israel's with draw from the Gaza strip so that Palestine can be dealt with on another level and Syria's with draw from Lebanon was a part of it as well.

Only fools believed that Iraq had the capability to hurt us through launch. (This kind of intel is never not solid.) The ones that were not fools, merely wanted Saddam gone for very common reasons and are now acting stupid for political sake.