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

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I stopped reading right after the "Darth Cheney..." line.

Did I miss anything?

 

[javafiend]

That should read "Draft Dodger Cheney," Cheney requested several deferments and has been quoted as saying that he "had other priorities than military service"). Cheney dodged military service just like his buddies Dennis Hastert, Dick Armey, Tom Delay (he claimed that minorities had taken up all of the slots so there was no more room for him, so he stayed home and fought the war on bugs) Trent Lott, John Ashcroft, Newt Gingrich, Elliott Abrahms, Pat Buchanan, Phil Gramm, Jack Kemp, Dan Quayle, Rush Limbaugh (analcysts) Bill Bennett, Frank Gaffney and Kenneth Starr.

 

[Art Eatman]

I don't understand why the Democrats are so upset with Bush about Iraq. He's merely doing what an icon of the Democratic Party urged, back in 1960 or so: "Go anywhere, pay any price, to further the cause of Democracy."

Dubya oughta do a bit of language study and go to Baghdad, offering the local equivalent of "Ich bin ein Berliner."

Art

 

[M-Rex]

That should read "Draft Dodger Cheney," Cheney requested several deferments and has been quoted as saying that he "had other priorities than military service"). Cheney dodged military service just like his buddies Dennis Hastert, Dick Armey, Tom Delay (he claimed that minorities had taken up all of the slots so there was no more room for him, so he stayed home and fought the war on bugs) Trent Lott, John Ashcroft, Newt Gingrich, Elliott Abrahms, Pat Buchanan, Phil Gramm, Jack Kemp, Dan Quayle, Rush Limbaugh (analcysts) Bill Bennett, Frank Gaffney and Kenneth Starr.

Don't forget Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and that stumpwart, Dukakis.

Did Mondale or Carter serve?

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Did Mondale or Carter serve?

Carter was a submariner.

 

[M-Rex]

Carter was a submariner.

Ah, that's right. I thought I read that somewhere.

Mea culpa.

 

[RealGun]

The WMD, mushroom cloud fear mongering stressed the tactical reasons for going after Saddam. It is easier to sell, something the voters can understand. The strategic reasons for dealing with Iraq are much more complex, no doubt some off it classified, but Congressional committees surely knew the whole story and have since the beginning, many years ago, pre Bush II. They were probably consulted about how to sell the Iraq invasion. Sen. Warner is chairman of the Defense committee, or whatever they call it, and is a former Secretary of Defense. He knows exactly what is going on. He is also a Republican.

Even if there are good reasons for the Dems to create a big fuss, it would not occur without partisan motives.

I don't think it is a coincidence that Congress is dealing with budget cutbacks at the same time that they are effectively protesting the cost of Iraq and other Middle East operations. They set the stage so that any budget cutbacks that draw protests from affected voters are George Bush's fault. The conclusion everyone is supposed to draw is that they should vote for the Democrat in the next election, like it would make any real difference in foreign policy.

 

[junyo]

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/

The 'thousands' of Iraqi civilians acted in that manner by allowing Saddam to come to and remain in power. They had the means to end the potential threat and chose not to.

As for the Israel BS, guess what, the UN resolutions against Israel are a) nonbinding i.e. an entirely from the resolutions passed against Iraq, and b) have never had force authorized to enforce them. Helps if you don't get your talking points from the Michael Moore crowd, they're not all the good with actual facts. And even the resolutions were binding, let's look at the threat the Israeli's pose. Israel has actually used it's WMD's how many times? Invaded it's neighbors unprovoked when exactly? How many suicide bombers families have they paid? Yeah, Saddam's Iraqi was a peaceful little country not bothering anyone...

 

[longhorngunman]

That's the problem with the Democrats, Art, the man that said that is not the icon of the current Democratic party. Che Guevaera(no I don't know how to spell the little commie's last name), and the living Hugo Chavez are the icons of the current Democratic party.

 

[Jeff White]

javafiend said;

That should read "Draft Dodger Cheney," Cheney requested several deferments and has been quoted as saying that he "had other priorities than military service"). Cheney dodged military service just like his buddies Dennis Hastert, Dick Armey, Tom Delay (he claimed that minorities had taken up all of the slots so there was no more room for him, so he stayed home and fought the war on bugs) Trent Lott, John Ashcroft, Newt Gingrich, Elliott Abrahms, Pat Buchanan, Phil Gramm, Jack Kemp, Dan Quayle, Rush Limbaugh (analcysts) Bill Bennett, Frank Gaffney and Kenneth Starr.

When and where did you serve?

Jeff

 

[Fred Fuller]

Well, I know it's 'old math' but let's see how it adds up:

POLITICIAN + MOUTH MOVING = LIE

How's that?

lpl/nc

 

[hso]

Not everyone that had access to the information that the administration acted on saw the evidence that attacking Iraq was needed or that it would further the war on terror.

http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle.asp?ArticleID=1246

Texas Observer: Is it inevitable we will go to war with Iraq?
Ron Paul: I would say the odds are 98 percent. Only a miracle will save us from committing this overt act of aggression. I think this will be a gift for Osama bin Laden. He will be the beneficiary of it. He hates Saddam Hussein. He has a better chance of getting one of his men [in power] after we cause a lot of disruption over there. And besides, his recruiting operation is going to get a real boost. We are going to prove to many Muslims around the world exactly what he has been telling them all along, that we are over there to dominate, to control, and to get the oil. I think we have fallen into that trap.

TO: Why haven’t more people seen through this effort to link Hussein to the war on terrorism?
RP: It seems that those who advise the president, those who control foreign policy, need another war for various reasons: whether it has to do with the oil or this principle that we are such good people that we know what is best; our views should dominate. I think they believe it almost like a religion. What has happened is that they have been able to control the propaganda. Even if there are some in Washington who have questioned this–and many of them did question it–the propaganda has been so powerful. All [Congress] had to do was look at the polls and say, "Oh, the polls show that we must do this." I have told others, and I am convinced that if Bill Clinton was doing exactly what the president is doing today, I bet I wouldn’t be a lonely Republican. I bet I would have a lot of Republican supporters on my side.... But now it’s a Republican president, and he can do no wrong.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

The Senate vote sharply divided Democrats, with 29 voting for the measure and 21 against. All Republicans except Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island voted for passage.

Ron Paul of Texas; Connie Morella of Maryland; Jim Leach of Iowa; Amo Houghton of New York; John Hostettler of Indiana; and John Duncan of Tennessee

 

[NorthernExtreme]

javafiend

I suggest that when you look for referances to support your position you use sources other than left leaning news organizations.

To be fair, I'm sure anyone who desperately wants to believe Bush lied can find several reports, memmos, documents, etc.. to support their claim. Just as those who want to follow Bush to what ever end can find the same to support their position.

I ask you, If bush knew there were no WMD's and that every fact he used could be prooved wrong, why in the world would he go to war in Iraq?

The simple fact that you have all those articles (written over the course of several months) at hand and ready to referance tells me you are a busy beaver and very interested in seeking the truth. Could you please quickly respond with as many articles countering the argument that Bush lied?

I would hate to believe you are here at THR as a troll. But I'm sure you will prove me wrong by responding as quickly with all the pro Bush articles you researched in your search for the truth.

Regards,

 

[Ezekiel]

I stopped reading right after the "Darth Cheney..." line.

Did I miss anything?

"Yup". I'm learning at lot.

And "Darth Cheney" is a good line. I basically stole it from some witty guy on THR who sub-texted Cheney's opposition to recent torture legislation with John Williams's way cool Darth Vader theme. (I'm not even original!)

 

[BigG]

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

+1

 

[seansean]

POLITICIAN + MOUTH MOVING = LIE

I agree...

junyo: Of course iraq wasn't a "peaceful little country", what matters here is whether they were a threat to the U.S., and they were not, and the bush admin. lied and said they were. Th ends do not justify the means. As far as israel, I know it's a hot-button subject, I'm not gonna go flame war over it but,I'm just saying look deeper at the israeli/U.S. relationship. The likudniks are only pretending to be our friends...and it doesn't make me an anti-semite to say so.

 

[R.H. Lee]

Cheney's telling it like it is. Those same Democrats are on record making public statements that Saddam had nuclear, chemical and biological WMD and supporting military intervention and regime change. They, and their supporters, are most assuredly lying and dishonest hypocrites of the worst order. Anybody who buys into this particular criticism of the Bush administration is ignorant, completely untrustworthy and deserving of utter contempt.

 

[seansean]

Cheney's telling it like it is. Those same Democrats are on record making public statements that Saddam had nuclear, chemical and biological WMD and supporting military intervention and regime change. They, and their supporters, are most assuredly lying and dishonest hypocrites of the worst order. Anybody who buys into this particular criticism of the Bush administration is ignorant, completely untrustworthy and deserving of utter contempt.

Ouch....does that mean I don't get a christmas card this year?

 

[TallPine]

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.

I'm glad you said this
It sounds just like the apologies for the "no-knock" raids on American citizens based on some informant. Break down the door, tear up the house, maybe kill a few people ... oops, we find no dope, but we "genuinely believed" there was dope in the house so it was all justified.

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.

No, I would not, and furthermore I did not (even though I would have liked too ).
In that case, I would be the one in prison now instead of my former neighbor. And you would have been all discussing the shooting case while I sat in jail, and saying how "you can't take pre-emptive action against your neighbor even if you think he might hurt your family."

Only governments can do things like that and get away with it.

 

[CAnnoneer]

Israel has actually used it's WMD's how many times? Invaded it's neighbors unprovoked when exactly? How many suicide bombers families have they paid?

I agree that Israel is not a threat from that point of view. But, I still eye with great displeasure the billions we the taxpayers have been giving them every year for no apparent practical reason. I have yet to hear anybody among the mainstream politicians stand up and ask the simple question: "Are we getting our money's worth in supporting Israel?"

What I see is all sorts of US political fundraising organizations whose only purpose is to buy politicians and exert pressure on the government for the sole purpose of furthering Israel's interests regardless of their alignment with the US interests. They are so brazen and idiotic so as to televize their conventions and virtually spell it out. Methinks these lobbyists should be asked if they are first American and then ethnic, or the other way around. In the latter case, the honorable thing for them to do is surrender their US citizenship and assume Israeli one. Same goes for those who secretly keep their Israeli one while becoming US citizens, although the US naturalization laws specifically prohibit double citizenship (along with hereditary titles etc.).

I'd rather see the 3 billion per year returned to the taxpayers. Okay, I am dreaming - we know govt hates giving money back. So, let them just spend it on something prudent, e.g. finding cure for diseases or developing energy independence technologies.

Oh, yeah, I almost forgot. Before somebody shrieks "You dirty, closet anti-semite!", I should mention that two thirds of my best friends are Jews and proudly so.

 

[CAnnoneer]

Ouch....does that mean I don't get a christmas card this year?

That's right, no apples and cheese baskets for you either!

But, joviality aside, just because the Democratic leadership are a bunch of despicable pansy political opportunists with the memory of a gnat and the integrity of a cuckoo does not mean that their criticism in the particular case is unfounded. There are quite disconcerting testimonies on record both by Clarke and O'Neil that should at the least raise both eyebrows of the staunch Bush supporters.

 

[TheEgg]

I didn't read all the posts in this thread -- because I have heard it all before.

I pointed out about a year or year and a half ago that you could hear in the distance the sound of the stampeding sheep.

The stampede has now over-run us.

The American people are incapable of enduring any sort of pain any more, political, economic, anything.

And our enemies understand this very well, even if the American people don't.

 

[Ezekiel]

Definitely something to consider...

The American people are incapable of enduring any sort of pain any more, political, economic, anything.

That is a very interesting theory, one I'm going to have to think about...

 

[sicorican]

Hmmm...

I don't understand this...

There were plenty of Democrats saying the same exact things that Bush said, but they were saying it as far back as 1998. Was the Clinton administration "manipulating" the intelligence then too? Were they forcing the intelligence agencies to "massage" the data for their own political ends?

Here are just a few examples:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

So, it would seem clear, at least to me, that the only things the opposition has to offer are hypocrisy and revisionism. It's just interesting to me that so many otherwise clear-thinking and intelligent people fall for this tripe so often. And not just the D's! The R's are just as guilty of spinning and "revising" events when it suits them.

We'll never know how much of the intelligence used by president Bush was just taken at face value from the Clinton administration. Just like we won't know how much of it was gathered after Bush's election but before he had a chance to replace the Clinton appointees in the intelligence community with his own. But so many prominent D's were saying the same things that Bush said while Clinton was still in office, that their charges that Bush lied are pathetic and transparent, at least to me...

 

[BigG]

I pointed out about a year or year and a half ago that you could hear in the distance the sound of the stampeding sheep.

The stampede has now over-run us.

The American people are incapable of enduring any sort of pain any more, political, economic, anything.

TheEgg has got it down.