Cheney: War critics "dishonest" & "reprehensible".

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ezekiel

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2003
Messages
677
Location
Kansas City, MO
"Darth Cheney Strikes Back!"

"Pot paging kettle, come in kettle..."
------------------------

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.

Cheney called Democrats "opportunists" who were peddling "cynical and pernicious falsehoods" to gain political advantage while U.S. soldiers died in Iraq.

The comments were the latest salvo in an aggressive White House counterattack on war critics, launched as Democrats step up their criticism of the war and polls show declining public support for the conflict.

Cheney repeated President George W. Bush's charge that Democratic critics were rewriting history by questioning prewar intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction even though many Senate Democrats voted in October 2002 to authorize the invasion.

"The president and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone -- but we're not going to sit by and let them rewrite history," said Cheney, a principal architect of the war and a focus of Democratic allegations the administration misrepresented intelligence on Iraq's weapons program.

Cheney said the suggestion Bush or any member of the administration misled Americans before the war "is one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city."

"Some of the most irresponsible comments have, of course, come from politicians who actually voted in favor of authorizing force against Saddam Hussein," he said in a speech to the conservative Frontiers of Freedom group.

'A PLAY FOR POLITICAL ADVANTAGE'

"What we're hearing now is some politicians contradicting their own statements and making a play for political advantage in the middle of a war," he said. "The saddest part is that our people in uniform have been subjected to these cynical and pernicious falsehoods day in and day out."

Bush, whose public approval ratings have reached the lowest point of his presidency, has given two speeches in the last five days blasting Democratic critics and trying to use their support for the war in 2002 against them.

Twenty-nine Senate Democrats voted in favor of an October 2002 resolution authorizing military force in Iraq. Many have since said it was a mistake based on false or misleading information.

Democrats have charged the administration, led by Cheney, manipulated the intelligence on Iraq to justify the war and leaked classified information to discredit critics.

Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a top aide to Cheney, was indicted last month for obstructing justice, perjury and lying after a probe into the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity. Plame's husband has said she was outed to get back at him for his criticism of the war.

Administration officials have acknowledged intelligence on Iraqi weapons was faulty, but say Democrats, Republicans and foreign intelligence agencies all believed Baghdad had deadly weapons before the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

"American soldiers and Marines are out there every day in dangerous conditions and desert temperatures -- conducting raids, training Iraqi forces, countering attacks, seizing weapons, and capturing killers -- and back home a few opportunists are suggesting they were sent into battle for a lie," Cheney said.

Copyright © 2005 Reuters Limited.
 
Me? I'm no CIA analyst, but even I felt a bit bad for Powell after watching his UN presentation. A taped up Radio Shack glider that presented a chemical threat to the US mainland?
Good Lord...
Biker
 
Why is it so hard to believe that there are more than a few 'political ploys' going on in and about D.C.? Aren't there always?

And like I care about poll results. The Democratic Party supporters voted against him and haven't had a good word to say about him since day one. And I wouldn't be surprised if half of all Americans don't know who the President even is. Sad but true.

John
 
A former Army Ranger at work has had a

Bush Lied
Soldiers Die

bumper sticker on his desk for months so I don't think this is a recent phenom in spite of the VP making it sound like it is.
 
Last edited:
You guys only hear what you want to hear.

I remember all the talk from Dems and Republicans before the Iraq war.

The L&P section of THR is infiltrated with a bunch of lying propagandists.

Yes LYING.

It seems like everyone has ADD. Just about every single one of our allies intelligence services agreed with this administrations assessment of Saddams actions. He was in flagrant violation of UN resolutions. The Democrats saw the same intelligence reports and voted for the Iraq War Resolution. The war resolution contains many reasons for action that have nothing to do with WMD's.

The pathetic whining and insane Bush hatred is enough to make me vomit:barf:

This is the same bunch that will be first to blame the President for NOT taking action if a terror strike were to occur.

For your reference, the reason we are in Iraq:

Iraq War Resolution
 
Ron, quite antagonizing the liberals. Don't you know they don't want anything like the truth to ruin their terrific screaming fit they like to have.
 
Folks, please, let's keep the debate on civil terms. Politeness costs nothing, even if one disagrees with someone over something.

Personally, I think the current debate is being hijacked for political ends, certainly by the Democrats, but also to a certain extent by the Republicans. It's clear that almost all pre-war intelligence, from all sources, stated bluntly that Iraq's WMD programs still existed. It's also clear that no verifiable evidence of this has been found since the occupation of Iraq. From this, I think that three questions need answering:

1. Why was pre-war intelligence so flawed, from all sources?

2. What can be done to ensure that faulty intelligence is never again used as a pretext for war?

3. What really did happen to Iraq's WMD programs? We know beyond any possible doubt that they existed, but we still don't know what happened to them, where they went, etc. Are there large supplies of WMD secreted in Syria? In Iran? These are questions that urgently require answers.

I don't blame Bush for acting on the intelligence at his disposal, and I think to suggest that he deliberately lied about it is fatuous in its stupidity. However, the Democrats are trying to make political capital out of this suggestion, instead of getting to the root of the problem, which is - why was the intelligence so flawed in the first place?
 
Folks, please, let's keep the debate on civil terms. Politeness costs nothing, even if one disagrees with someone over something.

I am sorry for the heated rhetoric but every single thread about the war is filled with people ignoring what really happened at the time and repeating the Bush lied people died mantra.

We had just been attacked by a middle east group that had widespread support across the whole middle east. To ignore Saddam or let the UN handle him would have been the highth of irresponsibility at our own peril.
 
TallPine said:
Something like 60% of the population, at last count. All of them leftist anti-american opportunists .... :p It's a pandemic, I tell you! :D

The pandemic changes every week...whatever the press is pushing at the moment. What they push is what people believe, or the press spins it the way they think people want to hear it. In fact, the press determines what off-topic threads start on THR, and many opinions expressed here can be traced directly to whatever spin the press put on an issue. Of course the spin is always "ain't it awful". Good news is no news. Fairness or respect doesn't earn ratings. A peaceful status quo is boring.

What it comes down to is Osama bin Laden wins. The aftermath of 9/11 has everybody really grumpy. They also don't like George Bush because he lacks "star quality", and the Dems lost two elections. Character doesn't matter.

Television has paved the road to oblivion, when "news" and commentary from talking heads becomes entertainment. It has even become a form of comedy on the Daily Show with John Stewart.

Frankly, I don't know why anyone would want to be President or a Supreme Court nominee for that matter. It invites nothing but abuse from ungrateful people daring you to succeed in their best interest.
 
It could be fairly said that the administration was provided with the conventional wisdom that was available at the time. That led to decisions being made that no one had the courage to take before. Right or wrong, it was decided that we needed to draw a line in the sand. If you can believe the vast bulk of those who serve US in uniform, they support that notion. Remember that wisdom was couched within the infrastructure that was in existence at the time. The Leftists, previously in charge for at least 8 years, provided their legacy at that point.

It would also be powerfully pursuading to find that our own intelligence was backed up by intelligence from nations that we would not necessarily believe were on the same page as us; France and Germany et al, as well as friendly supportive nations.

Decisions were made and many political "leaders" from the opposition party chose to go on the bandwagon. Perhaps due to political considerations of an election cycle? If so, what does that say about their character. However, those "leaders" lost the political power struggle and remain out of power. They believed that would not happen, but it did. They now only have opposition, obfuscation, pettifoggery, demagoguery, convenient memory, playing to American short memory, and out and out lying to attempt to regain power over the sheeple. With power comes the money and the other trappings of power. So they preach division and show the seeds of discontent for the purpose of power. Consider that for a moment. Do they have a solution? I haven't heard one.

A short pause to catch one's breath and think a bit again about what we are hearing from the Left. It again, should make one wonder about the character of those who give aid and comfort to terrorists and put our troops in further harm's way with their shrillness and obfuscation. To what end? To regain power at the expense of our troops and dividing our nation! Why would anyone choose to listen to these rascals?

If they disagree, then give us an alternative that does not involve invoking a repeat of the "Lesson of Vietnam". For those of you who don't remember what that is...it's the worldwide belief that America cuts and runs when the going gets tough and we don't have the stones to finish the job. That lesson was further promulgated by Bush 41's failure to stamp out Sadaam in '91 and the Clinton years. That my friends is the real lesson of Vietnam; America is a paper tiger.

If our elected leadership sees fit to get involved in a thing, then we need to see it through. That is how we reinforce our image. The bad guys will cease at some point with trying to destabilize the world, when they finally get the message that we, as a nation, are not to be contended with in a violent way. The opposition party can only be effective by supporting our nation in ways other than to continue to reinforce that America is a paper tiger. They are firmly engaged in portraying that image as we speak. If we listen to their propaganda, things will get worse. A lesson in world history with a minor in how humans treat each other is in order. Not revisionism. The real McCoy. It ain't pretty. Getting along usually comes with a big stick.

I'm really disappointed in Americans that seem to support the notion that freedom is desirable, whine about their rights in the ether, but who buy into all this propaganda disseminated by the Left, the very people that in the end, would take away our freedom by continuing to nullify our Constititution. We need to fear these traitors more than terrorists as they are killing us with a smile on their face, a pork barrel project and a lie. At least the terrorists have a hatred that is not concealed behind a $2000.00 suit, a $200.00 haircut, a limo and a PAC. :banghead: The beauty is that we can ignore these painted posturers and lobby to get the job done.
 
I remember the reasons, GoRon. I remember well.

We should leave Iraq when the job is done and not a moment before. Still an awful lot of terrorists running around there plying thier trade. Tis a target rich environment and we need to do a lot more shooting before it's all through.
 
GoRon said:
The L&P section of THR is infiltrated with a bunch of lying propagandists. Yes LYING.

They can only be lying if they know for fact that Bush did not lie, but they maintain he did. Fact is, nobody but Bush knows if he lied or not. Therefore, they cannot be liars.
 
Therefore, they cannot be liars.
Whaddaya mean by that? They are liars, pure and simple. The entire Clinton administration, the Democrats, the UN and our NATO allies all were convinced that Saddam had WMD's. The morons who spout the Bush lied mantra are deliberately lying about the reasons we went into war. They hate the Bush administration more than the love the free world. They are disgusting, brainwashed fools who parrot the NYT/Boston Globe/LATimes/WaPo propaganda, and they know they are mere tools.

They are lying: they are fools who like to be fooled and they like to try to keep fooling others.
 
The old computer adage applies here: garbage in, garbage out.

The fact that multiple intelligence agencies believed Saddam had WMD only means they were all looking at the same flawed, and possibly criminally manipulated, data.

I believe Bush put pressure on intelligence agencies to produce or manipulate data that supported his plan of going to war with Iraq. I believe Bush intended to go to war with Iraq before 9-11, and even before he took office. I believe Paul O'neal lost his job over this issue. I believe Bush honestly thought he would find WMD in Iraq, and thus be able to justify his war.

Don't ask me for sources, I don't have anything in particular. This is my personal opinion of the events, based on multiple news stories. I belive this to be true just as much as Bush apparently believed Saddam had WMD.

The Congress shares some blame in this for not being critical enough of Bush's data. At the time though, I think they took the President's word for it, not realizing subterfuge was at hand. Ultimately though, the buck stops at the White House.

Bush could have justified going into Iraq without having to lie, if he had simply said Iraq was in violation of the cease fire agreement, which clearly they were. But this wasnt good enough for him. He chose to play up the WMD angle, thinking it would get more support.
 
Preacherman said:
2. What can be done to ensure that faulty intelligence is never again used as a pretext for war?
It really doesn't matter if the intel was faulty, as long as it wasn't deliberately sloppy or manipulated for political ends. If we genuinely believe that someone is a threat we should take whatever steps are needed to remove that threat, period. All the talk now about whether the intel was good, bad, or otherwise is a nonissue. Every single person here would, if they genuinely believed someone was a threat to themselves or their family, if that person consistently behaved as if the were a threat, if they wouldn't respond to requests to simply prove that they were not a threat, put a bullet in them with little to no hesitation. If it later turned out they were mistaken, you'd feel bad about it, you'd try and not make the same mistake again, but you wouldn't fault the action or the tactic. And in the same circumstance you'd likely do the same.

One of the government's black letter jobs is defense, and you don't do defense by giving the other guy the benefit of the doubt. Every threat has to be treated as real and worse case until proven otherwise. You can argue against preemption as a tactic, but to argue that the President should not have acted on intel that darn near everyone in the world thought was correct isn't dishonest; it's plain stupid. If the drunk who wandered into the wrong house doesn't want to get shot, he can a) not drink so much, b) pick the right house, or c) freeze or retreat when I point a gun at him. If Saddam didn't want Iraq invaded he could've a) never stockpiled and used WMDs, b) not invaded Kuwait, c) had a better plan for defending Kuwait, or d) given the inspectors free rein to check where they pleased. The fact the he played chicken with a superpower and lost makes this Saddams fault, not Bush's.
 
Gotta Agree with Dick

Yep, some sure are. There are a few who I respect for their intellectually honest criticism and opposition, but they are getting fewer & fewer.

Most seem to think that everything that happened longer than a week ago never happened and reality can be crafted on the fly to serve present political needs. Well, some of us remember how it actually occurred and call "bull$h!+" when the reality-revisionists play their games. They hate it when they are called on their baloney & descend to accusations of fascism and Naziism against the one so bold as to demand that reality is reality, facts are facts, and neither is made of silly putty. Happened here just last week.
 
Standing Wolf said:
We should have voted for Cheney and left Bush in Texas.

I think Cheney likes it the way it is - he gets a higher power-to-liability ratio than if he were the POTUS and is still close enough to the cauldron to throw bones to his friends. IMO he is the smartest of the whole gang, even smarter than Carl.

+1 Lone Gunman

"The Price of Loyalty", the book about Paul O'Neil, is extremely condemning for Bush's administration. I strongly recommend it to everyone, especially those among us who still believe Bush is beyond reproach on all these issues.
 
Last edited:
junyo wrote:
Every single person here would, if they genuinely believed someone was a threat to themselves or their family, if that person consistently behaved as if the were a threat, if they wouldn't respond to requests to simply prove that they were not a threat, put a bullet in them with little to no hesitation.

Please cite the evidence you have that the thousands of iraqi civilians we(yeah, I said we, we paid for those bombs and bullets) killed acted in this manner....Iraq was never a threat to the U.S., regardless of all their posturing, and the smart intelligence people who knew that, and said so, were shouted down or removed...BTW, there's another middle eastern country that has WMD's(nuclear weapons) and they've violated many more U.N. resolutions than iraq....you guessed it, israel...they get 3 billion of our taxpayer dollars every year....what kind of return are we getting on THAT investment???

edit: 237 misleading statements on the war...
http://Democrats.reform.house.gov/IraqOnTheRecord/
 
Last edited:
GoRon said:
You guys only hear what you want to hear.

I remember all the talk from Dems and Republicans before the Iraq war.

The L&P section of THR is infiltrated with a bunch of lying propagandists.

Yes LYING.

It seems like everyone has ADD. Just about every single one of our allies intelligence services agreed with this administrations assessment of Saddams actions. He was in flagrant violation of UN resolutions. The Democrats saw the same intelligence reports and voted for the Iraq War Resolution. The war resolution contains many reasons for action that have nothing to do with WMD's.

The pathetic whining and insane Bush hatred is enough to make me vomit:barf:

This is the same bunch that will be first to blame the President for NOT taking action if a terror strike were to occur.

For your reference, the reason we are in Iraq:

Iraq War Resolution


You are now my hero. :D
 
Just about every single one of our allies intelligence services agreed with this administrations assessment of Saddams actions.

From the fall of 2001 to at least March 2003, the following officials, and others, made hundreds of false assertions in speeches, on television, at the United Nations, to foreign leaders and to Congress: President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his Under Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz. Their statements were remarkably consistent and consistently false.

In fact, the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) in effect as of December 2001 said that Iraq did not have nuclear weapons; was not trying to get them; and did not appear to have reconstituted its nuclear weapons program since the UN and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors departed in December 1998. This assessment had been unchanged for three years.

Italy 'warned Saddam intelligence was bogus'
John Hooper in Rome
November 4, 2005
The Guardian

Italian intelligence warned the United States about bogus information on Saddam Hussein's nuclear ambitions at about the time President Bush cited them as a crucial reason for invading Iraq, an Italian parliamentarian said yesterday.

Is Iraq a True Threat to the US?
by Scott Ritter
July 20, 2002
Boston Globe

I bear personal witness through seven years as a chief weapons inspector in Iraq for the United Nations to both the scope of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and the effectiveness of the UN weapons inspectors in ultimately eliminating them.
FULL TEXT OF BRITISH BRIEFING PAPERS REVEALED: More Evidence Intel Was Fixed

British Knew Iraqi WMD Were Not a Threat: “There is no greater threat now that [Saddam] will use WMD than there has been in recent years, so continuing containment is an option.”

The secret Downing Street memo
The intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

Evidence Did Not Show Much Advance In Iraq's Weapons Programs: "Even the best survey of Iraq's WMD programmes will not show much advance in recent years on [the] nuclear, missile or CW/BW fronts: the programmes are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped up."

Evidence Was Thin on Iraq/Al Qaeda Ties: "US is scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al [Qaida] is so far frankly unconvincing."

"No Credible Evidence" On Iraq/Al Qaeda Link: "There has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with UBL and Al Qaida."

Prewar report cast doubt on Iraq-Al Qaeda connection
A newly declassified document from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) shows that, as early as February 2002, there were doubts about an informer who claimed that there was a strong link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. The Associated Press reports that the [Bush] administration was alerted that an "Al Qaeda member in US custody probably was lying about links between the terrorist organization and Iraq."

Niger uranium documents exposed as forgeries
On Feb. 4, 2003, the International Atomic Energy Agency asked the U.S. government to back up some of the allegations it was making about Iraq's nuclear program.

At that point, the U.S. mission to the United Nations turned the documents over Jacque Baute, an aide to IAEA executive director Dr. Mohammed ElBaradei who was responsible for monitoring Iraq-related nuclear issues.

Once IAEA forensic analysts got them, it became immediately clear that the documents were not genuine. "Within two hours they figured out they were forgeries," said one IAEA source familiar with the material.

The source explained that all the IAEA analysts really had to do was conduct a Google search. The documents purported to be letters between Niger and Iraqi officials in July 2000 and October 2000 that describe an agreement for the delivery of two lots of 500 tons of uranium over two years.

WMD Just a Convenient Excuse for War, Admits Wolfowitz

Decoding Mr. Bush's Denials
The New York Times
Editorial
15 November 2005
To avoid having to account for his administration's misleading statements before the war with Iraq, President Bush has tried denial, saying he did not skew the intelligence. He's tried to share the blame, claiming that Congress had the same intelligence he had, as well as President Bill Clinton. He's tried to pass the buck and blame the C.I.A. Lately, he's gone on the attack, accusing Democrats in Congress of aiding the terrorists.

Yesterday in Alaska, Mr. Bush trotted out the same tedious deflection on Iraq that he usually attempts when his back is against the wall: he claims that questioning his actions three years ago is a betrayal of the troops in battle today.

It all amounts to one energetic effort at avoidance. But like the W.M.D. reports that started the whole thing, the only problem is that none of it has been true.

Further reading: A Pretext for War : 9/11, Iraq, and the Abuse of America's Intelligence Agencies by James Bamford.

From Publishers Weekly:
After 9/11, Bamford asserts, the Bush administration used the attacks as a pretext for a long-planned invasion of Iraq; a Defense Department intelligence unit was set up to tout trumped-up evidence against Saddam, which, Bamford says, CIA analysts were pressured into endorsing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top