PDA

View Full Version : Wanna see a hypocrite in action?



Kim Whitmyre
05-04-2006, 03:02 PM
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Video/060504/tdy_kod_cheney_060504.300w.jpg

"MOSCOW - The Kremlin on Thursday rejected as “completely incomprehensible” remarks by U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney that Russia was backsliding on democracy and using its vast energy supplies to bully its neighbors.

“The speech of Mr. Cheney in our opinion is full of a subjective evaluation of us and of the processes that are going on in Russia. The remarks ... are completely incomprehensible for us,” said Kremlin deputy spokesman Dmitry Peskov.

Cheney, in remarks that could cause tense moments when Russian President Vladimir Putin hosts his first summit of the Group of Eight industrialized nations in July, earlier told Baltic and Black Sea leaders in Vilnius that Moscow should return to the path of democratic reform.
Story continues below ↓ advertisement

“Russia has a choice to make,” Cheney said at a time of increasingly chilly relations between the United States and Russia.

He said opponents of reform in Russia were “seeking to reverse the gains of the last decade” by restricting democratic rights and warned Putin that some of Moscow’s actions could hurt relations with other countries."

Shorter Dickhead Cheney: You must allow our major corporations to own Russia, otherwise we will hate you.

John of Phoenix
05-04-2006, 03:17 PM
GOD how I do miss the Cold War!

ishmael
05-04-2006, 03:26 PM
I miss the Cold War too, but I fail to see hypocrisy in Cheney's comments.

Russia IS backsliding into a more autocratic system. There is no free press, for one example. How is it hypocrisy for an American VP to point it out?

Kim Whitmyre
05-04-2006, 03:33 PM
Ish, so you take the Dickhead at face value? You need serious work on the quality of your attention.

ishmael
05-04-2006, 03:38 PM
Hatred of Mr. Cheney has nothing to do with the veracity of his remarks.

Russia is not living up to our ideals of democracy. What to make of it is an open question. Who says they should, who's watching our republic? But true remarks by a US VP can't be dismissed by ad hominen attacks.

Bob Cleek
05-04-2006, 03:38 PM
Yea, and the US bases in Afghanistan just HAPPEN to run in a line right on top of the projected Unocal oil pipeline running from Jerkoffistan to the Indian Ocean. Coincidence?

jack grebe
05-04-2006, 03:43 PM
Jerkoffistan:D

Don Olney
05-04-2006, 03:49 PM
Its pretty funny when Cheney or Rice lectures Russia on transparency, an independent judiciary, meddling in the affairs of another country or promoting independent media. The Bush administration has such a good record at home in these areas. The Russians usually just laugh at them. Cheney's remarks are meant mostly for his audience which in this case is the Fox News crowd and Lithuanians.

The Cold War never ended for Cheney nor for Rice who was brought into this administration initially for the purpose of drumming up support for missile defence. Look up the uttlerly ridiculous interview she gave to Le Figaro in early 2000.

ishmael
05-04-2006, 04:25 PM
All that's interesting, but the fact remains that Russia is backsliding into totalitarianism. It's a bad sign when the press is shut down, which it was a year ago.

We've got our problems too, but in two years we'll have a whole new administration to bounce off of. Oh, goody.

jack grebe
05-04-2006, 04:37 PM
are you sure about that Ish?

Kim Whitmyre
05-04-2006, 05:09 PM
Hatred of Mr. Cheney has nothing to do with the veracity of his remarks.

Russia is not living up to our ideals of democracy. What to make of it is an open question. Who says they should, who's watching our republic? But true remarks by a US VP can't be dismissed by ad hominen attacks.


Veracity of his remarks? Ish, you missed the point of my comment about your attention: when Dick Cheney's lips move, he is prevaricating. Nothing ad-hominem about it. If you believe his prevaricating, you need to pay better attention. Seriously. I would not stoop to insulting you.

ishmael
05-04-2006, 05:14 PM
I'm not that up on world politics, Kim. I do think that vice president Cheney spoke truth about Russia. If you've got contrary information, I'm listening.

High C
05-04-2006, 05:16 PM
Cheney is a fine man. We're lucky to have him serving as VP.

BrianW
05-04-2006, 05:19 PM
Yea, and the US bases in Afghanistan just HAPPEN to run in a line right on top of the projected Unocal oil pipeline running from Jerkoffistan to the Indian Ocean. Coincidence?
If they hadn't, like perhaps in Iraq with the armories, and the projected pipeline was blown up, then democrats would be complaining about that too.

So it's really was a good decision, given some factions would complain no matter what.

John of Phoenix
05-04-2006, 05:19 PM
HiC:
"Yer doin' a heckuva job Dick."

I bet dick has goose bumps.

Kim Whitmyre
05-04-2006, 05:51 PM
I'm not that up on world politics, Kim. I do think that vice president Cheney spoke truth about Russia. If you've got contrary information, I'm listening.

Have you never heard the aphorism that "when a dishonest man speaks the truth, he makes it a lie,"?

Cheney could say that a rose by any other name is still a rose, but this is what he would actually mean:

" You must allow our major corporations to own Russia, otherwise we will hate you."

As a Russian what would you say to that?

ishmael
05-04-2006, 05:55 PM
So post something contrary to his statement, Kim.

Nicholas Carey
05-04-2006, 05:57 PM
If...the projected pipeline was blown up...

That would be quite the trick :D

But its not about oil or any other extractive resources.

Noooooo...it's about bringing Democracy to the unwashed masses...at the point of a bayonet.

TomF
05-04-2006, 06:10 PM
I have little except dislike for Cheney's approaches, generally. I'm not sure that his comments here were exactly helpful.

But I agree that Russia's falling away from a democratic path, if ever it was really on one. Not falling back into communism, but into something akin to fascism (totalitarianism with private ownership of the means of production).

I find it very worrisome, not least because the moral authority to challenge this, if ever the West had it, has been sorely dissipated.

Jagermeister
05-04-2006, 06:17 PM
No comments from our "civility police" on "Dickhead Cheney"?

No comments from our truth brigade about "when a dishonest man speaks the truth, he makes it a lie"? (I suppose the corollary is, When a Democrat speaks a lie, he makes it the truth"?)

No comments from those who disputed me when I said some forumites exemplified "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"?

Belated thanks to TomF, who showed integrity in speaking up to defend the truth, even when spoken by someone with whom he disagrees. Some of the rest of you could learn some class from Tom.

Jagermeister
05-04-2006, 06:21 PM
It's about bringing Democracy to the unwashed masses...at the point of a bayonet.

I guess the alternative is to let them live in servility and slavery until a Democrat sees fit to help them be free? It is morally disgusting that you should be so blinded by hatred that you would condemn a people to tyranny rather than admit to any benefice.

No, better that the oppressed of the world remain oppressed - else our motives might be misconstrued, eh? :(

ishmael
05-04-2006, 06:23 PM
Look, this administration is temporary. It's part and parcel of our republic.

We have to make preparations.

A huge part of the American experiment is that it isn't some leader. You are on your own. It's become since FDR a lolly hand out, but that is ending.

brad9798
05-04-2006, 06:25 PM
Regardless of other info .... Russia is BACKSLIDING ...

I miss the old CCCP ... at least we knew where we stood ...

ljb5
05-04-2006, 06:32 PM
No comments from our "civility police" on "Dickhead Cheney"?

If Cheney feels he's been insulted, he can post his objection here. He doesn't need you to kiss his boo-boos for him.

You're in an odd position to complain about insults.

Nicholas Carey
05-04-2006, 06:43 PM
Whatever credibility Cheney/Bush had to speak out on behalf of democracy and civil/human rights, they have lost, due to the obvious contempt in which they hold these beliefs and the mockery they've made of the same.

A man is known by his works and not by his words.

Putin and Bush are birds of the same feather and they recognise it. Bush said, back on 15 November 2001, describing Putin and their "special relationship":


[Putin is] a new style of leader, a reformer, a man who loves his country as much as I love mine...a man who is going to make a huge difference in making the world more peaceful...the more I get to know President Putin, the more I get to see his heart and soul...
No doubt :D

Putin is a "new style of leader" only if old-guard KGB paranoid thinking counts as "new."

Wearing the White Hat and doing The Right Thing is hard work. As the Puritan William Prynne put it, back in 1632, in his 1000-page diatribe Histriomastix:

The way to heaven is too steep, too narrow for men to dance in and keep revel rout. No way is large or smooth enough for capering roisters, for jumping, skipping, dancing games but that broad, beaten, pleasant road that leads to HELL. The gate of heaven is too narrow for whole rounds, whole troops of dancers to march in together.

Jagermeister
05-04-2006, 06:46 PM
You're in an odd position to complain about insults.

Just pointing out the hypocrisy of this last week's complaints about "personal insults" and all that crap. Everyone knew all along it was just the libs bitching when some of your more egregious members got called on their degenerate and vituperative statements.

You libs all want two sets of rules - one for you, and one for everyone else.

You guys call for shutting down your opponents as "hateful" and "threatening", but anytime you're called on your rhetoric it's "censorship".

Your opponents attempt to clear their names, and it's "leaking", but your jerks spill national security secrets and its "whistle-blowing".

You guys slime Bush and Meyers and Franks, and it's "free speech", but let some one else criticize your sacred cows and its "Swiftboating".

You guys claim Bush and Cheney and conservatives are ruining the country for personal profit and kicks, but let someone point out your attacks on Americans' integrity, motives, and values, and you're all in a hullabaloo about people "questioning your patriotism" and saying no one loves America more.

As far as I can see, its just more of the same two-faced hypocrisy I've come to expect from libs like you.

Well, as they say, "kiss my grits".

LeeG
05-04-2006, 06:47 PM
Why here's another one..it's so unfair,,so very unfair. Having a former CIA analyst calling him out in public,,that's so unfair.

http://tinyurl.com/hgwer

ATLANTA (AP) -- Protesters repeatedly interrupted Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld during a speech Thursday and one man, a former CIA analyst, accused him of lying about Iraq prewar intelligence in an unusually vociferous display of anti-war sentiment.


Responding to another protester who also accused Rumsfeld of lying, the secretary said such accusations are "so wrong, so unfair and so destructive.

Jagermeister
05-04-2006, 06:50 PM
As the Puritan William Prynne put it ...<offensive theological quote removed>

Man, you fundies really get to me, trying to impose your own bigoted view of religion on everyone else. How dare you post your hateful, narrow minded, prejudicial, diatribes? You want to proselytize - go to church! But keep your intolerance out of our public spaces.

Jagermeister
05-04-2006, 06:53 PM
Responding to another protester who also accused Rumsfeld of lying, the secretary said such accusations are "so wrong, so unfair and so destructive.

If Runsfield really were lying about all that, he ought to be a Democrat, because as everyone can see, its the liberal Democrats that are forever posting their lies on the forum and spouting them in the press.

LeeG
05-04-2006, 06:57 PM
QUESTION: So I would like to ask you to be up front with the American people, why did you lie to get us into a war that was not necessary, that has caused these kinds of casualties? why?

RUMSFELD: Well, first of all, I haven't lied. I did not lie then. Colin Powell didn't lie. He spent weeks and weeks with the Central Intelligence Agency people and prepared a presentation that I know he believed was accurate, and he presented that to the United Nations. the president spent weeks and weeks with the central intelligence people and he went to the american people and made a presentation. i'm not in the intelligence business. they gave the world their honest opinion. it appears that there were not weapons of mass destruction there.

QUESTION: You said you knew where they were.

RUMSFELD: I did not. I said I knew where suspect sites were and -

QUESTION: You said you knew where they were Tikrit, Baghdad, northeast, south, west of there. Those are your words.

RUMSFELD: My words -- my words were that -- no, no, wait a minute, wait a minute. Let him stay one second. Just a second.

QUESTION: This is America.

RUMSFELD: You're getting plenty of play, sir.

QUESTION: I'd just like an honest answer.

RUMSFELD: I'm giving it to you.

QUESTION: Well we're talking about lies and your allegation there was bulletproof evidence of ties between al Qaeda and Iraq.

RUMSFELD: Zarqawi was in Baghdad during the prewar period. That is a fact.

QUESTION: Zarqawi? He was in the north of Iraq in a place where Saddam Hussein had no rule. That's also...

RUMSFELD: He was also in Baghdad.

QUESTION: Yes, when he needed to go to the hospital.

Come on, these people aren't idiots. They know the story.

(PROTESTER INTERRUPTS)

RUMSFELD: Let me give you an example.

It's easy for you to make a charge, but why do you think that the men and women in uniform every day, when they came out of Kuwait and went into Iraq, put on chemical weapon protective suits? Because they liked the style?

(LAUGHTER)

They honestly believed that there were chemical weapons.

(APPLAUSE)

Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons on his own people previously. He'd used them on his neighbor (AUDIO GAP) the Iranians, and they believed he had those weapons.

We believed he had those weapons.

QUESTION: That's what we call a non sequitur. It doesn't matter what the troops believe; it matters what you believe.

MODERATOR: I think, Mr. Secretary, the debate is over. We have other questions, courtesy to the audience.

Joe (SoCal)
05-04-2006, 06:58 PM
Cheney is a fine man. We're lucky to have him serving as VP.


OH YEAH!!!

http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/rage/images/050401/koolaidman.jpg

LeeG
05-04-2006, 06:59 PM
05/04/03
From the Department of Defense:

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally, weapons of mass destruction. Key goal of the military campaign is finding those weapons of mass destruction. None have been found yet. There was a raid on the Answar Al-Islam Camp up in the north last night. A lot of people expected to find ricin there. None was found. How big of a problem is that? And is it curious to you that given how much control U.S. and coalition forces now have in the country, they haven't found any weapons of mass destruction?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Not at all. If you think -- let me take that, both pieces -- the area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

LeeG
05-04-2006, 07:02 PM
Oh,,right, this thread is about Cheneys integrity...brb

ljb5
05-04-2006, 07:10 PM
If Runsfield really were lying about all that, he ought to be a Democrat, because as everyone can see, its the liberal Democrats that are forever posting their lies on the forum and spouting them in the press.


This is known as "cognitive dissonance."

Unable to wrap his mind around one idea, the subject invents a preposerous belief system.

It doesn't matter what you think Rumsfeld "ought to be." In reality, he's Republican, and that's a fact.
It doesn't matter what you think Fleischeer "should have said." In reality, he said something else.

__________________________________________________ _________

I see you've put some more words in quotation marks:


You guys call for shutting down your opponents as "hateful" and "threatening", but anytime you're called on your rhetoric it's "censorship".

Can you show us where you found those quotes -- or is that something else you've fabricated?

LeeG
05-04-2006, 07:11 PM
I'll let you guys play with that one. President Cheney. He had that special intel,,the intel that mere mortals couldn't understand or interpret. Trust him,,he's a member of the NRA. He knew about those links to Al Qaeda.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Counter_Terrorism_Evaluation_Group

Nicholas Carey
05-04-2006, 07:15 PM
I guess the alternative is to let them live in servility and slavery until a Democrat sees fit to help them be free? It is morally disgusting that you should be so blinded by hatred that you would condemn a people to tyranny rather than admit to any benefice.
Democracy and Freedom have to come from within. It can't be imposed from the outside.

One has to have several things pretty deeply ingrained in the culture before democracy is even possible, much less likely to succeed and endure. First and foremost is a belief in the primacy of the individual over the family, tribe or state.

Russia doesn't even have that: they never really had a Renaissance or Enlightenment. 80 years of totalitarian rule did little to encourage individualism. At its heart, Russia is still a fairly medieval society. They've got some growing to do before they'll get to democracy.


No, better that the oppressed of the world remain oppressed - else our motives might be misconstrued, eh I'm all for it. But if we're going to become evangelical democrats, we need to be consistent about it. How come we only pick the ones with oil to convert?

We can start with China first, one of the more odious regimes around. Might need to crank up the draft, though as we'll need some serious boots on the ground there: the People's Liberation Army consists of something like 75 divisions, about 2.5 million soldiers under arms, with something like 10,000 tanks. Probably need to raise taxes so we can up defense spending, too, to get in shape for this little exercise in evangelism.

Then we can move on, to, oh, say North Korea...or maybe we should do North Korea first. North Korea only packs 153 division- or brigade-size units....some 1.2 million soldiers under arms (with some 7-million more organized (and more-or-less trained reserve units). As globalsecurity.org points out (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/army.htm):


As of 1996 the main equipment of the North Korean ground forces included over 3,800 tanks including 2,750 T-54/55/59s, 800 new model T-62 and light tanks, and about 250 outdated T-34s. It was also equipped with more than 2,800 armored vehicles consisting of BTR series and Type M1973. Its artillery forces possessed over 8,300 of the 76.2 mm, 100 mm, 122 mm, 130 mm, 152 mm, and 170 mm howitzers and guns, over 2,700 of the 107 mm, 122 mm, 132 mm, 240 mm multiple rocket launchers, and more than 12,500 anti-aircraft guns.
the GlobalSecurity folks have upped the artillery estimate these days (1999), though, to some 11,500+ pieces. 60% of the North Korean Army are within 100km of the DMZ. Many of those 11,000+ gun tubes are within range of Seoul with its population of 10.3 million.

It shouldn't be too hard, though. We've already fought there once so we should know the territory :D

Like I said, wearing a White Hat is likely to be hard, painful work.

Meerkat
05-04-2006, 07:16 PM
Cheney is a fine man. We're lucky to have him serving as VP.
No wunner yu ha'ant been et by a gator - them's like good taste too! :D

ishmael
05-04-2006, 07:17 PM
He stated facts. The former Soviet Union is retrenching, and it's not good. What is wrong with his statements?

Last time I looked we aren't locking up dissidents. The Russians and the Chinese are.

Just the facts, m'am.

LeeG
05-04-2006, 07:18 PM
It's so unfair, 9/11 showed how ready they were to get the terrorists who brought us 9/11... then people started saying all these mean things,,so unfair, so very unfair.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200511080006

Shortly after leading Democrats pushed for the completion of a congressional investigation into the Bush administration's use of prewar intelligence, White House officials responded that such scrutiny of their handling of the intelligence is unwarranted because both the White House and Congress possessed the same flawed reports and came to the same incorrect conclusions. Numerous conservative media figures have since echoed this argument. But the claim that the administration and Congress saw the same intelligence ignores several important facts. First, taking into account assessments such as the Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB), the White House typically has access to more intelligence than does Congress -- and indeed, this was the case with prewar intelligence on Iraq. Second, the Bush administration began making claims about the Iraqi threat months before Congress received any substantial intelligence analysis. And third, the administration received information directly from alternative intelligence sources, specifically the since-discredited Office of Special Plans and Iraqi National Congress.

LeeG
05-04-2006, 07:21 PM
He stated facts. The former Soviet Union is retrenching, and it's not good. What is wrong with his statements?

Last time I looked we aren't locking up dissidents. The Russians and the Chinese are.

Just the facts, m'am.

Saddam has WMD and we know where they are. You don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud on the Penobscot do you? I hear it's right in Russias crosshairs.

Nicholas Carey
05-04-2006, 07:23 PM
Man, you fundies really get to me, trying to impose your own bigoted view of religion on everyone else. How dare you post your hateful, narrow minded, prejudicial, diatribes? You want to proselytize - go to church! But keep your intolerance out of our public spaces. :confused: :confused:

The point of the quote is that doing the Right Thing is hard, difficult work.

No fundies here, though. I was raised Catholic and I'm about as far from being a Puritan as you could possibly be. Prynne and his posse were Roundheads. I'd class myself as a Cavalier, if I had to pick a side (ref. English Civil War).

In these latter days, though, I'm pretty much areligious. The RC hierarchy has a lot to answer for before I'll be back in the fold (but that's another discussion entirely). :D

LeeG
05-04-2006, 07:26 PM
Saddam has WMD and will give them to Osama,,Cheney said so,,

http://www.slate.com/id/2129686/


The information CTEG put together was treated differently than other intelligence. Unlike other reports, CTEG's conclusions about Iraq's training of jihadists in the use of explosives and weapons of mass destruction were never distributed to the many different agencies in the intelligence community. Although CTEG analysts met once with Director George Tenet and other CIA officials, they changed no minds at the agency on the issue of Saddam and al-Qaida, and their work was never "coordinated" or cleared by the various agencies that weigh in on intelligence publications. Top officers in military intelligence who saw the report refused to concur with it.

Nonetheless, CTEG's findings were the basis for briefings in the White House and on Capitol Hill. Some of CTEG's material was leaked to the Weekly Standard, where it was published. In that form, the Feith "annex" achieved some renown as a classic in the genre of cherry-picked intelligence.

Dick Cheney was CTEG's patron. He had the group present its material at OVP and the National Security Council. He made frequent public remarks, drawing on CTEG conclusions, alleging an al-Qaida/Saddam connection. (Even after the 9/11 commission delivered its verdict that there was no collaborative relationship between the two sides, Cheney announced that the evidence of the Bin Laden-Baghdad ties was "overwhelming.") John Hannah, a Cheney aide who became the vice president's national security adviser after Libby's resignation, recycled some of the material into a draft of the speech Secretary of State Colin Powell was to give at the United Nations in February 2003—a draft that Powell threw out, calling it "bull****."

Jagermeister
05-04-2006, 07:26 PM
Lee, what you are arguing for is that every time any official says anything they need to stop and list the caveats regarding degree of confidence, source, etc., etc. Listening to politicians would start to sound like listening to lawyers with all their riders and conditions and restrictions.

When Rumsfeld said he "knew" where the WMDs were he was repeating information that he had been told was a "slam dunk". Maybe he should have said. "based on CIA assessments at 95% probability" or some such qualification, but then you would have turned about and accused him of equivocation and being weasley.

So now you have ex-CIA tool (who could very well be one of those who told both] Clinton and Bush that Saddam had WMDs) who stands up and says, "You said you knew where they were," with the obvious intention of implying that Rumsfeld was speaking from personal knowledge when he made those statements. You're saying that anytime an executive relies upon information from a subordinate which turns out to be false, the executive is guilty of lying.

Maybe you can make the argument that the executive has to take the fall, but if that's the case, then pretty soon the executive is going to want the power to punish people who expose him to failure with bad info. Maybe executing Tennet and the WMD section of the CIA would be a good start?

Now, you can play all the "gotcha" games you want with quotes from Rumsfeld, Bush, or whoever, but in doing you are intentionally distorting the meaning of the exchanges, by giving weight to portions of the exchange out of proportion to their original interpretations. If you do that, you'll become as much of a liar as ljb5.

There's accurate, and there's truthful. Often they are synonymous, but there are times when you can have the first without the second, and you're pushing it here.

ishmael
05-04-2006, 07:32 PM
Lee,

This has been said before, but what the hell. Saddam was, by all intelligence estimates, attempting nuclear and biological weapons. I think they moved to Syria, the Bathists there, when the heat was on.

The endless call, No WMD, is idiot.

But it feels good, so have after it.

Jagermeister
05-04-2006, 07:39 PM
http://www.slate.com/id/2129686/
John Hannah, a Cheney aide who became the vice president's national security adviser after Libby's resignation, recycled some of the material into a draft of the speech Secretary of State Colin Powell was to give at the United Nations in February 2003—a draft that Powell threw out, calling it "bull****."

Lee, you need to check your sources better. The paragraph from Slate which you C&P implies that Hannah recycled falsities into a draft speech, which Powell threw out, calling it "bull****".

However, from what I discovered from following the various links, is that apparently the original quote was sourced to Vanity Fair, May 2004 Special Report: The Rush to Invade Iraq-; The Ultimate Inside Account (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/archive/2004/vanityfair0504.html) and here is what it actually said:

Instead, the group turned to the C.I.A. analysts and started from scratch. That night, and every night for the next several days, Powell went to Langley to oversee the process. In Tenet's conference room, joined by the D.C.I. and at times by National-Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Scooter Libby, and C.I.A. deputy director John McLaughlin, the secretary of state demanded to know the sources and reliability of the information he had been given. For everyone involved, it was a tense and frustrating process. At one point, according to several witnesses, Powell tossed several documents in the air and snapped, "This is bull****!"

Now, that isn't the same as the Slate article, is it? No Hannah. No draft of a speech. Just "several documents" in collating information. So, either the sourcing links are screwed up, or someone manipulated the intelligence to get the result they wanted. This is the type of crap that libs toss out all of the time. Misinterpretation. Misrepresentation. Out-of-context. Sometimes just plain out-and-out lying. Is it any wonder that libs have no credibility among conservatives?

LeeG
05-04-2006, 08:34 PM
Lee,

This has been said before, but what the hell. Saddam was, by all intelligence estimates, attempting nuclear and biological weapons. I think they moved to Syria, the Bathists there, when the heat was on.

The endless call, No WMD, is idiot.

But it feels good, so have after it.

"is idiot"...Jack, it's obvious you havn't read one bit on the topic. If that feels good,,have more. There's always more to remain unknown.

High C
05-04-2006, 08:40 PM
...Saddam was, by all intelligence estimates, attempting nuclear and biological weapons. I think they moved to Syria, the Bathists there, when the heat was on.

The endless call, No WMD, is idiot....

Hussein had 14 months warning, after all. But those who cry "no WMDs" aren't idiots, they're politicos. Their song is but tiresome background noise to most. Ho hum.... A handful of the most gullible truly believe it, one or two here seem to. I hope they'll never realize their error the hard way.

LeeG
05-04-2006, 08:40 PM
Remember Kevin, your core values are not Cheney,,Cheney is not you.
In light of all that's transpired since 3/03 would you give Paul O'neills rendition of how the invasion on Iraq was planned? He was there,,a republican who actually made a business run watching the planning for invasion of Iraq. What he saw didn't make sense. I don't believe the USofA is that incompetant that it can start a war on "oops, bad intel". A frightful number of conservatives believe the USofA is that incompetant.

LeeG
05-04-2006, 08:42 PM
high, got wmd?
Al qaeda got utility knives,
you got utility knives?

High C
05-04-2006, 08:43 PM
high, got wmd?
Al qaeda got utility knives,
you got utility knives?

Lee, have you ever heard a saying about not seeing the forest for the trees? It's right in front of you, but you refuse to even glance around.

LeeG
05-04-2006, 08:53 PM
good point. But it's a desert in Iraq.

High C
05-04-2006, 08:55 PM
good point. But it's a desert in Iraq.

But Maryland is lush...

ljb5
05-04-2006, 09:43 PM
Lee, what you are arguing for is that every time any official says anything they need to stop and list the caveats regarding degree of confidence, source, etc., etc. Listening to politicians would start to sound like listening to lawyers with all their riders and conditions and restrictions.

In all seriousness, no one wants a politician to talk like a lawyer....

...but if you're going to start a war, you darn well better be right, truthful, accurate, objective, honest, unbiased and complete.

I don't care how many caveats and qualifiers he puts on his statements --- when American boots hit the ground and American body bags come home, it is someone's responsibility to make sure that we're over there for the right reasons.

LeeG
05-04-2006, 09:50 PM
doncha love it when someone tells you what you're arguing for when you haven't put it exactly that way?

hey,,Murtha want's to cut and run. Jean Schmidt says so.

Criticizing the president during a time of war isn't supporting the troops.

What a flaming straw man.

Let's see,,Cheney uses his special adhoc intelligence agency, says to the nation he's got special intel,,,then prevents the Senate Intelligence investigation from interviewing the OSP/CTEG folks,,,with Republican Pat Roberts assistance. Remember last Nov. surprise close session?

Kool-Aid by the gallon...the most powerful nation in the world is so incompetant in the use of it's intelligence that it is 180 wrong about the stated basis for the war. I do not think we are that incompetant. But some folks have faith,,look at Jacks insistance that the "WMD" were moved to Syria. When the Duelfer report said there was no intel supporting that theory. He said there wasn't any wmd moved because there weren't any wmd.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
05-04-2006, 11:30 PM
"Russia is not living up to our ideals of democracy."


America isn't living up to it's ideals of democracy either.;)


Yeah all the WMD's and nuclear technology went to Syria. More tinfoil hats boys... those martians are getting through to you.:rolleyes:

Kim Whitmyre
05-04-2006, 11:34 PM
So post something contrary to his statement, Kim.
Ish, here it is: I don't believe a word the man says. And you , apparently, take him at his word. You seem to pay no attention to the fact that he has another meaning behind his words.

"If you don't let our major corporations buy your country, we will hate you." Post something contrary to that.

Paul G.
05-05-2006, 04:50 AM
remember folks. we were told that the US was containing Russia, but in actual fact it was the other way around....

I dont see Russia invading Jerfkoffistan Iraq or trying on a corporate takover of the worldd.

martin schulz
05-05-2006, 06:51 AM
You guys should closely watch what is taking place in russia - uncontrolled mercantilism/free trade at work!

After the breakdown of the socialist system, which we probably all despised the vacuum wasn't filled with democratic ideals but with greedy businesspeople who stepped in the place the state/party had to enlarge their personal wealth not hindered by any restrictions (environment, social issues...). Understanding that money means power, Putin is taking over those enterprises step by step - including the press.

Russia - the land of the mighty rich!

Kim Whitmyre
05-05-2006, 08:29 AM
From MSNBC today:

"ASTANA, Kazakhstan - Vice President Dick Cheney traveled to Kazakhstan on Friday for talks with President Nursultan Nazarbayev, seeking to maximize access to the vast oil and gas reserves in the central Asian nation with a troubled human-rights record."


Oil Rush (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12643191/)

An expert at talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Jagermeister
05-05-2006, 02:10 PM
Also, from the article


Energy aside, one senior administration official said the vice president would prod Nazarbayev to make further democratic reforms in the country he has ruled since the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991.

and


It was unclear how Cheney would attempt to balance the two concerns — American energy needs in a time of high prices alongside a desire for political reforms.

So, Cheney is "talking out of both sides of his mouth" because he is pursuing energy sources while attempting to encourage representative government?

Would you prefer he forgo the human rights talk?

Or would you prefer he forgo trying to find new sources of energy to keep the American economy working and maybe prevent gas from going to $6 a gallon?

How can anyone with integrity simultaneously complain about the high price of oil and gas, complain when the administration attempts to find more sources for oil and gas, complain about the administration not doing enough for human rights, and complain when the administration pushes for human rights? :rolleyes:

Kim Whitmyre
05-05-2006, 02:18 PM
Also, from the article



and



So, Cheney is "talking out of both sides of his mouth" because he is pursuing energy sources while attempting to encourage representative government?

Would you prefer he forgo the human rights talk?

Or would you prefer he forgo trying to find new sources of energy to keep the American economy working and maybe prevent gas from going to $6 a gallon?

How can anyone with integrity simultaneously complain about the high price of oil and gas, complain when the administration attempts to find more sources for oil and gas, complain about the administration not doing enough for human rights, and complain when the administration pushes for human rights? :rolleyes:


Like Ish, you appear to believe the words that Cheney utters. As I have been attempting to point out, his actions bely his utterances. Dick Cheney has no concern for human rights, other than his. Why folks have such trouble with reality has always been a puzzlement to me.

Please don't hold your breath waiting for "human rights" to come to the fore in Kazakhstan: I would not wish for you to expire.

John of Phoenix
05-05-2006, 02:43 PM
Cheney and the neocons are pissed at Moscow because they won't toe the US hard line against Iran. Worse yet, the two timing whores have a deal going with Iran to trade nuclear technology for oil. OUR OIL!

So Cheney goes and tries to poke Putin in the eye with this speech while he cozies up to Kazakh oil.
Same song, second verse.

Osborne Russell
05-05-2006, 06:25 PM
I guess the alternative is to let them live in servility and slavery until a Democrat sees fit to help them be free? It is morally disgusting that you should be so blinded by hatred that you would condemn a people to tyranny rather than admit to any benefice.

No, better that the oppressed of the world remain oppressed - else our motives might be misconstrued, eh? :(

Will you never stop resorting to the false dichotomy:

1. America helps everyone to be free or
2. People will be never be free?

Will you never see how patronizing and arrogant such an attitude must seem, no matter how well-intentioned?