Cheney still lying about Iraq.

[Qikdraw]

Cheney again links Iraq invasion to 9/11 attacks as bombing victims are buried (http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080318/wl_mcclatchy/2883358)

Typical republican lying. Proof it ain't so for years, but still bring out the same tired lies.

Qikdraw

[KirkOntario]

Specifically, what was the lie in what Cheney said today?

[Naturist Mark]

Specifically, what was the lie in what Cheney said today?

Connecting Iraq to 9/11.

[KirkOntario]

This is what he said.(see below) He didn't claim Saddam pulled off 9/11. He said that post 9/11 it was necessary to take out terrorist regimes and those who support terrorism and harbour terrorists. That would include Saddam's Iraq.


""This long-term struggle became urgent on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001 . That day we clearly saw that dangers can gather far from our own shores and find us right there at home," said Cheney, who was accompanied by his wife, Lynne, and their daughter, Elizabeth.

"So the United States made a decision: to hunt down the evil of terrorism and kill it where it grows, to hold the supporters of terror to account and to confront regimes that harbor terrorists and threaten the peace," Cheney said."

[Naturist Mark]

Uh huh.

What he did was link Iraq to 9/11. He linked them with the word 'terrorism'.

This time he didn't explicitly accuse Iraq of being responsible for 9/11 (although he has in the past), but he definitely made the connection.

That connection is a lie.

[Naturist Mark]

"So the United States made a decision: to hunt down the evil of terrorism and kill it where it grows, to hold the supporters of terror to account and to confront regimes that harbor terrorists and threaten the peace," Cheney said."

Except Saudi Arabia.

[KirkOntario]

Sorry, Mark. Nothing he stated today was a lie.
Iraq, and 9/11 both relate to terrorism and the Iraq invasion was a by-product of 9/11.
We all know that.

[nacktman]

Question: How do you know Cheney is lying.

Answer: He's breathing.

And, if he's not breathing ... the jury is still out as to whether or not he would still be lying.

[KirkOntario]

Thanks. You've conceded my point.

[nacktman]

What point?

That you are a fount of falsehoods and worship other founts of falsehoods?
If so, then glad to be of service.

[usmc1]

Sorry, Mark. Nothing he stated today was a lie.
Iraq, and 9/11 both relate to terrorism and the Iraq invasion was a by-product of 9/11.
We all know that.

Trolls will troll, now won't they. Iraq as a by product of 9/11, or related to terrorism is so woefully wrong that it be would laughable were it not for the hideous tragedies of both.

Here's what most people really know:


That dry-drunk sociopath, George W. Bush, and his minions; neo-cons, river trolls, deep-forest hob-goblins and other mendicants had the plan for the invasion of Iraq well before 9/11.
The Pentagon, after an exhaustive study and analysis has determined that there was absolutely no link between Al Quaida and Saddam's Iraq. It goes on to state that Saddam's only acts of "terror" were directed at Iraqis in order to enable him to retain power...he was no threat to the USA.
Cheney repeated often the lie that the US had solid proof of Saddam's stockpile of WMD. This lie was refuted time and again by weapons experts before, during and following the invasion and occupation of Iraq. To date, no WMD.
At this late date, the occupying force of the US is all that prevents an implosion of civil and sectarian warfare. The only question remaining is not if, but when. And the true answer is: when the US departs, Iraq disintegrates, regardless if it is now, or five years from now.
The invasion went well, we toppled Saddam, and the 800-pound gorilla stomped the the tiny little bug. But, all the rest of it has been a story of too little, too late, without any understanding of the dynamics of the country. We won the war, but we've lost beyond recovery the occupation.When Cheney says anything other than the above he is lying! Around here we put it this way, "That ole boy would climb a tree to tell a lie, rather than stand on the ground and tell the truth."

That is what the overwhelming majority of Americans, along with the rest of the world, know!

[Skinview]

What he did was link Iraq to 9/11. He linked them with the word 'terrorism'.

This time he didn't explicitly accuse Iraq of being responsible for 9/11 (although he has in the past), but he definitely made the connection.

That connection is a lie.I read it, and I didn't see it. Hussain clearly was terrorizing his own people in the most extreem ways imaginable. He did attempt to assainate a US President, and he was a repeat breaker of the peace in the region. Our soldiers in Iraq now are fighting people who are bombing civilians. He can truthfully talk about fighting terrorism in Iraq, and that we would not be there if it were not for 9/11. The article tries to set the reader up to think that he is linking 9/11 to Iraq by reporting that there was no link between Al Queda and Iraq, and then quoting Cheney talking about terrorism and 9/11 in Iraq. I see an antiwar, antiCheney press trying to manipulate the reader, and it apparently worked.

[Skinview]

Here's what most people really know:


Cheney repeated often the lie that the US had solid proof of Saddam's stockpile of WMD. This lie was refuted time and again by weapons experts before, during and following the invasion and occupation of Iraq. To date, no WMD.The often repeated story that the Bush administration "lied" about WMDs in Iraq is a Democrat disinformation campaign. Bush was wrong, he didn't "lie".


At this late date, the occupying force of the US is all that prevents an implosion of civil and sectarian warfare. The only question remaining is not if, but when. And the true answer is: when the US departs, Iraq disintegrates, regardless if it is now, or five years from now.
The invasion went well, we toppled Saddam, and the 800-pound gorilla stomped the the tiny little bug. But, all the rest of it has been a story of too little, too late, without any understanding of the dynamics of the country. We won the war, but we've lost beyond recovery the occupation.I think you are too invested in the US losing in Iraq.

[Naturist Mark]

I read it, and I didn't see it. Hussain clearly was terrorizing his own people in the most extreem ways imaginable. He did attempt to assainate a US President, and he was a repeat breaker of the peace in the region. Our soldiers in Iraq now are fighting people who are bombing civilians. He can truthfully talk about fighting terrorism in Iraq, and that we would not be there if it were not for 9/11.

Saddam was a bad bad man, but hardly the worst in the world or even the region. He was no threat to the US, nor to his neighbors. His regime was thoroughly defanged. Bush administration officials including Condi Rice and Colin Powell publicly admitted these facts before 9/11, their correct assessments did not change into 'mistakes' until afterwards.

Cheney can 'truthfully' talk of fighting terrorism in Iraq only because the American occupation drew it there, not because it was there when we invaded. That was not because of 9/11, that was because of choices made by George W. Bush. When they claim otherwise, they are lying.

-Mark

[MoonShadow]

The often repeated story that the Bush administration "lied" about WMDs in Iraq is a Democrat disinformation campaign. Bush was wrong, he didn't "lie".

I think you are too invested in the US losing in Iraq.


Interesting, Skin. Didn't you not too many posts ago say you were asked to run for the libertarian party in your area? And, you post the above? Hmmm Now this is Shock and Awe!

[Skinview]

Saddam was a bad bad man, but hardly the worst in the world or even the region.I could not imagine anyone worse than Saddam Hussain.
He was no threat to the US, nor to his neighbors.If he had WMDs he would have been, and he was known to have tried to build them in the past.
His regime was thoroughly defanged.Not to the extent that we could withdraw US forces in Saudi Arabia. Our presence in the Muslim Holy Land was why Bin Laden attacked the US. Hussain set off a chain of events that led to 9/11. In an indirect way, 9/11 would probably not have happened without Hussain.

Cheney can 'truthfully' talk of fighting terrorism in Iraq only because the American occupation drew it there, not because it was there when we invaded. That was not because of 9/11, that was because of choices made by George W. Bush.
Thats sort of like blaming the destruction of Hiroshima on the US oil embargo against Japan prior to the war. The situation in Iraq started when Hussain invaded his neighbors.

[usmc1]

The often repeated story that the Bush administration "lied" about WMDs in Iraq is a Democrat disinformation campaign. Bush was wrong, he didn't "lie".

I think you are too invested in the US losing in Iraq.

The lies you've been told that you seem to believe.

On March 19, 2003, George W. Bush announced (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html) that the war in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Iraq</st1:place></st1:country-region> had begun: <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
"My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Iraq</st1:place></st1:country-region>, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger. "
<o:p></o:p>
...and each year since, has marked the anniversary with a speech.<o:p></o:p>
One year (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/03/20040319-3.html): <o:p></o:p>
"There are still violent thugs and murderers in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Iraq</st1:place></st1:country-region>, and we're dealing with them." <o:p></o:p>
<st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> Fatalities: 583
<o:p></o:p>
Two years (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/03/20050319.html): <o:p></o:p>
<st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">"Iraq</st1:place></st1:country-region>'s progress toward political freedom has opened a new phase of our work there."
<st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> Fatalities: 1,522
<o:p></o:p>
Three years (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060319.html): <o:p></o:p>
"We are implementing a strategy that will lead to victory in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Iraq</st1:place></st1:country-region>." <o:p></o:p>
<st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> Fatalities: 2,319
<o:p></o:p>
Four years (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/03/20070319.html): <o:p></o:p>
"There's been good progress. "<o:p></o:p>
<st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> Fatalities: 3,224
<o:p></o:p>
And now, five years (http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/193305,on-wars-anniversary-bush-to-defend-iraq-policy.html): <o:p></o:p>
"No one would argue that this war has not come at a high cost in lives and treasure ­ but those costs are necessary when we consider the cost of a strategic victory for our enemies in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Iraq"</st1:place></st1:country-region> <o:p></o:p>
<st1:country-region w:st="on">U.S.</st1:country-region> Fatalities: 3,990
<st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">U.S.</st1:country-region></st1:place> Casualties: 40,229
Iraqi Fatalities: Unknown
Iraqi Casualties: Unknown
Cost: $504,000,000,000.00

Over the course of five years, George Bush has gone from saving the world from a nonexistent danger to not wanting to lose.

<o:p></o:p>
<o:p>Then there were these along the way:</o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
"Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof---the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
---George W. Bush, 10/7/02 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html)
-
"We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators."
---Dick Cheney, 3/16/03 (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/cheneymeetthepress.htm)
-
"There's a certain amount of pop psychology in America that the Shia can't get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There's almost no evidence of that at all. <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Iraq</st1:place></st1:country-region>'s always been very secular."
---Bill Kristol, 4/1/03 (http://www.progressohio.org/page/community/post/dougzimmerman/BMN)
-
"It's amazing that more than two weeks into the liberation of Iraq---as residents in Basra are cheering British forces and Americans occupy Baghdad's airport and Saddam Hussein's main presidential palace---the antiwar crowd is still spinning a doomsday scenario. But it's getting harder and harder to take seriously the claim that freeing <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Iraq</st1:place></st1:country-region> will make it harder to win the war on terrorism. Indeed, there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. [...] Who said war never solved anything? "
---Brendan Miniter, The Wall Street Journal, 4/8/03 (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bminiter/?id=110003309)

"The only people who think this wasn't a victory are <st1:place w:st="on">Upper Westside</st1:place> liberals."
---Charles Krauthammer, 4/19/03 (http://www.linkmeister.com/blog/archives/001809.html)

Ted Koppel: [Y]ou’re not suggesting that the rebuilding of <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Iraq</st1:place></st1:country-region> is going to be done for $1.7 billion?
Andrew Natsios [Agency for International Development]: "Well, in terms of the American taxpayer's contribution, I do. This is it for the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> "
---4/23/03 (http://sadlyno.com/archives/149.html)

"[Liberals] can't deny that President Bush has won his two wars, and won them resoundingly."
---Paul Mirengoff, Powerline, 4/26/03 (http://powerlineblog.com/archives/003115.php)

"The three-week swing through <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Iraq</st1:place></st1:country-region> has utterly shattered skeptics' complaints."
---Tony Snow, Fox News, 4/27/03 (http://www.linkmeister.com/blog/archives/001809.html)

Attribution and thanks to bloggers over at the smirking chimp. "Extreme" liberals each and every one---thank goodness. And nary a flag lapel pen in the bunch--hooray!

[jon71]

Iraq was not only no danger to the U.S. (they were still VERY weak from previous wars with Iran and the first Gulf war) but actually ANTI-TERRORIST. Al-Quead and others like them want to establish a theocratic dictatorship. Hussein was a secular military dictatory. The terrorists wanted to take out Hussein and replace him with an Ayotollah or something akin to that. While no threat to us he could keep the theocrats at bay in his own country. Was he a lousy brutal dictator? Yes, of course he was. Was he as bad as Al-Queda or the Ayotollah or others like that? Not even close. We have seen 4000 U.S. soldiers killed, the number maimed and wounded somewhere between 15000 and 20000, wasted billions of dollars and the only real effect is our military is depleted and we are the most at risk we have been since before Pearl Harbor. The biggest crime Bush has committed is that America is the most vulnerable we have been since the 30's and every day we stay in Iraq we get weaker. Our nation and our military will celebrate like never before when this nightmare ends. Btw after saying he'd keep us in Iraq for another hundred years McCain guaranteed that he'd receive the fewest votes from active duty personnel, vets, and their families of any presidential candidate ever. He lost the election with that comment, praise the LORD.

[Skinview]

usmc1, you wrote a long post demonstrating that the war hasn't gone as well as was hoped, but it doesn't contradict what I wrote. BTW, you might want to fix your war cost figure of $504 trillion. There isn't that much money in the world.

[Baron Lake]

skinview, usmc was probably just including the interest payments. And you may not think your observations/assertions have been refuted....but then that "think" part seems to be a major roadblock in your comprehension of reality.

Yep. That Operation Iraqi Liberation (O.I.L.) has just been peachy. It's a shame we can't expand it a bit, I guess there is always that Eye-ran place or maybe we could go back into Afteraganistam.

Libertarian? Jesus.

b.l.

[KirkOntario]

I read it, and I didn't see it. Hussain clearly was terrorizing his own people in the most extreem ways imaginable. He did attempt to assainate a US President, and he was a repeat breaker of the peace in the region. Our soldiers in Iraq now are fighting people who are bombing civilians. He can truthfully talk about fighting terrorism in Iraq, and that we would not be there if it were not for 9/11. The article tries to set the reader up to think that he is linking 9/11 to Iraq by reporting that there was no link between Al Queda and Iraq, and then quoting Cheney talking about terrorism and 9/11 in Iraq. I see an antiwar, antiCheney press trying to manipulate the reader, and it apparently worked.

Exactly. There's nothing Cheney said that was false there. Just the same old press narrative.
Did you see the poll that came out the other day that shows that only 6% of journalists identify themselves as 'conservative.'

Where's the outcry for 'diversity'? Of course to leftwingers, real diversity of thought cannot be permitted.

[KirkOntario]

Iraq was not only no danger to the U.S. (they were still VERY weak from previous wars with Iran and the first Gulf war) but actually ANTI-TERRORIST. .

Jon, if Iraq was 'anti-terorist' then why did they pay cash to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers?
Why did they fund terrorist groups?
And why did they praise the 9/11 attacks? (one of the few countries to do so)

[spiceant]

About all the wrong things, what are you doing about it? How much do your actions justify your complaining about it?

[jon71]

"Why did they pay for Palestinian suicide bombers?"

That is anti-Israeli bigotry and his nothing to do with the "war on terror". Unfortunately that's true throughout the middle east, even from U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia. In other words both the "good" and "bad" countries (as seen by our govt.) do that.

"Why did they fund terrorist groups?"

They didn't. I'm sure you can find the occasional example of somebody somewhere in Iraq that did but nothing significant and certainly not from Hussein. Remember they wanted to kill/depose him and replace him with a theocratic dictator. Stopping them was pure self-preservation for him, nothing more.

"Why did they praise the 9-11 attacks?"

Since we went to war with them (Gulf war 1) I'm not at all surprised that there is some residual anti-American sentiment. Who could expect otherwise? The big surprise was that it wasn't as wide spread as people thought. A lot of the video of Iraqis celebrating in the streets after 9-11 was archival file footage. That means it was months, if not years old, when it ran. I don't doubt that there was some actual celebrating then but like I said, it wasn't on the scale people were led to believe.

All in all nothing here remotely justified this idiotic disastrous war. The American people are ready (by about a 2 to 1 margin) for it end. Our military is ready for it to end. They want to rejoin their families, begin their lives again, as well as knowing that we have a lot of rebuilding to do before we can deal with any future threat. The only people who want to continue this disaster seem to be George Bush, John McCain and Osama bin Laden.

[KirkOntario]

Bigotry is not liking someone jon. Paying suicide bombers IS terrorism. So you claim that Iraq was 'anti-terorist' is incorrect.



The recent Pentagon report documents Iraq's record on terrorism. Over a decade of sponsoring it!

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/889pvpxc.asp?pg=1

"Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives."

"In 1993, as Osama bin Laden's fighters battled Americans in Somalia, Saddam Hussein personally ordered the formation of an Iraqi terrorist group to join the battle there.

For more than two decades, the Iraqi regime trained non-Iraqi jihadists in training camps throughout Iraq.

According to a 1993 internal Iraqi intelligence memo, the regime was supporting a secret Islamic Palestinian organization dedicated to "armed jihad against the Americans and Western interests."

In the 1990s, Iraq's military intelligence directorate trained and equipped "Sudanese fighters."

In 1998, the Iraqi regime offered "financial and moral support" to a new group of jihadists in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq.

In 2002, the year before the war began, the Iraqi regime hosted in Iraq a series of 13 conferences for non-Iraqi jihadist groups."

[nacktman]

The National Socialists are still at it I see.
Not comprehending anything and spewing offal.

Those who have been to Iraq know Cheney is lying and has been from the get go.

Threat and WMDs
Fact: Iraq was no threat to the USA - never was.
Fact: Iraq had WMDs in the 1980s because WE sold them to them.
Fact: Iraq used all WMDs we sold them on their own people and Iran prior to 1992. We know how many we sold and of what type and knew where and when they were used.
Fact: Iraq begged to buy more between 1992 and 2001 and President Clinton refused to sell them any.

Terror Connections
Fact: Iraq was very much anti-terror prior to 2003 ... so much so they were the terrorists to the terrorists - all terror groups were scared sh!tless of Iraq, fanatical religious groups in particular.
Fact: Post 2003 after Iraq's loss in the War terror groups entered Iraq and began operations. At first spurned by the Iraqis but as the US Military occupation continues more Iraqis are turning a blind eye to the terrorists. The Iraqis want the terrorists out of their country, but they want the US out more.

Any attempt to connect these two elements is a lie.
Therefore Cheney lied, pure and simple.

[KirkOntario]

Your claim that Cheney 'is lying' is the topic here and you've failed to demonstrate that he was.

[usmc1]

Your claim that Cheney 'is lying' is the topic here and you've failed to demonstrate that he was.

Actually that has been demonstrated quite well. You need to prove that he isn't. Go for it!

Otherwise, I'll submit it to the forum and move that we accept by acclamation that Dick Cheney would climb a tree to tell a lie rather than stand on the ground and tell the truth!

Any seconds?

[KirkOntario]

Just because you believe Dick Cheney to be liar in the past doesn't mean he lied the other day. There is nothing he said that was a lie and since you are trying to suggest he lied that day you need to demonstrate that he did.

[nacktman]

Actually that has been demonstrated quite well. You need to prove that he isn't. Go for it!

Otherwise, I'll submit it to the forum and move that we accept by acclamation that Dick Cheney would climb a tree to tell a lie rather than stand on the ground and tell the truth!

Any seconds?

Second!

Mister Chairman, please call for the acclamation.:D

[usmc1]

Just because you believe Dick Cheney to be liar in the past doesn't mean he lied the other day. There is nothing he said that was a lie and since you are trying to suggest he lied that day you need to demonstrate that he did.

No I don't. You cant make me!

No one suggested he lied. We're saying it flat out. Since he opened his mouth, a lie spewed out! That's what liars do, they lie. Dick Cheney is a liar! And you can't prove otherwise. And I don't care if you do or don't. Cheney is a liar.

the motion that we accept by acclamation that Dick Cheney is a liar is seconded.

Moving the question.

All in favor indicate by raising your hands.

The ayes have it, Dick Cheney is a big fat liar, by acclamation.

Meeting adjourned. See you in the bar, drinks are on Nacktman's tab, and Mark is designated driver.

[KirkOntario]

Facts are not established by a show of hands.

[usmc1]

Facts are not established by a show of hands.

Too bad, you're out of order, Cheney's a big fat liar, meeting's adjourned, the rest of us are in the bar laughing and having a gay old time, and if you keep this up, we're putting it on your tab.

[jon71]

Perhaps bigotry was too mild a term, I suppose anti-semitism or hatred of Isreal would be more fully correct but I stand by everything I said. Also for the past 6 or 7 years the pentagon has been running pretty low on credibility. If their "reports" are the best you can do Kirk, give up.

[KirkOntario]

Jon71, Saddam openly admitted he paid suicide bombers families cash rewards for killing innocent Jewish civilians. That is terrorism.

[nacktman]

Seems someone does not know what terrorism is.

And NO, I will not provide you with a definition ... look it up yourself!
And not from any of those right-wing hack websites, either.
Try looking it up in an actual honest-to-god printed book called a Dictionary.

[KirkOntario]

Seems someone does not know what terrorism is.

And NO, I will not provide you with a definition .

How do you expect to engage in a discussion about terrorism if you refuse to make your point? Ridicule does not a point make.

[nacktman]

Again, parsing!

Quit leaving out part of the citation so that it makes you feel good about yourself and do the work yourself - look it up!

And when( ahem, if), you have learned how to discuss and debate then you might be considered.

[usmc1]

Jon71, Saddam openly admitted he paid suicide bombers families cash rewards for killing innocent Jewish civilians. That is terrorism.

Innocent Jewish families are not Americans! That is Israel's problem, not the United States. Certainly no reason to invade and occupy Iraq at the horrible cost of lives, treasury and world opinion that we have suffered.

But, I just got to remind you Kirk, using Saddam as a source of information puts you on pretty then ice. Especially when one considers he lied almost as much as does Dick Cheney!

[Qikdraw]

Cheney On Two-Thirds Of The American Public Opposing The Iraq War: ‘So?' (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/19/cheney-poll-iraq/)

CHENEY: On the security front, I think there’s a general consensus that we’ve made major progress, that the surge has worked. That’s been a major success.

RADDATZ: Two-third of Americans say it’s not worth fighting.

CHENEY: So?

RADDATZ So? You don’t care what the American people think?

CHENEY: No. I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls

So much for a government 'of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Qikdraw

[KirkOntario]

Innocent Jewish families are not Americans! That is Israel's problem, not the United States. Certainly no reason to invade and occupy Iraq at the horrible cost of lives, treasury and world opinion that we have suffered.



We aren't talking about justification for the war as attacks on Israel. We are speaking of the assertion by Jon71 that Saddam was 'anti-terrorist' which is quite wrong. There is no point going back to whitewash Saddam merely because one opposes the war. It cannot be done.

[KirkOntario]

Cheney On Two-Thirds Of The American Public Opposing The Iraq War: ‘So?' (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/19/cheney-poll-iraq/)



So much for a government 'of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Qikdraw

The United States is governed by elected representatives and not polls. Your constitution --the work of great genius --as originally conceived was set up to insulate government from the fluctuating passions of the people because ancient democracies were so often destroyed by poor spur of the moments decisions based on democratic passions.

[usmc1]

Cheney On Two-Thirds Of The American Public Opposing The Iraq War: ‘So?' (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/19/cheney-poll-iraq/)



So much for a government 'of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Qikdraw

Depends, I think on who the people are. If you are part of the richest 2% the government is working quite well for you. Probably better than it ever has since the days of the Rail Road Barons. If you're not of that demographic, well you don't need me to tell you what's up!

[Naturist Mark]

The United States is governed by elected representatives and not polls.

In that case Al Gore became president in 2000 and John Kerry did so in 2004. So Darth Cheney is not speaking as an elected representative.

[jon71]

No one is whitewashing Hussein. He was bad. The combination of sectarian violence, occupation, and old hatreds bubbling up again now is many times worse. Was he a bad guy? Yes, very much so. Was he a threat to the U.S.? Not even remotely. Did he support terrorism? No. It was a matter of pure survival that he keep the theocrats at bay. The claim that he did support terrorism is just a lie told by Cheney and co. to try and justify an unjustifiable war, i.e. revisionism.

[Skinview]

From BBC news:

Palestinians get Saddam funds

Iraq regularly parades volunteers to "liberate Palestine"
Saddam Hussein has paid out thousands of dollars to families of Palestinians killed in fighting with Israel.
Relatives of at least one suicide attacker as well as other militants and civilians gathered in a hall in Gaza City to receive cheques.

"Iraq and Palestine are in one trench. Saddam is a hero," read a banner over a picture of the Iraqi leader and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat at the ceremony.

With war looming in the Middle East, Palestinian speakers condemned the United States and Israel, which dismissed the ceremony as support for terrorism.

Saddam's payments
$10,000 per family
$25,000 for family of a suicide bomber
$35m paid since September 2000
PALF figures
One by one, at least 21 families came up to receive their cheques from the Palestinian Arab Liberation Front (PALF), a local pro-Iraq group.

A Hamas suicide bomber's family got $25,000 while the others - relatives of militants killed in fighting or civilians killed during Israeli military operations - all received $10,000 each.

Another banner in the hall described the cheques as the "blessings of Saddam Hussein" and PALF speakers extolled the Iraqi leader in fiery speeches.

"Saddam Hussein considers those who die in martyrdom attacks as people who have won the highest degree of martyrdom," said one.

The party estimated that Iraq had paid out $35m to Palestinian families since the current uprising began in September 2000.

Saddam's avowed support for the Palestinians, and his missile attacks on Israel during the Gulf War, have won him wide backing in the territories.

Saddam's 'kindness'

Israel condemned the Iraqi handouts as funding for terrorism.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm

[Skinview]

In that case Al Gore became president in 2000 and John Kerry did so in 2004. So Darth Cheney is not speaking as an elected representative.You forget that Bush-Cheney got a majority of the vote in 2004. And that was after we had seen him as President, and after we invaded Iraq.

[Skinview]

Innocent Jewish families are not Americans! That is Israel's problem, not the United States. Certainly no reason to invade and occupy Iraq at the horrible cost of lives, treasury and world opinion that we have suffered.
Hmmm. Was the Holocost not our problem? How about the genocide in Bosnia?

[Skinview]

All in all nothing here remotely justified this idiotic disastrous war. The American people are ready (by about a 2 to 1 margin) for it end. The only people who want to continue this disaster seem to be George Bush, John McCain and Osama bin Laden.That was the case, but I heard on the news a couple of days ago that following the big drop in violence in Iraq, 51% of Americans now think we should stay.

[nacktman]

Bush-Cheney got a majority of the vote in 2004.

Incorrect statement.

[scubare]

This is what he said.(see below) He didn't claim Saddam pulled off 9/11. He said that post 9/11 it was necessary to take out terrorist regimes and those who support terrorism and harbour terrorists. That would include Saddam's Iraq.

Gee, why is Cheyney on video in an inerview on two (2) separate occasions after the first Gulf war saying that the worst thing America could do would be to proceed on to Bagdad and capture Saddam? He said to do so without a firm plan and government ready to take control in place, would destabilize the entire area...sound familiar? Why is he going against his own 'wisdom'? Forget ignoring their advisors when they charged into an illegal war of aggression, Cheyney ignored his own words. Talk about a duplicitous, lying and power hungry... government?!

[nacktman]

Gee, why is Cheney on video in an interview on two (2) separate occasions after the first Gulf war saying that the worst thing America could do would be to proceed on to Baghdad and capture Saddam? He said to do so without a firm plan and government ready to take control in place, would destabilize the entire area...sound familiar? Why is he going against his own 'wisdom'? Forget ignoring their advisors when they charged into an illegal war of aggression, Cheney ignored his own words. Talk about a duplicitous, lying and power hungry... government?!

Couldn't have said it better myself! :applause:

[Skinview]

Bush-Cheney got a majority of the vote in 2004.Incorrect statement.In the 2004 Presidential election, President Bush recieved 50.7% of the vote. The popular vote was 62,040,610 for Bush, and Kerry got 59,028,111, or 48.3%. Bush recieved more votes than any Presidential candidate in history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004

Bill Clinton, on the other hand, never got a majority of the vote. He was in a three way race with Ross Perot both times. Had Ross Perot not run in 1992, George H. W. Bush would have been reelected President, although Perot was not a deciding factor in the 1996 election.

[scubare]

The United States is governed by elected representatives and not polls. Your constitution --the work of great genius --as originally conceived was set up to insulate government from the fluctuating passions of the people because ancient democracies were so often destroyed by poor spur of the moments decisions based on democratic passions.

You mean that thing that Bush called a 'g*dd*mmed piece of paper'?

[scubare]

In that case Al Gore became president in 2000 and John Kerry did so in 2004. So Darth Cheney is not speaking as an elected representative.

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: GOOD one mark! :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

[scubare]

From BBC news:

Palestinians get Saddam funds

Iraq regularly parades volunteers to "liberate Palestine"
Saddam Hussein has paid out thousands of dollars to families of Palestinians killed in fighting with Israel.


OK...you got us. He didn't just 'dislike' the Jews; he hated them with a passion clear down to his toenails...still not a threat to us and still no reason to go to war with him.

[scubare]

You forget that Bush-Cheney got a majority of the vote in 2004. And that was after we had seen him as President, and after we invaded Iraq.

You mean the "election" where there is documented PROOF of voting machine shenanigans? Or where the secretary of state was found to do everything he could (and was busted for it) to manipulate the vote? The shrub got the majority of the vote...I think NOT!

[scubare]

Hmmm. Was the Holocost not our problem? How about the genocide in Bosnia?

Exactly. We DID do something about the Holocaust and we SHOULD have done something about Bosnia instead of butting in where we had no business...oh, wait, maybe Cheyney DID have business there; as in no bid contract, profitable business!

[scubare]

That was the case, but I heard on the news a couple of days ago that following the big drop in violence in Iraq, 51% of Americans now think we should stay.

That was because by then, the sectarian violence had already purged most of their targets. Not a sign that the 'surge' was 'working'.

[scubare]

In the 2004 Presidential election, President Bush recieved 50.7% of the vote. The popular vote was 62,040,610 for Bush, and Kerry got 59,028,111, or 48.3%. Bush recieved more votes than any Presidential candidate in history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004

Bill Clinton, on the other hand, never got a majority of the vote. He was in a three way race with Ross Perot both times. Had Ross Perot not run in 1992, George H. W. Bush would have been reelected President, although Perot was not a deciding factor in the 1996 election.

I usually don't post this much on a given topic...but there is just so much stupidity here that I can't help myself! I note you quote a source that tells the NUMBERS, but not how those numbers were achieved (see my above post). This is not my opinion - it is fact. The current Secretary of State in Ohio is calling for a complete investigation of the bogus voting machines since she experienced FIRST HAND how they tried to manipulate results.
And another thing, what crystal ball are you using that tells you what the results WOULD have been had Perot not run? Hmmmm? ;)

[Boreas]

Specifically, what was the lie in what Cheney said today?

Did you even read the article???

[nacktman]

Did you even read the article???

The odds are the answer to that question is ... NO.

[Boreas]

Your claim that Cheney 'is lying' is the topic here and you've failed to demonstrate that he was.

And you have failed to demonstrate that he is telling the truth. I would LOVE to hear proof that this war was NOT in vain.

[Qikdraw]

That was because by then, the sectarian violence had already purged most of their targets. Not a sign that the 'surge' was 'working'.

Haven't you heard? They want to add more soldiers in Iraq still. A surge to the surge as it were.

Plus how can they accurately tell if the surge is working when we are paying people not to kill US soldiers (http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=3490)?

Qikdraw

[Skinview]

I usually don't post this much on a given topic...but there is just so much stupidity here that I can't help myself! I note you quote a source that tells the NUMBERS, but not how those numbers were achieved (see my above post). This is not my opinion - it is fact. The current Secretary of State in Ohio is calling for a complete investigation of the bogus voting machines since she experienced FIRST HAND how they tried to manipulate results.There is suspician, but I have yet to see evidence that there was actual vote fraud. And even if, the margin of victory in Ohio was 2.11%, much more than the 0.38% that Kerry led in Wisconsin. There would have had to have been a lot of vote fraud to make a difference. And still, Bush won by over three million votes nationwide. So he still would have had the popular vote, even if every Ohio Bush voter dropped dead on the way to the polls. A large majority of Democrat Congressmen and Democrat Senators voted not to contest the election, and neither did Kerry.

And another thing, what crystal ball are you using that tells you what the results WOULD have been had Perot not run? Hmmmm? ;)Exit polls of Perot voters. Most of the Perot voters said they would have voted for Bush if Perot had not run.

[Skinview]

And you have failed to demonstrate that he is telling the truth.No one has demonstrated that he lied, just that he was wrong. The decision to go to war has been thoroughly investigated by Bob Woodward. The CIA told the Bush administration that Saddam had WMDs, and the case for it was "a slam dunk." They were wrong. No lie, just bad information. Saddam had tried to build WMDs before, he kicked out the UN inspectors at great cost, and we later learned that Saddam wanted Iran to think he had WMDs. The whole world thought he had WMDs. Iraqi officials thought he had a WMD program.
I would LOVE to hear proof that this war was NOT in vain.Saddam Hussain is dead. His execution was broadcast on tv.

[Skinview]

That was because by then, the sectarian violence had already purged most of their targets. Not a sign that the 'surge' was 'working'.Well, it seems unlikely to me that there is any shortage of targets, but it has been claimed that the reduction in violence is due to partitioning of the Sunnis and Shiites, and also the fact that the Iraqis have turned on Al Queda recently. I never claimed the drop in violence was due to the surge. Why it happened doesn't matter. That things have greatly impoved is enough, and public opinion is shifting.

[usmc1]

Even 1/3 of GOP who supported the invasion now think it was a mistake!
Source: WaPo -3/19/08

Iraq: Public Opinion Five Years In
Five years after the start of the Iraq war, American public opinion has solidified around the notion that the war was not worth fighting and that the United States is not making significant progress toward restoring civil order there.

For more than three years, majorities in Washington Post-ABC News polling (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_030308.html) have called the war's benefits not worth the costs. And the percentages calling the war a mistake have been higher than those saying it has been worth it since before the 2004 presidential election. Two-thirds in the latest poll said the war was not worth fighting, including 51 percent who felt so "strongly." (Check out a pre-primary analysis of public opinion on the war here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/nationdivided/index.html)).

But not everyone has turned on the war, which most Americans supported at the outset. Republicans have remained strongly behind the war since the outset, with more than two-thirds saying the was worth fighting in the most recent Post-ABC poll. Only a third of independents and one in eight Democrats agree.

Assessments of the current situation on the ground are somewhat more positive, and have improved since the deployment of additional troops to Iraq. Forty-three percent now say they believe the U.S. is making strides toward restoring security in Iraq, higher than it was in December 2006. But the percentage seeing progress has changed little over the past four months. Nearly eight in 10 Republicans said significant progress is being made, as did 40 percent of independents 24 percent of Democrats.

Iraqis themselves have a somewhat improved outlook on the state of life in their country, particularly the security situation. According to a survey of Iraqis (http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/story?id=4444000&page=1) conducted by ABC News and several international TV news outlets, 55 percent now say their lives are going well, a big bump up from 39 percent in August. However, 61 percent said the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq is making the security situation there worse. About three in 10 said American troops improve security. For more from the poll, click here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/03/19/GR2008031900377.html).

Back in this country, the remarkable stability of American opinions on the war combined with a dramatically souring economy have contributed to the war's decline in importance in the ongoing presidential election campaign. In early September, more than a third cited the war as their top concern in choosing a president, while one in 10 named the economy. Five months later, the economy outweighed the war by 20 percentage points.

And President Bush's approval rating (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/custom/2006/02/02/CU2006020201345.html) has been steadily dragged down by flagging assessments of the war in Iraq, and has not topped 50 percent in more than three years. In the most recent poll, only 32 percent approve of the job Bush is doing as president, tying his career low in Post-ABC polling.

[Naturist Mark]

You forget that Bush-Cheney got a majority of the vote in 2004. And that was after we had seen him as President, and after we invaded Iraq.


The Theft of the 2004 Presidential Election (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0606/S00118.htm) By Dennis Loo, Ph.D
In order to believe that George Bush won the November 2, 2004 presidential election, you must also believe all of the following extremely improbable or outright impossible things.(1)

1) A big turnout and a highly energized and motivated electorate favored the GOP instead of the Democrats for the first time in history.(2)

2) Even though first-time voters, lapsed voters (those who didn’t vote in 2000), and undecideds went for John Kerry by big margins, and Bush lost people who voted for him in the cliffhanger 2000 election, Bush still received a 3.5 million vote surplus nationally.(3)

3) The fact that Bush far exceeded the 85% of registered Florida Republicans’ votes that he got in 2000, receiving in 2004 more than 100% of the registered Republican votes in 47 out of 67 Florida counties, 200% of registered Republicans in 15 counties, and over 300% of registered Republicans in 4 counties, merely shows Floridians’ enthusiasm for Bush. He managed to do this despite the fact that his share of the crossover votes by registered Democrats in Florida did not increase over 2000 and he lost ground among registered Independents, dropping 15 points.(4)

4) The fact that Bush got more votes than registered voters, and the fact that by stark contrast participation rates in many Democratic strongholds in Ohio and Florida fell to as low as 8%, do not indicate a rigged election.(5)

5) Bush won re-election despite approval ratings below 50% - the first time in history this has happened. Truman has been cited as having also done this, but Truman’s polling numbers were trailing so much behind his challenger, Thomas Dewey, pollsters stopped surveying two months before the 1948 elections, thus missing the late surge of support for Truman. Unlike Truman, Bush’s support was clearly eroding on the eve of the election.(6)

6) Harris' last-minute polling indicating a Kerry victory was wrong (even though Harris was exactly on the mark in their 2000 election final poll).(7)

7) The “challenger rule” - an incumbent’s final results won’t be better than his final polling - was wrong;(8)

8) On election day the early-day voters picked up by early exit polls (showing Kerry with a wide lead) were heavily Democratic instead of the traditional pattern of early voters being mainly Republican.

9) The fact that Bush “won” Ohio by 51-48%, but this was not matched by the court-supervised hand count of the 147,400 absentee and provisional ballots in which Kerry received 54.46% of the vote doesn’t cast any suspicion upon the official tally.(9)

10) Florida computer programmer Clinton Curtis (a life-long registered Republican) must be lying when he said in a sworn affidavit that his employers at Yang Enterprises, Inc. (YEI) and Tom Feeney (general counsel and lobbyist for YEI, GOP state legislator and Jeb Bush’s 1994 running mate for Florida Lt. Governor) asked him in 2000 to create a computer program to undetectably alter vote totals. Curtis, under the initial impression that he was creating this software in order to forestall possible fraud, handed over the program to his employer Mrs. Li Woan Yang, and was told: “You don’t understand, in order to get the contract we have to hide the manipulation in the source code. This program is needed to control the vote in south Florida.” (Boldface in original).(10)

11) Diebold CEO Walden O’Dell’s declaration in a August 14, 2003 letter to GOP fundraisers that he was "committed to helping Ohio to deliver its electoral votes to the president next year" and the fact that Diebold is one of the three major suppliers of the electronic voting machines in Ohio and nationally, didn’t result in any fraud by Diebold.

12) There was no fraud in Cuyahoga County Ohio where they admitted counting the votes in secret before bringing them out in public to count..

13) CNN reported at 9 p.m. EST on election evening that Kerry was leading by 3 points in the national exit polls based on well over 13,000 respondents. Several hours later at 1:36 a.m. CNN reported that the exit polls, now based on a few hundred more - 13,531 respondents - were showing Bush leading by 2 points, a 5-point swing. In other words, a swing of 5 percentage points from a tiny increase in the number of respondents somehow occurred despite it being mathematically impossible.(11)

14) Exit polls in the November 2004 Ukrainian presidential elections, paid for in part by the Bush administration, were right, but exit polls in the U.S., where exit polling was invented, were very wrong.(12)

15) The National Election Pool’s exit polls (13) were so far off that since their inception twenty years ago, they have never been this wrong, more wrong than statistical probability indicates is possible.

16) In every single instance where exit polls were wrong the discrepancy favored Bush, even though statistical probability tells us that any survey errors should show up in both directions. Half a century of polling and centuries of mathematics must be wrong.


There is PLENTY of evidence that John Kerry won the 2004 election. US Media has been reluctant to air it (except MSNBC's Keith Olbermann (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/)) but there is a great abundance of evidence.

Evidence Mounts That The Vote May Have Been Hacked (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1106-30.htm)
Evidence of Fraud and Disenfranchisement in Ohio, 2004 : A Partial List (http://fairnessbybeckerman.blogspot.com/#110459742492140370)
Evidence of Electoral Fraud in the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election: A Reading List (http://www.opednews.com/keefer_111504_readings.htm)
Was Election 2004 a Fraud? (http://www.crisispapers.org/topics/election-fraud.htm)
ELECTORAL INTEGRITY (http://www.crisispapers.org/topics/electoral-integrity.htm)
-Mark

[nacktman]

Cheney is still taking a breath so he is still lying - end of story.

What amazes me is the ignorance some show and the denial of reality they engage in.
I have my doubts as to whether or not a stout oak two-by-four applied directly across the bridge of their noses with enough force to snap it in twain would have any affect on them at all.

[KirkOntario]

And you have failed to demonstrate that he is telling the truth. I would LOVE to hear proof that this war was NOT in vain.

Sorry, if a person makes an assertion they need to be able to back it up. To suggest a reverse onus is to stand on its head 2,500 years of rational thought.

[KirkOntario]

Rove today on the Democrats. He's dead on. The Democrats haven't caught up to reality and are out of touch with the American people. They are invested in defeat and can't let go of that.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120605677309552993.html?mod=opinion_main_comment aries

"Only 18% of those surveyed by Gallup agreed U.S. troops should be withdrawn "on a timetable as soon as possible." And only 20% felt the surge was making things worse in Iraq. Twice as many respondents felt the surge was making conditions better.

It gets worse for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Nearly two out of every three Americans surveyed (65%) believe "the United States has an obligation to establish a reasonable level of stability and security in Iraq before withdrawing all of its troops." The reason is self-interest. Almost the same number of Americans (63%) believe al Qaeda "would be more likely to use Iraq as a base for its terrorist operations" if the U.S. withdraws."

[nacktman]

And you have failed to demonstrate that he is telling the truth. I would LOVE to hear proof that this war was NOT in vain.

Boreas, all wars are in vain, just ask any veteran.:disappointed:

Everyone with a functioning mind knows Cheney is a Liar and lies with every breath. To suggest otherwise is nothing but a flight of fancy.
Also, the Onus to 'prove' he is not lying is upon those on those flights of fancy ... that is the basis of rational thought and has been since there has been rational thought. (which began some 2.3 million years ago for we humans, BTW)
That is of course unless you are one of those flying.:rolleyes:

[Skinview]

The Theft of the 2004 Presidential Election (http://www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/voter_fraud.html) By Dennis Loo, Ph.D
In order to believe that George Bush won the November 2, 2004 presidential election, you must also believe all of the following extremely improbable or outright impossible things.(1)

1) A big turnout and a highly energized and motivated electorate favored the GOP instead of the Democrats for the first time in history.(2)???? This is Number One on your evidence list?? Republicans win the presidency MOST of the time. They controlled both houses of Congress too. A motivated electorate didn't vote for your liberal Democrat candidate, and that means there was vote fraud???!

2) Even though first-time voters, lapsed voters (those who didn’t vote in 2000), and undecideds went for John Kerry by big margins, and Bush lost people who voted for him in the cliffhanger 2000 election, Bush still received a 3.5 million vote surplus nationally.(3)Now this is an allegation that there was a NATIONWIDE vote fraud of at least 3.5 MILLION votes. Simply wild. This doesn't make sense.

3) The fact that Bush far exceeded the 85% of registered Florida Republicans’ votes that he got in 2000, receiving in 2004 more than 100% of the registered Republican votes in 47 out of 67 Florida counties, 200% of registered Republicans in 15 counties, and over 300% of registered Republicans in 4 counties, merely shows Floridians’ enthusiasm for Bush. He managed to do this despite the fact that his share of the crossover votes by registered Democrats in Florida did not increase over 2000 and he lost ground among registered Independents, dropping 15 points.(4)There was a big turnout of people who didn't like Kerry. Florida has a lot of older voters, and they never liked the John Kerry - Jane Fonda crowd. They have not forgotten Vietnam. Plus, this is an allegation that there was fraud in Ohio AND Florida. Even more improbable.

4) The fact that Bush got more votes than registered voters, and the fact that by stark contrast participation rates in many Democratic strongholds in Ohio and Florida fell to as low as 8%, do not indicate a rigged election.(5)This is crazy. If Bush got more votes than registered voters, and Kerry got even half that many votes, then there would have been a 150% voter turn out. You think that wouldn't be noticed by EVERYONE on election night????? This is looney.

5) Bush won re-election despite approval ratings below 50% - the first time in history this has happened. Truman has been cited as having also done this,Immediate self contradiction here.
Truman’s polling numbers were trailing so much behind his challenger, Thomas Dewey... Unlike Truman, Bush’s support was clearly eroding on the eve of the election.(6)DEWEY WINS! Yeah, right, the polls mean a lot.... The New Hampshire primaries have shown us how much they have improved, not.

6) Harris' last-minute polling indicating a Kerry victory was wrong (even though Harris was exactly on the mark in their 2000 election final poll).(7)Polls again. No mention of how close the polls were, either.

7) The “challenger rule” - an incumbent’s final results won’t be better than his final polling - was wrong;(8)Hardly a law of physics. I've never even heard of it.

8) On election day the early-day voters picked up by early exit polls (showing Kerry with a wide lead) were heavily Democratic instead of the traditional pattern of early voters being mainly Republican.Where? This was an unusual race, with a very big turnout. It would be no surprise if patterns of behaviour were different. This is real grasping at straws.

9) The fact that Bush “won” Ohio by 51-48%, but this was not matched by the court-supervised hand count of the 147,400 absentee and provisional ballots in which Kerry received 54.46% of the vote doesn’t cast any suspicion upon the official tally.(9)No, it doesn't. Thats a much smaller sample than the total number of voters, and its not a random sample of voters, and its not a huge difference.

10) Florida computer programmer Clinton Curtis (a life-long registered Republican) must be lying when he said in a sworn affidavit that his employers at Yang Enterprises, Inc. (YEI) and Tom Feeney (general counsel and lobbyist for YEI, GOP state legislator and Jeb Bush’s 1994 running mate for Florida Lt. Governor) asked him in 2000 to create a computer program to undetectably alter vote totals. Curtis, under the initial impression that he was creating this software in order to forestall possible fraud, handed over the program to his employer Mrs. Li Woan Yang, and was told: “You don’t understand, in order to get the contract we have to hide the manipulation in the source code. This program is needed to control the vote in south Florida.” (Boldface in original).(10)This makes no sense on two counts. How could someone think that writing a program to produce vote fraud would forstall vote fraud? Secondly, what fool would tell someone that they were trying to commit vote fraud?

11) Diebold CEO Walden O’Dell’s declaration in a August 14, 2003 letter to GOP fundraisers that he was "committed to helping Ohio to deliver its electoral votes to the president next year" and the fact that Diebold is one of the three major suppliers of the electronic voting machines in Ohio and nationally, didn’t result in any fraud by Diebold.The guy is going to be affiliated with one of the two parties. If he was a Democrat, would that mean that he rigged the election for the Democrats? This is nothing!!!

12) There was no fraud in Cuyahoga County Ohio where they admitted counting the votes in secret before bringing them out in public to count..So?? This doesn't indicate fraud.

13) CNN reported at 9 p.m. EST on election evening that Kerry was leading by 3 points in the national exit polls based on well over 13,000 respondents. Several hours later at 1:36 a.m. CNN reported that the exit polls, now based on a few hundred more - 13,531 respondents - were showing Bush leading by 2 points, a 5-point swing. In other words, a swing of 5 percentage points from a tiny increase in the number of respondents somehow occurred despite it being mathematically impossible.(11)Now this is really goofy. Now we have an allegation of not only vote fraud, but CNN is fabricating exit polls??? To what purpose??? And CNN??? The conspiracy grows...

14) Exit polls in the November 2004 Ukrainian presidential elections, paid for in part by the Bush administration, were right, but exit polls in the U.S., where exit polling was invented, were very wrong.(12)Polls, polls. They are going to be wrong. Thats why they have error margins attached to them, and error margins are wrong. Remember New Hampshire...

15) The National Election Pool’s exit polls (13) were so far off that since their inception twenty years ago, they have never been this wrong, more wrong than statistical probability indicates is possible.There is no such thing as "not possible" in a sample survey error. Its all probability, and choosing a good sample. I have a science background. I have seen papers published that say that x was measured to be y, with an error of z, and then years later, it turns out that x is waaay outside the stated error range of the paper. Blunders happen, far more often than conspiracies.

16) In every single instance where exit polls were wrong the discrepancy favored Bush, even though statistical probability tells us that any survey errors should show up in both directions. Half a century of polling and centuries of mathematics must be wrong.Exit polls where? This guy has already suggested fraud nationwide. Anyway, if you shoot at a target, there is going to be a spread in the pattern. You might expect half will land on either side, but in reality its often that the grouping is centered off to one side, for different reasons.

There is PLENTY of evidence that John Kerry won the 2004 election. US Media has been reluctant to air it (except MSNBC's Keith Olbermann (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/)) but there is a great abundance of evidence.

-MarkNow this is the thing that should be a big clue as to what is going on: No major news network, or major newspaper, or the Democratic Party, or Kerry, or law enforcement agency, is alleging vote fraud. If the evidence was there, they would all be screaming in chorus. There would be Congressional investigations, there would be a media frenzy, there would be lawsuits. But all we have is innuendo and suspicion. I've read Clinton conspiracy theories with more meat than this.

[jon71]

Talk about cherry picking numbers. Polls shows that by a 2 to 1 margin the American people want one of the first acts of our next president to begin pulling our troops home in the first few months of office. The public knows this has nothing to do with national security and never did. Considering how pointless this war is I can guarantee that won't change.

[Boreas]

Sorry, if a person makes an assertion they need to be able to back it up. To suggest a reverse onus is to stand on its head 2,500 years of rational thought.


Well then, do back up your assertions. There is plenty of evidence around that there were no WMDs and the reasons for the war were flawed. Some of these have been well presented on this thread already.

In spite of al the evidence to the contrary, you seem to continue to believe that the reasons for the war were valid.

Please back up this assertion.

[KirkOntario]

Well then, do back up your assertions. There is plenty of evidence around that there were no WMDs and the reasons for the war were flawed. Some of these have been well presented on this thread already.

In spite of al the evidence to the contrary, you seem to continue to believe that the reasons for the war were valid.

Please back up this assertion.

Yes but WMD wasn't the point on which Cheney was being called a liar.

[nacktman]

Yes but WMD wasn't the point on which Cheney was being called a liar.

Ahemn! But, it was, as were every word out of his mouth.
You just have not been paying attention.

[KirkOntario]

I would direct you to reread the original post and the following discussion.

[nacktman]

Originally posted on 3-19-03 @ 6:45PM

Threat and WMDs
Fact: Iraq was no threat to the USA - never was.
Fact: Iraq had WMDs in the 1980s because WE sold them to them.
Fact: Iraq used all WMDs we sold them on their own people and Iran prior to 1992. We know how many we sold and of what type and knew where and when they were used.
Fact: Iraq begged to buy more between 1992 and 2001 and President Clinton refused to sell them any.

Terror Connections
Fact: Iraq was very much anti-terror prior to 2003 ... so much so they were the terrorists to the terrorists - all terror groups were scared sh!tless of Iraq, fanatical religious groups in particular.
Fact: Post 2003 after Iraq's loss in the War terror groups entered Iraq and began operations. At first spurned by the Iraqis but as the US Military occupation continues more Iraqis are turning a blind eye to the terrorists. The Iraqis want the terrorists out of their country, but they want the US out more.

Any attempt to connect these two elements is a lie.
Therefore Cheney lied, pure and simple.
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

Oh, but I have followed the discussion.
Something some have apparently not done, yet call for others to 'follow' the discussion.:rolleyes:

[KirkOntario]

Go back and read the orginal post and article. That is the topic and the title of the thread is about Cheney 'still lying". Note well the present tense.

[jon71]

Maybe the thread should be called "Cheney has lied, is still lying, and barring a case of lock-jaw will continue to lie". When it comes to dishonesty Satan is this guys understudy.

[nacktman]

Maybe the thread should be called "Cheney has lied, is still lying, and barring a case of lock-jaw will continue to lie". When it comes to dishonesty Satan is this guys understudy.

:applause: Well said, by George extremely well said.:applause:

... and a bad understudy at that!:laugh:

[sdson]

:applause: Well said, by George extremely well said.:applause:

... and a bad understudy at that!:laugh:

The lying is bad enough; what is much worse are the consequences of the lies.

People are dying. Cheney & Bush are murderers.

[Boreas]

Maybe the thread should be called "Cheney has lied, is still lying, and barring a case of lock-jaw will continue to lie". When it comes to dishonesty Satan is this guys understudy.

Amen.

ANY reference to the idea that the Iraq war had anything to do with the safety of Americans is a lie. ANY suggestion that this is a good war, or that there is a positive purpose is a lie.

Add to that the fact that Cheney has profited wonderfully by this war, makes anything he has to say on the matter suspect.

[KirkOntario]

Is not ending a brutal tyranny a positive purpose?

How has Cheney 'profited wonderfullly' from this war? Please provide the details.

[nacktman]

Boxed in and they can't get out so they parse, divert ... anything but face reality.:laugh:

*****

Originally posted by Boreas; ANY reference to the idea that the Iraq war had anything to do with the safety of Americans is a lie. ANY suggestion that this is a good war, or that there is a positive purpose is a lie.

Amen.

Add to that the fact that Cheney has profited wonderfully by this war, makes anything he has to say on the matter suspect.
How has Cheney 'profited wonderfullly' from this war?

One word ... Halliburton.

There are more words but one is more than enough in this case.

[Boreas]

One word ... Halliburton.

There are more words but one is more than enough in this case.

Thank you. My sentiments exactly.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[KirkOntario]

If you are referring to deferred compensation schemes, these are a fairly common form of high level executive financial planning. They are not tied to current performance of the company but to past performance, otherwise your Vice-President would be in a conflict of interest and your Democratic congress would be all over him. Despite repeating the mantra of 'Haliburton' for years there has been nothing to the allegations and if there were Mr Cheney would already be gone by now.

Honestly, we've been hearing "Haliburton' over and over for 7 years. There is no substance to repetition of the word. It is no better than the word 'Diebold' (hmmm...what happened to that mantra in the 2006 election?)

[nacktman]

Parse and divert, parse and divert, parse and divert, parse and divert ...

:rolleyes:

[Boreas]

I doubt that Cheney has been to the Haliburton area anytime recently.

The stories of his continued links to Halliburton remain:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/politics/main575356.shtml
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Cheneys_stock_options_rose_3281_last_1011.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0403-10.htm
http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/about_hal/chronology.html

Parse and divert, parse and divert, parse and divert, parse and divert ...

Well said nacktman.

[KirkOntario]

Are you aware Cheney sign an irrevocable direction to have his options directed to 3 registered charities? His deferred compensation isn't dependent on financial performance of the company. Were you aware of that?

So the suggestion of personal profit from the war is false as is the allegation (an outrageous one) that the war was waged for personal gain.

Repeating a word over and over again provides nothing of substance and this is what the extreme left has given us for the past 7 years.

[Boreas]

Are you aware Cheney sign an irrevocable direction to have his options directed to 3 registered charities? His deferred compensation isn't dependent on financial performance of the company. Were you aware of that?

So the suggestion of personal profit from the war is false as is the allegation (an outrageous one) that the war was waged for personal gain.

Repeating a word over and over again provides nothing of substance and this is what the extreme left has given us for the past 7 years.

Well then show us the information that would correct our apparently misguided opinions. You say these things without backing them up.

[KirkOntario]

You are making the allegation that Cheney has profited from the war. You have asserted this as a fact without support. This is your allegation to prove.

Dick Cheney left Haliburton in 2000 at the start of the presidential campaign. There have been many rules passed over the years for politicians to deal with these conflict of interest issues. If Cheney hadn't complied with those rules Congress would be all over Cheney and he'd be gone by now. The scintilla of ties between him and Haliburton consist of deferred compensation which has been insured so that it is not dependant on the company's performance. The unexercised stock options have been dealt with by an irrevocable direction to pay any proceeds to several registered charities.

[Boreas]

Dick Cheney left Haliburton in 2000 at the start of the presidential campaign. There have been many rules passed over the years for politicians to deal with these conflict of interest issues. If Cheney hadn't complied with those rules Congress would be all over Cheney and he'd be gone by now. The scintilla of ties between him and Haliburton consist of deferred compensation which has been insured so that it is not dependant on the company's performance. The unexercised stock options have been dealt with by an irrevocable direction to pay any proceeds to several registered charities.

So you say.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[nacktman]

Parse and divert, parse and divert, parse and divert, parse and divert ...

:rolleyes:

Damn, they're still playing that crappy record?!

Ok, so it's the extended version with the displacement and transference in it.

Parse, then displace, next divert, then transfer, dancing about like a cricket on a hot skillet and failing miserably at it.

Lie, is lying, has lied, will be lying is how you conjugate the verb Cheney.

[KirkOntario]

So you say.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->


Feel free to demonstrate that Cheney 'profited wonderfully' from the Iraq war as you have maintained.

How much money?
When was it received?
How was it earned?

[nacktman]

WOW! It only took thirty-six minutes to parse and divert this time.:surprised:
Always clamoring for 'answers' and never giving any.:rolleyes:

Cheney lies with every breath, get used to it.

[Boreas]

Feel free to demonstrate that Cheney 'profited wonderfully' from the Iraq war as you have maintained.

How much money?
When was it received?
How was it earned?

Still waiting for your wise information.

[Boreas]

WOW! It only took thirty-six minutes to parse and divert this time.:surprised:
Always clamoring for 'answers' and never giving any.:rolleyes:

Cheney lies with every breath, get used to it.

Interesting isn't it. :rolleyes:

[jon71]

Anyone who follows politics knows without a doubt that the blind trusts that politicians put their holdings into are not blind or particularly trustworhy. It is a little window dressing to give the semblance of ethics without actually requiring anybody to follow any difficult rules. Lots of pols in both parties are guilty of this but Cheney has for 7 years been among the worst. His profit may be a bit more indirect than in the past but look at how many no competition bids Hallibuton has gotten. Coincidence? That's only legal in very limited circumstances which have not been met. Bush and Cheney claimed repeated that only Hallibuton can do fairly routine work and no one else can and therefore can be given these kickbacks, I mean contracts, without competition. Shameful.

[KirkOntario]

Still waiting for your wise information.

I don't understand why you won't give us the details of these profits you allege Cheney made from the war.

How much money?
When was it received?
How was it earned?

Three very simple questions.

[tinhfwv]

The requirement for specifics makes political hate speech much more difficult.

[nacktman]

Still parsing and diverting.:rolleyes:

Hate-filled speech is right ... having no leg to stand on the wing-nuts parse and divert.
Of course the tired old tactic of accusing everyone else of what you are doing had to show up.
I am surprised it took them this long.

Cheney was, is and will be a liar.
A money grubbing one.

Leave us not forget the Four branches of Government shall we ... The Executive, The Legislative, The Judicial and Dick Cheney.
Talk about a liar!

[Boreas]

Hate-filled speech is right ... having no leg to stand on the wing-nuts parse and divert.
Of course the tired old tactic of accusing everyone else of what you are doing had to show up.
I am surprised it took them this long.

Say it isn't happening! ;)

I would suggest that people learn more about neoliberalism. Aka, neoconservatism (sort of) and about globalisation. The movement that puts profit and business interests above all. Privatisation reigns. People like Cheney profit. They make it look like they are being honourable by diverting and such. Shell games all.

Oh, and when it is particularly paternalistic, there is the element that if they say it, it is truth.

[KirkOntario]

People like Cheney profit.


You might be believed if you even made an attempt to support your statement. But you haven't.

[Boreas]

You might be believed if you even made an attempt to support your statement. But you haven't.

As if you'd believe anything I wrote anyway. Anything I would post would be dismissed as "liberal garbage" and further "parsed" (to quote our friend nacktman)

I am also still waiting for you to back up your statement. I seem to note a pot calling the kettle black syndrome here.

[KirkOntario]

Try me. C'mon.

Here's my source. Where's yours?

http://www.factcheck.org/kerry_ad_falsely_accuses_cheney_on_halliburton.htm l

[jon71]

Oops you shot yourself in the foot there. Putting 8$ million dollars worth of stock in a blind trust fools nobody. That's an unfortunately common shell game in Washington, a scam. Then there's the deferred salary and BONUSES he receives from Haliburton. Funneling no-bid contracts to them GUARANTEES that he'll get some serious money, and that's assuming he isn't also getting kickbacks that are unreported and under the table. Spreading the money out over several years doesn't really change anything. Likewise sending some of it to charity is basically putting perfume on garbage, it really doesn't change what's going on. Cheney has done far more work for Halliburton after he "left" them than he ever did before. Who here is stupid enough to think there isn't something in it for him?

[KirkOntario]

As factcheck.org concludes claims that Cheney financially benefits from contracts to Haliburton are false.

There's nothing to indicate there is anything in it for him except in the imaginations of those who detest him which is why your Democratic party and leftwingers merely repeat the word 'Haliburton' without saying anything. There' s nothing more to say.

[usmc1]

And Still Is:

Questions persist about Vice-President Cheney’s role in the ongoing investigation and scandal swirling about the White House. His chief of staff and confidante Lewis “Scooter” Libby has been indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice (Since Convicted & Disbarred). Let’s take a look at some personal incentives for Cheney’s selling war to our country.

Cheney has pursued a political and corporate career to make himself very rich and powerful. He is the personification of a war profiteer who slid through the revolving door connecting the public and private sectors of the defense establishment on two occasions in a career that has served his relentless quest for power and profits.

As Defense Secretary, Mr. Cheney commissioned a study for the U.S. Department of Defense by Brown and Root Services (now Kellogg, Brown and Root), a wholly owned subsidiary of Halliburton. The study recommended that private firms like Halliburton should take over logistical support programs for U.S. military operations around the world. Just two years after he was Secretary of Defense, Cheney stepped through the revolving door linking the Department of Defense with defense contractors and became CEO of Halliburton. Halliburton was the principal beneficiary of Cheney’s privatization efforts for our military’s logistical support and Cheney was paid $44 million for five year's work with them before he slipped back through the revolving door of war profiteering to become Vice-President of the United States. When asked about the money he received from Halliburton, Cheney said. "I tell you that the government had absolutely nothing to do with it."

The Bush administration has dished out lucrative reconstruction contracts in Iraq to favored U.S. based corporations including Halliburton and denied contracts to many Iraqi and foreign based companies. To the conquerors go the spoils was the message on December 11, 2003 when Bush said, “The taxpayers understand why it makes sense for countries that risk lives to participate in the contracts in Iraq, It's very simple. Our people risk their lives, friendly coalition folks risk their lives, and therefore the contracting is going to reflect that.”

Bush’s statement is a stunning admission of how much corrupt corporations control our foreign policy. Under Cheney’s leadership Halliburton out did Enron in using offshore subsidiaries as tax shelters to hide profits to bilk U.S. taxpayers. Halliburton also utilized off-shore subsidiaries to contract for services and sell banned equipment to rogue states like Iran, Iraq and Libya. This would be illegal if done directly by Halliburton.

At last count Halliburton had 58 offshore subsidiaries in Caribbean tax havens. With Cheney at the helm Halliburton’s tax payments to the U.S. went from $302 million in 1998 to zero in 1999, when they also received a refund of $85 million from the Internal Revenue Service.

During Cheney’s tenure as CEO from 1995 to 2000, Halliburton Products and Services set up shop in Iran. The Halliburton subsidiary does approximately $40 million a year worth of oil field service work for the Iranian government. 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl visited the subsidiary in the Cayman Islands and found that it had no office and no employees. The mailing address was a local bank with which the subsidiary is registered. Stahl was met there by the bank’s manager who informed her that all mail to the subsidiary is forwarded to Halliburton headquarters in Houston. Halliburton had created the subsidiary to allow itself to do illegal business with a rogue state and to skip out on its taxes in the process.

With Iran’s president vowing to destroy Israel and being accused by the Bush administration of harboring and aiding al-Qaeda operatives, Cheney’s company is doing business with Iran through a subsidiary and dodging its tax obligations to the U.S.
Halliburton has been more closely associated with the invasion of Iraq than any other corporation. Before the Iraq War began, it was 19th on the U.S. Army's list of top contractors and zoomed to number 1 in 2003. In 2003 Halliburton made $4.2 billion from the U.S. government. Cheney stated he had , "severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest."

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) recently asserted that Cheney's stock options which were worth $241,498 a year ago, are now valued at more than $8 million-- for an increase of 3,281% . Cheney has pledged to give the proceeds to charity. Cheney continues to received a deferred salary from the company. He was paid $205,298 in 2001; $162,392 in 2002; $178,437 in 2003; and $194,852 in 2004.

The Congressional Research Service has concluded that holding stock options while in elective office does constitute a “financial interest” whether or not the holder of the options donates the proceeds to charities, and deferred compensation is also a financial interest.

Calling on Cheney to sever his financial ties to Halliburton, Lautenberg points out that the company has already raked in more than $10 billion for work in Iraq, and was handed some of the first Katrina contracts. The company has been criticized by auditors for its handling of no-bid contacts in Iraq, and there have been numerous allegations of over charging for services. Auditors found the firm marked up meal prices for troops and inflated gas prices in a deal with a Kuwaiti supplier. The company also built the American prison at Guantanamo Bay. Lautenberg said, "It is unseemly for the Vice President to continue to benefit from this company at the same time his Administration funnels billions of dollars to it.”

Cheney’s war profiteering requires redress and justice.

[Naturist Mark]

As factcheck.org concludes claims that Cheney financially benefits from contracts to Haliburton are false.

There's nothing to indicate there is anything in it for him except in the imaginations of those who detest him which is why your Democratic party and leftwingers merely repeat the word 'Haliburton' without saying anything. There' s nothing more to say.

Ho Hum,

I was reluctant to do Kirk's research for him yet again, but I see that usmc1 went ahead and posted the refutation from none other than the Congressional Research Service.

Even if you accept that Cheney does not benefit from Halliburton (and now KBR) contracts directly (an assertion that the CRS rejects), he is still conflicted due to the positions of family and close associates. Even though it is now SOP, before the Bush administration it would have been considered an outrageous conflict of interest to steer business to your former employer - and Cheney has done far more than 'steer'. It beggers the imagination to assume that a public servant steering business to a former employer would not be rewarded upon leaving public service.

In a previous post Kirk mentions that Cheney has 'insulated' himself from conflict of interest by promising to donate after tax profits from stock options to charity. Thus he would not benefit from the over 3000% increase in value of those options that resulted from the huge increase in business between Halliburton and the US government under the Bush administration. The good news is that Cheney has kept his promise - in 2005 a major block of those options were exercised and the Cheney's donated almost $6.9 million to charity - and that is to be admired regardless of other considerations. Of course the tangible and intangible benefits of large scale philanthropy still accrue to the Cheneys due to the good fortunes of Halliburton.

The facts remain that Cheney has monetarily benefited more from his association with Halliburton during his Vice-Presidency than he has from his public salary, and he will benefit more from it when he leaves public office. His personal fortunes are far more tied to Halliburton than to the people of the United States.

-Mark

[KirkOntario]

The facts remain that Cheney has monetarily benefited more from his association with Halliburton during his Vice-Presidency than he has from his public salary, and he will benefit more from it when he leaves public office. His personal fortunes are far more tied to Halliburton than to the people of the United States.

-Mark

Your alleged refutation is a very poor one full of inuendo and without substance. No true conflict of interest exists nor can you say he's benefited from the war. His compensation is for past services and structed before he ran for Vice-president and any decisions were made and it is insured by an insurance company and not dependant on the financial health of the corporation.
No conflict.
No profiteering.
Plain and simple.

And we all know that if there were any such 'profiteering' Congress would actually do something... and Cheney would be gone.

So, I ask you Mark, if Cheney 'profited' from the war as you suggest (though you cannot support this assertion) why haven't the Democrats acted to remove him from office? Are they in on the conspiracy too?
The answer is that there is no substance to these allegations.

[Boreas]

"The push to expand the service economy into the heart of government was, for Cheney, a family affair. In the late nineties, while he was turning military bases into Halliburton suburbs, his wife, Lynne, was earning stock options in addition to her salary as a board member at Lockheed Martin, the world's largest defence contractor. Lynne's time on the board, from 1995-2001, coincided with a key period of transition for companies like Lockheed. The Cold War was over, defence spending was dropping, and with nearly the entire budgets coming from government weapons contracts, these firms needed a new business model. At Lockheed and its fellow arms manufacturers, a strategy emerged to aggressively pursue a new line of work: running the government for a fee..........It made for a powerful husband wife team. While Dick was steering Halliburton to take over the infrastructure of warfare abroad, Lynne was helping Lockheed to take over the day to day running of the government at home." Klein, N. The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, 2007, Alfred A Knopf Canada pp. 351-352

"Rumsfeld's and Cheney's dogged refusals to choose between their disaster-connected holdings and their public duties were the first sign that a genuine corporatist state had arrived. There are many others" Ibid p380

"The fact that Cheney still maintains such a quantity of Halliburton shares means that throughout his term as vice-president, he has collected millions every year in dividends from his stocks and has also been paid an annual deferred income by Halliburton of $211,000 - roughly equivalent to his government salary. When he leaves office in 2009 and is able to cash in his Halliburton holdings, Cheney will have the opportunity to profit extravagently from the stunning improvement in Halliburton's fortunes. The company's stock price rose from $10 before the war in Iraq to $41 three years later - a 300 percent jump, thanks to a combination of soaring energy prices and Iraq contracts, both of which flow directly from Cheney's sterring the country into war with Iraq." Ibid p 376

You will also find information about how Rumsfeld profited from the avian flu scare and the promotion of Tamiflu during that time. All the major players in the US government have seemed to have profited from the Iraq war and related crises.

For those who are interested, Naomi Klein's book The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism is an excellent book. I have also had the pleasure of hearing her brother, Seth Klein speak. Both are vocal opponents to the neo-liberal wave that has hit the world.

[Boreas]

It is interesting that Kirk has not responded to usmc1's post. Too much validated information perhaps?

The current admin is filled with followers of Friedman and therefore are committed to his plan, and as such, would not sanction those who are benefitting from it:

"First, the government must remove all rules and regulations standing in the way of accumulation of profits. Second, they should sell off any assets they own that corporations could be running at a profit. And third, they should dramatically cut back the funding of social programs. ....... Friedman's war on the "welfare state" and "big government" held out the promise of a new font of rapid riches - only this time, rather than conquering new territory, the state itself would be the new frontier, its public services and assets auctioned off for far less than they were worth" Klein, Naomi The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism pp. 65-66

I have been seeing this happening for the past 8+ years in the US, it has also been happening in various degrees in Canada. Frankly it is all a shell game. Words and propaganda are used to help convince everyone that this is the best way to run the world. Sadly, the people they are convincing are often the ones who are harmed by this approach. Now many are working for less than living wages. There are more people who cannot afford adequate health care. Etc.

We have to turn the tide away from this approach, if it is still possible.

[Naturist Mark]

So, I ask you Mark, if Cheney 'profited' from the war as you suggest (though you cannot support this assertion) why haven't the Democrats acted to remove him from office? Are they in on the conspiracy too?
The answer is that there is no substance to these allegations.

The refutation came from the Congressional Research Service - a non-partisan agency within the legislative branch, but you should note that Republicans fully controlled that branch at the time.

And I made direct statements, not innuendo.

"Why haven't the Democrats acted to remove him from office?" My theory: lack of spine, political calculations, complicity, and more lack of spine. But I would note that Representative Kucinich has filed articles of impeachment against Cheney, with over two dozen co-sponsors, twice. Despite co-sponsorship by 6 members of the judiciary committee the articles remain blocked by the Democratic leadership. Of course the impeachment charges are for high crimes against the United States of America, not for mere conflict of interest violations.

-Mark

[KirkOntario]

You are misrepresenting the findings of the Congressional Research Service. They concluded there was a 'financial interest' (there is) but could not conclude there was any conflict. It was set up that way because politicians are smart enough to avoid such conflicts otherwise their political enemies can act against them. The reason the Democrats have not acted is because they have nothing to act on vis a vis Haliburton.

[Naturist Mark]

You are misrepresenting the findings of the Congressional Research Service. They concluded there was a 'financial interest' (there is) but could not conclude there was any conflict. It was set up that way because politicians are smart enough to avoid such conflicts otherwise their political enemies can act against them. The reason the Democrats have not acted is because they have nothing to act on vis a vis Haliburton.

We have some progress here, Kirk has accepted the existence of a 'financial interest', albeit with the reservation that it doesn't represent a conflict of interest.

He doesn't address the revolving door issue. Namely that Cheney as Secretary of Defense set up a system that would divert massive amounts of defense spending to private contractors in general and Halliburtin/KBR in particular, left government, became CEO of the same company which benefitted from his decisions, and when he returned to government steers vastly increased business to that some company. This is far beyond the appearance of a conflict of interest.

-Mark

[scubare]

There is suspician, but I have yet to see evidence that there was actual vote fraud. And even if, the margin of victory in Ohio was 2.11%, much more than the 0.38% that Kerry led in Wisconsin. There would have had to have been a lot of vote fraud to make a difference. And still, Bush won by over three million votes nationwide. So he still would have had the popular vote, even if every Ohio Bush voter dropped dead on the way to the polls. A large majority of Democrat Congressmen and Democrat Senators voted not to contest the election, and neither did Kerry.
Exit polls of Perot voters. Most of the Perot voters said they would have voted for Bush if Perot had not run.

You know, Skinview, you really should listen to REAL news, and not just FOX all the time (correct spelling of fox is FAUX). In case you hadn't heard the machines were all supplied by a dyed in the wool Republican. The machines had no paper trail, and could not be examined due to "proprietary and intellectual rights".
All you really have to do is Google Ohio vote fraud and you come up with tons of proof.
But I'll provide you with some links to get you started:

http://www.xopl.com/blog/2006/02/25/ohiovotingfraud.html
http://www.truthout.org/cblog.shtml
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0412/S00056.htm
That's just to warm you up.

As for "winning" the popular vote, NOT, but I'll humor you and say even if he did, it is not the popular vote that "counts" (remember Gore winning the popular vote but "not" the electoral vote?) but the electoral votes.
As for the results not being contested, I feel that they made a big mistake by not doing so, but they didn't want to put the country through another Florida debacle.


And another thing, what crystal ball are you using that tells you what the results WOULD have been had Perot not run? Hmmmm?

Exit polls of Perot voters. Most of the Perot voters said they would have voted for Bush if Perot had not run.

There again, haven't you ever heard of the book "How to Lie With Statistics"? It depends on WHICH voters were polled. You can be assured that FAUX news took their exit polls in upper class white neighborhoods. You can manipulate polls to say anything you want, which is why they are only guidelines.

[scubare]

No one has demonstrated that he lied, just that he was wrong. The decision to go to war has been thoroughly investigated by Bob Woodward. The CIA told the Bush administration that Saddam had WMDs, and the case for it was "a slam dunk." They were wrong. No lie, just bad information.

Saddam had tried to build WMDs before, he kicked out the UN inspectors at great cost, and we later learned that Saddam wanted Iran to think he had WMDs.

The whole world thought he had WMDs. Iraqi officials thought he had a WMD program.

Saddam Hussain is dead. His execution was broadcast on tv.

"Slam dunk" was later refuted as being taken out of context...which is what the shrub does best; he picks and chooses his "facts" to "prove" whatever he wants. The truth is that he had PLENTY of advice by experts in the field that there were NO WMD's. But that is not what he wanted to hear.

Uh, yeah, that is WHY he kicked the inspectors out, because they would say that there were no weapons when he wanted Iran to believe there were.

Uh, no, the "whole world" did not believe there were WMD's, that's why the UN wanted to keep the inspectors, but Bush wouldn't listen; he rebelled and went to war anyway. Remember how we ridiculed France for not buying into the lie? We even went so far as to rename our french fries "Freedom fries". Ridiculous!

Maybe you didn't read my post about this:
Gee, why is Cheyney on video in an inerview on two (2) separate occasions after the first Gulf war saying that the worst thing America could do would be to proceed on to Bagdad and capture Saddam? He said to do so without a firm plan and government ready to take control in place, would destabilize the entire area...sound familiar? Why is he going against his own 'wisdom'? Forget ignoring their advisors when they charged into an illegal war of aggression, Cheyney ignored his own words. Talk about a duplicitous, lying and power hungry... government?!
Yep, I guess you could say "Mission Accomplished", Bush managed to de-stabilize the whole region. :o

[scubare]

Rove today on the Democrats. He's dead on. The Democrats haven't caught up to reality and are out of touch with the American people.

First of all, you are quoting Rove?!? The 'mother' of all deception?

The Democrats are out of touch?

That is just to LAUGHABLE to respond to! :rofl:

[scubare]

DEWEY WINS! Yeah, right, the polls mean a lot.... The New Hampshire primaries have shown us how much they have improved, not.

Polls again. No mention of how close the polls were, either.

Talk about self destructing...weren't you the one saying that, because of exit polls, if Perot hadn't been running as a spoiler, then all of those votes would have gone to Bush? Come on, you can't have it both ways.

[scubare]

Are you aware Cheney sign an irrevocable direction to have his options directed to 3 registered charities? His deferred compensation isn't dependent on financial performance of the company. Were you aware of that?

So the suggestion of personal profit from the war is false as is the allegation (an outrageous one) that the war was waged for personal gain.

Repeating a word over and over again provides nothing of substance and this is what the extreme left has given us for the past 7 years.

Yeah, and every single corporation and/or CEO pays their rightfull tax without using overpaid lawyers to find loopholes...RIGHT! ;)

[Qikdraw]

"Slam dunk" was later refuted as being taken out of context...which is what the shrub does best; he picks and chooses his "facts" to "prove" whatever he wants. The truth is that he had PLENTY of advice by experts in the field that there were NO WMD's. But that is not what he wanted to hear.

Cue in the Office of Special Plans which was created by Rumsfeld and headed up by Feith and Wolfowitz to search for evidence to invade Iraq. Lets look at this a second... Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld in 1998 signed onto a letter to Bill Clinton saying we should attack Iraq (http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm).

Hardly an unbiased group to get intelligence from.

Qikdraw

[nacktman]

Take the weekend off and guess what? Nothing changed.
The National Socialists are still spewing and sputtering and still wrong.

Cheney lied today - he breathed.

As is said by many ... tis a mystery the fantasy world they inhabit - it's not even a place anyone with a sound mind would wish to be forced to visit much less desire to.

[scubare]

You are making the allegation that Cheney has profited from the war. You have asserted this as a fact without support. This is your allegation to prove.

Dick Cheney left Haliburton in 2000 at the start of the presidential campaign. There have been many rules passed over the years for politicians to deal with these conflict of interest issues. If Cheney hadn't complied with those rules Congress would be all over Cheney and he'd be gone by now. The scintilla of ties between him and Haliburton consist of deferred compensation which has been insured so that it is not dependant on the company's performance. The unexercised stock options have been dealt with by an irrevocable direction to pay any proceeds to several registered charities.

Well, that sounds like more of an indictment of Congress for not doing their job than a defense of Cheyney. After all, Congress has their pick of crimes by both Bush and Cheyney to impeach them on, and they are falling down on the job...a fact that likely won't be overlooked come this next election.

[usmc1]

I move that we declare Cheney A Big Fat Liar and a War Profiteer by acclamation. Moving the questions,

Show of hands?

Mr. Secretary into into the minutes that Cheney has been declared, by acclamation, both a big Fat Liar and a No-good, Despicable War Profiteer.

What?

OK, ok, strike the no good despicable part, dammit! But,t he rest stands by acclamation.

Now who's joining me in the bar?

Yeah, it's on Scubabare's and Jon's tab this time. Mark's still designated driver.

If you've got any arguments take them up with Nacktman, he's Sergeant at Arms, and is waiting in the parking lot with a ball bat...made from N.C. ash.

Qikdraw, and the rest of you lads, just beer mixed drinks you buy yourself.

ErcNY, you're honory bouncer, in case some of these boyos get out of line.

Now,that bit of business is behind us, Cheney is a Big Fat Lying War Profiteer. Can we move on something that is really at doubt, What's the meaning of life?

[Naturist Mark]

No one has demonstrated that he lied, just that he was wrong. The decision to go to war has been thoroughly investigated by Bob Woodward. The CIA told the Bush administration that Saddam had WMDs, and the case for it was "a slam dunk." They were wrong. No lie, just bad information. Saddam had tried to build WMDs before, he kicked out the UN inspectors at great cost, and we later learned that Saddam wanted Iran to think he had WMDs. The whole world thought he had WMDs. Iraqi officials thought he had a WMD program.


I've proven over and over again that before 9/11 Colin Powell and Condi Rice knew that Iraq had no WMD's and was no threat.

http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showthread.php?p=188251&highlight=Colin+Condi#post188251

http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showthread.php?p=85598&highlight=Colin+Condi#post85598

http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showthread.php?p=158003&highlight=Colin+Condi#post158003

http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showthread.php?p=157500&highlight=Colin+Condi#post157500

http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showthread.php?p=51489&highlight=Colin+Condi#post51489

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AUIAq_0TE4w&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AUIAq_0TE4w&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[Qikdraw]

Can we move on something that is really at doubt, What's the meaning of life?

42

Everybody knows that.

Qikdraw

[jon71]

Since I'm not the only Douglas Adams fan why don't we kick back at the Restaurant at the end of the universe.

[scubare]

Try me. C'mon.

Here's my source. Where's yours?

http://www.factcheck.org/kerry_ad_falsely_accuses_cheney_on_halliburton.htm l

From that article: "We asked Cheney's personal attorney to document the deferral agreement as well, and he supplied us with a copy of the form, posted here publicly for the first time."

Would he be like Cheney's chief of staff...you know, the one that was just disbarred? Apparently these jokers have no qualms lying for him.

[nacktman]

Hey, I prefer Hickory to Ash!;)
(Clint isn't the only one to prefer Hickory ya know)
Make mine straight up!:laugh:

[scubare]

I move that we declare Cheney A Big Fat Liar and a War Profiteer by acclamation. Moving the questions,

Show of hands?

Mr. Secretary into into the minutes that Cheney has been declared, by acclamation, both a big Fat Liar and a No-good, Despicable War Profiteer.

What?

OK, ok, strike the no good despicable part, dammit! But,t he rest stands by acclamation.

Now who's joining me in the bar?

Yeah, it's on Scubabare's and Jon's tab this time. Mark's still designated driver.

If you've got any arguments take them up with Nacktman, he's Sergeant at Arms, and is waiting in the parking lot with a ball bat...made from N.C. ash.

Qikdraw, and the rest of you lads, just beer mixed drinks you buy yourself.

ErcNY, you're honory bouncer, in case some of these boyos get out of line.

Now,that bit of business is behind us, Cheney is a Big Fat Lying War Profiteer. Can we move on something that is really at doubt, What's the meaning of life?

Never met the dude personally, but I'll be happy to drink on his tab! :laugh:

[usmc1]

Never met the dude personally, but I'll be happy to drink on his tab! :laugh:

After a day of moving, fence building and dog and cat herding, my fingers were as thick as bananas. But, you now have an extra "a" in your name should the need ever arise.:D

[Skinview]

I've proven over and over again that before 9/11 Colin Powell and Condi Rice knew that Iraq had no WMD's and was no threat.

http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showthread.php?p=188251&highlight=Colin+Condi#post188251

http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showthread.php?p=85598&highlight=Colin+Condi#post85598

http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showthread.php?p=158003&highlight=Colin+Condi#post158003

http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showthread.php?p=157500&highlight=Colin+Condi#post157500

http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showthread.php?p=51489&highlight=Colin+Condi#post51489

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AUIAq_0TE4w&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AUIAq_0TE4w&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
I clicked on your first link, and found just another post by you restating the same thing. I hardly think you quoting yourself makes your case "proven". Then I played the youtube clip, from two years before the war. Rice said NOTHING about WMDs. Powell said, back then, that Hussain didn't have WMDs. He didn't say Hussain wasn't trying to get them. They never said, even on the eve of the war, that they knew that Hussain HAD WMDs.

[usmc1]

I clicked on your first link, and found just another post by you restating the same thing. I hardly think you quoting yourself makes your case "proven". Then I played the youtube clip, from two years before the war. Rice said NOTHING about WMDs. Powell said, back then, that Hussain didn't have WMDs. He didn't say Hussain wasn't trying to get them. They never said, even on the eve of the war, that they knew that Hussain HAD WMDs.

Please do not be obtuse. It is not a becoming trait in adults:

False Pretenses

Following 9/11, President Bush and seven top officials of his administration waged a carefully orchestrated campaign of misinformation about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq.



By Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith
President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.

On at least 532 separate occasions (in speeches, briefings, interviews, testimony, and the like), Bush and these three key officials, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan, stated unequivocally that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them), links to Al Qaeda, or both. This concerted effort was the underpinning of the Bush administration's case for war.

It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to Al Qaeda. This was the conclusion of numerous bipartisan government investigations, including those by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (2004 and 2006), the 9/11 Commission, and the multinational Iraq Survey Group, whose "Duelfer Report" established that Saddam Hussein had terminated Iraq's nuclear program in 1991 and made little effort to restart it.

In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003. Not surprisingly, the officials with the most opportunities to make speeches, grant media interviews, and otherwise frame the public debate also made the most false statements, according to this first-ever analysis of the entire body of prewar rhetoric.

President Bush, for example, made 232 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and another 28 false statements about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. Secretary of State Powell had the second-highest total in the two-year period, with 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. Rumsfeld and Fleischer each made 109 false statements, followed by Wolfowitz (with 85), Rice (with 56), Cheney (with 48), and McClellan (with 14).
The massive database at the heart of this project juxtaposes what President Bush and these seven top officials were saying for public consumption against what was known, or should have been known, on a day-to-day basis. This fully searchable database includes the public statements, drawn from both primary sources (such as official transcripts) and secondary sources (chiefly major news organizations) over the two years beginning on September 11, 2001. It also interlaces relevant information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches, and interviews.

Consider, for example, these false public statements made in the run-up to war:

On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney's assertions went well beyond his agency's assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, "Our reaction was, 'Where is he getting this stuff from?' "

In the closing days of September 2002, with a congressional vote fast approaching on authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, Bush told the nation in his weekly radio address: "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. . . . This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year." A few days later, similar findings were also included in a much-hurried National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction — an analysis that hadn't been done in years, as the intelligence community had deemed it unnecessary and the White House hadn't requested it.

In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: "Sure." In fact, an assessment issued that same month by the Defense Intelligence Agency (and confirmed weeks later by CIA Director Tenet) found an absence of "compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda." What's more, an earlier DIA assessment said that "the nature of the regime's relationship with Al Qaeda is unclear." On May 29, 2003, in an interview with Polish TV, President Bush declared: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories." But as journalist Bob Woodward reported in State of Denial, days earlier a team of civilian experts dispatched to examine the two mobile labs found in Iraq had concluded in a field report that the labs were not for biological weapons. The team's final report, completed the following month, concluded that the labs had probably been used to manufacture hydrogen for weather balloons.

On January 28, 2003, in his annual State of the Union address, Bush asserted: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." Two weeks earlier, an analyst with the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research sent an email to colleagues in the intelligence community laying out why he believed the uranium-purchase agreement "probably is a hoax."

On February 5, 2003, in an address to the United Nations Security Council, Powell said: "What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources." As it turned out, however, two of the main human sources to which Powell referred had provided false information. One was an Iraqi con artist, code-named "Curveball," whom American intelligence officials were dubious about and in fact had never even spoken to. The other was an Al Qaeda detainee, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, who had reportedly been sent to Eqypt by the CIA and tortured and who later recanted the information he had provided. Libi told the CIA in January 2004 that he had "decided he would fabricate any information interrogators wanted in order to gain better treatment and avoid being handed over to [a foreign government]."
The false statements dramatically increased in August 2002, with congressional consideration of a war resolution, then escalated through the mid-term elections and spiked even higher from January 2003 to the eve of the invasion.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Images/Charts/WarCardChart_Thumb.jpg (javascript: void(0);)
http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Images/Icons/Icons_Enlarge.gif (javascript: void(0);)
It was during those critical weeks in early 2003 that the president delivered his State of the Union address and Powell delivered his memorable U.N. presentation. For all 935 false statements, including when and where they occurred, go to the search (http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Search/Default.aspx) page for this project; the methodology used for this analysis is explained here (http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Default.aspx?src=project_home&context=methodology&id=953).

In addition to their patently false pronouncements, Bush and these seven top officials also made hundreds of other statements in the two years after 9/11 in which they implied that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or links to Al Qaeda. Other administration higher-ups, joined by Pentagon officials and Republican leaders in Congress, also routinely sounded false war alarms in the Washington echo chamber.

The cumulative effect of these false statements — amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts — was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war. Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, "independent" validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq.

The "ground truth" of the Iraq war itself eventually forced the president to backpedal, albeit grudgingly. In a 2004 appearance on NBC's Meet the Press, for example, Bush acknowledged that no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. And on December 18, 2005, with his approval ratings on the decline, Bush told the nation in a Sunday-night address from the Oval Office: "It is true that Saddam Hussein had a history of pursuing and using weapons of mass destruction. It is true that he systematically concealed those programs, and blocked the work of U.N. weapons inspectors. It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As your president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. Yet it was right to remove Saddam Hussein from power."
Bush stopped short, however, of admitting error or poor judgment; instead, his administration repeatedly attributed the stark disparity between its prewar public statements and the actual "ground truth" regarding the threat posed by Iraq to poor intelligence from a Who's Who of domestic agencies.

On the other hand, a growing number of critics, including a parade of former government officials, have publicly — and in some cases vociferously — accused the president and his inner circle of ignoring or distorting the available intelligence. In the end, these critics say, it was the calculated drumbeat of false information and public pronouncements that ultimately misled the American people and this nation's allies on their way to war.

Bush and the top officials of his administration have so far largely avoided the harsh, sustained glare of formal scrutiny about their personal responsibility for the litany of repeated, false statements in the run-up to the war in Iraq. There has been no congressional investigation, for example, into what exactly was going on inside the Bush White House in that period. Congressional oversight has focused almost entirely on the quality of the U.S. government's pre-war intelligence — not the judgment, public statements, or public accountability of its highest officials. And, of course, only four of the officials — Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz — have testified before Congress about Iraq.

Short of such review, this project provides a heretofore unavailable framework for examining how the U.S. war in Iraq came to pass. Clearly, it calls into question the repeated assertions of Bush administration officials that they were the unwitting victims of bad intelligence.

Above all, the 935 false statements painstakingly presented here finally help to answer two all-too-familiar questions as they apply to Bush and his top advisers: What did they know, and when did they know it?

[Qikdraw]

For those denying that Bush said Saddam had WMDs...

March 19, 2003 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html) (you know, the day we started attacking Iraq)

Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly -- yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.


Qikdraw

[KirkOntario]

Yeah, and every single corporation and/or CEO pays their rightfull tax without using overpaid lawyers to find loopholes...RIGHT! ;)

That would be a completely different issue. Skillful tax planning is not tax evasion.

[KirkOntario]

We have some progress here, Kirk has accepted the existence of a 'financial interest', albeit with the reservation that it doesn't represent a conflict of interest.

He doesn't address the revolving door issue. Namely that Cheney as Secretary of Defense set up a system that would divert massive amounts of defense spending to private contractors in general and Halliburtin/KBR in particular, left government, became CEO of the same company which benefitted from his decisions, and when he returned to government steers vastly increased business to that some company. This is far beyond the appearance of a conflict of interest.

-Mark

It is you who are now moving the goal posts. Defeated on the 2000-2008 baseless allegations of wartime profiting you are now referring to events that predate 2000 in a desperate attempt to pin something (anything!) on poor besmirched Mr. Cheney. Please do provide the details of these NEW allegations now that we have done with old ones that had no merit to them.

[jon71]

Frequently "skillful tax planning" is tax evasion. Often C.F.O.s and such plan on breaking the law and plan on not getting caught. Of course things don't always go according to plan.

[Boreas]

That would be a completely different issue. Skillful tax planning is not tax evasion.

Yes, and sometimes it is.

[KirkOntario]

Frequently "skillful tax planning" is tax evasion. Often C.F.O.s and such plan on breaking the law and plan on not getting caught. Of course things don't always go according to plan.

Tax planning is tax planning. Using the rules to minimize paying tax is legal.

[Skinview]

Talk about self destructing...weren't you the one saying that, because of exit polls, if Perot hadn't been running as a spoiler, then all of those votes would have gone to Bush? Come on, you can't have it both ways.
There is a world of difference between opinion polls and exit polls. You don't know beforehand who is going to actually vote. Republicans turn out at a higher rate than Democrats do, and then the weather might be bad on election day in one area where one candidate was in the lead, and then people change their minds on they way to the polls, etc. Exit polls are polls of people who VOTED, minutes after they did so.
I stand by my skepticism of the significance of the pre-election polls, but after some research, I withdraw my claim that Perot changed the outcome of the '92 election. It looks like Perot cost Bush Ohio, but probably not enough elsewhere to change the outcome, although it is disputed by some.

[Skinview]

Please do not be obtuse. It is not a becoming trait in adults:

False Pretenses

Following 9/11, President Bush and seven top officials of his administration waged a carefully orchestrated campaign of misinformation about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

By Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-SmithI don't think there is anything in here that I don't already know. Counting up how many times the Bush administration said something that turned out to be wrong doesn't tell us anything. I think what is revealing about this article is that Lewis and Reading-Smith are so hell bent on making a case that Bush lied (a word they had the sense not to use), but were never able to show that Bush knew what he was telling us was wrong. If this is the best that the antiBush crowd can come up with, then its time to say "case closed due to lack of evidence".

[usmc1]

I don't think there is anything in here that I don't already know. Counting up how many times the Bush administration said something that turned out to be wrong doesn't tell us anything. I think what is revealing about this article is that Lewis and Reading-Smith are so hell bent on making a case that Bush lied (a word they had the sense not to use), but were never able to show that Bush knew what he was telling us was wrong. If this is the best that the antiBush crowd can come up with, then its time to say "case closed due to lack of evidence".

How dismal a life acting as an apologist for the Bush administration and parsing words for meaning. You must be a Clinton supporter and still wondering about the definitions of is and sex, and now wrong versus lie.

We've already determine that Cheney is a Big Fat Liar & War Profiteer. I'll submit it to the floor. Should we declaim by acclamation that the whole damned Bush administration is a gaggle of liars and a coterie of crooks, profiteers and mendicants?

Yes, I so move, may I have a second?

[jon71]

Second. And while I'm at it let me spell out I was saying that that the people doing the tax planning sometimes choose to go outside the law and save themselves more than would be legal. I thought that was so obvious even a conservative could understand it but maybe not.

[KirkOntario]

No need to get personal, jon. If they choose to break the law they aren't 'tax planning.' Tax planning is using the existing rules to minimize tax and it's legal. Tax evasion is breaking the law.

[KirkOntario]

I don't think there is anything in here that I don't already know. Counting up how many times the Bush administration said something that turned out to be wrong doesn't tell us anything. I think what is revealing about this article is that Lewis and Reading-Smith are so hell bent on making a case that Bush lied (a word they had the sense not to use), but were never able to show that Bush knew what he was telling us was wrong. If this is the best that the antiBush crowd can come up with, then its time to say "case closed due to lack of evidence".

Skinview, they don't need evidence they 'know' Bush lied. They will never be convinced otherwise. It's pointless. We could all agree that the Bush administration deserves some blame for not asking enough hard questions and getting themselves into this position where they can be accused of lying.

[nacktman]

Damn, they're still at it - parsing and diverting.

Acclamation has it ... the entire cabal is a gaggle of lying, morally bankrupt, mentally challenged perverts.

[Boreas]

Mislead, tax planning, creative use of wording......not necessarily lying, cheating etc per se.....still they have done many things for which they need to be ashamed. Of course, I doubt that shame is something they would feel.

[usmc1]

I've gotten a second and am moving the question, by a show of hands, that we declare by acclamation that Bush, his mendicants, and the whole damned gaggle of his administration are big fat liars and war profiteers.

Discussion is closed...voting on the question.

Show of hands for yea or nay, please.

I vote yea!

[MoonShadow]

LOL

This thread is a hoot!

Misinformation, spinning, manipulating words, whatever, is just a form of L Y I N G! This Administration take all honors for all of this. I cannot recall in my six decades of life of any administration as bad as this one. There have been bad ones...Nixon's reign, then the Ragean years for starters, but these do not compare to what we have now.

Boreas, yes, you are so right. I don't think any would know what shame is about

[Boreas]

I am glad you chimed in MoonShadow! Well said. :bussi:

[Qikdraw]

Misinformation, spinning, manipulating words, whatever, is just a form of L Y I N G! This Administration take all honors for all of this. I cannot recall in my six decades of life of any administration as bad as this one. There have been bad ones...Nixon's reign,

Actually Nixon, while a power hungry, controlling, nutjob, actually did some good things. Didn't he start the EPA, and a few other good things? (stuff that slips my mind atm I just woke up a short while ago.)

Qikdraw

[usmc1]

Actually Nixon, while a power hungry, controlling, nutjob, actually did some good things. Didn't he start the EPA, and a few other good things? (stuff that slips my mind atm I just woke up a short while ago.)

Qikdraw

The only good thing that perfidious bastard Nixon did was to resign!

[nacktman]

Actually Nixon, while a power hungry, controlling, nutjob, actually did some good things. Didn't he start the EPA, and a few other good things? (stuff that slips my mind atm I just woke up a short while ago.)

Qikdraw

The EPA was forced down his throat by the nation, Qikdraw, he fought it tooth and nail - but that little 'misunderstanding' at that waterfront hotel in Washington D.C., caused him to loose all pretenses and hopes of stone-walling it.

The only thing good he ever did was pass away.

Talk about pandering to get elected he was the first to out and out lie to do it - he was elected on the 'strength' of his promise to get us out of Vietnam and then proceeded to escalate our presence there.
I, myself was in Cambodia (30 Clicks in) and heard him on the shortwave telling the American people we were not in Cambodia nor would we go into Cambodia. At the time I thought "Damn I thought that was the Mekong a ways back ... but I must have been mistaken because ol'tricky says I ain't in Cambodia."

[Naturist Mark]

Actually Nixon, while a power hungry, controlling, nutjob, actually did some good things. Didn't he start the EPA, and a few other good things? (stuff that slips my mind atm I just woke up a short while ago.)

Qikdraw

Yes he did, since he was fortunate enough to have a Democratic Congress.

But to be truthful, that was a very different era, there was a lot of real bipartisanship back then, it was normal for Republicans and Democrats to work together on most legislation, and lockstep party voting was practically unknown.

[Qikdraw]

Yes he did, since he was fortunate enough to have a Democratic Congress.

But to be truthful, that was a very different era, there was a lot of real bipartisanship back then, it was normal for Republicans and Democrats to work together on most legislation, and lockstep party voting was practically unknown.

I watched a bit of Goldwater on Goldwater when it was on HBO one night. It was amazing that old politicians from both sides remembered that while they might be political opponants, it didn't mean you couldn't be friends. Sadly this is no longer true.

Qikdraw

[nacktman]

Originally posted by usmc1; Besides being a Big Fat Liar and War Profiteer, Cheney is a festering pimple on the unwashed arse of a mange eaten swamp hog.

Had to borrow that quote from another thread because it is the best descriptive one yet for the idiot.

Bravo! :applause:

[Naturist Mark]

I watched a bit of Goldwater on Goldwater when it was on HBO one night. It was amazing that old politicians from both sides remembered that while they might be political opponants, it didn't mean you couldn't be friends. Sadly this is no longer true.

Qikdraw

Indeed, one of Goldwater's closest friends was George McGovern. Longtime Toledo Democratic congressman Lud Ashley was a close lifelong friend of George H.W. Bush.

[Sanslines]

Yes, we all know that ALL Republicans are devils. ALL Democrats are saints. Get rid of all of the Republicans from government and replace them all with Democrats and the resulting government would be PERFECT. All problems solved. So, don't even think about who you are voting for or where they stand on any issues. Just vote the straight Democratic party line and be done with it. Pull that lever and pull it now. How's that for simplifying life.

[Skinview]

Talk about pandering to get elected he was the first to out and out lie to do it - he [Nixon] was elected on the 'strength' of his promise to get us out of Vietnam and then proceeded to escalate our presence there.I am no fan of Nixon, but he did pull almost all of our troops out of Vietnam. Now Johnson, on the other hand, said ten days before his election in 1964:
"We are not about to send American boys nine or ten thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing to protect themselves."

About four years later the joke was "Johnson said that if I voted for Goldwater, we would be fighting a war in Vietnam. Well I did, and I'll be damned if Johnson wasn't right."

[Naturist Mark]

I am no fan of Nixon, but he did pull almost all of our troops out of Vietnam.

Congress did it by refusing to continue to fund the war. A lesson the Democrats in 2007 and 2008 have forgotten.

[usmc1]

Yes he did, since he was fortunate enough to have a Democratic Congress.

But to be truthful, that was a very different era, there was a lot of real bipartisanship back then, it was normal for Republicans and Democrats to work together on most legislation, and lockstep party voting was practically unknown.

The Gingrich revolution took care of that. The doctrinaire and ideology shackled republicans pursued a scorched earth, no-quarter given, turn-back-the-clock strategy based on harnessing corporate funders, neo-liberal economists, radical religious fundamentalist and reactionary social conservatives into brigades and strike-forces of activists who took over the GOP at the state and local levels reshaping it into the nearly fascist machine of the Bush presidency. Were it not for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, they would have succeeded.

It is problematic whether or not liberals, populists, and progressives have recovered sufficiently to bring governance back into a state of balance, collegiality, compromise, bi-partisanship and progress. This next election will determine that.

From the outside looking in, it all looks a bit Hegelian.

[Skinview]

Congress did it by refusing to continue to fund the war. A lesson the Democrats in 2007 and 2008 have forgotten.
Congress cut off funds for operations in Cambodia in 1970, but they didn't cut off funds for US operations in the Vietnam War until June 1973, well after the Paris Peace Accords. Nixon had already gotten the vast majority of our troops out with his Vietnamization policy.

"The goal of the American military effort was to buy time, gradually building up the strength of the South Vietnamese armed forces, and re-equipping it with modern weapons so that they could defend their nation on their own. This policy became the cornerstone of the so-called "Nixon Doctrine." As applied to Vietnam, it was labeled "Vietnamization."
-Wikipedia

Nixon viewed Vietnam as a lost cause, and intended to get the US out from day 1. But he wanted to prop up South Vietnam so it didn't fall until after we left. He squandered thousands of American lives for the sake of appearances. At least he knew what he was doing. Johnson created the disaster in the first place. He could have decided to stay out, or conquer North Vietnam like Iraq and have a victory with far less cost in lives. Instead he decided to engage in a moderate defensive war without end. Johnson was the worst president this country has ever had. 58,217 Americans and maybe 1,200,000 people total died for nothing. Iraq pales in comparison.

[Sanslines]

Congress cut off funds for operations in Cambodia in 1970, but they didn't cut off funds for US operations in the Vietnam War until June 1973, well after the Paris Peace Accords. Nixon had already gotten the vast majority of our troops out with his Vietnamization policy.

"The goal of the American military effort was to buy time, gradually building up the strength of the South Vietnamese armed forces, and re-equipping it with modern weapons so that they could defend their nation on their own. This policy became the cornerstone of the so-called "Nixon Doctrine." As applied to Vietnam, it was labeled "Vietnamization."
-Wikipedia

Nixon viewed Vietnam as a lost cause, and intended to get the US out from day 1. But he wanted to prop up South Vietnam so it didn't fall until after we left. He squandered thousands of American lives for the sake of appearances. At least he knew what he was doing. Johnson created the disaster in the first place. He could have decided to stay out, or conquer North Vietnam like Iraq and have a victory with far less cost in lives. Instead he decided to engage in a moderate defensive war without end. Johnson was the worst president this country has ever had. 58,217 Americans and maybe 1,200,000 people total died for nothing. Iraq pales in comparison.

Not true. Nixon said one thing but believed another. Had Nixon not been bogged down with the Watergate issue, Nixon would have secretely escalated the war to the point where he would have carpet bombed the hell out of the enemy and bombed them into either submission or out of existance. Nixon was no quitter and did not want to lose the war regardless of what he publically said.

[nacktman]

Nixon viewed Vietnam as a lost cause, and intended to get the US out from day 1. But he wanted to prop up South Vietnam so it didn't fall until after we left. He squandered thousands of American lives for the sake of appearances. At least he knew what he was doing.

That is so wrong, one does not know where to begin. Nixon saw Vietnam as a winnable war despite everyone actually involved fighting it telling him it wasn't. He wanted to conquer North Vietnam and make it one country under 'democratic' governance - the dictator we liked in other words. He squandered a whole helluva lot of lives trying to do just that. An no he had no clue as to what he was doing.

Johnson created the disaster in the first place. He could have decided to stay out, or conquer North Vietnam like Iraq and have a victory with far less cost in lives. Instead he decided to engage in a moderate defensive war without end.Wrong, wrong and wrong, again. Eisenhower created the disaster in the first place and set up the 'defensive' war in the first place.

Johnson was the worst president this country has ever had. 58,217 Americans and maybe 1,200,000 people total died for nothing. Iraq pales in comparison.Now I know you're losing it completely. The worst president (or at least he calls himself president) there has ever been is the shrub who is light years off the deep end of the 'worst' chart so much so that no one will ever be as bad as to out-do him for worse!

Comparing numbers is not any type of valid comparison - one death is one death too many.
Neither 'pales' by any 'comparison'!

[KirkOntario]

Look who was on Saddam's payroll. Democrats 'visiting' Iraq prior to the Iraq war start.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080326/ap_on_re_us/iraq_junket

"WASHINGTON - Saddam Hussein's intelligence agency secretly financed a trip to Iraq for three U.S. lawmakers during the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion, federal prosecutors said Wednesday.

An indictment unsealed in Detroit accuses Muthanna Al-Hanooti, a member of a Michigan nonprofit group, of arranging for three members of Congress to travel to Iraq in October 2002 at the behest of Saddam's regime. Prosecutors say Iraqi intelligence officials paid for the trip through an intermediary."

[nacktman]

http://www.bartcop.com/true-colors.jpg

[Naturist Mark]

Look who was on Saddam's payroll. Democrats 'visiting' Iraq prior to the Iraq war start.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080326/ap_on_re_us/iraq_junket

Didn't actually read the story, eh?
The lawmakers are not named in the indictment but the dates correspond to a trip by Democratic Reps. Jim McDermott of Washington, David Bonior of Michigan and Mike Thompson of California. None was charged and Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said investigators "have no information whatsoever" any of them knew the trip was underwritten by Saddam.

"Obviously, we didn't know it at the time," McDermott spokesman Michael DeCesare said Wednesday. "The trip was to see the plight of the Iraqi children. That's the only reason we went."

Both McDermott and Thompson are popular among liberal voters in their reliably Democratic districts for their anti-war views. Bonior is no longer in Congress.

Thompson released a statement Wednesday saying the trip was approved by the State Department.

"Obviously, had there been any question at all regarding the sponsor of the trip or the funding, I would not have participated," he said.

[KirkOntario]

So Democratic lawmakers go on trips oblivious to who pays for them? Rather unlikely.

[jon71]

As oblivious as the Republican state dept. that approved the trip I'd say. We'll call this one a bipartisan blunder.

[nacktman]

Jon, it was not a bipartisan blunder ... the Congressmen went for exactly what they said they did - the State Department (which is republican controlled as you know) had a serious hiccup and blundered in not knowing all the particulars when they approved the trip.

That other poster was just doing as his wont - parsing and diverting, trying to keep the weakness of his position in the shadows by attempting to refocus the light off his lies and onto the truth and call the truth lies hoping we will not know the difference.

T'aint working McGee - but they do persist!:laugh:

[Skinview]

Not true. Nixon said one thing but believed another. Had Nixon not been bogged down with the Watergate issue, Nixon would have secretely escalated the war to the point where he would have carpet bombed the hell out of the enemy and bombed them into either submission or out of existance. Nixon was no quitter and did not want to lose the war regardless of what he publically said.The vast majority of US troops were out of Vietnam when the Watergate break in happened, and the allegation of a coverup didn't happen until a couple of months after the Paris Peace accords. Nixon started withdrawing troops soon after he took office. Its not clear when Nixon began to think the war was unwinable.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/26/politics/main619719.shtml

[Skinview]

Wrong, wrong and wrong, again. Eisenhower created the disaster in the first place and set up the 'defensive' war in the first place.Eisenhower had about 700 US military advisors in Vietnam in 1960. At that time, the communists weren't doing much more than ambushes and terrorist acts. It wasn't really a "war" yet. There was a fight with a company of ARVN troops over a rubber plantation. Its estimated thet there were only about 2000 Viet Cong in all of South Vietnam then.
In contrast, Johnson started bombing North Vietnam and landed the 9th Marine Expeditionary Brigade at Da Nang in 1965. By the time he left office, there were 550,000 US troops in Vietnam. Eisenhower putting a few hundred advisors in South Vietnam in no way compares with what Johnson did.

[Qikdraw]

Eisenhower had about 700 US military advisors in Vietnam in 1960. At that time, the communists weren't doing much more than ambushes and terrorist acts.

Terrorists or patriots?

At the time Vietnam was under French colonial power. Why did we step in to try and keep the natives under colonial power considering US history?

Qikdraw

[KirkOntario]

Because America knew that colonialism was in decline and that many states were moving towards nationhood but they didn't want colonial government replaced by a worse form of government: the communist totalitarian nightmare that had lead to the extermination of millions in Stalin's Russia.

[usmc1]

....and woefully wrong then, as now, as proven by the now. Dang ole dominoes didn't fall, and Iraq ain't ever going to be a bastion of Western style democracy. And this just in from Ho Chi Minh City.

I woke up around 9 a.m. (too late to catch a tour) and walked around the backpacker area in HCMC (<st1:city st="on">Ho Chi Minh City</st1:city>, otherwise known as <st1:place st="on">Saigon</st1:place>). I checked out all of the options and prices for tours around the area. I took a cab across town to the AirFrance office to pick up my ticket from HCMC to BKK. Around the AirFrance office was a coffee shop called “Gloria Jean’s Coffee.” This place is like Starbucks – almost to the tee copied. Lotteria is the equivalent of McDonalds in <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Vietnam</st1:place></st1:country-region>. (<st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Vietnam</st1:place></st1:country-region> does not have anything like 7-Eleven, McDOnalds, Starbucks, Burger King. In other Asian countries, these American shops are on every corner. However, in <st1:place st="on"><st1:country-region st="on">Vietnam</st1:country-region></st1:place>, the government bans those companies from entering the country. Therefore, <st1:place st="on"><st1:country-region st="on">Vietnam</st1:country-region></st1:place> has their own versions of Starbucks and McDonalds.)
<o:p></o:p>
At Gloria Jean’s Coffee, the two Danish ladies that I had met in Hoian randomly came into the coffee shop. We sat for a few hours and chatted about this and that. One of them went on a Norwegian sledding adventure for 10 days – around the closest town to the North Pole. Her stories were so amazing! Later on, I definitely want to go on a Norwegian dog-sledding trip. The same Danish lady had come to <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Vietnam</st1:place></st1:country-region> 10 years ago. She met a teenage boy in Hoian that she thought was smart. The young Vietnamese boy didn’t have enough money to go to school. Because she thought he was so intelligent, she sent him money for a few years to go to school. She lost contact with the Vietnamese boy about 5 years ago. The Danish woman was searching, and eventually found him through some random contacts. He was living in a different city, but his mother was living in HCMC, where she was at the time. The mother didn’t speak any English and came to the Danish lady’s hotel. The mom was just crying and crying, and thanking the Danish woman for helping her son and their family. What a great story! The Danish woman would have never known how much of an impact she had, if she hadn’t had found the family to hear their successes. I want to be like that someday.
<o:p></o:p>
After the coffee shop, it was too late for me to go to the Fine Arts museum, so I headed back to the backpacker area.

[KirkOntario]

Hmmmm...Human Rights Watch would disagree with you as would the 165,000 people who died in communist 're-education camps', the one million arrested, the thousands brutally tortured by the regime and over a million boat people forced out of Vietnam merely for being ethnic Chinese.

http://hrw.org/doc/?t=asia&c=vietna

[Skinview]

Terrorists or patriots?Both.

At the time Vietnam was under French colonial power. Why did we step in to try and keep the natives under colonial power considering US history?

Qikdraw
France pulled out of Vietnam in 1954. South Vietnam became an independant republic. North Vietnam became an independant communist dictatorship. Vietnam was supposed to be a unified country, and there was supposed to be a nationwide election, but Diem called it off. Then the North tried to unify the country under its rule by force.

[usmc1]

"We've moved on from that." GWB

[Skinview]

....and woefully wrong then, as now, as proven by the now. Dang ole dominoes didn't fallOh yes they did. Laos and Cambodia fell under Communist tyranny too. The communists killed 2 million people in Cambodia.

"An attempt by Khmer Rouge leader Pol Pot to form a Communist peasant farming society resulted in the deaths of 25 percent of the country's population from starvation, overwork and executions."

http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/pol-pot.htm

[Naturist Mark]

Oh yes they did. Laos and Cambodia fell under Communist tyranny too. The communists killed 2 million people in Cambodia.

"An attempt by Khmer Rouge leader Pol Pot to form a Communist peasant farming society resulted in the deaths of 25 percent of the country's population from starvation, overwork and executions."

http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/pol-pot.htm

Hmmm... and who was it that stopped the genocide and allowed Cambodia to eventually return to Democracy? was it ... the USA?

Before you start free associating, understand that I'm saying simplistic 'they are all the same, they are all bad' thinking is inadequate to the task. The simple fact is that one of the single most noble and most necessary military interventions in south east asian history was not done by any of the 'good guys'. The good guys were too busy posturing and hand wringing.

And today we have Darfur. Who is going to be their Vietnam?

[KirkOntario]

Mark, the Vietnamese didn't invade Cambodia to avert a humanitarian crisis. Vietnam was backed by the Soviets and Cambodia by the Chinese and the Cambodians had attacked Vietnam. Cambodia didn't become a democracy under the Vietnamese. They installed a communist government.It was the former King and the UN that played a role in establishing democratic elections.

Thanks to the Democrats ensuring that the United States lost the Vietnam war there was no appetite for American military intervention in that part of the world and zero chance that the Democratic congress would allow it. (Why tamper with failure right?)

[Skinview]

Hmmm... and who was it that stopped the genocide and allowed Cambodia to eventually return to Democracy? was it ... the USA?

Before you start free associating, understand that I'm saying simplistic 'they are all the same, they are all bad' thinking is inadequate to the task. The simple fact is that one of the single most nobleNoble? They watched Cambodia self destruct for five years and did nothing. It didn't invade except to end clashes on the Cambodian border. Cambodian refugees were pouring into Thailand. I'll bet Vietnam was getting some too. Vietnam, like most countries, was primarily looking out for itself. It certainly wasn't trying to create a democracy in Cambodia. They put in puppet communist government.
and most necessary military interventions in south east asian history was not done by any of the 'good guys'. The good guys were too busy posturing and hand wringing.Yes, that would have been something to see Jimmy Carter and the Democrat controlled Senate taking us to war in Southeast Asia again.

And today we have Darfur. Who is going to be their Vietnam?We are busy. Ask France and Canada. When Rawanda was destroying itself, we weren't busy. Come to think of it, if we have Obama as President, I wonder if he would intervene in Africa.

[KirkOntario]

Yes, that would have been something to see Jimmy Carter and the Democrat controlled Senate taking us to war in Southeast Asia again.

.

You're right. Jimmy Carter was too busy abandoning the US Shah so that thousands would be murdered by Iranian Islamofascists who are now seeking atomic weapons, derailing the so-called 'peace process', destabilizing Lebannon by supporting terrorists and propping up Syria. And they called the Bush legacy a disaster?

[Skinview]

You're right. Jimmy Carter was too busy abandoning the US Shah so that thousands would be murdered by Iranian Islamofascists who are now seeking atomic weapons, derailing the so-called 'peace process', destabilizing Lebannon by supporting terrorists and propping up Syria. And they called the Bush legacy a disaster?I don't know what we should or could have done at that point. Iran hated the Shah, he was a dictator, we overthrew a democracy and put him in power in the first place. Iran is troublesome, but its people want the mullahs to go now. Time is on our side.

[Naturist Mark]

lol, you guys are so easy ...

You started out blaming everything on 'communism'. Only when confronted with the fact that ultimately both sides in the Khmer Rouge tragedy were 'communist' do you reluctantly admit nationalist geopolitics was behind it.

Oh, by they way, Vietnam's intervention worked because after they installed their 'puppet regime', just like we have in Iraq, they eventually left. THAT is what makes a successful occupation - leaving. Yeah it took 17 years or so for democracy to take hold - but it never would have under the Khmer. I don't really credit Vietnam for bringing democracy to Cambodia - that was never their intention, but they get full credit for ending the genocide and putting Cambodia on a better path.

Now that the cold war is over we can start to realize that communism was never an ideological juggernaut that could threaten the west. It was little more than a slipcover of ideological camouflage for nationalist authoritarians to ride in on the rubble of failed imperialism. Although I suppose you could argue that Cambodia was one of the few places where agrarian communism was ever attempted, it was still an authoritarian disaster - as all large scale experiments in communism are.

There are only two 'successful communist regimes' in existence. And neither is communist. Both China and Vietnam are wide open capitalist market economies under authoritarian rule. There is a special name for that 'ism' and it doesn't start with 'capital' or 'commun' or 'social'.

-Mark

[usmc1]

If anyone believes that engaging our military in a ground war in Asia (Vietnam) was strategically sound I offer Vietnam. Multiply Iraq to the power of 100 and that is what a real ground war in Asia will be like.

Vietnam was never winnable politically. We won most all of the battles with the NVA, and fire-fights and dust-ups with the Cong. Militarily we excelled, at a dreadful cost, but politically we failed---not domestic politics (hawks & doves, Dems & GOP) we failed in-country. We were on the wrong side for starters.

Furthermore the whole damned domino theory was ridiculous to the nth extreme. It was almost as absurd as the notion that Western-Style democracy can be imposed by gunpoint in Iraq.

Still, in some ways, it was a fair-to-middling little scrap while it lasted. Or so thought I in my youth. Older and wiser, one now knows better!

All that was "lost" in Vietnam were way-way too many young lives, our national innocence and sense of unity (hah), control of the military-industrial complex, national treasure---the Vietnam war was finally paid for in the Clinton administration, to all of which you can add the alienation of an entire generation and distraction from growing drug problems and unfinished "civil rights" issues.

[Skinview]

lol, you guys are so easy ...

You started out blaming everything on 'communism'. Only when confronted with the fact that ultimately both sides in the Khmer Rouge tragedy were 'communist' do you reluctantly admit nationalist geopolitics was behind it.Hunh? I never blamed "everything on 'communism'". But the Cambodian disaster was due to communism. The communist Khmer Rouge, with arms supplied by communist North Vietnam, overthrew a free market constitutional republic, and created that communist horror that killed 2 million people.

Vietnam's intervention worked because after they installed their 'puppet regime', just like we have in IraqThe Iraqi government is not a "puppet regime"

[Skinview]

If anyone believes that engaging our military in a ground war in Asia (Vietnam) was strategically sound I offer Vietnam.Vietnam was an example of the result of unsound strategy, not the unsoundness of war in Asia. We held off China in Korea without even mobilizing our country.

We were on the wrong side for starters.usmc1 is on the side of authoritarian murdering thugs leading a war of communist aggression. We have it on record now.

Furthermore the whole damned domino theory was ridiculous to the nth extreme.I see you have not been paying attention to the thread line on Cambodia and Laos.

[Naturist Mark]

The Iraqi government is not a "puppet regime"


roflmao

even the puppets are laughing ...

[Boreas]

roflmao

even the puppets are laughing ...

:laugh: LOL. Yep.

[usmc1]

Vietnam was an example of the result of unsound strategy, not the unsoundness of war in Asia. We held off China in Korea without even mobilizing our country.

Forgotten Changjin?

Encircled Marines of the Fifth & Seventh regiments of the 1st MarDiv, along with a few scattered army elements from the eastern side of the reservoir, fought their way to the sea in sub-zero temperatures, often using their frozen carbines as clubs, through hordes of barefooted and tennis-shoe clad Chinese troops fighting with "burp" guns.

Marines piled up the frozen bodies of their dead comrades and dead Chinese as fighting barricades. Valiant construction companies hung from girders while repairing blown bridges along the withdrawl route, welding and riveting with one hand and firing their weapons with the other.

The fighting was primal with humans tearing at each other sometimes with no more than rocks and knifes as ammunitions were expended and weapons malfunctioned from the deadly, extreme cold.

It was one of the bravest of examples of military skills and courage in history. We faced overwhelming odds, 30,000 some Marines versus more than 100,000 troops from the PRC.

It was a fighting withdrawal in the face of overwhelming forces. We never again ventured above the 38th parallel.

We did not hold off China, they drove us out of the North!

That's what happened at Changjiin!

usmc1 is on the side of authoritarian murdering thugs leading a war of communist aggression. We have it on record now.

Take your record and stuff it! All who know me here, know better. I stand for many things, but those are none of them. I can be criticized on a number of fronts, but, again, those are none of them. I said no such thing. And, you have no right to twist my words in such a way. To do is shamefully duplicitous and childishly cowardly.

I see you have not been paying attention to the thread line on Cambodia and Laos.

Right, I pretty much disregard the lies, cant and canards you and your fellow travelers post. That is until they become so egregious that a response is required.

[Skinview]

roflmao

even the puppets are laughing ...Laugh all you want. Their government was still elected.

[Skinview]

Forgotten Changjin? Nope.

It was one of the bravest of examples of military skills and courage in history. We faced overwhelming odds, 30,000 some Marines versus more than 100,000 troops from the PRC.

It was a fighting withdrawal in the face of overwhelming forces. We never again ventured above the 38th parallel.As the Marines there said, "We didn't retreat, we just fought in a different direction."

We did not hold off China, they drove us out of the North!And we stopped them at the 38th parallel. South Korea is free today, thanks to our involvement in a war in Asia.

Take your record and stuff it! All who know me here, know better. I stand for many things, but those are none of them. I can be criticized on a number of fronts, but, again, those are none of them. I said no such thing. And, you have no right to twist my words in such a way. To do is shamefully duplicitous and childishly cowardly.He he he he... Hey, the US picked the side of South Vietnam and you wrote:
We were on the wrong side for starters.The other side was Ho Chi Minh. What is there to twist?

Right, I pretty much disregard...what doesn't fit with your worldview.

[usmc1]

Nope.

As the Marines there said, "We didn't retreat, we just fought in a different direction."

And we stopped them at the 38th parallel. South Korea is free today, thanks to our involvement in a war in Asia.

He he he he... Hey, the US picked the side of South Vietnam and you wrote:
The other side was Ho Chi Minh. What is there to twist?

what doesn't fit with your worldview.

Nudebushwalker was correct!

[KirkOntario]

The Iraqi government is not a "puppet regime"

Skinview, didn't you know it is necessary to discredit and belittle the Iraqi regime while at the same time maintaining Iran is a 'democracy' and bashing 'cultural imperialists?' These are left wing talking points that you and I cannot tamper with: sacred untruths so to speak necessary to undermining America and the cause of freedom.

[Qikdraw]

roflmao

even the puppets are laughing ...

Careful, the next step is to start calling you a bathist supporter and that you help terrorists.

Which is why I have stopped responding, for the most part, to certain people on this board. If you don't fit their worldview, you support terrorism.

Qikdraw

[usmc1]

Speaking of Aussies, it got me to thinking about this from about 1-year ago!

The Australian point of view...In response to the set-up by rightiously, hand-winging right.

Too bad ole nudebushwalker isn't back yet, I'll just bet he might have posted this. Nacktman's on sabbatical too, or so I hear. Dang! We'll just have to work twice as hard now, the rest of us who do not let jingoistic "patriotism" and right-wing canards over power our good sense.

The right side won the Vietnam War

Allen Myers
8 February 2007

Prime Minister John Howard created a stir in late November when, in Vietnam for the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, he publicly defended the Australian role in the Vietnam War. Howard said, “I supported our involvement at the time and I don’t intend to recant that … I supported the reasons for Australia’s involvement and nothing has altered my view that, at the time, on the assessments that were made then, I took that view and I took that view properly.”

The Australian newspaper’s Greg Sheridan took Howard’s cue and wrote a rant defending Australia’s participation in the US-led war on Vietnam, affirming that “the wrong side won the Vietnam War”.

According to Sheridan, the US and Australian rulers’ motive for waging the war was an “ambition to help our South Vietnamese friends establish a prosperous democracy” and to stop hordes of dominoes falling all the way down the map from Indochina to Canberra.

And in any case, the winning side was certainly “hateful”. According to Sheridan, after the war ended in 1975, “more than a million [people] fled the communists”. Has there ever been another such massive repudiation of a victorious revolution? Well, yes, in fact, there has.

To put things in perspective, the population of Vietnam in 1975 was around 48 million, so the million who fled represented just over 2% of the population. After the US war of independence from British rule ended in 1783, an estimated 3% of the US population “fled the republicans” (as Sheridan would no doubt have expressed it had he been around at the time).

And those refugees from the American Revolution were not fleeing from an impoverished country to a wealthy one, were not leaving behind a land destroyed by 35 years of war, one in which unexploded ordnance was still claiming lives three decades later.

Sheridan also neglects to mention that the number of people who left Vietnam after 1975 was approximately the same as the number of combatants who gave their lives to achieve the victory over the US, Australia and their “South Vietnamese friends”. (In addition to the 1 million Vietnamese combatants killed, at least 3 million civilians were killed by the US and its allies.) Isn’t it strange that so many people would fight so fiercely to prevent “prosperous democracy”?

In fact, the noble ideals Sheridan alludes to had nothing to do with the war, except in the sense that they were part of the US-Australian propaganda at the time, designed to mislead people who had more patriotism than sense.

US interest

The US interest in Indochina — Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos — began and ended with greed, not noble ideals, although of course noble ideals were used whenever possible to conceal the real motives.

The 1940 Japanese occupation of Indochina alerted Washington “to the region’s importance as a producer of foodstuffs and raw materials and as a key strategic point near the major shipping routes of Asia”, Christopher O’Sullivan, professor of history at the University of San Francisco, noted in his 2003 book Sumner Welles, Postwar Planning, and the Quest for a New World Order, 1937-1943.

After 1945, Washington backed French imperialism’s attempt to restore its colonial rule in Indochina, providing an increasing amount of funding and other support during the 1946-54 French war against Vietnam.

Not surprisingly, the US public began to wonder why the US was involved there. The US elite tried to explain, sometimes with a candour that is seldom encountered today. For example, in February 1950 the New York Times stated: “Indo-China is a prize worth a large gamble. In the north are exportable tin, tungsten, manganese, coal, lumber and rice, rubber, tea, pepper, and hides. Even before World War II, Indo-China yielded dividends estimated at $300 million a year.”

A year later, a State Department adviser observed, “We have only partially exploited South-East Asia’s resources. Nevertheless, South-East Asia supplied 90% of the world’s crude rubber, 60% of its tin and 80% of its copra and coconut oil. It has sizeable quantities of sugar, tea, coffee, tobacco, sisal, fruits, spices, natural resins and gums, petroleum, iron ore and bauxite.”

Control over resources

President Dwight Eisenhower told a conference of US state governors on August 4, 1953 that “when the United States votes $400 million to help that war, we are not voting for a giveaway program. We are voting for the cheapest way that we can to prevent the occurrence of something that would be of the most terrible significance for the United States of America — our security, our power and ability to get certain things we need from the riches of the Indo-Chinese territory, and from southeast Asia.”

Sheridan to the contrary, there was nothing about creating a “prosperous democracy” anywhere in Indochina in the US elite’s motivation for waging war on Vietnam. At a press conference in April 1954, Eisenhower returned to the same concern with securing US control over resources, saying that “two of the items from this particular area that the world uses are tin and tungsten. They are very important. There are others, of course, the rubber plantations and so on …

“But when we come to the possible sequence of events, the loss of Indochina, of Burma, of Thailand, of the [Malay] Peninsula, and Indonesia following, now you begin to talk about areas that not only multiply the disadvantages that you would suffer through loss of materials, sources of materials, but now you are talking really about millions and millions and millions of people.”

After the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu in 1954, a peace treaty signed at Geneva provided for a temporary division of Vietnam into an independent Vietnamese republic in the north and a regroupment area for the French in the south. A general election to unite the country was to be held in 1956.

But Washington, which had refused to sign the Geneva agreement, immediately set about overturning it. The US rulers tried to make permanent the temporary division of Vietnam between the north and the south. Washington replaced the ineffectual Emperor Bao Dai with the US-trained Ngo Dinh Diem as “president” of a nominally independent Republic of Vietnam in the south. It then supported Diem in cancelling the 1956 nationwide elections because, as Eisenhower later explained, “Possibly 80% of the population would have voted for the Communist, Ho Chi Minh, as their leader”.

The brutal and corrupt misrule of the Diem family soon generated a growing opposition, until the point was reached in 1963 that Washington decided to change horses. With the encouragement of the US ambassador in Saigon, military officers staged a coup and Diem and his equally hated brother were murdered.

In subsequent months there was a whole series of coups as various generals fought each other for the top spot. Generals remained at the head of the government until it was defeated by the Communist-led national liberation movement in 1975 — although these generals did later conduct an “election”. (There was a fitting cartoon published in the US at the time, which showed a pollster in Saigon knocking on doors and asking, “If a general election were held next week, which general would you vote for?”)

Communist Party

To the chagrin of the US rulers, Vietnam won the Vietnam War. After April 30, 1975, Vietnam was united and unoccupied by foreign troops for the first time since the French invasion of 1857. The Vietnamese people’s victory was achieved against the most powerful military force on the planet, and despite the most intense bombing campaign in the history of warfare.

The Vietnamese were able to defeat, first the French and then the US and its allies, because the overwhelming majority of the people were determined to end their colonial exploitation, and because they had a very determined and astute leadership in the Communist Party. This is a fact that infuriates professional reactionaries like Greg Sheridan and John Howard.

The Communist Party emerged as the central leadership of the struggle against French colonialism and then US-Australian neo-colonialism and military occupation because there was no other political or social organisation or movement that was capable of playing that role.

This situation was not accidental, but the product of colonialism. French colonial rule and exploitation prevented the development of an independent and strong local capitalist class in Vietnam. Vietnamese capitalists as a group were both oppressed by and tied to the colonial masters. They were not capable of a consistent struggle for national independence like those waged in Europe and the Americas in the 18th and 19th centuries.

It was the workers and peasants who had everything to gain and nothing to lose in the fight against imperialism, and only a party based on those classes could lead the movement to victory.

Relevance today

It has become important for reactionaries like Howard and Sheridan to falsify the history of the Vietnam War because of a number of similarities with the current US-Australian war in Iraq. While the Iraqi nation’s struggle against imperialist occupation is not being led by a revolutionary workers’ party like the Vietnamese Communist Party, the US military is bogged down in an unwinnable war, and there is rapidly deepening opposition to the war in both the US and Australia.

The big protests that took place before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq were not maintained, which was not surprising when it appeared that the war was largely over. But as the Iraqi resistance to the occupation continues to grow, the sentiment against the war in the US in particular could again turn into protest action in the streets.

During the Vietnam War, mass protests around the world made it politically more difficult for the US and Australian governments to conduct the war. They could do the same in the case of Iraq. That is why Howard and Sheridan want us to think that the protests were misguided and the imperialist invasion of Vietnam was a “good cause”.

From: Comment & Analysis, Green Left Weekly issue #698 (http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2007/698) 14 February 2007.

[KirkOntario]

Careful, the next step is to start calling you a bathist supporter and that you help terrorists.

Which is why I have stopped responding, for the most part, to certain people on this board. If you don't fit their worldview, you support terrorism.

Qikdraw

Yup and there are people on this board who if you don't fit their world view are a 'war monger' or a 'fascist.' We all have an 'ignore' button if we care to use it and we should all realize that those who debate politics almost never change the other person's point of view, they merely enjoy the repartee of verbal play, entertain themselves and hone their own skills in persuasion of those who are undecided.

[usmc1]

Careful, the next step is to start calling you a bathist supporter and that you help terrorists.

Which is why I have stopped responding, for the most part, to certain people on this board. If you don't fit their worldview, you support terrorism.

Qikdraw

Yep!...................

[Skinview]

The Australian point of view...In response to the set-up by rightiously, hand-winging right.

The right side won the Vietnam War

Allen Myers
8 February 2007

The Australian newspaper’s Greg Sheridan took Howard’s cue and wrote a rant defending Australia’s participation in the US-led war on Vietnam, affirming that “the wrong side won the Vietnam War”.
According to Sheridan, the US and Australian rulers’ motive for waging the war was an “ambition to help our South Vietnamese friends establish a prosperous democracy” and to stop hordes of dominoes falling all the way down the map from Indochina to Canberra.
And in any case, the winning side was certainly “hateful”. According to Sheridan, after the war ended in 1975, “more than a million [people] fled the communists”. Has there ever been another such massive repudiation of a victorious revolution? Well, yes, in fact, there has.
After the US war of independence from British rule ended in 1783, an estimated 3% of the US population “fled the republicans” (as Sheridan would no doubt have expressed it had he been around at the time).
And those refugees from the American Revolution were not fleeing from an impoverished country to a wealthy one...The difference was that the Tories left because they were loyal to the King. The million ethnic Chinese were driven out of Vietnam in a campaign of communist led persection and ethnic cleansing. So much for rightious nationalism.

combatants who gave their lives to achieve the victory over the US, Australia and their “South Vietnamese friends”. (In addition to the 1 million Vietnamese combatants killed, at least 3 million civilians were killed by the US and its allies.) Isn’t it strange that so many people would fight so fiercely to prevent “prosperous democracy”?I see that every person killed in the war were supposedly killed by "the US and its allies". Funny that we don't have any figure here for the number of civilians slaughtered by the communists.

"In the aftermath of the recapture of [Hue, in 1968], the discovery of several mass graves (the last of which were uncovered in 1970) of South Vietnamese citizens of Hue... The victims had either been clubbed or shot to death or simply been buried alive. The official allied explanation was that during their initial occupation of the city, the communists had quickly begun to systematically round up (under the guise of re-education) and then execute as many as 2,800 South Vietnamese civilians that they believed to be potentially hostile to communist control. Those taken into custody included South Vietnamese military personnel, present and former government officials, local civil servants, teachers, policemen, and religious figures. Historian Gunther Lewy claimed that a captured NLF document stated that the communists had "eliminated 1,892 administrative personnel, 38 policemen, 790 tyrants."
The North Vietnamese later further muddied the waters by stating that their forces had indeed rounded up "reactionary" captives for transport to the North, but that local commanders, under battlefield exegencies, had executed them for expediency's sake. General Truong, commander of the 1st ARVN Division and hero of the battle, believed that the captives had been executed by the communists in order to protect the identities of members of the local NLF infrastructure, whose covers had been blown."
-wikipedia

US interest

The US interest in Indochina — Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos — began and ended with greed, not noble ideals...Riiight. Its all the fault of the bougeoisie and the capitalists. The struggle against communist expansionism had nothing to do with it...

The 1940 Japanese occupation of Indochina alerted Washington “to the region’s importance as a producer of foodstuffs and raw materials and as a key strategic point near the major shipping routes of Asia”...Important in 1940. We invented synthetic rubber after Japan occupied Vietnam.

After 1945, Washington backed French imperialism’s attempt to restore its colonial rule in Indochina...
“Indo-China is a prize worth a large gamble. In the north are exportable tin, tungsten, manganese, coal, lumber and rice, rubber, tea, pepper, and hides..."Riiight. We needed to import coal and wood from Vietnam. We don't have any of that....
Exactly how much of anything did we import from Vietnam in 1965? We obviously didn't get a thing from there soon after then. I don't recall a shortage of anything having lost Vietnam. This explanation of why we entered the war is not just wrong, its silly. This is selective picking of bits of arguments for our involvement to divert attention from the major reasons for our involvment.

Communist Party

To the chagrin of the US rulers, Vietnam won the Vietnam War. After April 30, 1975, Vietnam was united and unoccupied by foreign troops for the first time since the French invasion of 1857. The Vietnamese people’s victory was achieved against the most powerful military force on the planet, and despite the most intense bombing campaign in the history of warfare.
The Vietnamese were able to defeat, first the French and then the US and its allies,Now we have a fantasy military defeat of the US Army.

...because the overwhelming majority of the people were determined to end their colonial exploitation, and because they had a very determined and astute leadership in the Communist Party.
The Communist Party emerged as the central leadership of the struggle against French colonialism and then US-Australian neo-colonialism and military occupation because there was no other political or social organisation or movement that was capable of playing that role.
It was the workers and peasants who had everything to gain and nothing to lose in the fight against imperialism, and only a party based on those classes could lead the movement to victory.
....While the Iraqi nation’s struggle against imperialist occupation is not being led by a revolutionary workers’ party like the Vietnamese Communist Party...

...the imperialist invasion of Vietnam...

From: Comment & Analysis, Green Left Weekly issue #698 (http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2007/698) 14 February 2007.This reads like a Communist Party press release. (It is, really. "Green Left Weekly") The good Communists defeat the bad neo-colonial Americans... Forget Rev. Wright. If we could just get a collection of usmc1 posts on the news and show his connection to Obama, McCain would win by a landslide.