Recently, Cheney went on the record, saying to an interviewer there was never any evidence of any links between Saddam and AQ or 911. Earlier he pretty much muddled other claims, like whether there was any suspicion about WMD in Iraq, or about the effectiveness of torture.
So, what do you think his game is? An attempt at damage control because he fears being indicted? An attempt to save the GOP's reputation by sacrificing himself? Trying to come out of the mess smelling like roses? A brain tumor? A moral imperative?
He's trying to make you love him.
QuoteCheney backs gay marriage, calls it a state issue
'I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone,' says former veep
WASHINGTON - Former Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday he supports gays being able to marry but believes states, not the federal government, should make the decision.
"I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone," Cheney said in a speech at the National Press Club. "I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish."
Cheney, who has a gay daughter, said marriage has always been a state issue.
"And I think that's the way it ought to be handled today, that is, on a state-by-state basis. Different states will make different decisions. But I don't have any problem with that. I think people ought to get a shot at that," he said.
Yeah I posted that yesterday in the other thread. I am more asking about his "mea culpas".
I thought it was a slam dunk? wtf?
Quote from: The Brain on June 03, 2009, 04:30:23 AM
I thought it was a slam dunk? wtf?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_ksqrFQPgU&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_ksqrFQPgU&feature=related)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 03, 2009, 05:09:02 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 03, 2009, 04:30:23 AM
I thought it was a slam dunk? wtf?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_ksqrFQPgU&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_ksqrFQPgU&feature=related)
Woofness.
Quote from: Martinus on June 03, 2009, 04:28:05 AM
Yeah I posted that yesterday in the other thread. I am more asking about his "mea culpas".
Funny, I don't see him apologizing for shit. :lol:
QuoteI think people ought to get a shot at that," he said.
:face:
Quote from: saskganesh on June 03, 2009, 05:32:39 AM
QuoteI think people ought to get a shot at that," he said.
:face:
:lol:Well spotted.
Quote from: Martinus on June 03, 2009, 02:09:07 AM
An attempt at damage control because he fears being indicted? An attempt to save the GOP's reputation by sacrificing himself?
The former - Cheney isn't the type to sacrifice himself for anyone. He's a criminal who's trying to escape judgement. I wish Obama would abandon the unity policy - you can't be united with people who undermine everything you do. I wish he would just go for the jugular of the GOP. As for Cheyneey himself - any serious congressional inquiry would reveal just how deep he was in all kind of illegal, illegitimate and ill advised scams.
G.
:lol:
Why would Cheney have any fear whatsoever of being indicted? We all know that's never going to happen.
Quote from: Grallon on June 03, 2009, 07:30:35 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 03, 2009, 02:09:07 AM
An attempt at damage control because he fears being indicted? An attempt to save the GOP's reputation by sacrificing himself?
The former - Cheney isn't the type to sacrifice himself for anyone. He's a criminal who's trying to escape judgement. I wish Obama would abandon the unity policy - you can't be united with people who undermine everything you do. I wish he would just go for the jugular of the GOP. As for Cheyneey himself - any serious congressional inquiry would reveal just how deep he was in all kind of illegal, illegitimate and ill advised scams.
Obama knows that he can only be president for another 3-7 years, and that if he pushes too hard on the Republicans, that time will be shorter rather than longer. Moreover, if he starts criminalizing policy differences, it'll be his neck that ends up getting stretched. Now that he's won the presidency, he's realized that nothing the Bush Administration did was very bad.
I don't think the Bush admin claimed there were any ties between Saddam and AQ, or 9/11? Correct me if I'm wrong, as I know that's been claimed, and maybe I'm forgetting, but I never got the impression that the invasion of Iraq was due to links to 9/11. There were statements by the Bushies about fears of Saddam supplying terrorists if he gained WMDs, and that sort of thing.
Quote from: Neil on June 03, 2009, 07:42:46 AM
Obama knows that he can only be president for another 3-7 years, and that if he pushes too hard on the Republicans, that time will be shorter rather than longer. Moreover, if he starts criminalizing policy differences, it'll be his neck that ends up getting stretched. Now that he's won the presidency, he's realized that nothing the Bush Administration did was very bad.
it is really quite amazing, isn't it?
All the horror of the Bush presidency, and now with policy after policy, the Dems are parroting him. Well, except for when they have jumped the shark with nationalizing the united auto workers union as a direct recipient of taxpayer donations and snatching GM away from the Capitalists and giving it to The Workers.
I don't think Bush would have done that.
Quote from: KRonn on June 03, 2009, 07:45:23 AM
I don't think the Bush admin claimed there were any ties between Saddam and AQ, or 9/11? Correct me if I'm wrong, as I know that's been claimed, and maybe I'm forgetting, but I never got the impression that the invasion of Iraq was due to links to 9/11. There were statements by the Bushies about fears of Saddam supplying terrorists if he gained WMDs, and that sort of thing.
The Saddam-9/11 thing was a disaster on all parts.
The Bush admin never made an explicit connection, but they did allow the public to continue to think there was a direct connection. They did make an indirect connection (which I still think was valid).
The left then went on and on and on and on and on about how Bush claimed Saddam was involved, when of course he wasn't. Now it has become an article of faith among the MoveOn crowd.
I seem to remember Colin Powell addressing the UN and making that exact claim--that there were links between Saddam and Al-Q/9-11.
edit: or were his claims about Saddam still having WMD stockpiles? :unsure:
All the demonizing of the Bush admin over 8 years, to the detriment of the country and its political process. And now we have Pres Obama doing some of the same things that Bush did. Shows me what I figured all along, that much of the angst over Bush was so damn political. Shows how nasty politics gets. Repubs and Dems will do it, in order to gain political advantage or to slam, or even savage, opponents, even losing sight of the over all picture. Yes, Pres Bush brought some of it on himself but it all went way too far. I stopped seeing some of the Bush excesses due to the crying of wolf over everything, and the BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) factor by his haters. So now I'm waiting to see the same happen to Pres Obama, hoping it doesn't as it's ruinous to the political process, but some already is (he's a commie, etc), though he's too popular and the media so far likes him too much for full ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome) to set in.
Quote from: KRonn on June 03, 2009, 07:57:14 AM
All the demonizing of the Bush admin over 8 years, to the detriment of the country and its political process.
Well it is the same thing that happened with the Clinton admin, is happeing with the Obama admin, and will happen with whatever sucker wants the job next.
Quote from: Caliga on June 03, 2009, 07:51:16 AM
I seem to remember Colin Powell addressing the UN and making that exact claim--that there were links between Saddam and Al-Q/9-11.
edit: or were his claims about Saddam still having WMD stockpiles? :unsure:
I think there was some rather tenuous mention of Saddam having once hosted some AQ terrorists, but not much beyond that. The rightwing nutjob corps of course ran with that (I think Hansie was going on about Saddam being tight with AQ), and there was a connection made between Saddam and terrorism in general, with the unspoken implication allowed to stand - after 9/11 the words "terrorist" and "Al-quaeda" became almost synonymous.
I do remember at the time the gubmint was trying to build a case about A-Q that made it seem like it was basically a Muslim version of Cobra. :cool:
Quote from: Caliga on June 03, 2009, 08:11:50 AM
I do remember at the time the gubmint was trying to build a case about A-Q that made it seem like it was basically a Muslim version of Cobra. :cool:
Now there was a real terrorist operation. None of this bullshit about religion, just pure orneriness, and yet they had all kinds of custom war vehicles, they were practically an army unto themselves.
However, GI Joe was the proof that regular law enforcement cannot handle terrorism, and that only the military can handle it.
Quote from: Caliga on June 03, 2009, 08:11:50 AM
I do remember at the time the gubmint was trying to build a case about A-Q that made it seem like it was basically a Muslim version of Cobra. :cool:
Weather Dominators and Pyramids of Darkness. The heyday of international terrorism. Sigh, all we get these days are bombs and bad rhetoric.
Their base was the Terror Drome. It was almost like they were trying to be evil.
Whoa, Kronn, that's a short memory you have!
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/18/cheney.iraq.al.qaeda/
Cheney blasts media on al Qaeda-Iraq link
Says media not 'doing their homework' in reporting ties
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Vice President Dick Cheney said Thursday the evidence is "overwhelming" that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, and he said media reports suggesting that the 9/11 commission has reached a contradictory conclusion were "irresponsible."
"There clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming," Cheney said in an interview with CNBC's "Capitol Report."
"It goes back to the early '90s. It involves a whole series of contacts, high-level contacts with Osama bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence officials."
"The press, with all due respect, (is) often times lazy, often times simply reports what somebody else in the press said without doing their homework."
Members of 9/11 commission found "no credible evidence" that Iraq was involved in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks carried out by al Qaeda hijackers, and they concluded that there was "no collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Osama bin Laden, the network's leader, according to details of its findings disclosed Wednesday at a public hearing.
However, the commission also found that bin Laden did "explore possible cooperation with Iraq."
Cheney told CNBC that cooperation included a brigadier general in the Iraqi intelligence service going to Sudan, where bin Laden was based prior to moving his operations to Afghanistan, to train al Qaeda members in bomb-making and document forgery.
Both Cheney and President Bush are strongly disputing suggestions that the commission's conclusion that there were no Iraqi fingerprints on the 9/11 attacks contradicts statements they made in the run-up to the Iraq war about links between Iraq and al Qaeda.
Bush, who has said himself that there is no evidence Iraq was involved in 9/11, sought to explain the distinction Thursday, saying that while the administration never "said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated" with Iraqi help, "we did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda."
"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda [is] because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," the president said. (Full story)
In his CNBC interview, Cheney went a bit further. Asked if Iraq was involved in 9/11, he said, "We don't know."
"What the commission says is they can't find evidence of that," he said. "We had one report, which is a famous report on the Czech intelligence service, and we've never been able to confirm or to knock it down."
The uncorroborated Czech report, which has been widely disputed, alleged that 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague before the attacks.
Asked if he knows information that the 9/11 commission does not know, Cheney replied, "Probably."
If you want to show that Obama is doing almost the same as Bush, you have to fiddle with history.
Marty, the part you bolded is rather clear. They claimed that there was evidence of contact between Iraq and AQ - that is not claiming that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 though.
The administration is guilty in allowing the public to draw incorrect conclusions based on the data provided.
it is simply bizarre how religious people like you are about this - it is right there in the very article you provided, yet you continue to insist it says something it explicitly denies.
QuoteBush, who has said himself that there is no evidence Iraq was involved in 9/11
Quote from: Martinus on June 03, 2009, 08:26:44 AM
Whoa, Kronn, that's a short memory you have!
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/18/cheney.iraq.al.qaeda/
Cheney blasts media on al Qaeda-Iraq link
Says media not 'doing their homework' in reporting ties
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Vice President Dick Cheney said Thursday the evidence is "overwhelming" that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, and he said media reports suggesting that the 9/11 commission has reached a contradictory conclusion were "irresponsible."
"There clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming," Cheney said in an interview with CNBC's "Capitol Report."
"It goes back to the early '90s. It involves a whole series of contacts, high-level contacts with Osama bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence officials."
"The press, with all due respect, (is) often times lazy, often times simply reports what somebody else in the press said without doing their homework."
Members of 9/11 commission found "no credible evidence" that Iraq was involved in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks carried out by al Qaeda hijackers, and they concluded that there was "no collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Osama bin Laden, the network's leader, according to details of its findings disclosed Wednesday at a public hearing.
However, the commission also found that bin Laden did "explore possible cooperation with Iraq."
Cheney told CNBC that cooperation included a brigadier general in the Iraqi intelligence service going to Sudan, where bin Laden was based prior to moving his operations to Afghanistan, to train al Qaeda members in bomb-making and document forgery.
Both Cheney and President Bush are strongly disputing suggestions that the commission's conclusion that there were no Iraqi fingerprints on the 9/11 attacks contradicts statements they made in the run-up to the Iraq war about links between Iraq and al Qaeda.
Bush, who has said himself that there is no evidence Iraq was involved in 9/11, sought to explain the distinction Thursday, saying that while the administration never "said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated" with Iraqi help, "we did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda."
"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda [is] because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," the president said. (Full story)
In his CNBC interview, Cheney went a bit further. Asked if Iraq was involved in 9/11, he said, "We don't know."
"What the commission says is they can't find evidence of that," he said. "We had one report, which is a famous report on the Czech intelligence service, and we've never been able to confirm or to knock it down."
The uncorroborated Czech report, which has been widely disputed, alleged that 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague before the attacks.
Asked if he knows information that the 9/11 commission does not know, Cheney replied, "Probably."
I know that you're a retard so let's make this simple for you. Saddam was connected to Al Qaeda, but we have no evidence that he had any ties or knowledge of 9-11. There, is that still too damn complicated for you?
Quote from: Berkut on June 03, 2009, 07:47:01 AM
I don't think Bush would have done that.
The welfare for automakers program started on his watch. His admin poured the 20B in TARP money into GM and Chrysler the first place.
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 03, 2009, 08:46:06 AM
I know that you're a retard so let's make this simple for you. Saddam was connected to Al Qaeda, but we have no evidence that he had any ties or knowledge of 9-11. There, is that still too damn complicated for you?
The contact seemed to have ended long before 2001, though. :huh:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 03, 2009, 08:47:27 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 03, 2009, 07:47:01 AM
I don't think Bush would have done that.
The welfare for automakers program started on his watch. His admin poured the 20B in TARP money into GM and Chrysler the first place.
One wonders what the restructuring would look like if the Bush administration was calling the shots.
Quote from: Berkut on June 03, 2009, 08:44:02 AM
Marty, the part you bolded is rather clear. They claimed that there was evidence of contact between Iraq and AQ
That was also false as stated by the admin, as per the so far unrefuted findings of the 9/11 commission report.
Quotethat is not claiming that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 though.
No but as the quoted article points out, Cheney tried to suggest there might be a connection without making a clear affirmative claim, based on the false info concerning the Saddam-al Qaeda relationship. He may not have lied, but he deliberately obfuscated and misled.
Quote from: Berkut on June 03, 2009, 08:44:02 AM
Marty, the part you bolded is rather clear. They claimed that there was evidence of contact between Iraq and AQ - that is not claiming that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 though.
The administration is guilty in allowing the public to draw incorrect conclusions based on the data provided.
it is simply bizarre how religious people like you are about this - it is right there in the very article you provided, yet you continue to insist it says something it explicitly denies.
QuoteBush, who has said himself that there is no evidence Iraq was involved in 9/11
Kronn said: "
I don't think the Bush admin claimed there were any ties between Saddam and AQ, or 9/11?"
The article clearly shows that they claimed at least the former, no? So not sure how your response is relevant to what I said in response to Kronn.
As for the rest of your post, there is a reason we talk about "misleading" information as something distinct from information that is "false" (but still regard both as equally culpable when it comes to fraud). If they knew there were contacts between AQ and Saddam, but that Saddam was not involved in 911, then they should have said so. Saying that Saddam had links to AQ, without offering any additional information (especially when it comes to presenting the information to the general public, in the wake of 911 - which was the first and only time most people ever heard of AQ) is clearly implying that there was a link between him and 911.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 03, 2009, 08:47:27 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 03, 2009, 07:47:01 AM
I don't think Bush would have done that.
The welfare for automakers program started on his watch. His admin poured the 20B in TARP money into GM and Chrysler the first place.
Yeah, but then using the power of the federal government to gift the company to the UAW and hand the UAW tens of billions? Nah, I don't think so.
Bush tried to save GM - I think that was a mistake as well, but Obama is trying to do something very different, he is trying to socialize GM.
Quote from: Martinus on June 03, 2009, 08:59:05 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 03, 2009, 08:44:02 AM
Marty, the part you bolded is rather clear. They claimed that there was evidence of contact between Iraq and AQ - that is not claiming that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 though.
The administration is guilty in allowing the public to draw incorrect conclusions based on the data provided.
it is simply bizarre how religious people like you are about this - it is right there in the very article you provided, yet you continue to insist it says something it explicitly denies.
QuoteBush, who has said himself that there is no evidence Iraq was involved in 9/11
Kronn said: "I don't think the Bush admin claimed there were any ties between Saddam and AQ, or 9/11?"
The article clearly shows that they claimed at least the former, no?
Yeah, I think you're right in that the Bush admin said that Saddam had met some AQ members. And I think that some people ran with that as proof of Saddam and AQ together, or connections to 9/11, while others used it to show Bush admin was lying about Saddam and 9/11 connections or strong AQ connections. Gets damn messy. But I didn't think that the Bush admin claimed that Saddam was working with AQ in any real way, such as like the Taliban were, or in a lower profile manner. That's mainly what I was looking to clarify.
Quote from: Martinus on June 03, 2009, 08:59:05 AM
As for the rest of your post, there is a reason we talk about "misleading" information as something distinct from information that is "false" (but still regard both as equally culpable when it comes to fraud). If they knew there were contacts between AQ and Saddam, but that Saddam was not involved in 911, then they should have said so. Saying that Saddam had links to AQ, without offering any additional information (especially when it comes to presenting the information to the general public, in the wake of 911 - which was the first and only time most people ever heard of AQ) is clearly implying that there was a link between him and 911.
I agree, in general - I think the administration, at best, allowed a clearly untrue assumption to stand without clearing it up, and at worst actively encouraged that assumption.
What they did not do is run around claiming that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Just another example of how stupid the politically faithful radicals can be, since they cannot resist exaggerating the issue, which just allows their core complaint, which may be valid, to be dismissed as hyperbole.
Quote from: Berkut on June 03, 2009, 09:11:48 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 03, 2009, 08:59:05 AM
As for the rest of your post, there is a reason we talk about "misleading" information as something distinct from information that is "false" (but still regard both as equally culpable when it comes to fraud). If they knew there were contacts between AQ and Saddam, but that Saddam was not involved in 911, then they should have said so. Saying that Saddam had links to AQ, without offering any additional information (especially when it comes to presenting the information to the general public, in the wake of 911 - which was the first and only time most people ever heard of AQ) is clearly implying that there was a link between him and 911.
I agree, in general - I think the administration, at best, allowed a clearly untrue assumption to stand without clearing it up, and at worst actively encouraged that assumption.
What they did not do is run around claiming that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Just another example of how stupid the politically faithful radicals can be, since they cannot resist exaggerating the issue, which just allows their core complaint, which may be valid, to be dismissed as hyperbole.
I also tend to agree that the Bush admin let assumptions about Saddam and AQ be out there, and let people run with that. And that helped cause rumors and other political damage that Bush brought upon himself.
I don't remember hearing anything about the Bush admin saying that there was a direct link between Iraq and 911 and I don't remember anyone laughing at such a claim. IIRC the claim was that there was a tangible connection between Iraq (the Iraqi regime) and AQ, and it was laughed at.
I seem to hear some muddling of some waters. But then I'm hearing a lot of things lately.
Quote from: KRonn on June 03, 2009, 07:57:14 AM
All the demonizing of the Bush admin over 8 years, to the detriment of the country and its political process. And now we have Pres Obama doing some of the same things that Bush did. Shows me what I figured all along, that much of the angst over Bush was so damn political. Shows how nasty politics gets. Repubs and Dems will do it, in order to gain political advantage or to slam, or even savage, opponents, even losing sight of the over all picture. Yes, Pres Bush brought some of it on himself but it all went way too far. I stopped seeing some of the Bush excesses due to the crying of wolf over everything, and the BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) factor by his haters. So now I'm waiting to see the same happen to Pres Obama, hoping it doesn't as it's ruinous to the political process, but some already is (he's a commie, etc), though he's too popular and the media so far likes him too much for full ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome) to set in.
Of course it was political. It was about politics. Although for all the talk about the media disliking Bush, which I think is true, I've always thought the left-wing critique was relatively accurate: they were too easy on him after 9/11 and until the Iraq war really, because there was a rally round the flag impulse and I think they felt guilty after that. In my view they over-compensated when Bush was doing well for their weak and far too reverential coverage when he wasn't.
Actually as I've said a lot there were two Bush Presidencies. The first one was, I think, overly dominated by Cheney and Rumsfeld. It ended, I think when Abu Ghraib came out, but was pretty disastrous. I think there's a second Bush Presidency which when, for various reasons, whether the courts, his own opinion or elections and Congress he began to mitigate what was done in the first term. This was when the Administration tried, at last, to create a proper legal framework for detainees, they banned 'enhanced interrogation techniques', foreign policy was far more emollient and Rumsfeld went. I believe Obama's actually said that his policy on detainees, for example, is continuing from Bush's second term to deal with the difficulties of the first term.
Bush was a dreadful strong President but a surprisingly effective weak one.
I think Cheney's taking an argument he's had within the Bush Administration public because he genuinely believes it. For the first four years he convinced enough people, for the second four he lost ground. But, I don't think there have been many mea culpas. I think Cheney genuinely believes in the policies he's advocating and I think Bush grew more uncomfortable with them as time went on and is still relatively uncomfortable.
Quote from: Norgy on June 03, 2009, 08:50:33 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 03, 2009, 08:46:06 AM
I know that you're a retard so let's make this simple for you. Saddam was connected to Al Qaeda, but we have no evidence that he had any ties or knowledge of 9-11. There, is that still too damn complicated for you?
The contact seemed to have ended long before 2001, though. :huh:
Nope, it went right thru 2003. There was a reason a lot of Al Qaeda decamped to Iraq in early 2002. But the alliance was always strictly a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" type of alliance of convenience (not unlike the Iran-Taleban alliance of today).
Quote from: KRonn on June 03, 2009, 07:45:23 AM
I don't think the Bush admin claimed there were any ties between Saddam and AQ, or 9/11? Correct me if I'm wrong, as I know that's been claimed, and maybe I'm forgetting, but I never got the impression that the invasion of Iraq was due to links to 9/11. There were statements by the Bushies about fears of Saddam supplying terrorists if he gained WMDs, and that sort of thing.
There were no direct statements, but there definitely was a concerted effort in trying to make people connect the dots. Mention something about 9/11, then immediately afterwards mention something about Saddam and al Qaeda, and soon plenty of rubes will make the connection.
Quote from: The Brain on June 03, 2009, 05:12:01 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 03, 2009, 05:09:02 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 03, 2009, 04:30:23 AM
I thought it was a slam dunk? wtf?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_ksqrFQPgU&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_ksqrFQPgU&feature=related)
Woofness.
:lol:
As far as I am concerned, Saddam had to go.
He was a dedicated enemy of the US, and had the potential to do a lot of harm, regardless of how close his relationship with AQ was.
The one thing we didn't do and should have done, is to take complete control of the iraqi oil reserves.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 03, 2009, 02:03:30 PM
I think Cheney's taking an argument he's had within the Bush Administration public because he genuinely believes it. For the first four years he convinced enough people, for the second four he lost ground. But, I don't think there have been many mea culpas. I think Cheney genuinely believes in the policies he's advocating and I think Bush grew more uncomfortable with them as time went on and is still relatively uncomfortable.
I think that Cheney was wrong, misspoke, or exaggerated enough to do plenty of damage to his credibility. He always had a confident way of talking, presenting facts, but I got soured on him when some of what he said were quite wrong. I think some of what he said we should expect in Iraq, and what the US could/would do, and then to find the reality quite different, are examples of items that started turning me against him.
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 03, 2009, 04:31:53 PM
Nope, it went right thru 2003. There was a reason a lot of Al Qaeda decamped to Iraq in early 2002. But the alliance was always strictly a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" type of alliance of convenience (not unlike the Iran-Taleban alliance of today).
Ok, I'll take your word for it. I am no expert. The only source I have seen is a former Iraqi official quoted in
The Looming Tower.
It's the old story. Boy talks about girl behind her back and calls her a slut. Girls talks about boy behind his back and calls him a weirdo. Boy is from the wrong side of the tracks, and thinks girl is stuck up, but wouldn't mind going to the rock concert with her if she bought the tickets. Girl thinks boy has a bad boy kind of attraction, but is too creepy to ever consider going out with. They never date.
Bush, Cheney & Co call this a "relationship"
That's genius. :lmfao:
POTM worthy!
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 04, 2009, 09:44:35 AM
It's the old story. Boy talks about girl behind her back and calls her a slut. Girls talks about boy behind his back and calls him a weirdo. Boy is from the wrong side of the tracks, and thinks girl is stuck up, but wouldn't mind going to the rock concert with her if she bought the tickets. Girl thinks boy has a bad boy kind of attraction, but is too creepy to ever consider going out with. They never date.
Bush, Cheney & Co call this a "relationship"
Hans claims that "there is a reason why he secretly lived in her garage for three years without anyone ever knowing about it."
Quote from: grumbler on June 04, 2009, 02:11:44 PM
Hans claims that "there is a reason why he secretly lived in her garage for three years without anyone ever knowing about it."
Yeah he says that but where is the evidence?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 04, 2009, 04:37:07 PM
Yeah he says that but where is the evidence?
It's secret. If he told you, he would have to fire you.
Interpretation is a prickly subject, but the man had access to so many spin doctors and the White House has such a stranglehold on its press releases that it's quite a stretch to claim the obfuscation of facts about the connections between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government were anything but deliberate.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 04, 2009, 04:37:07 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 04, 2009, 02:11:44 PM
Hans claims that "there is a reason why he secretly lived in her garage for three years without anyone ever knowing about it."
Yeah he says that but where is the evidence?
Just google news reports on Iraq al qaeda links from back in 1998. It's amazing how strong the links were according to the msm. Of course, that was when Bill Clinton was bombing Iraq and the msm were function as a gov't messenger. And of course we know about Zarqawi and dozens of other high-level Al Qaeda figures going to Iraq in the spring of 2002 after been driven out of Afghanistan.
It's funny how leftists always try to explain away bad behaviour by totalitarian states by pretending they're really incapable of exercising control over their "rogue elements". :lol: