The W
Views: 100223740
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
30.10.14 0800
The W - Current Events & Politics - Dick Cheney has a lot of balls Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 6.14
Pages: 1 2 Next
(638 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (24 total)
BigDaddyLoco
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 11 hours
Last activity: 11 hours
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.19
Of all the people to say something like this, it's him.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In the sharpest White House attack yet on critics of the Iraq war, Vice President Dick Cheney said on Wednesday accusations that the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to justify the war were a "dishonest and reprehensible" political ploy.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N16406810.htm




Promote this thread!
BigSteve
Pepperoni








Since: 23.7.04
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 2848 days
Last activity: 2576 days
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.84
    Originally posted by BigDaddyLoco
    Of all the people to say something like this, it's him.

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In the sharpest White House attack yet on critics of the Iraq war, Vice President Dick Cheney said on Wednesday accusations that the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to justify the war were a "dishonest and reprehensible" political ploy.

    http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N16406810.htm



I don't see what's so ridiculous about this statement by Cheney. It is nothing but political opportunism for the same people who voted for the resolution to authorize the Iraq War during the Bush Administration, who voted for the Iraq Liberation Act during the Clinton Administration and who said on numerous occasions during both the Clinton and Bush administrations that Saddam Hussein had (at the time) WMD or had sought to continue developing them. And now those same people act like President Bush made up the thread of Saddam Hussein with WMD capabilities out of whole cloth. It certainly seems dishonest to me and this type of partisanship from elected officials is reprehensible.

messenoir
Summer sausage








Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 552 days
Last activity: 419 days
AIM:  
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.94
What is more reprehensible is either side pretending they don't play partisan politics every chance they get. And it's reprehensible that any of you of you would say your party doesn't play partisan politics every chance they get.



CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 5 hours
Last activity: 5 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.22
    Originally posted by messenoir
    And it's reprehensible that any of you of you would say your party doesn't play partisan politics every chance they get.
I must have missed where that was said in this thread.

It's about time somebody high up said "hey, wait a minute" to the Democrats after so much mudslinging and so many allegations, but the only problem is the Republicans will inevitably not know when to stop firing back and sail way past "just defending ourselves from all these attacks" territory and end up deep inside the land of "looking mean and vindictive and pretty much confirming the image everyone has of us anyway."



CRZ
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 17 days
Last activity: 9 hours
AIM:  
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.57
The problem is that the GOP could have made the Dems look so much more nasty had they come out a year ago and said "Yes, a terrible mistake was made. We had what we believed to be intelligence pointing to a credible and immediate threat from the nation of Iraq. We were, obviously and tragically, incorrect. However, it would be another, even more disasterous mistake to abdicate our responsibility having created an unstable situation to not stay the course until this nation is capable of defending itself and establishing itself as an ally of all democratic nations."

Instead they clung to the story forever, they tried to smear people who disagreed with them, and when asked if there were any mistakes made during his presidency, Bush couldn't think of a single one. Obviously the Democrats wouldn't have said "oh, you apologized, so we're all cool now" but it would have gone a long way towards making the American people feel like the Bush administration is not viewing a different world than we are. It's the sense that the Bush people either don't realize what a screw-up this was, or they are hiding something and thus can't just come out and say "we f'd up, we're sorry" that I think is contributing in a large degree to the shift of folks in the middle to dissatisfaction with the administration.



messenoir
Summer sausage








Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 552 days
Last activity: 419 days
AIM:  
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.83
    Originally posted by CRZ
    I must have missed where that was said in this thread.


Then you weren't reading very hard, or you don't understand unspoken allegations.

When you accuse another party of playing partisan politics, the unspoken part of the statement is your party doesn't play partisan politics. I'm not sure about BigDaddyLoco, but it's pretty clear Steve supports the Republican party, and it's pretty clear that, though you're a libertarian, you support many of the Republican politicians. So when you, in the next statement, accuse the Democrats of mudslinging and the Republicans only in going to far in defending themselves, the unspoken allegation is the Republicans don't play partisan politics.

    Originally posted by CRZ
    It's about time somebody high up said "hey, wait a minute" to the Democrats after so much mudslinging and so many allegations, but the only problem is the Republicans will inevitably not know when to stop firing back and sail way past "just defending ourselves from all these attacks" territory and end up deep inside the land of "looking mean and vindictive and pretty much confirming the image everyone has of us anyway."


See, this is my exact point. The Democrats are hypocritical and do mudsling, but they have been matched every step of the way by the Republicans. But instead of saying "a pox on both their houses" you and pretty much every other conservative are going to get all up on the cross about those mean Democrats and how it's so unfair they're mudslinging when all the poor Republicans are trying to do is spread freedom in the world.

And of course, it's inevitably the Republicans firing back at allegations. It's never the Republicans starting mudslinging and allegations, but simply aggresively defending themselves against the evil liberals.

People have pretty much constantly been accusing the Democrats of mudslinging. Just about every conservative radio host out there spends much of their time accusing the Democrats of having no policy, and instead spending all their time bashing Bush. They have been doing this for years and years, so for you to sit there and say "oh yea, someone finally fought back against the mudslinging Democrats" is dishonest, or it means you never listen to any conservative columnist or politician.

It'd be like me saying "I'm glad someone finally spoke up about Bush eating babies" when liberals have been accusing him of that forever.

So I will say it here, a pox on both parties for mudslinging and attacks against people instead of issues, and you're a hypocrite if you try to defend either party here.



(edited by messenoir on 17.11.05 1109)

(edited by messenoir on 17.11.05 1110)

CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 5 hours
Last activity: 5 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.22
    Originally posted by messenoir
    So when you, in the next statement, accuse the Democrats of mudslinging and the Republicans only in going to far in defending themselves, the unspoken allegation is the Republicans don't play partisan politics.
Bologna. You're talking general, I'm talking specific. Specifically...

Democrats: "BUSH LIED!"

Republicans: "..."

America: "Golly, Bush must have lied!"

Just because I'm glad Dick Cheney started saying "hey, wait a minute" instead of "..." doesn't mean I'm asking you/anyone/everyone to give him/them a free pass the next time THEY say something just as wrong. You accuse me of not "reading very hard" but it kinda looks you're taking it to the opposite extreme - extrapolating a general (wrong) opinion from my comments about a specific situation.

MY OPINION is that regarding the whole "BUSH LIED!" thing, it's *easier* for the Democrats to accuse the administration of lying than to explain why they voted for the war. Of course, for this tactic to succeed, the public has to go along with it - and it's a lot easier to buy what they're selling when all you hear is their drumbeat. Soon, everybody forgets that the Democrats voted for the war because they're too busy saying "Yeah, Bush lied!" and the administration is, unfortunately, still arrogant enough to think that they don't even HAVE to address the comments from the other side. At least they may finally be understanding that that's not the thing to do.

So, yeah, I agree with the thread title - Dick Cheney has a lot of balls - and finally he looks like he's putting them to use. IN THIS SITUATION. Good on 'im.

If you're against the war, and your representation in Congress voted FOR the war, are you going to let them slide because they happen to be in the Democratic party and they're bitching about things NOW ... or are you going to ask them why they weren't on the ball THEN? (Yes, you're even free to do both - or neither! But posting here tends to imply you've elimiated the "neither" option. ;-) )

(edited by CRZ on 17.11.05 1229)


CRZ
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.28
    Originally posted by messenoir
    But instead of saying "a pox on both their houses" you and pretty much every other conservative are going to get all up on the cross about those mean Democrats


(singing) CRZ's a conservative, conservative, conservative, CRZ's a conservative, la-di-da-di-da.





We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.
Jim Smith
Goetta








Since: 17.10.04
From: Bloomington, IL

Since last post: 2306 days
Last activity: 1737 days
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.80
    Originally posted by CRZ
    MY OPINION is that regarding the whole "BUSH LIED!" thing, it's *easier* for the Democrats to accuse the administration of lying than to explain why they voted for the war.


They voted for the war because Bush lied to them about the need to go to war. Now that they know he lied they regret voting for the war.

I don't want to get into a political debate here, but "Bush lied to us" is a logical explanation for why the Dems voted for the war. It may be a false explanation, but it is logical--so far as one is willing to entertain the idea that Bush really lied and the Democrats really didn't know that until after the vote.

I'm always hearing Bush's people dismiss the bad WMD info by saying "We acted on the best intelligence we had available to us." If it's not Bush's fault if the CIA gives him bad information, why are the Dems to blame if Bush gives them bad information?
Deputy Marshall
Liverwurst








Since: 28.6.04
From: Troy, NY

Since last post: 14 days
Last activity: 1 day
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.92
    Originally posted by Jim Smith
    I'm always hearing Bush's people dismiss the bad WMD info by saying "We acted on the best intelligence we had available to us." If it's not Bush's fault if the CIA gives him bad information, why are the Dems to blame if Bush gives them bad information?


They wouldn't be, but the argument is that the Bush Administration was supplied with faulty intelligence regarding Iraq obtaining and/or having WMDs, and that being mistaken and going to war over it is a lot different than intentionally misleading people or lying in order to go to war. Therefore, they feel that insinuating the President of the United States knew this information was false but presented it as fact is irresponsible and unfair.

Not that I'm totally convinced that there weren't members of the Bush Administration that were aware the intelligence was at best shaky, but I at least understand where they'd be coming from with that argument.




Live long and
be fabulous.
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.28
    Originally posted by Jim Smith

    They voted for the war because Bush lied to them about the need to go to war. Now that they know he lied they regret voting for the war.

    I don't want to get into a political debate here, but "Bush lied to us" is a logical explanation for why the Dems voted for the war.


Uh, I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings for democrats and their apologists everywhere, but the Senate and House Intelligence committees have DIRECT access to the CIA and DIA, as well as internal sources like the FBI. They can question and backsource the data the same as the Executive brance. Check and Balances.

Jurisdiction:
Created pursuant to S.Res. 400, 94th Congress: to oversee and make continuing studies of the intelligence activities and programs of the United States Government, and to submit to the Senate appropriate proposals for legislation and report to the Senate concerning such intelligence activities and programs. In carrying out this purpose, the Select Committee on Intelligence shall make every effort to assure that the appropriate departments and agencies of the United States provide informed and timely intelligence necessary for the executive and legislative branches to make sound decisions affecting the security and vital interests of the Nation. It is further the purpose of this resolution to provide vigilant legislative oversight over the intelligence activities of the United States to assure that such activities are in conformity with the Constitution and laws of the United States.





We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.
Dahak
Frankfurter








Since: 12.5.02
From: Junction City OR.

Since last post: 2033 days
Last activity: 1686 days
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.33
Deputy Marshal that is exactly my POV about the situation. Wrong is not the same thing as lying and I would like to see the intelligience issues improved. But unless someone is able to reverse time please move on. Illegal and Immoral sounds good to the 10% of die hard Democrat supporters but just annoys the rest of the population.



Marge I am just trying to get into heaven not run for Jesus.
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 1 hour
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.35
I would feel better if Bush had lied, at least it would have meant the admin really knew what was going on. Most Dems should be ashamed of themselves. They were eager to wrap themselves in the flag and look like uber patriots instead of insisting on a critical examination of intel.

What is really crippling "W" is twofold. The simple fact that as any war drags on, especially as presented on cable news, the public becomes restless. And second, Bush has no political capital in the bank left and after Scooter Libby has lost the abilility to accuse the Dem's of bad behaviour.

The real issue is for our government to develop a realistic plan, including standards to mark progress, that will accomplish what we say are our goals and get the hell out.










Perception is reality
BigDaddyLoco
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 11 hours
Last activity: 11 hours
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.19
They cherry picked what they found useful, I think if they could do it all over they would have left Sadam in power and focused on Bin Laden and his #2 guy ... which was the smart thing to do in the first place anyways (right?).

... and if this is the case why aren't the people we vote into office looking deeper into what they are voting for instead of reacting to the latest CNN/Gallop Poll? Why vote Bush the power for 'Shock and Awe' one day only to say "wait a minute buddy" after you've gathered all the facts? That's not how it is suppossed to work. The facts should become before the vote (right?).

Dick Cheney has a lot of balls because he stands for this war no matter what anyone throws his way, and now I have to add John Murtha into this group for standing behind a very well thought out exit plan. People need to start standing for something and that includes me.

I want my John Kerry vote back just so I can check off the Ralph Nader column ... one last time. War mongers and special intrests will keep chewing away at the fabric of America until there is nothing left. We're our own worse enemy and in the end that is what Bin Laden wants anyway.

So am I right for supporting the cause of the 'jobber'? Who the hell knows, but if option A and option B are that bad what's to stop me from trying the unkown C ... nothing ... (right?).



(edited by BigDaddyLoco on 19.11.05 0325)


oldschoolhero
Knackwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 1994 days
Last activity: 1928 days
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.93
    Originally posted by Dahak
    Deputy Marshal that is exactly my POV about the situation. Wrong is not the same thing as lying and I would like to see the intelligience issues improved. But unless someone is able to reverse time please move on. Illegal and Immoral sounds good to the 10% of die hard Democrat supporters but just annoys the rest of the population.


We went to war...based on wrong information. We started killing people....based on wrong information. Say he didn't lie, say he was just so hungry for war that he didn't make sure the information was as good as it could be. Gross incompetence is is worthy of just as much abuse as outright lying.



"That Squirrel Can Waterski!"

AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.28
    Originally posted by oldschoolhero
    We went to war...based on wrong information. We started killing people....based on wrong information. Say he didn't lie, say he was just so hungry for war that he didn't make sure the information was as good as it could be. Gross incompetence is is worthy of just as much abuse as outright lying.


This is so much crap. Every country in the would, nearly, had strong intelligence that there were WMDs in Iraq, not to mention the strong human rights violations, killings of his own people and threats to other counties around him, as well as the well-documented payments to homicide bombers in Palestine.

This site, http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/ is always helpful. Intelligence before May of 2003 is important. Of course, you can always delay forever taking care of a problem. Chamberlain did during the run up to WW2.

CIA assessment (available to the executive and Legislative branch in October 2002) Document 14
Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of
UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as
well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it
probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade.

DIA assessment - Doc 12
Iraq retains the ability to make Chemical weapons

UK Assessment Doc 11
" Saddam Hussein is continuing to develop WMD, and with them the ability to inflict real damage upon the region, and the stability of the world"

And there is more, of course, on other sites beside this one, although I think this one is very all-sided. It has the documents assessed by British Intelligence that are now thought to be forged.

Countries have to make a decision about threats. You're in a fortunate land, Oldschoolhero. As are we in the states. If Chamberlain hadn't been so destroyed by his mishandling of the Hitler situation that the Brits turned to Churchhill, you might well be speaking alfDeutch today (that is, assuming you're not Black, Jewish or some other group old Adolf didn't dig) I guess Winston could have waited for the Wehrmach to drive up Browning Street.




We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.
oldschoolhero
Knackwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 1994 days
Last activity: 1928 days
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.93
What a shitty comparison to make. Do you really think the tinpot dictatorship that Saddam was running towards the end of his grip was in any way comparable to the well-positioned, empowered nation that Germany was in the mid 30s?

"This is so much crap. Every country in the would, nearly, had strong intelligence that there were WMDs in Iraq, not to mention the strong human rights violations, killings of his own people and threats to other counties around him, as well as the well-documented payments to homicide bombers in Palestine."

The same human rights being violated in 101 other oppressive regimes around the world, including US-endorsed countries such as Saudi Arabia? What about Zimbabwe, when are we going to roll the tanks and troops into Mugabe's back yard on these moral grounds you're touting? For that matter, what about the US use of white phosphorous on civilian-populated areas of Iraq? Or the torture of Iraqi prisoners going on under the US presence's nose? Or are those human rights violations the kind that, once covered with enough spin and circular-logic bullshit, can be easily ignored? Just like we managed to ignore Saddam's indiscretions when it suited us in the 80s. Don't throw humans rights violations at me as justification for this crap, because if BushCo held the welfare of the little people so close to their collective hearts then they'd be drawing aid plans and rescue buleprints for 90% of the third world.

And "every intelligence agency in the world, nearly," appears to have been dead wrong. Which so many people were saying in the first place, including a team of UN weapons inspectors who would have had first-hand access to Iraq'a territories. So let's go back to 2003, shall we? When concerns were being raised left, right and centre about the veracity of these intelligence reports, when Bush and his cabinet would have been perfectly justified in the public eye to back up a little and say "okay, let's throttle back a little and look at this thing for another few months, so we're not just jumping in rashly. And let's draw up a structured, detailed exit strategy once we get the job done." Did that happen? Or did Bush set his deadline, refuse to move from it, and charge in with little to no thought of the consequences? We all remember Bush's "mission accomplished" speech from the deck of that aircraft carrier. Over TWO YEARS AGO. Does this sound like the mindset and the actions of a man who pored over intel briefings, agonised over the decision, and finally, after all planning and preparation and diplomacy was exhausted, turned to warfare? Because if that's what it sounds like to you, then I have to seriously question your thought processes.

And even if he WAS tripped up on bad intel, which is undeniably the case, has he come out and shouldered the responsibility for his actions? Has he even admitted that his decision-making and planning was fallible, which it clearly is? No, he's blustered his way through the whole fiasco with scarce regard for documented recent history, refusing to admit he's made errors in judgement even when the ever-climbing death toll and chaos in Iraq is blatant proof of it.

Yeah, AWARulz, you're so right. He's handled this beautifully from start to finish. He never put a foot wrong.



"That Squirrel Can Waterski!"

AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.28
Obviously, you gotta think however you want.

This probably resonates:
"How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing!"
Chamberlain





We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.
BigSteve
Pepperoni








Since: 23.7.04
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 2848 days
Last activity: 2576 days
#19 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.16

    So let's go back to 2003, shall we? When concerns were being raised left, right and centre about the veracity of these intelligence reports, when Bush and his cabinet would have been perfectly justified in the public eye to back up a little and say "okay, let's throttle back a little and look at this thing for another few months, so we're not just jumping in rashly. And let's draw up a structured, detailed exit strategy once we get the job done." Did that happen? Or did Bush set his deadline, refuse to move from it, and charge in with little to no thought of the consequences? We all remember Bush's "mission accomplished" speech from the deck of that aircraft carrier. Over TWO YEARS AGO. Does this sound like the mindset and the actions of a man who pored over intel briefings, agonised over the decision, and finally, after all planning and preparation and diplomacy was exhausted, turned to warfare? Because if that's what it sounds like to you, then I have to seriously question your thought processes.


Who were these people "left, right and centre" who were seriously questioning Hussein's weapons capabilities before 3/03? It wasn't the executive branch, American intelligence agencies, most foreign/international intelligence, Republican legislators, or the vast majority of Democratic legislators. I'm sure there were some people who weren't buying into the intel, but they were a small minority. I certainly don't think it's wise from a policy standpoint to heed the views of a small group of outliers rather than the vast and diverse majority all saying the same things over a period of ten yeatts.

And remember that the president was in office over two years before we took action against Iraq. He didn't go in the day he was inaugerated, and I'm not sure there would have been such a sense of urgency on his part had 9/11 not happened. Certainly two years seems to be enough time for careful consideration of the intelligence and ramifications. Remember that the promotion of regime change and the notion that Hussein had WMD was a policy dating back to the Clinton Administration. Remember that Hussein had failed to fully comply with the will of the international community dating back over a decade. Taken in context this doesn't seem very rash at all.

The problem in dealing with Hussein lies in not doing the exact thing you blame the President for - setting a deadline and refusing to move it. Everytime Hussein was given a "last chance" all that really meant was "last chance until the next time we say that because we're really only paying lip service to the idea of doing something about you."

If you don't think that after twenty years of Hussein and a war started when Hussein invaded another country, well, I don't know what to say other than I don't think you would support any use of force on Hussein short of him being directly linked to a mushroom cloud - which is an opinion you're entitled to have, but clearly I would have to disagree with you there. Diplomacy is only viable if there's something backing it up. Otherwise it's just appeasement.
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 5 hours
Last activity: 5 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#20 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.80
    Originally posted by AWArulz
    If Chamberlain hadn't been so destroyed by his mishandling of the Hitler situation that the Brits turned to Churchhill, you might well be speaking alfDeutch today (that is, assuming you're not Black, Jewish or some other group old Adolf didn't dig) I guess Winston could have waited for the Wehrmach to drive up Browning Street.

Oh oh, you've invoked the Nazis. You lose the argument. Also: oh, come on
    Originally posted by oldschoolhero
    Yeah, AWARulz, you're so right. He's handled this beautifully from start to finish. He never put a foot wrong.
He didn't say that, though, making this also a pretty weak form of argument/logical fallacy.

It looks like you may have both figured this out already, but in case you haven't: I hope you're both done in this thread 'cause unfortunately you've both moved past the mysterious, fuzzy line I use to gauge where I want the Politics discussions to go.

(edited by CRZ on 19.11.05 2033)


CRZ
Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread rated: 6.14
Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread ahead: 30% think rape is deserved if.....
Next thread: Another Election? This Stupid Country...
Previous thread: What looks great on your college application?
(638 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
I thought the original was funnier. Maybe if SuperBush had done something amusing, then I'd have commented on it. -Jag It's nice to know that the Democrats and Republicans still carry on their war no matter how little I care.
- Jaguar, Bush Saves the Day (2002)
The W - Current Events & Politics - Dick Cheney has a lot of ballsRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.141 seconds.