Cheany and the mobile “weapons” labs

[daredelvis]

Did anyone else catch V.P. Cheany on NPR this morning repeating the claim that the semi trailers found in Iraq were mobile weapons labs? What do supporters of the administration think of this obvious lie?

Good thing he was not under oath!

Daredelvis

[Hexxenhammer]

I heard it. "We may still find WMD's. It's all Clinton's fault. Blah blah mobile weapons labs. Saddam loves al Queda" That about sums it up.

Juan Williams isn't hard enough on these big shots he interviews.

[headscratcher4]

He said the proof was "overwhelming"...why can't you just trust him?

[specious_reasons]

My current theory:

One of this VP's roles is to put forward ideas and spin points, in order to see how the press/public reacts to them.

If they get a bad reaction, Cheney just goes back to an undisclosed location....

Successful PR:

Dick Cheney was the first person to use "Daschle-Democrat", and "Obstructionist" on the talk show circuits, which was linked to a memo which planned the spin-offensive against him.

Unsuccessful PR:

Making a connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.

[headscratcher4]

It is also facinating to note that the Clinton foriegn policy, such foolishness as "nationon building" (remember when we were against nation building?), which supposedly Bush ran against three years ago, is now the justification for the Iraq war.

the VP repeated at least twice that it was the Clinton policy for regime change in Iraq. I think he also justified the WMD argument based upon CLinton Admin findings that Saddam had 'em.

Hmmm...I notice that when Bush was making the argument last year, Clinton's name and positions were barely mentioned or acknowledged.

Could it be that Clinton was right about other things too? IF they'd only admit it, than indeed they could change the tone in Washington.

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
Unsuccessful PR:

Making a connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.

Oh, I beg to differ.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

[Crossbow]

I heard the interview and it reminded me of the days when Eisenhower was the President, and Nixon was the vice-President.

Sometimes, Nixon would viciously attack perceived enemies and stake out extreme positions, then Eisenhower would come back, largely retract the statement and say 'settle down Dick', and Eisenhower would come out looking like a really nice guy.

In many ways I think that is what Cheney is doing. Occasionally staking out extreme positions which get many people upset, then the President can come out with far more moderate positions that alleviate roused feelings, and it ends appearing that Bush makes his own decisions.

[headscratcher4]

The saddest part for me was that Juan Williams (ther reporter, I think?) didn't really ask good follow-up questions or challenge the VP's assertions. Overwhelming proof? I don't think so.

[Ignatius]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
It is also facinating to note that the Clinton foriegn policy, such foolishness as "nationon building" (remember when we were against nation building?), which supposedly Bush ran against three years ago, is now the justification for the Iraq war.

the VP repeated at least twice that it was the Clinton policy for regime change in Iraq. I think he also justified the WMD argument based upon CLinton Admin findings that Saddam had 'em.

Hmmm...I notice that when Bush was making the argument last year, Clinton's name and positions were barely mentioned or acknowledged.

Could it be that Clinton was right about other things too? IF they'd only admit it, than indeed they could change the tone in Washington.

On this issue and gay marraige, I have noticed that conservative Clinton fans seem to be coming out of the woodwork. He has apparantly become more popular with conservative pundits than Jesus.

Who knew?

[hgc]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
The saddest part for me was that Juan Williams (ther reporter, I think?) didn't really ask good follow-up questions or challenge the VP's assertions. Overwhelming proof? I don't think so. He's one of Faux News' resident liberals, which, by definition, means no teeth.

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Ignatius


On this issue and gay marraige, I have noticed that conservative Clinton fans seem to be coming out of the woodwork. He has apparantly become more popular with conservative pundits than Jesus.

Who knew?

Me wonders what his daughter thinks of using oposition to gay marraige as a rallying point for the election. Strikes me that, like Strom, the VP is willing to sacrifice his family to his political asperations....

[Ignatius]

Originally posted by headscratcher4


Me wonders what his daughter thinks of using oposition to gay marraige as a rallying point for the election. Strikes me that, like Strom, the VP is willing to sacrifice his family to his political asperations....

Wouldn't you like to be a fly on the wall for those family gatherings? I can't help but be impressed at how the Republicans are so much better at framing the issue and guiding the discussion, though. I guess in the focus groups "Defending the sanctity of marraige" just played a lot better than "Homos are an abomination in the eyes of the Lord". On the plus side, I am grateful that the oh-so-clever "Adam and Steve" cracks have been displaced.

[DrChinese]

Cheney is still peddling the same ol' crap. From article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4027404/) today:

WASHINGTON - Ahead of a five-day trip to Europe, Vice President Dick Cheney said Thursday that the administration has not given up on the so far fruitless search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The “jury is still out,” he said.

“It’s going to take some additional, considerable period of time in order to look in all the cubby holes and the ammo dumps and all the places in Iraq where you might expect to find something like that,” Cheney said in an interview with National Public Radio. “It doesn’t take a large storage space to store deadly toxins, or even just the capacity to produce it.”

Cheney also said that he’s confident that there was a relationship between al-Qaida and ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. The Bush administration, however, has said in the past that there is no evidence that Saddam was behind the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

“I continue to believe — I think there’s overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaida and the Iraqi government,” Cheney said. “I’m very confident that there was an established relationship there.”

[Ladewig]

Cheney also said that he’s confident that there was a relationship between al-Qaida and ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

Wasn't one of Al-Queda's demands the removal of Hussein because he wasn't Muslim enough?

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
The saddest part for me was that Juan Williams (ther reporter, I think?) didn't really ask good follow-up questions or challenge the VP's assertions. Overwhelming proof? I don't think so.

Yes, I noticed that too.

However, NPR does have an extended version of the interview on their web site so I was witholding judgement on Williams until I heard it.

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Crossbow


Yes, I noticed that too.

However, NPR does have an extended version of the interview on their web site so I was witholding judgement on Williams until I heard it. Williams always seems to go soft. I heard an interview he did with Colin Powell that asked a bunch of good questions, but then after he gave flacid answers there was no follow up. Just on to the next question.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
Williams always seems to go soft. I heard an interview he did with Colin Powell that asked a bunch of good questions, but then after he gave flacid answers there was no follow up. Just on to the next question.

True enough! I heard that interview as well and was rather less than impressed at his lack of follow-up.

I was wondering if that is why Cheney consented to an interview with him as opposed to one of the more notable, and perceptive, interviewers (such as Daniel Schorr).

[Ignatius]

Originally posted by Crossbow

I was wondering if that is why Cheney consented to an interview with him as opposed to one of the more notable, and perceptive, interviewers (such as Daniel Schorr).

I don't think Schorr ever does any of the interviewing (his title is something like "Senior Political Commentator"). Terry Gross is probably the most aggresive interviewer they have.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ignatius


Wouldn't you like to be a fly on the wall for those family gatherings? I can't help but be impressed at how the Republicans are so much better at framing the issue and guiding the discussion, though. I guess in the focus groups "Defending the sanctity of marraige" just played a lot better than "Homos are an abomination in the eyes of the Lord". On the plus side, I am grateful that the oh-so-clever "Adam and Steve" cracks have been displaced.

This reminds me of a very funny documentary on homophobia in Toowoomba I saw once.

There was a dude in his early twenties, one of those people who like to drive around in cars all night with his mates. He went into a rant about how homosexuals were 'sick' and made the oh-so-clever "Adam and Steve" crack.

The interviewer asked him, quietly, "Do you have a girlfriend?"
You could see the dude's mind racing. He was surrounded by his mates, so lying was not an option. Finally, he said,
"Naht (that's Australian for 'no'), they take all your money!"

I clapped.

[Ignatius]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


This reminds me of a very funny documentary on homophobia in Toowoomba I saw once.

There was a dude in his early twenties, one of those people who like to drive around in cars all night with his mates. He went into a rant about how homosexuals were 'sick' and made the oh-so-clever "Adam and Steve" crack.

The interviewer asked him, quietly, "Do you have a girlfriend?"
You could see the dude's mind racing. He was surrounded by his mates, so lying was not an option. Finally, he said,
"Naht (that's Australian for 'no'), they take all your money!"

I clapped.

HA! I have a similar story. I had long hair when I was 16. One day I was walking down a street in the small town where my grandparents lived. I heard somebody in a vehicle yell, "FAG!!" at me as they were driving by. I looked over and saw, I kid you not, FOUR GUYS CRAMMED INTO THE CAB OF A PICKUP TRUCK.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Ignatius


HA! I have a similar story. I had long hair when I was 16. One day I was walking down a street in the small town where my grandparents lived. I heard somebody in a vehicle yell, "FAG!!" at me as they were driving by. I looked over and saw, I kid you not, FOUR GUYS CRAMMED INTO THE CAB OF A PICKUP TRUCK. Methinks the guy who yelled at you was merely momentarily aroused by gyrations of whichever one was sitting in his lap, and needed and outlet for his frustration. Don't hold it against him. Perhaps we can explain the behavior of our resident bigots in a similar fasion.

[Ignatius]

Originally posted by hgc
Methinks the guy who yelled at you was merely momentarily aroused by gyrations of whichever one was sitting in his lap, and needed and outlet for his frustration. Don't hold it against him. Perhaps we can explain the behavior of our resident bigots in a similar fasion.

I always suspected that they were making some ritual sacrifice to the Irony Gods.

[NightG1]

Originally posted by daredelvis
Did anyone else catch V.P. Cheany on NPR this morning repeating the claim that the semi trailers found in Iraq were mobile weapons labs? What do supporters of the administration think of this obvious lie?

Good thing he was not under oath!

Daredelvis
I thought he said "mobile weapon lab programs". Yeah, that's the ticket.....