Cheney in 94

POSTED BY: Righteous9
UPDATED: Thursday, August 16, 2007 10:06
VIEWED: 6213
PAGE 1 of 1

RIGHTEOUS9

Sunday, August 12, 2007 6:16 PM

this may be old news to some people. I've never seen it before, and everybody should fucking see it.

Of course, nobody could have foreseen how difficult this task was going to be in 2003. The middle east was so different by then.

What could have changed Dick's mind somewhere between 1994 and 2003 I wonder.

Was it wisdom that comes with age and experience?

Anybody?

AURAPTOR

Sunday, August 12, 2007 7:25 PM

Cheney was right, though. We DIDN'T go in, and look where it got us. No where. Saddam still in power, the U.N. neutered, powerless and in bed w/ the corrupt dictator. Iraq a breeding gound for terrorist activity. Maybe not al Qaeda central, but certainly a friendly nation for any number of terrorist organizatoins.

We had 2x's the man power and equipment in place, and we balked at doing what everyone knew HAD to be done.

We gave peace a chance. And it failed.

This shouldn't be news to anyone, except those who choose to forget history.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RIGHTEOUS9

Sunday, August 12, 2007 7:51 PM

I'm sorry what?

which time was he right?

AURAPTOR

Sunday, August 12, 2007 8:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
I'm sorry what?

which time was he right?

He was right the first time, that we may well have had to go it alone ( or with out Arab states ) , but we still had to go in. Better had we done it right the 1st time than to wait 10+ years and go in half as powerful as we were back in '91.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RIGHTEOUS9

Sunday, August 12, 2007 8:18 PM

but he was wrong the first time about the quagmire and that more than a hundred and thirty lives spent deposing Saddam would have been too many?

or was he wrong later when he said everything was going to go smoothly?

Or is he wrong now when he says we have to continue to leave our soldiers in harms way even though the number of our sacrifice is over 3,000 now?

on edit --- did you watch the video? He said we shouldn't have gone into Bagdad

AURAPTOR

Sunday, August 12, 2007 8:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
but he was wrong the first time about the quagmire and that more than a hundred and thirty lives spent deposing Saddam would have been too many?

or was he wrong later when he said everything was going to go smoothly?

Or is he wrong now when he says we have to continue to leave our soldiers in harms way even though the number of our sacrifice is over 3,000 now?

on edit --- did you watch the video? He said we shouldn't have gone into Bagdad

He said that in '94, not 2003. The world changed in 10 years.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RIGHTEOUS9

Sunday, August 12, 2007 9:03 PM

yeah, true.

His association with Haliburton grew a lot, and so have his stock options.

Are you saying that 10 years later, 3,000 american lives are not as important as they were then?

Are you saying that there were reasons before entering into the war of our choosing, which helped Cheney to revise his opinion that Iraq would become a quagmire? Because he did revise that opinion. And what pray tell, if there were reasons for this change, beyond the obvious conflict of interest, were they?

AURAPTOR

Sunday, August 12, 2007 9:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
yeah, true.

His association with Haliburton grew a lot, and so have his stock options.

Are you saying that 10 years later, 3,000 american lives are not as important as they were then?

Are you saying that there were reasons before entering into the war of our choosing, which helped Cheney to revise his opinion that Iraq would become a quagmire? Because he did revise that opinion. And what pray tell, if there were reasons for this change, beyond the obvious conflict of interest, were they?

Screw Haliburton, you dumb fuck. I has to do w/ 9/11 and not sitting on our asses waiting for a corrupt U.N. to do its job when clearly it had every intention to NOT do its job. Only a dim whitted dumb fuck would think that Cheney simply changed his mind , concocted this whole story about needing to go into Iraq , despite the odds, all for the sake of gaining a few more bucks when the guy already has more than he could possible need in several life times. God damn you fucking conspiracy assholes.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

OLDENGLANDDRY

Sunday, August 12, 2007 9:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Screw Haliburton, you dumb fuck. I has to do w/ 9/11 and not sitting on our asses waiting for a corrupt U.N. to do its job when clearly it had every intention to NOT do its job. Only a dim whitted dumb fuck would think that Cheney simply changed his mind , concocted this whole story about needing to go into Iraq , despite the odds, all for the sake of gaining a few more bucks when the guy already has more than he could possible need in several life times. God damn you fucking conspiracy assholes.

A well thought out and reasoned response, as usual.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, August 12, 2007 9:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by oldenglanddry:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Screw Haliburton, you dumb fuck. I has to do w/ 9/11 and not sitting on our asses waiting for a corrupt U.N. to do its job when clearly it had every intention to NOT do its job. Only a dim whitted dumb fuck would think that Cheney simply changed his mind , concocted this whole story about needing to go into Iraq , despite the odds, all for the sake of gaining a few more bucks when the guy already has more than he could possible need in several life times. God damn you fucking conspiracy assholes.

A well thought out and reasoned response, as usual.

Speaking the language you dumb fucks can understand.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RIGHTEOUS9

Sunday, August 12, 2007 9:35 PM

Auraptor, I was waiting for you to pull 9/11 out of your ass.

You are after all a republican, and therefore either really fucking wealthy, or a massochist. My guess is you get a tingle when you get piled on.

What again, did 9/11 have to do with Iraq? Which time was Cheney right on this? When he said that al quaeda had connections with iraq, or when he said iraq has nothing to do with al quaeda?

And since when has there ever been too much money for these people? That's what capitalism is all about isn't it? That's what drives everything.

I'll keep the piling on light in this post. Don't want to send you over the edge there, you sick fuck.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, August 12, 2007 9:39 PM

I've already answered your questions, so stop asking them over and over. Read , for god damned once.

I get a tingle when ever I kick some commie punk's ass, if you must know.

HERE, I'LL post it again, since you're too goddamn dense to read it the first time you skim over the page ....

Quote:
Cheney was right, though. We DIDN'T go in, and look where it got us. No where. Saddam still in power, the U.N. neutered, powerless and in bed w/ the corrupt dictator. Iraq a breeding gound for terrorist activity. Maybe not al Qaeda central, but certainly a friendly nation for any number of terrorist organizatoins.

We had 2x's the man power and equipment in place, and we balked at doing what everyone knew HAD to be done.

We gave peace a chance. And it failed.

This shouldn't be news to anyone, except those who choose to forget history.

Quote:
And since when has there ever been too much money for these people? That's what capitalism is all about isn't it? That's what drives everything.

Wow, you're even more dumb than I thought. Hard to imagine that!

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RIGHTEOUS9

Sunday, August 12, 2007 9:50 PM

I'll bother to ask. What the fuck point are you trying to make exactly?

Now I'll answer for you, since it's pretty predictable when you don't know yourself how to answer.

"If you're that fucking stupid, then I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain it to you."

That close enough?

ANTIMASON

Sunday, August 12, 2007 9:58 PM

Quote:
Auraptor-
Cheney was right, though. We DIDN'T go in, and look where it got us...

a balanced budget and no blowback?

Quote:
...Iraq a breeding gound for terrorist activity. Maybe not al Qaeda central, but certainly a friendly nation for any number of terrorist organizatoins.*

thats BECAUSE we invaded Iraq! it was not like this before!

Quote:
We gave peace a chance. And it failed.

its not our responsibility

AURAPTOR

Sunday, August 12, 2007 10:04 PM

You want me to believe that Cheney changed his opinion on Iraq because he discovered he personally could make a few more million dollars, even if it cost 1000's of U.S. soldiers lives and wounded 10,000's more, as well as the deaths of untold 1000's of Iraqis?

That IS your point, is it not ?

My 'point' is that exactly the opposite is true. Cheney would have made MUCH more money had he stayed in the private sector, and not fretted over Iraq in the least. Instead, he took the harder road, and made the tougher choices, despite his own personal health issues.

I've said all that needs to be said.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RIGHTEOUS9

Sunday, August 12, 2007 10:11 PM

Really? my understanding is that Cheney's assets made exponential gains in the last 4 years.

But see, I thought your point was that we should have gone in and deposed Saddam in 1992 but instead we gave peace a chance, and look what happened...

9/11

which is, of course, and since this wasn't your point I'm sure you'll agree with me,

RETARDED

ANTIMASON

Sunday, August 12, 2007 10:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Screw Haliburton, you dumb fuck. I has to do w/ 9/11

the infamous debunked alqaeda-Hussein connection.. no wonder we're in a quagmire

Quote:
and not sitting on our asses waiting for a corrupt U.N. to do its job when clearly it had every intention to NOT do its job.

and yet this war is essentially over broken UN resolutions. we are not the policemen of the world, if thats what your asking of us, let congress vote on it legitimately

Quote:
Only a dim whitted dumb fuck would think that Cheney simply changed his mind , concocted this whole story about needing to go into Iraq , despite the odds, all for the sake of gaining a few more bucks when the guy already has more than he could possible need in several life times.

thats because the necons didnt have a strategy then... hence the 'Project for a New American Century(PNAC)' papers. thats where the 10 years went

Quote:
God damn you fucking conspiracy assholes.

open your eyes. did you ever even question what Bush jr, or Bush sr, or even PM Brown meant by a 'New World Order'? its no conspiracy.. its on the back of the dollar bill

AURAPTOR

Sunday, August 12, 2007 10:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
Really? my understanding is that Cheney's assets made exponential gains in the last 4 years.

But see, I thought your point was that we should have gone in and deposed Saddam in 1992 but instead we gave peace a chance, and look what happened...

9/11

which is, of course, and since this wasn't your point I'm sure you'll agree with me,

RETARDED

How is it retarded? Of COURSE 9/11 happened. That's what I meant with things changing in 10 years. That plus the whole giving peace a chance thing. Didn't work out too well, did it ? For the reasons listed above.

Exactly how did Cheney make $$ in the past 4 years ? And so what if he did ? Does that mere fact alone mean anything ?

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

AURAPTOR

Sunday, August 12, 2007 10:44 PM

You'd have to be deaf,dumb AND blind not to have suspected any al-Qaeda/ Saddam connection. But it never was a hard selling point for going INTO Iraq. So much for the 'infamous debunked' nonsense.

Yeah, because the 'world order' we've had in the past century worked out SOOOO god damn well, didn't it ?

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

ANTIMASON

Sunday, August 12, 2007 11:52 PM

Quote:
Auraptor- You'd have to be deaf,dumb AND blind not to have suspected any al-Qaeda/ Saddam connection. But it never was a hard selling point for going INTO Iraq. So much for the 'infamous debunked' nonsense.

but its been shown that alqaeda had no affiliation with Saddam Hussein, nor did Iraq have anything to do with 9/11. we in all actuality invaded a sovereign country which did not directly attack us. you can try to spin and justify it all you want, but it was an unconstitutional(read: illegal) mistake. 9/11 was a criminal attack by 19 hijackers of an alleged terrorist group, of whom most were Saudi Arabian. what we needed was an investigation, and a special unit operation.. we do not need to be using our entire military to attack and rebuild unassuming M.E. nations

Quote:
Yeah, because the 'world order' we've had in the past century worked out SOOOO god damn well, didn't it ?

thats precisely the point. it isn't meant to work out for me and you. its so the aristocratic elite can sit atop a global plantation of indentured servants, who are too stupid and dumbed down to know they're slaves, and to ignorant and naive to realize they're being systematically exterminated

RIGHTEOUS9

Sunday, August 12, 2007 11:57 PM

They knew at the time they drummed up approval for our invasion that there was no Qaeda/saddam connection --- that it was a dead end...that Saddam didn't trust Al Qaeda.

Bush and Cheney have since admitted on numerous occasions that there was no link, inbetween their insinuations to the contrary.

It's been proven as bullshit, this administration agrees that there was no connection. The only matter of fabricated contention is whether or not they ever said there was a connection, somethng they try to deny often enough. They can't think everybody's memory is that stunted. Much just be for the sake of the 28 percenters.

Again, Auraptor you manage to be the cheese standing alone on this one. Iraq and 9/11 are not connected. 9/11 does not equal reason to invade Iraq.

9/11 cannot be the reason that Cheney decided suddenly that the Iraqis would greet us as liberators. 9/11 cant be the reason why he decided that it wouldn't turn into a quagmire over there. It can't be the reason we've decided to sacrifice 3,000 more American lives to overthrow a regime that had nothing to do with our original tragedy.

It wasn't a hard sell because nobody did any real reporting on the lead-up to the war. Thank the liberal media, and of all people one of the "journalists" for the New York Times for that. The information was out there. Nobody followed it.

And now we know that information was right. We know that what Bush and Cheney force-fed us was untrue, and that at least some of those untruths they were aware of. What is that called again?

SERGEANTX

Monday, August 13, 2007 3:32 AM

SERGEANTX

Monday, August 13, 2007 3:33 AM

AURAPTOR

Monday, August 13, 2007 4:37 AM

Dumbass.... we didn't invade ' a soverign nation' for its non role in 9/11. How many times must that be said , and how many ways ? NO WHERE in the 17 UN Resolutions against Iraq did it mention al Qaeda or 9/11. Stop making this idiotic connection that no one else made!!

Quote:
thats precisely the point. it isn't meant to work out for me and you. its so the aristocratic elite can sit atop a global plantation of indentured servants, who are too stupid and dumbed down to know they're slaves, and to ignorant and naive to realize they're being systematically exterminated

Ok, there's where any shred of credability you might have had simply jumped right out the window. So, genius, what happens when you and I, the so called slaves for the elites, DO become extinct ? Who does their dirty work for them then ? Trained badgers ? Sharks with fricken laser beams on their heads ?

It's funny discussing real world things with a conspiracy nut job, but not that funny.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

PHOENIXSHIP

Monday, August 13, 2007 5:54 AM

Auraptor, I think you should keep up with current events. Yes, things are changing, but not in the way you think. Bush's morally bankrupt, idiotic and continual failures are finally starting to pile up.

I don't believe conservatives are "bad" anymore the liberals "good." Unfortunately, your current representative in the White House is an unholy mixture of evil, dishonesty and incompetence. But I digress...

Your use of childish, angry profanity weakens your credibility.

"Why're you arguin' what's already been decided?"
Mal to Jayne, "Jaynestown"

RIGHTEOUS9

Monday, August 13, 2007 6:52 AM

Do we have to go back through the list of posts to point out how you keep relating our invasion of Iraq to 9/11? They are far easier to spot than waldo.

AURAPTOR

Monday, August 13, 2007 9:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
They knew at the time they drummed up approval for our invasion that there was no Qaeda/saddam connection --- that it was a dead end...that Saddam didn't trust Al Qaeda.

17 U.N. Resolutions fail to mention al-Qaeda, so what the hell is your point ? Iraq had it's feet to the fire LONG before 9/11.

Quote:

Bush and Cheney have since admitted on numerous occasions that there was no link, inbetween their insinuations to the contrary.
No, there were no 'insinuations'. There was honest discussion whether or not there WAS any connection. Unless and until you know for certain, you can't rule it out, etiher.

Quote:
It's been proven as bullshit, this administration agrees that there was no connection.
No fucking duh! But so what? Ties to other terrorist groups, slaughtering its own population and not abiding to specific U.N. Resolutions not enough for ya? Sorry, but it was enough for the U.N., and it was enough for the U.S. Senate.

Quote:
The only matter of fabricated contention is whether or not they ever said there was a connection, somethng they try to deny often enough. They can't think everybody's memory is that stunted. Much just be for the sake of the 28 percenters.
And I can't believe you've so self deluded yourself to this extent ! Amazing.

Quote:

Again, Auraptor you manage to be the cheese standing alone on this one. Iraq and 9/11 are not connected. 9/11 does not equal reason to invade Iraq.

Never said they did. Again, you keep making the same idiotic statements over and over again.

Quote:

9/11 cannot be the reason that Cheney decided suddenly that the Iraqis would greet us as liberators. 9/11 cant be the reason why he decided that it wouldn't turn into a quagmire over there. It can't be the reason we've decided to sacrifice 3,000 more American lives to overthrow a regime that had nothing to do with our original tragedy.

Yes, 9/11 CAN be the reason, for it's an example of what can happen to a situation if you simply ignore it and hope that it'll just go away on its own. al Qaeda declared holy super duper jihad war on us back in '97, after a failed attempt to blow up the WTC. This is the same group which attacked the USS Cole, the Kobar Towers, the US Embassys in Africa....why am I having to recite this STILL??? We went after OBL over a full year before heading toward Iraq. Despite its potential to become a 'quagmire', the risk was deemed worth it, or else pay a larger bill later for doing nothing.

Quote:
It wasn't a hard sell because nobody did any real reporting on the lead-up to the war. Thank the liberal media, and of all people one of the "journalists" for the New York Times for that. The information was out there. Nobody followed it.
Bullshit. Every damn aspect of the war was reported and then some.

Quote:
And now we know that information was right. We know that what Bush and Cheney force-fed us was untrue, and that at least some of those untruths they were aware of. What is that called again?

Except they didn't force feed us anything which wasn't known to the best of their ability to know. Your revisionist history of how all this went down is sadly disturbing. How soon YOU forget Democrats crying for Saddam's head, before and after Bush got elected.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

AURAPTOR

Monday, August 13, 2007 9:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Phoenixship:
Auraptor, I think you should keep up with current events. Yes, things are changing, but not in the way you think. Bush's morally bankrupt, idiotic and continual failures are finally starting to pile up.

I don't believe conservatives are "bad" anymore the liberals "good." Unfortunately, your current representative in the White House is an unholy mixture of evil, dishonesty and incompetence. But I digress...

Your use of childish, angry profanity weakens your credibility.

The folks in the White House are anything but evil and dishonest. Talk about childish use of words. One thing I can't abide is when folks call that which isn't evil 'evil', for lack of anything else to say because they simply don't like the politics. Any rants I might have are due to the fact that there are too many myrmidons on here who simply react to things w/ out looking objectively. I also note how excessive profanity is 'ok' when those on the Left use it, but when anyone else pops off once in a while, it becomes an issue which weakens credability. I've tried being reasonable, for the most part, but there are times when I'm at wits end and fed up w/ some of the idiocy which I see here on a daily basis.

If only you'd hold the same standard for all.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

6IXSTRINGJACK

Monday, August 13, 2007 9:36 AM

All I gotta say AR is "show me the bombs".

If they really hated us so much and wanted to bring it here, they would have at least blown up a mall or a school sometime in the last 6 years. There's nothing the government could do to stop one crazy brainwashed guy with a serious death wish from strapping on dynamite and taking out a bunch of kids. We read about murders everyday in this country, and suprisingly none of them are committed by insane brainwashed Islamites with a deathwish....

We keep this shit up though and they're going to be over here doing that shit right back. Let's keep playing Imperials though and just keep pissing everyone off. I just hope if that shit ever starts happening, it's not to the kids of the parents who just want to secure our own borders from the Mexican invasion and leave countries half a world away alone.

And fuck Israel too.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

LEADB

Monday, August 13, 2007 11:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Phoenixship:
Auraptor, I think you should keep up with current events. Yes, things are changing, but not in the way you think. Bush's morally bankrupt, idiotic and continual failures are finally starting to pile up.

I don't believe conservatives are "bad" anymore the liberals "good." Unfortunately, your current representative in the White House is an unholy mixture of evil, dishonesty and incompetence. But I digress...

Your use of childish, angry profanity weakens your credibility.

The folks in the White House are anything but evil and dishonest. Talk about childish use of words. One thing I can't abide is when folks call that which isn't evil 'evil', for lack of anything else to say because they simply don't like the politics. Any rants I might have are due to the fact that there are too many myrmidons on here who simply react to things w/ out looking objectively. I also note how excessive profanity is 'ok' when those on the Left use it, but when anyone else pops off once in a while, it becomes an issue which weakens credability. I've tried being reasonable, for the most part, but there are times when I'm at wits end and fed up w/ some of the idiocy which I see here on a daily basis.

If only you'd hold the same standard for all.

I think it weakens both sides; which is why I don't bother to criticize either.

Evil... that's a bit strong in my book to apply to Bush.

Dishonest... yes, I have to believe he was either dishonest or horribly incompetent; if you wish to say he was not dishonest, I'm quite willing to agree with horribly incompetent.

Huge numbers of Americans believe in the 9/11 - Iraq connection. I believe they believe this because of an intense propaganda show put on by the Bush administration. They used misleading speeches to spin that message out to the public; and what amazed me was the number of folks who didn't recognize the spin at the time and became convinced of the connection. This was dishonest no matter how you look at it.

Keep in mind that the WMD was used to sell other folks; and I admit at the time I fell for that. Bush claimed he had information he could not share as it would compromise national security. I now believe he either knew of the falseness of this information, or he had provided extremely poor leadership which suppressed the expression of contrary opinion which lead him to a false position. I feel he basically went to the intelligence units and asked for proof of WMD; and so that's what he got. I agree this might have been poor leadership.

Keep in mind Congress authorized war, but part of what prevented them from voting against it was a public, mislead, not telling them not to. UN resolutions are never going to be enough to get the US to go to war alone. They were cover for what Bush wanted to do; but the cover was only sufficient to justify his action IFF the WMD existed.

You've said repeated that WMD was found in Iraq; I've seen many times folks ask "what?" to which you replied 'stuff'. Seriously, can you find a credible source to support the position that WMD were found?

HERO

Monday, August 13, 2007 12:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
What could have changed Dick's mind somewhere between 1994 and 2003 I wonder.

The Clinton Administration.

It is generally recognized that 1992-1994 was a time for great diplomatic opportunity in the Middle East. Clinton blew it, although the fault really lies with his inept Secretary of State and his lack of any real policy.

H

JONGSSTRAW

Monday, August 13, 2007 12:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
What could have changed Dick's mind somewhere between 1994 and 2003 I wonder.

The Clinton Administration.

It is generally recognized that 1992-1994 was a time for great diplomatic opportunity in the Middle East. Clinton blew it, although the fault really lies with his inept Secretary of State and his lack of any real policy.

I beg to differ on that.......Secreatry of State Madeleine Albright made 9 trips to the Middle East during those same years. She was able to negotiate and secure a long-term supply of Lebanese hashish and rare Syrian aphrodisiacs for Bill's personal consumption, with the leftovers going to Al Gore's pothead kid. I'd call that pretty successful, considering she merely had to out-wrestle Fluffy, the 6-time Baathist Camel of the year.

HKCAVALIER

Monday, August 13, 2007 1:35 PM

Um, uh...

The significance of the '94 clip isn't that Cheney "changed his mind" about anything, but that he outlines in simple, sober terms EXACTLY what would happen when we went in to oust Saddam--the "U.S. occupation," the sectarian violence, even using the anti-war buzzword "quagmire."

The clip simply demonstrates that in '94 he knew perfectly well what a lot of us knew perfectly well would happen.

Nothing in the intervening years can account for an honest belief that these things would not happen when we went into Iraq when the man knew what he knew in '94. 9/11 did nothing to change the Iraqi people, or the political realities over there. 9/11 made the U.S. want to kill us some Ay-rabs, but it changed nothing about what a war in Iraq would do to Iraq. And from this simple clip it is clear that Cheney knew that perfectly well.

Quote:
Once you got to Iraq, took it over, and took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in it's place? That's a very volatile part of the world and if you take down the central government in Iraq, you can easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off. Part of it, the Syrians would like to have, to the west. Part of eastern Iraq, the Iranians would like to claim--fought over for 8 years. In the north you've got the Kurds. If the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey. It's a quagmire.

Too bad the guy who knew all this in '94 wasn't in a policy position in the second Bush administration--oh wait...

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

ANTIMASON

Monday, August 13, 2007 7:15 PM

Quote:
Auraptor-

The folks in the White House are anything but evil and dishonest. One thing I can't abide is when folks call that which isn't evil 'evil', for lack of anything else to say because they simply don't like the politics.

this is true, but can we acknowledge that their policies may be 'evil'(unwittingly or otherwise) in the grand scheme of things..?

OLDENGLANDDRY

Monday, August 13, 2007 8:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
One thing I can't abide is when folks call that which isn't evil 'evil', for lack of anything else to say because they simply don't like the politics. "

Like for example your opinion of every Muslim and Socialist on the planet?
"Hello Pot? this is the Kettle, your black."

SERGEANTX

Monday, August 13, 2007 8:42 PM

Psychophants like AU will never do anything but put their fingers in their ears and chant talking points. Reality has no impact on them.

Now that Rove is gone they'll be fresh out of material. It'll be interesting to see what happens when they start trying to think for themselves, if that's possible.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, August 13, 2007 9:44 PM

Well, they've still got Bill-O the Oxy laden pillow, Rupert Murdoch and old smoking gun Will Kristol to fall back on, not to mention the mockingbird-shills... so I figure the right wing has prolly half a dozen brain cells left even now.

Of course, that's three less than before, so if anything they'll just get louder and even more incoherent, note the shrillness of our current crop of wingnuts here.

Call me cruel, but watching it come to clear to everyone ELSE on this board that these people really are what I have called em all along, under the masks which have finally come off.... has a certain satisfaction.

They. are. deranged. lunatics.
Ok ? we got that clear enough ?

And using all their sock puppets to multiply their own voices doesn't fool me a bit, and I doubt it fools anyone here but themselves.

Folks, your country is in the hands of people this crazy, I suggest we get to takin it back before things really get out of hand.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

AURAPTOR

Monday, August 13, 2007 10:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by oldenglanddry:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
One thing I can't abide is when folks call that which isn't evil 'evil', for lack of anything else to say because they simply don't like the politics. "

Like for example your opinion of every Muslim and Socialist on the planet?
"Hello Pot? this is the Kettle, your black."

No, not really. 'Most' muslims aren't willing to blow themselves up along with a room full of children. ( At least I don't think so...I could be wrong. )

As for the Socialist... yeah, you may be right. They don't want to cut anyone's head off, they just want to crush the human spirit.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

AURAPTOR

Monday, August 13, 2007 10:58 PM

Quote:
Fremdfirma wrote:
Monday, August 13, 2007 11:44
Well, they've still got Bill-O the Oxy laden pillow, Rupert Murdoch and old smoking gun Will Kristol to fall back on, not to mention the mockingbird-shills... so I figure the right wing has prolly half a dozen brain cells left even now.

Of course, that's three less than before, so if anything they'll just get louder and even more incoherent, note the shrillness of our current crop of wingnuts here.

Call me cruel, but watching it come to clear to everyone ELSE on this board that these people really are what I have called em all along, under the masks which have finally come off.... has a certain satisfaction.

They. are. deranged. lunatics.
Ok ? we got that clear enough ?

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it .

*sigh* My job is just too easy.

Too gorram easy.

.....

- "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

- "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

- "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

- "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

ANTIMASON

Monday, August 13, 2007 11:05 PM

just as i suspected ... both parties are 'in on it'

AURAPTOR

Monday, August 13, 2007 11:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
just as i suspected ... both parties are 'in on it'

No. One party is 'down for the struggle', while the other party is only in it for the politics.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RUE

Monday, August 13, 2007 11:19 PM

Quote:

- "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

Bombing, of course, not a silly ground invasion to remove Hussein.

Quote:
- "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

All true. But by the US war of aggression on Iraq - when weapons inspectors were on the ground finding nothing BTW - it was found Hussein had secretly destroyed all but a handful of WMD, and the ones that were missed were old, degraded and useless.

Quote:
- "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

Well, the palaces part was true. The WMD part, as everyone found out later, was abandoned after Gulf War the First.

Quote:
- "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

If that's the intelligence the vp - no wait- the president released to you, you might think the same thing. Too bad they were lied to, instead of given the truth.

Quote:
- "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

Obviously, Kerry was acting on the information given him, by - who else - Cheney. Wait, I think it's supposed to be Bush.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

HKCAVALIER

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 12:06 AM

Hey wait a minute, what about that YouTube video?

(I'm not talking to AURaptor here, I know what he chooses not to think.)

But the rest of you: If, as it is plain to see, Cheney knew perfectly well what would happen if we invaded Iraq, why did he orchestrate it? You can say Halliburton and Oil and PNAC and the rest, but we're talking about Cheney willingly failing in the eyes of the entire world. Guys like him don't do that, do they? No amount of money in the world will wash away the catastrophic failure that is Iraq and is Cheney's legacy for the future. I would think a guy like him would want to look good in the history books, y'know? So what's his angle, really?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 12:51 AM

Stock Options.

And notice how fast they got their ass out of US jurisdiction when it came clear they more or less robbed us and didn't fulfill their end of the contracts.

Care to take bets on how long Cheney sticks around in the USA when he's no longer hiding behind the shield of executive privledge ?

These folks knew full well what would happen, and did it to us on purpose for power and profit, and in the end, will hightail it to other countries to avoid prosecution while we try to rebuild the shattered wreck that is all they intend to leave us.

Just like Steve Case did with AOL, flying the coop before the truth came out, and laughing up his sleeve from another country while Time-Warner got stuck with the bills and fines.

The only one dumb enough to stick around when the dominos start fallin is shrub, but I've got no sympathy for him given the situation.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

RUE

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 1:08 AM

Cheney stock options

100,000 shares at $54.5000 (vested), expire December 3, 2007
33,333 shares at $28.1250 (vested), expire December 2, 2008
300,000 shares at $39.5000 (vested), expire December 2, 2009

Deferred salary paid by Halliburton to Vice President Cheney in 2001: $205,298
Deferred salary paid by Halliburton to Vice President Cheney in 2002: $162,392
Deferred salary paid by Halliburton to Vice President Cheney in 2003: $178,437
Deferred salary paid by Halliburton to Vice President Cheney in 2004: $194,852

It's a bit more subtle than this BUT - in the end - Cheney does get to recoup a large amount of money.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 2:04 AM

Quote:
rue wrote:
Bombing, of course, not a silly ground invasion to remove Hussein.

But wait a minute. Clinton says Saddam has WMD, so we should only bomb?? Here I thought Bush lied about WMD! I'm confused. If Clinton says it, it's true, but if Bush says it, it's a lie ??

Quote:
rue wrote: All true. But by the US war of aggression on Iraq - when weapons inspectors were on the ground finding nothing BTW - it was found Hussein had secretly destroyed all but a handful of WMD, and the ones that were missed were old, degraded and useless.

Wow...that's paper thin. The UN inspectors weren't in Iraq to participate in a large scale Easter egg game of Find the WMD...but were there to VERIFY that Iraq had lived up to its end of the bargin. Iraq didn't, and was in fact leading the Inspectors on the afore mentioned easter egg hunt. Saddam wasn't suppose to 'secretly' destroy ANYTHING. It was suppose to be out in the open, in front of the Inspectors, or at least be able to show how/when such destruction was done. Iraq failed in that task enough times to raise suspicion, and therefore could not be trusted. Their word was worth nothing, so the search for WMD had to continue.

Quote:
Well, the palaces part was true. The WMD part, as everyone found out later, was abandoned after Gulf War the First.

We don't know that. We can't know that, because of all the secrecy that Saddam engaged in.

Quote:
If that's the intelligence the vp - no wait- the president released to you, you might think the same thing. Too bad they were lied to, instead of given the truth.

Nope, not true. Congressional leaders had more than enough intel which stated exactly the same thing. Unless we're talking about Hillary Clinton, who didn't even READ her intel report. She has staff to do that sort of thing for her, ya know.

Quote:
Obviously, Kerry was acting on the information given him, by - who else - Cheney. Wait, I think it's supposed to be Bush.

Obviously? Try again. Obviously the lie here is that the Senate was told ONLY what the President wanted them to hear, which is complete bunk.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RIGHTEOUS9

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 3:09 AM

For once, Auraptor, I'll agree with you...briefly.

There were a select few senators briefed on enough of the operation that they might be just as culpable as the President. I say, join with us and nail them to the wall with Bush and Cheney and Rumsfield...

If Clinton was one of them, by all means, she doesn't belong in office, on the Senate level or at the Presidential level.

That doesn't mean I would try to vote her out over a warmongering republican choice, because while they would have that in common, she may still be the better option. But in the primary, believe me she isn't getting my vote. And I do believe I heard something about what Edwards was told at the time, and while I like him, I think he would need to answer for that before i vote him in too.

I don't think there's anyone here that wouldn't happily rid themselves of Clinton too if there were a dissimilar option in either party, if they found out she knew better than to authorize this war(which we all assume she and everybody did, whether they had the same intel or not).

Give me some better options on the Republican side by voting your dickheads out. I"m trying to do that on this side.

.............

And I'll Second HKCavalier's entreaty for somebody to adress Cheney's comments on quagmire and american casualties.

HERO, Geezer,Finn, Bigdamnnobody Johnstraw, if you choose to add to this post at some point, please do us that favor of not selectively avoiding the question

RUE

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 3:18 AM

AH ! I thought I saw a reply. Here's where it was ...

Quote:
Clinton says Saddam has WMD, so we should only bomb?? Here I thought Bush lied about WMD! I'm confused. If Clinton says it, it's true, but if Bush says it, it's a lie ??

Bush called for an NIE. The CIA which compiled the NIE said that case for WMD was equivocal at best, and that the claim of Iraq's so called nuclear moves were untrue (and which the CIA removed from TWO previous speeches before Bush's SOTU). Bush then lied about the NIE to make a case. So yes, Bush lied. I hope that clears up your self-described confusion on this point, though there seems to be a vast amount unaddressed.

Quote:
Saddam wasn't supposed to 'secretly' destroy ANYTHING. ... or at least be able to show how/when such destruction was done.

Iraq filed all the required papers with the UN, with time to spare.

Quote:
Their word was worth nothing, so the search for WMD had to continue.

The UN was committed to verifying the facts behind the papers. Which they were on their way to doing when the US attacked.

Quote:
Iraq didn't (live up to its end of the bargain).

How so ? Did it have WMDs that posed a threat to the US, or indeed any country in the area?

Quote:
(The WMD part, as everyone found out later, was abandoned after Gulf War the First.) We don't know that. We can't know that, because of all the secrecy that Saddam engaged in.

All the required papers were filed with the UN. Again, the UN inspectors were there to verify and were finding WMD compliance. All the post-attack searches headed by Kay and Dueffler failed to uncover ANY WMDs beside a few scattered (and useless) relics from pre- Gulf War the First.

Quote:
Congressional leaders had more than enough intel ... the lie here is that the Senate was told ONLY what the President wanted them to hear, which is complete bunk.

Really ? Find it and post it.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

RUE

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 4:17 AM

99

We must have cross-posted. Everything that I've heard was that only 4 or so Republican members of various committees were briefed in detail. Democrats were kept out of the loop.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

RIGHTEOUS9

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 5:22 AM

You might be right on that Rue. There's something recently that Durbin said he was briefed on before the vote to authorize the war. I'll have to look it up, cuz it may have been about something else. It was something they knew, but weren't allowed to disclose

...national security...

inspite of knowing, they still went along with the administration.

That said, I'm sure they were kept in the dark about alot, and whether they trusted this administration, and whether they thought they knew better was offset by their fear of political seppeku, and maybe, even possibly, a fear that there might actually be something to the supposed intelligence they weren't being briefed on.

RIGHTEOUS9

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 5:34 AM

Here's a link to what I'm talking about.

just one minor detail about the alluminum tubes...but shit didn't jive. I haven't read Durbins explanation yet, so my verdict isn't totally in, but they knew some public information was being sold as truth when it was far less certain.

http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2007/05/04/01

on edit:

to be fair to durbin, he didn't authorize the war, so he's clean there, but other democrats did. I'm not sure if they had the same info that he had, but I thought I read a post way back that said Edwards was on the committe or something...so he would have. I'll look that up later.

RUE

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 6:16 AM

R9

Even though there was questionable "stuff" (the "whereas"s) in the resolution http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf, the resolution itself clearly indicated that war powers were to be invoked for three reasons: Iraq was a threat to the US, Iraq wasn't complying with the UN, and Iraq was complicit in 9/11. Sadly, the president misused his war powers. And the Senate Report 07/04 http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html, which was called for after the infamous "uranium/Africa" SOTU, was delayed considerably by Bush and Senate cronies. B/c of that, it came far too late to alter the course Bush was set on. Though it documented fairly well the cherry-picking of the Bush administration, by then the US had already invaded. Also, as a side note, there was to be a separate report as to whether the Bush administration exerted undue influence on the intelligence. But Senate pepubicans put it off till 'after the election' b/c they didn't want to 'politicize' the process, and then, well, it just fell off the radar and was never done

"SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to—
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.—In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter
as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his
determination that—
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 2:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
And I'll Second HKCavalier's entreaty for somebody to adress Cheney's comments on quagmire and american casualties.
HERO, Geezer,Finn, Bigdamnnobody Johnstraw, if you choose to add to this post at some point, please do us that favor of not selectively avoiding the question.

Perhaps Cheney's position on Iraq in '94 was swayed by the initial success of the Afghanistan campaign in '01. Is being 'drunk' on success better than being 'drunk' on power?

RUE

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 3:12 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/28/clinton.iraq/index.html

"The National Intelligence Estimate concluded that the United States had "compelling evidence" that Iraq was restarting its efforts to develop a nuclear bomb and had concealed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons from U.N. inspectors after the cease-fire that ended the 1991 Persian Gulf War."

"(Biden) said Bush initially told Congress he would allow inspectors to certify whether Iraq had dismantled its weapons programs."

"A U.S.-led survey later concluded that Iraq had attempted to conceal some weapons-related research from the United Nations, but had abandoned its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in the 1990s."

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

JONGSSTRAW

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 5:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

- "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

- "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

- "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

- "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

Thanks for these great reminders that the Dems are full of shit...and there are lots more quotes with video on all of them. I don't know why Repubs don't throw them up all the time in these sad sack-o-shit's faces, but at least it's nice to see here so all the 5-year olds who post here can see it for themselves....the utter hypocrisy of these self-centered Dem leaders, their outright lying and slander of our President, their calculated-by-poll flip-flopping about something so serious...they have all betrayed their country and I hope they all rot in hell.

RIGHTEOUS9

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 5:45 PM

Thanks for that great reminder that Repubs are full of shit Jongstraw, and how willingly you gloss over the blaring point of this original post that clearly points out Cheney lied to us when he told us that we would be greeted in Iraq as liberators.

You going to tell me that's just shoe polish?

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 7:18 PM

*sigh*

Time to set the record straight, again!

Quote:
rue wrote: Bush called for an NIE. The CIA which compiled the NIE said that case for WMD was equivocal at best, and that the claim of Iraq's so called nuclear moves were untrue (and which the CIA removed from TWO previous speeches before Bush's SOTU). Bush then lied about the NIE to make a case. So yes, Bush lied. I hope that clears up your self-described confusion on this point, though there seems to be a vast amount unaddressed.

Bush didn't lie, and the CIA can't remove anything from HIS SOTU address. They can strongly suggest, but it's THE PRESIDENT's address. As for the issue of Iraq's nuclear program, The Senate Report on Pre-War Intelligence in Iraq concluded, ".... that prior to October, 2002, it was reasonable for the intelligence community to assess Iraq may have been attempting to obtain uranium from Africa. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Report_of_Pre-war_Intelligence_on_
Iraq#Niger_and_the_Iraqi_nuclear_program

Screw you, Joe Wilson.

Iraq wasn't complying worth a damn, and everyone knows it. After 10+ yrs of NOT complying, what did it matter to Saddam if they could delay still longer? Saddam gambled that he could keep the charade going, and he lost.

How did Iraq not live up to its end of the bargin? Read the 17 Resolutions from the U.N. Read Resolution 1441.

Quote:
Congressional leaders had more than enough intel ... the lie here is that the Senate was told ONLY what the President wanted them to hear, which is complete bunk.

" Over the past fifteen years our assessments on Iraq WMD issues have been presented routinely to six different congressional committees including the two oversight committees, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. To the best of my knowledge, prior to this NIE, these committees never came back to us with a concern of bias or an assertion that we had gotten it wrong. " - Stuart A. Cohen. Vice Chairman - National Intelligence Council

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/NIC%20Speeches%20-%20Iraq
's%20WMD%20Programs.htm

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 7:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
Thanks for that great reminder that Repubs are full of shit Jongstraw, and how willingly you gloss over the blaring point of this original post that clearly points out Cheney lied to us when he told us that we would be greeted in Iraq as liberators.

You going to tell me that's just shoe polish?

We have been greeted as liberators, by a great many people in Iraq. Guess you don't recall seeing the throngs of people cheering as we tore down Saddam's statue in the middle of Baghdad, huh?

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

JONGSSTRAW

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 7:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
You going to tell me that's just shoe polish?

No...actually, if you insist, I'd tell you that your post is a feeble attempt to avoid facing the hard reality of truth that Auraptor posted. You can't run away from the stench of the Dem. leaders own words about Iraq and Saddam, nor can you ignore the hateful, disgusting rhetoric, name-calling, and absolute hypocrisy of those ultra-smarmy opportunistic rats. Trying to compare the Cheney note, that one strategy note, to the encyclopedia brittainica of Dem two-faced bald-assed lies, false accusations, and revisionist slanderings is a bit more than shoe polish....I'd call it hiding your head in the ground like an ostrich, with your butt sticking up in the air for all to see.

RIGHTEOUS9

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 7:40 PM

Heh..so you avoid the question.

What a pussy

as to yours, its simple. Rue has gone over it pretty well above. they didn't have the information. They were trusting the office of president to not be lying to them. He was lying to them.

In the cases predating, so they weren't happy with Saddam. It's proof they weren't ignoring him...they just weren't warmongering idiots that sought to deal with the problem by invading and putting our troops in the middle of a quagmire. Those who voted for the resoultion authorizing the president's use of our armed forces aren't above criticism either.

They made a bad decicion - but that decion was largely predicated on the Administration's false claims of smoking gun intelligence.

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 7:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:

as to yours, its simple. Rue has gone over it pretty well above. they didn't have the information. They were trusting the office of president to not be lying to them. He was lying to them.

Yes, they did have the information. They knew as much as anyone, voted for the war, and then tried to crawfish away from the political fallout, which they helped create in the first place, then offered up this lame ass excuse that they didn't know.

They knew. Bet your sweet ASS they knew, and they didn't need the President to 'inform' them of anything.

" Over the past fifteen years our assessments on Iraq WMD issues have been presented routinely to six different congressional committees including the two oversight committees, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. To the best of my knowledge, prior to this NIE, these committees never came back to us with a concern of bias or an assertion that we had gotten it wrong....

The only government in the world that claimed that Iraq was not working on, and did not have, biological and chemical weapons or prohibited missile systems was in Baghdad " - Stuart A. Cohen. Vice Chairman - National Intelligence Council

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RUE

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 8:23 PM

"prior to this NIE, these committees never came back to us with a concern of bias or an assertion that we had gotten it wrong...."

Other quotes from the same place:

"The NIE judged with high confidence that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of the 150 km limit imposed by the UN Security Council, and with moderate confidence that Iraq did NOT have nuclear weapons."
Then how did it get into the SOTU, one wonders.

"I was able to swear under oath that not only had no one pressured me to take a particular view but that I had not pressured anyone else working on the Estimate to change or alter their reading of the intelligence information."
Cheney would go over and pressure low-level analysts himself, though.

"and the heads of those organizations blessed the wording and placement of their alternative views"
Not according to the Senate Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Up until that disastrous SOTU that generated the investigation that uncovered the issues that were documented in the Senate Report, the NIEs were non-political. Bush & Co were trading on the expectations generated by past history.

Plus remember, the UN had inspectors in Iraq when the US decided to attack.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

JONGSSTRAW

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 8:28 PM

Hey Rightous.. I try hard to be civilzed with idiots like you and the rest of your miserable, pathetic pals here...but what do I get for it....?? So... PUSSY....like that?....try to realize that some of those quotes were from when Clitman was Prez...and after that they got the exact same reports that Bush got. Lose with some dignity and grace.....ok punk?

RUE

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 8:30 PM

Hey Jong

What do you have against democracy ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 1:18 AM

Quote:
We have been greeted as liberators, by a great many people in Iraq. Guess you don't recall seeing the throngs of people cheering as we tore down Saddam's statue in the middle of Baghdad, huh?

No, I don't.
[IMG]

[/IMG]

Yet another bullshit faerytale from the right wing.
[IMG]

[/IMG]

Why don't you take a whiff of what yer shovelling, asshat ?

-F

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 2:27 AM

Quote:
and with moderate confidence that Iraq did NOT have nuclear weapons."

Never claimed they did. But it was clear from the intel available that Iraq was attempting to purchase yellowcake uranium from Africa, as the NIE concluded. That's ALL the Presidents SOTU address made mention of, and that's exactly what the report stated.

Quote:
"I was able to swear under oath that not only had no one pressured me to take a particular view but that I had not pressured anyone else working on the Estimate to change or alter their reading of the intelligence information."

Cheney would go over and pressure low-level analysts himself, though.

Got any evidence of that ? I'm doubting you do. So, it seems all you REALLY have is a quote stating the opposite of that which you wish were true, then simply dismissing the quote anyway.

There was nothing 'disasterous' about the '03 SOTU, and any such hyperbole is simply absurd.

The U.N. had inspectors, but , once again, you're trying to push the delusion that Iraq was complying fully. It wasn't, not by a long shot. Thus the war.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 2:46 AM

Frem, how soon before Saddam's statue was brought down was that photo taken? My guess is that it was a pretty long time. What you can't deny, as much as you'd like to , is that milions of Iraqis were glad to see Saddam go.

Despite the hard times, we can't deny that there's another side to this war that you don't want to see or the mainstream press doesn't want to show either.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 4:40 AM

Uh huh.

The same mainstream press that tried so desperately to link Al Qeada to 9-11 ?

The same mainstream press that showed us blatantly fake tapes of "Osama" with some real nice plastic surgery and grecian formula action ?
With a MEMRI translation so far off it could also in itself be called a lie ?

The same mainstream media who tried to sell us Chalabi, who lied end to end, and sold us out, and then managed to somehow miss covering that little problem ?

The same mainstream media that shovelled us bullshit about Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman ?

The same mainstream media that's been sucking Bushs pathetic little dick for over five years now, spinning and shilling every chance they get to try and make him look less like an idiot ?

The same mainstream media that tried to bury Abu Gharib and pretend it didn't happen ?

And out of all of this, they somehow have some good news, somewhere, about this lunacy in iraq, and don't wanna show it cause of "liberal" bias ?

What the fuck are you smoking you abject moron, to believe such a thing ?

You think those poor sodders are happy that we offed Saddam, and dismantled a secular, although brutal, regime, only to replace it with a buncha militant religious fanatics who are even worse.

These are just a few bitches, (thanks eddie) of the locals who you seem to think adore us so very much.

* "I lost 10 of my family. I once lived in that house with six other relatives, now I am alone...The coalition has got what it wanted, it has liberated the country. But as far as I am concerned, my loss is too great to accept."

* "Bush is the same as Saddam."

* "Yes to freedom, yes to Islam, no to America, no to Saddam."

* "Iraqis must rule Iraq. We don't need either an American general or a UN bureaucrat in charge."

* "They say they came here to liberate us. We have paid a heavy price for the removal of Saddam Hussein, so the Americans should go now."

* "We would love to have Saddam Hussein back. He's the only one who can control these mobs. Tell that to the Americans."

* "I am very sad for my country. Very sad for Baghdad. To see the Americans inside it is very difficult for me. Because they invaded my country."

* "We will never allow them to stay."

* "What kind of humanitarianism Americans talk about, to shoot a person like that?"

* "We must be united and support each other against the Anglo-American invasion. We must try to put an end to this aggression. This is not only my opinion. This is the opinion of all the people in Mosul."

* "Leave our country, we want peace."

* "This is not the America we know, which respects international law, respects the right of people."

* "If this is freedom, I don't want it."

* "They are killing us and no one's talking about it. We want Saddam back. At least there was security."

* "Saddam was a butcher, and now this. This is a residential area. Why are the Americans blowing up weapons near us?"

* "They are lying. They're ready to shoot for any reason. They're criminals. Saddam Hussein is gone but I think he's better than the US."

* "I refuse to help the Americans. They bombed our country. Why? Why?"

* "American troops want to appoint their own administration and not listen to the opinion of the people in the street. The people they have appointed so far were in the Baath party and the previous regime. People mistrust them. They will not cooperate with anything the troops do."

* "It was disgusting. Despite that, none of our young men has pointed a weapon against America...but next time, God alone knows what popular anger could lead to?"

* "Go home, America."

* "Our arrest by the Americans was worse than the arrests that Saddam ordered against our students."

* "We can't go where we want, move freely where we want. I have been searched and questioned as if I were the foreigner here. They are not educated people, they are stupid people. They are treating us badly."

* "The Americans are occupying us now. This is a fact."

* "We suffered under Saddam, we don't want to su

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 6:45 PM

Congrats Frem... you're now part of the nut job, black helicopter, PirateNews whackos club.

That's about all I've got to say about that.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RUE

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 7:03 PM

"Congrats Frem... you're now part of the nut job, black helicopter, PirateNews whackos club.

That's about all I've got to say about that."

Is that b/c he said what Iraqis are thinking -

Most Iraqis Favor Immediate U.S. Pullout, Polls Show
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006
092601721.html

Poll: Iraqis Back Attacks on U.S. Troops
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/28/AR2006
092800408.html

Poll Shows Dramatic Decline in How Iraqis View Lives, Future
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/19/AR2007
031900421.html

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 7:45 PM

Quote:
Congrats Frem... you're now part of the nut job, black helicopter, PirateNews whackos club.

Then you're seriously fucked, given my predictive accuracy in comparison to yours.

I notice you make no effort to refute any of that, neither, so yeah, go sit in your corner and pout, while the adults try to sort out the mess you and yours made.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 8:03 PM

What 'predictive accuracy' ?? That's a damn joke. You think far too much of yourself.

Your delusional rant was too babbling to even take seriously.

I can assure you, those in charge are far more the adults than you or yours will ever be.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 10:15 PM

Quote:
What 'predictive accuracy' ?? That's a damn joke.

Twin towers still not rebuilt ? check.

Mired in afghanistan for years ? check.

Bogged down in iraq ? check.

Patriot act NOT sunsetted ? check.

Contractors ripped us off in iraq ? check.

Chalabi was fulla shit, hung us out to dry ? check.

AIPAC spying and manipulation of US intelligence ? check.

Entire planet hates our guts ? check.

In debt up to our ass ? check.

Infrastructure hangin by a thread ? check.

Record oil company profits ? check.

Haliburton fucking us completely over ? check.

Gun confiscation and forced relocation in the US ? check.

Massive domestic spying ? check.

Secret gulags and torture ? check.

Election chicanery in 2004 ? check.

UN booting us from various councils ? check.

Ammunition shortages ? check.

Humvee not effective in desert/urban scenario ? check.

Poor equipment leading to excessive casualties ? check.

Post invasion chaos and disorder ? check.

Iraqis turning on us when we start looting the place ? check.

Allies bailing on us ? check.

No significant WMDs found ? check.

Mission Accomplished = Laughable Farce ? check.

Dems lacking the spine to impeach ? check.

Stupidly martyring Saddam ? check.

Lack of national guard troops making natural disaster worse ? half-check
(I said Florida, not Louisiana)

That's just a few things off the top of my head, mind you.
If it's a joke, it ain't fuckin funny, and here we are again, me tellin you what's gonna happen, and you denyin that it will.

We've been here before, and your rah-rah bullshit now comes back to haunt you.

-F

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 11:19 PM

Wow. After the fact commentary. Truely predictive.

You're even worse than those Bible prophecy zealots.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, August 16, 2007 3:17 AM

After the fact ?

Go read the archived posts here, this is stuff that's been addressed and discussed as far back as the archive goes and somewhat before - hell, I posted an editorial on another site back in december 2001 about how the Patriot Act was about as "temporary" as any previous dictators "state of emergency" and how McCarthyism would raise it's ugly head again here in the states if we let it.

There's no after the fact about it, these issues have been discussed, called in advance, and pointed out here as far back as my memory goes, case in point, this thread.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=6631

I am far from the only one who's called this stuff in advance, as it was downright obvious to anyone with half an ounce of sense, which leaves you out, obviously - I just seem to be the only one who cares enough to bother rubbing it in your face, perhaps cause seeing one of my buddies in a bag recently has pissed me off at folks like you who helped put him there.

You won't get no mercy from me, and yes, maybe I am kicking you while your down to sate my rage, and if so, what of it ? cause you damned sure have it comin.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

AURAPTOR

Thursday, August 16, 2007 10:06 AM

Quote:
I just seem to be the only one who cares enough to bother rubbing it in your face, perhaps cause seeing one of my buddies in a bag recently has pissed me off at folks like you who helped put him there.

Me, Saddam, the U.N. , the US Senate, the world ? You can no more blame me for anyone's death than I can blame you for any of the losses I've had in my life. Stop trying to randonmly strike out at the world, is my suggestion to you.

Quote:
You won't get no mercy from me, and yes, maybe I am kicking you while your down to sate my rage, and if so, what of it ? cause you damned sure have it comin.

I'm not asking for 'mercy' because you're in no position go give it. You don't even rate as an annoyance for me, never mind what ever it is you think you've achieved w/ your unhinged rant.

When it comes to your assinine threats and empty insults.....

Frankly, I don't give a damn.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "