I just LOVE the Bush Administration

[Mark]

Defense Secretary DONALD RUMSFELD, speaking on 6/24/03:
"I don't know anybody in any government or any intelligence agency who suggested that the Iraqi's had nuclear weapons."

CIA director GEORGE TENET, 10/02:
"Most analysts asses Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program."

Vice President DICK CHENEY, 3/16/02,
"We believe he [Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

I mean, how can you not love these people? And their Republican supporters who will cheerfully ignore ANY lies as long as their guy can stay in power.

You watch, since there is no defense for this blatant lying, the Republican response to this will be to attack Clinton for his lies about Monica. Which has nothing to do with the fact that our soldiers are still dying in Iraq for...what?

[Frostbite]

For nothing. The US should remove their troups and apologize to Iraq and the rest of the world for the invasion. Along with compensating with money and other services.

[Mark]

Originally posted by Frostbite
For nothing. The US should remove their troups and apologize to Iraq and the rest of the world for the invasion. Along with compensating with money and other services.

I don't know about aplogizing to Iraq...Hussein is pretty bloody evil (like many of our allies). But, certainly, we should apologize to the U.N.

[Landis]

One of the campaign pledges Bush made in 2000 was that if elected he would restore honesty and intergrity to the White House. The truth is he has brought lying and dishonesty to a new level. Instead of taking responsibilty for his lies, his administration attempts to attack everyone who even points out the obvious lies. So far, his popularity is strong and it seems that most American's are so cowered by their fear after 9/11 that they are willing to overlook this major character flaw.

Heck, I don't even understand why he is not being arrested and put in jail for being AWOL from the military during his stint in the National Guard during the Vietnam War. Isn't that a crime?

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Frostbite
For nothing. The US should remove their troups and apologize to Iraq and the rest of the world for the invasion. Along with compensating with money and other services.

Who should be given the reins of power?

Who gets the money?

[Mark]

Originally posted by Mike B.


Who should be given the reins of power?

Who gets the money?

Should? I don't know. Will? Halliburton and other global corporations.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Mark
Defense Secretary DONALD RUMSFELD, speaking on 6/24/03:
"I don't know anybody in any government or any intelligence agency who suggested that the Iraqi's had nuclear weapons."

CIA director GEORGE TENET, 10/02:
"Most analysts asses Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program."

Vice President DICK CHENEY, 3/16/02,
"We believe he [Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

I mean, how can you not love these people? And their Republican supporters who will cheerfully ignore ANY lies as long as their guy can stay in power.

You watch, since there is no defense for this blatant lying, the Republican response to this will be to attack Clinton for his lies about Monica. Which has nothing to do with the fact that our soldiers are still dying in Iraq for...what?

Rumsfeld is correct, as far as I can tell. First of all, Tenet didn't say Iraq had nuclear weapons, he said that his analysts believed Iraq was reconsituting their nuclear weapons program. The implication that this statement is as portrayed by you is laughable.

Cheney clearly mispoke. You can tell it's an error in speech (rather than the accusation you're making it out to be) by going to the transcript (http://www.msnbc.com/news/886068.asp) you'll see that, again and again, Cheney says the same thing that Tenet says: reconstituted program. Only once (the quoted bit) does he say that Saddam has 'reconstituted nuclear weapons'.

Another good hint it's an error in speech: What, exactly, is a 'reconstituted nuclear weapon'? Is it an old broken weapon that one rebuilds? Nobody would say that, would they?

I don't think Rumsfeld can be faulted for believing (and representing) that Cheney was consistently in the 'Saddam doesn't have nuclear weapons yet, but he's trying to get them' camp, since, except for one sentence in one interview that seems to me to be a speech error, Cheney did consistently say that.

MattJ

[Mark]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Rumsfeld is correct, as far as I can tell. First of all, Tenet didn't say Iraq had nuclear weapons, he said that his analysts believed Iraq was reconsituting their nuclear weapons program. The implication that this statement is as portrayed by you is laughable.

Cheney clearly mispoke. You can tell it's an error in speech (rather than the accusation you're making it out to be) by going to the transcript (http://www.msnbc.com/news/886068.asp) you'll see that, again and again, Cheney says the same thing that Tenet says: reconstituted program. Only once (the quoted bit) does he say that Saddam has 'reconstituted nuclear weapons'.

Another good hint it's an error in speech: What, exactly, is a 'reconstituted nuclear weapon'? Is it an old broken weapon that one rebuilds? Nobody would say that, would they?

I don't think Rumsfeld can be faulted for believing (and representing) that Cheney was consistently in the 'Saddam doesn't have nuclear weapons yet, but he's trying to get them' camp, since, except for one sentence in one interview that seems to me to be a speech error, Cheney did consistently say that.

MattJ

I LOVE Republican spin! And, given that Bush and the Republicans actually managed to make the whole country forget about Osama bin laden and Al Qaida, they'll probably pull off this little historical revision, too.

So...having a "reconsituted" nuclear weapon is semantically the same as not having one at all. I LOVE it!

[Cain]

The 3/16 quote attributed to Dick Cheney no doubt takes place on Meet the Press with Tim Russert. I believe that later on in that same interview, several times in fact, Cheney says that Iraq is reconstituting nuclear weapons. That first time, the one that everyone quotes, he probably misspoke.

I'm not sure if that's signficiant. They're still lying douche-bags who sold this war not on the evidence but by scaring the American public. What did Rice say again? I paraphrase, "There will always be uncertainty [over exactly what WMD Saddam possesses and when he's going to deploy them], but we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

But hey, it's not like he lied about blowjobs. Their evidence was refuted within a day by a scientist armed with Google!

From a recent article in _TNR_:

As Powell cited U.S. intelligence supporting his claim of a reconstituted nuclear weapons program in Iraq, Jacques Baute listened intently. Baute, the head of the IAEA's Iraq inspections unit, had been pestering the U.S. and British governments for months to share their intelligence with his office. Despite repeated assurances of cooperation, TNR has learned that Baute's office received nothing until the day before Powell's presentation, when the U.S. mission in Vienna provided the IAEA with an oral briefing while Baute was en route to New York, leaving no printed material with the nuclear inspectors. As IAEA officials recount, an astonished Baute told his aides, "That won't do. I want the actual documentary evidence." He had to register his complaints through a United Nations Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) channel before receiving the documents the day Powell spoke. It was an incident that would characterize America's intelligence-sharing with the IAEA.

After a few weeks of traveling back and forth between Baghdad and Vienna, Baute sat down with the dozen or so pages of U.S. intelligence on Saddam's supposed nuclear procurements--the aluminum tubes, the Niger uranium, and the magnets. In the course of a day, Baute determined, like the ambassador before him, that the Niger document was fraudulent. Though the "president" of Niger made reference to his powers under the constitution of 1965, Baute performed a quick Google search to learn that Niger's latest constitution was drafted in 1999. There were other obvious mistakes--improper letterhead, an obviously forged signature, a letter from a foreign minister who had not been in office for eleven years. Baute also made quick work of the aluminum tubes. He assembled a team of experts--two Americans, two Britons, and a German--with 120 years of collective experience with centrifuges. After reviewing tens of thousands of Iraqi transaction records and inspecting Iraqi front companies and military production facilities with the rest of the IAEA unit, they concluded, according to a senior IAEA official, that "all evidence points to that this is for the rockets"--the same conclusion reached by the State and Energy Departments. As for the magnets, the IAEA cross-referenced Iraq's declarations with intelligence from various member states and determined that nothing in Iraq's magnet procurements "pointed to centrifuge enrichment," in the words of an IAEA official with direct knowledge of the effort. Rather, the magnets were for projects as disparate as telephones and short-range missiles. Baute, who according to a senior IAEA official was in "almost daily" contact with the American diplomatic mission in Vienna, was surprised at the weakness of the U.S. evidence. In one instance, Baute contacted the mission after discovering the Niger document forgeries and asked, as this official described it, "Can your people help me understand if I'm wrong? I'm not ready to close the book on this file. If you've got any other evidence that might be authentic, I need to see it, and I'll follow up." Eventually, a response came: The Americans and the British were not disputing the IAEA's conclusions; no more evidence would be provided.

Oh, but I'm still waiting for that "bulletproof" evicence Rumsfeld has linking Iraq to Al Qaeda. I'm glad they've kept quiet. Who knows how quickly an enterprising skeptic with an Internet connection would refute it.

[American]

Look at it this way- the administration doesn't lie to the American people. They lie to YOU.

[Mark]

Originally posted by American
Look at it this way- the administration doesn't lie to the American people. They lie to YOU.

True. But, then, I am not the one who believes their tripe.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Mark


I LOVE Republican spin! And, given that Bush and the Republicans actually managed to make the whole country forget about Osama bin laden and Al Qaida, they'll probably pull off this little historical revision, too.

So...having a "reconsituted" nuclear weapon is semantically the same as not having one at all. I LOVE it!

No...

Reconstituting a program is different than having a weapon.

For instance, there was a period in our history that we had a nuclear weapons program, but no nuclear weapons.

MattJ

[Mark]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


No...

Reconstituting a program is different than having a weapon.

For instance, there was a period in our history that we had a nuclear weapons program, but no nuclear weapons.

MattJ

Wow. Wanna buy a bridge in Brooklyn, cheap? The seller is a Republican, so it's OK.

I am sure you would have extended the same benefit of the doubt to Clinton, right?

Just gotta LOVE those double standards...they're making our country stronger all the time.

[rikzilla]

All carping aside, was it worth it? I mean the invasion of Iraq and removal of the threat of Saddam Hussein?

Here's what Rolf Ekeus has to say:


The door is now open for diplomatic initiatives to remake the region into a WMD-free area and to shape a structure in the Persian Gulf of stability and security. Moreover, the defeat of the Hussein regime, a deadly opponent to peace between Israelis and Palestinians, has opened the door to a realistic and re-energized peace process in the Middle East.

This is enough to justify the international military intervention undertaken by the United States and Britain. To accept the alternative -- letting Hussein remain in power with his chemical and biological weapons capability -- would have been to tolerate a continuing destabilizing arms race in the gulf, including future nuclearization of the region, threats to the world's energy supplies, leakage of WMD technology and expertise to terrorist networks, systematic sabotage of efforts to create and sustain a process of peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians and the continued terrorizing of the Iraqi people.

The writer was executive chairman of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) on Iraq from 1991 to 1997. A former Swedish ambassador to the United States, he is now chairman of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

Here's the link to the entire

article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43468-2003Jun27.html)

Wow, an informed opinion from a real life expert! Sorry to poop on your party fellas! Please feel free to return to your shouts of "liar-liar pants on fire". :rolleyes:

-zilla

[demon]

Liar, liar, pants onfire;)

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Mark


I don't know about aplogizing to Iraq...Hussein is pretty bloody evil (like many of our allies). But, certainly, we should apologize to the U.N.

Apologize to the UN? You're high.

JK

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by rikzilla

Wow, an informed opinion from a real life expert! Sorry to poop on your party fellas! Please feel free to return to your shouts of "liar-liar pants on fire". :rolleyes:

-zilla

:D :D :D

add some Nyah Nyahs!!!

[Cain]

The door is now open for diplomatic initiatives to remake the region into a WMD-free area and to shape a structure in the Persian Gulf of stability and security.

Oh yeah? So I suppose the United States will put pressure on Israel to give up it's 200 or so nukes...

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Mark

I LOVE Republican spin! And, given that Bush and the Republicans actually managed to make the whole country forget about Osama bin laden and Al Qaida, they'll probably pull off this little historical revision, too.

So...having a "reconsituted" nuclear weapon is semantically the same as not having one at all. I LOVE it!

Mark, I think you're over-reacting a bit. There is a difference between saying they've reconstituted their weapons programs and they actually have nuclear weapons.

So they didn't lie, per se, but claiming,
1. Iraq has a nuclear weapons program.
2. It has the materials it needs.
3. It's only a matter of time before they do have nukes.
and then claiming,
"I don't know anybody in any government or any intelligence agency who suggested that the Iraqi's had nuclear weapons."
is a bit coy on Rummy's part.

Of course, they didn't, they all but said it.

The only problem is, the press can't explain it because, they don't have such zingy one-liners like "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."

Fah - GWB and his administration has done one thing exceptionally well: PR. He's played the press like a flute.

[headscratcher4]

He's played the press like a flute.

And, as importantly, the press has formed long lines to play his flute, as it were....;)

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by headscratcher4

And, as importantly, the press has formed long lines to play his flute, as it were....;)

I was going for a "Hamlet" reference there, not a Clinton/Lewinsky one. :)

Out of the gutter, HS4!

Seriously, give credit where it's due. The Administration does and excellent job at image management. If this were the Carter administration, he would have been hung up by his toenails already.

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by specious_reasons


I was going for a "Hamlet" reference there, not a Clinton/Lewinsky one. :)

Out of the gutter, HS4!

Seriously, give credit where it's due. The Administration does and excellent job at image management. If this were the Carter administration, he would have been hung up by his toenails already.

Believe me, I do. They've been masterful, and the press has either quit trying or bought it hook, line and sinker. Together, it is a great combination (if you are the President). I am no fan of Bush...but I think he is one of the most skilled Presidents that we have (it isn't all staff -- i.e. Rove -- as Bush has to understand it for it to work) had when it comes to staying on message and focusing on his spin...and not allowing it to be questioned too closely. He knows his limitations and he (to his functioning credit) stays away from situations where he is likely to be tripped up.

On the other had...and maybe it is years of Clinton fatigue, or maybe it is media consolidation, or laziness... no one asks real hard questions of anyone in this administration, and very few check out what this administration asserts for indipendent verification.

This is not even intended as a critiscsm of Bush's policies in Iraq. Bush stated what he was going to do, laid out a plan, stuck with it and accomplished his goal. Now, you might not agree with it, but the media making a stink about it now is a bit disengenuous (IMO)...where were they with the tough questions before? Did any one of them not fly the flag high when we were engaged in the war? No.

I give credit where credit is due...Bush has mastered the Washington press and he has effectively cowed his critics. It may not result in good policy, but it is damned effective hard-ball politics, of the kind that Johnson, Reagan, FDR, etc. would understand

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Mark
I am sure you would have extended the same benefit of the doubt to Clinton, right?

Correct (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=372990&highlight=Clinton#post372990)

MattJ

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Cain


Oh yeah? So I suppose the United States will put pressure on Israel to give up it's 200 or so nukes...

No way. That is Israel's greatest strength against the perversion that seeks to destroy it.

Those nukes need to keep being pointed at Europe and Arab nation-states. It is vital they are since those states threaten the very existence of the State of Israel.

JK

[corplinx]

Originally posted by headscratcher4


On the other had...and maybe it is years of Clinton fatigue, or maybe it is media consolidation, or laziness... no one asks real hard questions of anyone in this administration, and very few check out what this administration asserts for indipendent verification.


You must not watch the same washington press conferences that I watch. Ari has not only been asked many of the "hard hitting" questions bt some of the most loaded adversarial questions you've ever seen. Did they get answered? Not usually.

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by corplinx


You must not watch the same washington press conferences that I watch. Ari has not only been asked many of the "hard hitting" questions bt some of the most loaded adversarial questions you've ever seen. Did they get answered? Not usually.

Well, there is a lot of truth in what you write...I suppose the problem is that the stories are complicated, don't lend themselves to soundbites and the media just quits...more to the credit of Ari and the crew for knowing just how to manage it....

[Kodiak]

Cheney's "Supposed" Lie (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-volokh063003.asp)

From the web article:

"Doubtless most of these critics are honestly mistaken: They just didn't look at the whole transcript. Maybe, though, journalists should make a practice of looking at transcripts a bit more before they quote small snippets, or before they repeat others' quotes.

Maybe if they did, they — and their readers — would know when they've really caught a government official in a lie, a factual error, or a "reckless exaggeration", and when they're making a mountain out of someone's slip of the tongue. In the meantime, we need to remain careful about claims we read, and realize that many allegations of serious error are themselves erroneous."

[DanishDynamite]

rikzilla:All carping aside, was it worth it? I mean the invasion of Iraq and removal of the threat of Saddam Hussein?I think this question sums up much of what seperates us on the issue of Iraq. The rule of law vs machiavellian renegades.

In regard to the personal opinion of Rolf Ekeus:
The door is now open for diplomatic initiatives to remake the region into a WMD-free area and to shape a structure in the Persian Gulf of stability and security. Moreover, the defeat of the Hussein regime, a deadly opponent to peace between Israelis and Palestinians, has opened the door to a realistic and re-energized peace process in the Middle East.So, all this many decades, the reason for controversy between the Palestinians and the Israelies was Iraq! Odd how that was never mentioned as the primary cause all those years.
This is enough to justify the international military intervention undertaken by the United States and Britain. To accept the alternative -- letting Hussein remain in power with his chemical and biological weapons capability -- Iraq's capability?! Nice way to avoid saying there are no weapons. Heck, every western country has the capability.
....would have been to tolerate a continuing destabilizing arms race in the gulf, including future nuclearization of the region, threats to the world's energy supplies, leakage of WMD technology and expertise to terrorist networks, systematic sabotage of efforts to create and sustain a process of peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians and the continued terrorizing of the Iraqi people. Nice list of psychic predictions about possible futures. The writer was executive chairman of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) on Iraq from 1991 to 1997. A former Swedish ambassador to the United States, he is now chairman of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Even though he is a Swede, it is still possible for him to be right-winger. ;)
Wow, an informed opinion from a real life expert! Sorry to poop on your party fellas! Please feel free to return to your shouts of "liar-liar pants on fire". :rolleyes:
:rolleyes: right back atcha.

[Jedi Knight]

I love the Bush Administration, but I must admit that the thought of Israel having nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert against an antisemitic world is also a thought worth loving.

JK

[American]

Originally posted by Mark
True. But, then, I am not the one who believes their tripe.

My friendly insult was meant to suggest that you are not American, not that they are liars.

I, on the other hand, am American (as explicitly inferred by my chosen name).

[Jedi Knight]

I wonder what other freedom toys the Israelis have that can be used against their enemies. You know they probably have Smallpox and Botulism and Plague. I bet they even have the hydrogen bomb and probably the nuetron bomb. I wonder how many of those warheads are targeted on Europe.

Antisemites beware! :)

JK

[American]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
I wonder what other freedom toys the Israelis have that can be used against their enemies. You know they probably have Smallpox and Botulism and Plague. I bet they even have the hydrogen bomb and probably the nuetron bomb. I wonder how many of those warheads are targeted on Europe.

They've had regular nukes for 30 years. I wouldn't be shocked if they've been extorting us for support. "If we die, you die too..." The Israelis are ruthless. They've spied on us and don't pause a moment when they assassinate the wrong guy by accident, including westerners. I think it's wise that we deal with them for now.

Despite all of that, they're more allies than not.

[Mark]

Originally posted by American


My friendly insult was meant to suggest that you are not American, not that they are liars.

I, on the other hand, am American (as explicitly inferred by my chosen name).

I didn't take it as an insult; I did take it as friendly. The fact is, though, that it has come to be regarded as un-American to distrust Bush; so I am not a good American by current standards.

[RandFan,Jr.]

Originally posted by Mark
Defense Secretary DONALD RUMSFELD, speaking on 6/24/03:
"I don't know anybody in any government or any intelligence agency who suggested that the Iraqi's had nuclear weapons."

CIA director GEORGE TENET, 10/02:
"Most analysts asses Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program."

Vice President DICK CHENEY, 3/16/02,
"We believe he [Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

I mean, how can you not love these people? And their Republican supporters who will cheerfully ignore ANY lies as long as their guy can stay in power.

You watch, since there is no defense for this blatant lying, the Republican response to this will be to attack Clinton for his lies about Monica. Which has nothing to do with the fact that our soldiers are still dying in Iraq for...what? Mark,

Do you still think that this is a "blatant" lie?

It's funny, we sometimes want so bad to be right that we don't stop and really analyze what it is that we think we see. Taken in context I don't think that this is a "blatant" lie. I think it is far more likely that Rumsfeld miss spoke. And yes I have defended Clinton for similar things in the past. I have not accepted every evil assumption made about him and have come to his defense on numerous occasions.

Truth be told though I have been reprimanded on this very forum for posting to quickly a barb from some news article that I thought supported my beliefs.

It's easy for president detractors to assume the very worst of Bush and Clinton. It's not being objective however. And BTW, it is quite appropriate to reference Clinton when someone is decrying the behavior of Bush when the very same people defended similar behavior of Clinton.

[blackpriester]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


No way. That is Israel's greatest strength against the perversion that seeks to destroy it.

Those nukes need to keep being pointed at Europe and Arab nation-states. It is vital they are since those states threaten the very existence of the State of Israel.

JK

European nation states threatening the existence of Israel?
You must be high...

[Mark]

Originally posted by RandFan,Jr.
Mark,

Do you still think that this is a "blatant" lie?

It's funny, we sometimes want so bad to be right that we don't stop and really analyze what it is that we think we see. Taken in context I don't think that this is a "blatant" lie. I think it is far more likely that Rumsfeld miss spoke. And yes I have defended Clinton for similar things in the past. I have not accepted every evil assumption made about him and have come to his defense on numerous occasions.

Truth be told though I have been reprimanded on this very forum for posting to quickly a barb from some news article that I thought supported my beliefs.

It's easy for president detractors to assume the very worst of Bush and Clinton. It's not being objective however. And BTW, it is quite appropriate to reference Clinton when someone is decrying the behavior of Bush when the very same people defended similar behavior of Clinton.

Yes I do still think it's a blatant lie. How can you not? I also think, based on your post and others, they will bet away with it, just as they have all along. I'd laugh if people weren't dying over this.

[crocodile deathroll]

This is how this was is being sexed up:

[RandFan,Jr.]

Originally posted by Mark
Yes I do still think it's a blatant lie. How can you not? I also think, based on your post and others, they will bet away with it, just as they have all along. You are asking me, how can I not? Simple, looking at the context of the speech it is quite obvious that the man misspoke. I guess you are unwilling to consider context. Oh well, screw objectivity when it doesn't fit, right?

I'd laugh if people weren't dying over this. Spoken as if people were not dying before we invaded. In fact it is arguable that far more people were dying and certainly people were being tortured (Saddam liked disfiguring people. Doctors were required to cut the ears of deserters or be killed)

[DanishDynamite]

RandFan,Jr.: You are asking me, how can I not? Simple, looking at the context of the speech it is quite obvious that the man misspoke. I guess you are unwilling to consider context. Oh well, screw objectivity when it doesn't fit, right?Give me a break. The Bush (and Blair) administration did their best to convince people that Iraq had (or would very soon have) WMD, be they chemical, biological or nuclear. They furthermore disengeniously coupled this supposed threat with terrorism, any chance they got. Often (indirectly) in the same sentence. What is amazing is that there weren't more "slips of the tongue".
Spoken as if people were not dying before we invaded. In fact it is arguable that far more people were dying and certainly people were being tortured (Saddam liked disfiguring people. Doctors were required to cut the ears of deserters or be killed) The torture and killing of people by their own government is widespread and has been for decades. Odd how invasion of such countries hasn't been a priority, and isn't a priority today. Odd how the well being of the Iraqi people was only reason no. 3 (or was it 4) for invading Iraq.

[Mark]

Originally posted by RandFan,Jr.
You are asking me, how can I not? Simple, looking at the context of the speech it is quite obvious that the man misspoke. I guess you are unwilling to consider context. Oh well, screw objectivity when it doesn't fit, right?

Spoken as if people were not dying before we invaded. In fact it is arguable that far more people were dying and certainly people were being tortured (Saddam liked disfiguring people. Doctors were required to cut the ears of deserters or be killed)

Spin, spin, spin.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Mark


Yes I do still think it's a blatant lie. How can you not? I also think, based on your post and others, they will bet (sic) away with it, just as they have all along. I'd laugh if people weren't dying over this.

I'll try again...


Cheney's "Supposed" Lie (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-volokh063003.asp)

From the web article:

"Doubtless most of these critics are honestly mistaken: They just didn't look at the whole transcript. Maybe, though, journalists should make a practice of looking at transcripts a bit more before they quote small snippets, or before they repeat others' quotes.

Maybe if they did, they — and their readers — would know when they've really caught a government official in a lie, a factual error, or a "reckless exaggeration", and when they're making a mountain out of someone's slip of the tongue. In the meantime, we need to remain careful about claims we read, and realize that many allegations of serious error are themselves erroneous."

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Kodiak


I'll try again...


Cheney's "Supposed" Lie (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-volokh063003.asp)

From the web article:

"Doubtless most of these critics are honestly mistaken: They just didn't look at the whole transcript. Maybe, though, journalists should make a practice of looking at transcripts a bit more before they quote small snippets, or before they repeat others' quotes.

Maybe if they did, they — and their readers — would know when they've really caught a government official in a lie, a factual error, or a "reckless exaggeration", and when they're making a mountain out of someone's slip of the tongue. In the meantime, we need to remain careful about claims we read, and realize that many allegations of serious error are themselves erroneous."

OK, Kodiak, I'll bite.

I read that article you referred to and the way I understand it is that when Cheney used the term "reconstituted nuclear weapons" he really meant "nuclear weapons program" and that anyone who thought that it meant "nuclear weapons" was mistaken. Well then, I guess that I am one of those people because when I heard Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, and all of the other pro-war people talk about how Saddam must be stopped before he gives WMDs to terrorist groups and/or uses them himself to attack us, and how Saddam has already used Chemical Weapons on his own people, and so on, I thought that "reconstituted nuclear weapons" really meant "nuclear weapons".

But let us say for the sake of this discussion, that these people [like me] were wrong and that we should have understood the term "reconstituted nuclear weapons" to mean "nuclear weapons program".

OK then, if that is the case, then that is just plain wrong! The closest thing Iraq had to a "nuclear weapons program" (or "reconstituted nuclear weapons" in Cheney-speak) is some 20 year old parts that were buried in someone's yard for the last 12 years.

I hardly think that ridding the world of these parts has been worth the cost of:
Over 100 billion dollars that has already been spent,
The 10's of billions of dollars that will need to be spent,
The thousands who have already been hurt and killed, and
The thousands who will be have to be hurt and killed in the future.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mark
So...having a "reconsituted" nuclear weapon is semantically the same as not having one at all.

Depends on your definition of "is."

(Sorry.... Couldn't resist. :p )

[Mark]

Originally posted by shanek


Depends on your definition of "is."

(Sorry.... Couldn't resist. :p )

Suffice to say it is a word the Knights Who Say Nee cannot hear. :D

[RandFan,Jr.]

Originally posted by Mark
Spin, spin, spin. Fallacy, fallacy, fallacy.

Instead of fallacious argument why don't you deal with the facts? Are you only capable of stock and canned responses? Why not show why the context is not at issue? I'm afraid that it is you that are guilty of spin. But please, by all means, accuse everyone of spin while you avoid the facts and refuse to accept the context of what was said. Like I said, screw objectivity, right?

[RandFan,Jr.]

Originally posted by Kodiak


I'll try again...


Cheney's "Supposed" Lie (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-volokh063003.asp)

From the web article:

"Doubtless most of these critics are honestly mistaken: They just didn't look at the whole transcript. Maybe, though, journalists should make a practice of looking at transcripts a bit more before they quote small snippets, or before they repeat others' quotes.

Maybe if they did, they — and their readers — would know when they've really caught a government official in a lie, a factual error, or a "reckless exaggeration", and when they're making a mountain out of someone's slip of the tongue. In the meantime, we need to remain careful about claims we read, and realize that many allegations of serious error are themselves erroneous." Somehow I doubt that Mark would even bother reading the article. It was a lie and Mark knows it. The facts and context be screwed.

[Tricky]

Rand Fan, this is off topic, but I wish you would consider what you are doing to your son's image here. He may wish to post again some day, and a lot of people are going to have the wrong idea about him. Get another ID or sign each post in big letters that this is Rand Fan, and NOT Jr. At least turn off his personal sigs when you post.

Rand Fan Jr. is not as angry as you. You could learn from him.

[Mark]

Originally posted by RandFan,Jr.
Somehow I doubt that Mark would even bother reading the article. It was a lie and Mark knows it. The facts and context be screwed.

You guys are perfect examples of why the Bush Administration gets away with this stuff. They could knock over a liquor store and you'd be saying we all misunderstood them.

[Cinorjer]

Are you shocked that our elected officials lied? Of course they did. ALL politicians lie, or they wouldn't get elected. They tell people what they want to hear. They confuse, they obfuscate, they dodge the tough questions and use words that give one impression while meaning another.

They use terms like "reconstituted nuclear weapons program", knowing the term has no real meaning. Does it mean there's a secret laboratory like in a James Bond movie? Does it mean a couple of scientists sitting around and waiting for sanctions to end? No one knows, but it sounds like a threat. See how it works? The science of words. Experts are paid big money to tell the politicians exactly what words to say that will punch the right buttons. If you put a bunch of people in a room and had them listen to the speech, then asked them later what it was about, most would say "something about Saddam having nuclear weapons". Those are the words that have emotional impact and stand out.

It's how politicians lie.

[RandFan,Jr.]

Originally posted by Tricky
Rand Fan, this is off topic, but I wish you would consider what you are doing to your son's image here. He may wish to post again some day, and a lot of people are going to have the wrong idea about him. Get another ID or sign each post in big letters that this is Rand Fan, and NOT Jr. At least turn off his personal sigs when you post.

Rand Fan Jr. is not as angry as you. You could learn from him. Thanks Tricky,

I'm going to ask Hal to PM my password to my son. It is the only way I know to keep me from living on this board. And yes, it is pathetic that I lack the self dicipline. At least I am able to recognize it and take some action to correct the problem.

But you are right and until I arrange for it I will note when it is me and not my son.

As to being angry, yeah I am passionate. Especially when I think someone is acusing me of doing the very thing that they themselves are doing. Mark is obviously blinded by his ideology and strong emotional response to Bush. I spent 8 years confronting Clinton haters so I should be used to it.

Thanks though.

This post brought to you by RANDFAN!

[RandFan,Jr.]

Originally posted by Mark
You guys are perfect examples of why the Bush Administration gets away with this stuff. They could knock over a liquor store and you'd be saying we all misunderstood them. Patently untrue. I have on this very forum criticized Bush, Ashcroft, Cheney and others. I am not an ideolog such as you. I don't view the world through filtered glasses. I have a commitment to objectivity that demands that I consider all points of view. I am one of the few people on this forum that I know of who has admitted on a number of occasions when I was shown to be wrong and have changed my opinion on a number of other cases when logic prevailed against my arguments.

I am passionate when I believe I am right but not so passionate that I am blinded to the facts.

It is quite obvious what the context was. You refuse to even address that context. You offer no real argument based on logic. Only statements taking out of context and GAINSAYING. You have a one track response to every thing I say. The problem is that the one track does not fit me. Somehow I get the feeling that you will continue the tired line of accusing me of spin.

A lazy way to argue but whatever. Why bother to reason when you have a sound bite. Don't prove me wrong Mark. I am depending on you.

This post brought to you by RANDFAN!

Edited to add that you did in fact address the point about context. I missed the post earlier. My appologies.

[RandFan,Jr.]

Originally posted by Tricky
Rand Fan Jr. is not as angry as you. You could learn from him. As someone who has a great deal of respect for you I am curious though, why the admonition to me and not Mark?

[RandFan,Jr.]

Originally posted by Crossbow
OK, Kodiak, I'll bite.

I read that article you referred to and the way I understand it is that when Cheney used the term "reconstituted nuclear weapons" he really meant "nuclear weapons program" and that anyone who thought that it meant "nuclear weapons" was mistaken. Well then, I guess that I am one of those people because when I heard Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, and all of the other pro-war people talk about how Saddam must be stopped before he gives WMDs to terrorist groups and/or uses them himself to attack us, and how Saddam has already used Chemical Weapons on his own people, and so on, I thought that "reconstituted nuclear weapons" really meant "nuclear weapons". No, I didn't and I never heard such talk before during or immediately after the war. In fact I have argued at length on this forum about WMD and it was NEVER argued by me or anyone that Saddam had nuclear weapons. He clearly did have a program. We have evidence that he wanted to start another program.

OK then, if that is the case, then that is just plain wrong! The closest thing Iraq had to a "nuclear weapons program" (or "reconstituted nuclear weapons" in Cheney-speak) is some 20 year old parts that were buried in someone's yard for the last 12 years. It's amazing. During the first Gulf War the we (the coalition forces) admitted that we were simply unable to find the SCUD missile launchers to prevent Saddam from launching SCUDs at Israel. Yet for some reason it is now assumed that it was impossible for Saddam to hide his weapons program.

Did most people think that by now that WMD including nuclear parts and equipment to make nuclear weapons would be found? Yes, I did. Do we know for a fact that Saddam had no WMD? No!

It's important to you and that is fine. I don't much care. Saddam was a huge threat. He was a monster that murdered tens of thousands. Tossed thousands into jail. Cut of ears, hands and other body parts. He was a murderer, torturer and tyrant. His blood lust and oppression have been stopped. I am damn glad about that. We did the right thing. I know that you don't think so but there is little question to me that we did.

I hardly think that ridding the world of these parts has been worth the cost of:
Over 100 billion dollars that has already been spent,
The 10's of billions of dollars that will need to be spent,
The thousands who have already been hurt and killed, and
The thousands who will be have to be hurt and killed in the future. End of torture, end of imprisonment of innocent people, end of murder, end of a tyrant, end of the worry about a mad man who attacked two neighbors and proved himself capable of genocide. PRICELESS!

This post brought to you by RANDFAN!

[Tricky]

Originally posted by RandFan,Jr.
As someone who has a great deal of respect for you I am curious though, why the admonition to me and not Mark?
Okay, Mark is angry too. However, he is not assigning his anger to Mark Jr.

And believe me, I know about being passionate. I've learned, though, that raw, obvious anger tends to detract from your message, rather than add to it. I know you are a smart man, RandFan, but this duel with Mark is not displaying that cool, reasoned approach that we have come to expect from you.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Crossbow


OK, Kodiak, I'll bite.

I read that article you referred to and the way I understand it is that when Cheney used the term "reconstituted nuclear weapons" he really meant "nuclear weapons program" and that anyone who thought that it meant "nuclear weapons" was mistaken. Well then, I guess that I am one of those people because when I heard Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, and all of the other pro-war people talk about how Saddam must be stopped before he gives WMDs to terrorist groups and/or uses them himself to attack us, and how Saddam has already used Chemical Weapons on his own people, and so on, I thought that "reconstituted nuclear weapons" really meant "nuclear weapons".

But let us say for the sake of this discussion, that these people [like me] were wrong and that we should have understood the term "reconstituted nuclear weapons" to mean "nuclear weapons program".

OK then, if that is the case, then that is just plain wrong! The closest thing Iraq had to a "nuclear weapons program" (or "reconstituted nuclear weapons" in Cheney-speak) is some 20 year old parts that were buried in someone's yard for the last 12 years.

I hardly think that ridding the world of these parts has been worth the cost of:
Over 100 billion dollars that has already been spent,
The 10's of billions of dollars that will need to be spent,
The thousands who have already been hurt and killed, and
The thousands who will be have to be hurt and killed in the future.

I won't argue your opinions about the validity of the war or your interpretation of the information presented.

My only point (and I think you'll even grudingly agree) is that whatever Cheney said and/or meant to say and/or was understood as saying is not some smoking gun proving once and for all some covered up conspiracy to lie to the public.

Might there be a conspiracy? I don't know. What I do know is that Cheney's interview isn't evidence of it...

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Kodiak


I won't argue your opinions about the validity of the war or your interpretation of the information presented.

My only point (and I think you'll even grudingly agree) is that whatever Cheney said and/or meant to say and/or was understood as saying is not some smoking gun proving once and for all some covered up conspiracy to lie to the public.

Might there be a conspiracy? I don't know. What I do know is that Cheney's interview isn't evidence of it...

Now you guys are sounding like Clinton debating the fine points of the word "is".

[RandFan,Jr.]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Now you guys are sounding like Clinton debating the fine points of the word "is". With all due respect Crossbow it is quite the contrary.

In the case of Clinton the "is" in question was a technical point made by Clinton to show why he did not lie as opposed to just being misleading.

In the case of Cheney it is others who are standing on technicality to show that Cheney lied when in fact he just misspoke.

The question to be asked is what was the intent of Cheney and Clinton. Cheney misspoke and Clinton mislead.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Crossbow


Now you guys are sounding like Clinton debating the fine points of the word "is".

Hardly.

Cheney wasn't testifying under oath, and as the article I cited clearly shows, Cheney simply misspoke.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by RandFan,Jr.
With all due respect Crossbow it is quite the contrary.

In the case of Clinton the "is" in question was a technical point made by Clinton to show why he did not lie as opposed to just being misleading.

In the case of Cheney it is others who are standing on technicality to show that Cheney lied when in fact he just misspoke.

The question to be asked is what was the intent of Cheney and Clinton. Cheney misspoke and Clinton mislead.

Do you ever feel like just forming squares and letting them charge at full gallop? ;)

[Mark]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Hardly.

Cheney wasn't testifying under oath, and as the article I cited clearly shows, Cheney simply misspoke.

So...even if I accept your premise (I don't), Clinton lied under oath about sex, Cheney misspoke about a nuclear threat which helped launch a pointless, pre-emptive war. Guess which one I find more troubling...

Besides...if you'll read the first posting, you'll find the issue was Rumsfeld's lie. Which, no matter how many people attack me, remains a lie for all to see.

Btw, I am not a Democrat; I am an independent. I have no great love for either party (Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee). And, for the record, Bush ran against Gore, not Clinton.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Mark

So...even if I accept your premise (I don't), Clinton lied under oath about sex, Cheney misspoke about a nuclear threat which helped launch a pointless, pre-emptive war. Guess which one I find more troubling...

Obviously, it isn't the rule of law...




Originally posted by Mark

Btw, I am not a Democrat; I am an independent. I have no great love for either party (Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee). And, for the record, Bush ran against Gore, not Clinton.

Your political preferences have no bearing on my position, and is wasn't I who brought up former President Clinton and his aversion for the truth.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Obviously, it isn't the rule of law...

Which rule of law, the one that says that you shouldn't lie under oath, even about things that are nobody's business and don't really matter anyway, or the one that says only Congress can declare war?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by shanek


Which rule of law, the one that says that you shouldn't lie under oath, even about things that are nobody's business and don't really matter anyway, or the one that says only Congress can declare war?

Sorry Shanny, but the precedent has already been established...

Not another War Powers Act thread!! :eek: ;)


:p

[Mark]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Obviously, it isn't the rule of law...

Your political preferences have no bearing on my position, and is wasn't I who brought up former President Clinton and his aversion for the truth.

My political preferences indicate that I can be a bit more objective about things than blind partisans can. I look at members of both parties with a skeptical eye...not just the "opposing" party members.

Sorry Shanny, but the precedent has already been established...

So has the precedent for malfeasance in office. That doesn't make it right.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Hardly.

Cheney wasn't testifying under oath, and as the article I cited clearly shows, Cheney simply misspoke.

So I guess the lesson for the public is that unless people like him actually swear under oath that what they are saying is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth then one should not be surprised when they break their word. Well, I find that quite odd since they have already put their hand on a bible and swore before the entire world that they will "Preserve, Protect, and Defend the Constitution to the best of my ability, so help me God."

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Mark


You guys are perfect examples of why the Bush Administration gets away with this stuff. They could knock over a liquor store and you'd be saying we all misunderstood them.

No Mark,

It takes a friggin blockhead of a liberal to REALLY excuse criminals. Real criminals that is!

Case in point:
]Originally posted by a_unique_person
For once I agree with you. The process of demonising a 'criminal' appears to be a curiously american one.

Many criminals are ordinary people caught up in extraordinary circumstances, people who never learned how to live a civilised life, or people who have something physically wrong with their brain.

The actual number of criminals as such, is really quite small.

My own theory is that the American of electing law enforcement officials is where it all falls down. The office of DA should be a-political. Otherwise there is just too much incentive to go for the numbers to get re-elected.

Ordinary people, caught up in extraordinary circumstances! Like poor maligned Bobby Swisher. His execution was stayed by Virginia Governor Warner because a sentencing form may have been confusing to some jurors. :mad:

II. THE EVIDENCE
On February 5, 1997, Dawn McNees Snyder disappeared from a florist shop where she worked in Stuarts Draft in Augusta County. Her body was found on February 21, 1997, near a riverbank about two miles from the florist shop. Animals had eaten extensive portions of her face, neck, and upper chest, and her identity was established by use of her dental records.
On February 22, 1997, the defendant, age 20, was at an apartment with two friends, one of whom was Clarence Henry Ridgeway, Jr. Swisher told Ridgeway that Swisher had abducted, raped, sodomized, and killed Snyder. Swisher stated: "You know the woman, Dawn Snyder . . . I killed her." Swisher related the following details to Ridgeway.
On February 5, 1997, about 7:15 p.m., Swisher's uncle drove Swisher by car to a grocery store located near the florist shop where Snyder worked. Swisher left the grocery store and walked to the florist shop. Swisher entered the shop, approached Snyder, and said, "I have a gun in my pocket." Swisher showed Snyder a "butcher knife with ridges" and directed her to go with him.
Swisher forced Snyder to leave the florist shop through a rear door, and they walked for some distance until they reached a field by the South River. Then, Swisher stopped Snyder and told her to "suck his dick." He forced her to perform an act of oral sodomy upon him, and he made her remove her clothes. After he raped her, she put her clothes on, and he forced her to perform another act of oral sodomy upon him.
Swisher decided to kill Snyder because she had "seen his face." He "pulled out the butcher knife" that had "ridges around the edge of the blade," and he "slit her across the left side of the face and was holding her; then slit her throat and then gouged her and then tossed her into a river." He walked along the riverbank, watching her in the river, asking her, "[a]re -- are you dead yet?" After Snyder floated in the river for awhile, Swisher saw her "crawl up the bank." Then, "he got scared and took off running straight to his house from that field." Swisher threw his knife in the river.
When Swisher finished his confession to Ridgeway, Swisher stated that "[i]t feels like [I] could do it again." The following morning, Ridgeway informed the Augusta County Sheriff's Office of Swisher's crimes.

Poor Bobby,...just an ordinary boy caught up in extraordinary circumstances!

BAH! Friggin' liberals!! :mad:

-zilla

[Mark]

Originally posted by rikzilla


No Mark,

It takes a friggin blockhead of a liberal to REALLY excuse criminals. Real criminals that is!

Case in point:


Ordinary people, caught up in extraordinary circumstances! Like poor maligned Bobby Swisher. His execution was stayed by Virginia Governor Warner because a sentencing form may have been confusing to some jurors. :mad:



Poor Bobby,...just an ordinary boy caught up in extraordinary circumstances!

BAH! Friggin' liberals!! :mad:


-zilla

Ah, Republicans. Your guys are caught out as bare faced liars, so you bring up something that has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand. Bravo; Newt Gingrich would be so proud.

Oh, and as much as I hate to step on your silly stereotyping...I would cheefully hit myself in the forehead with a polo mallet before being a "Liberal." Or a Conservative.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Mark


Ah, Republicans. Your guys are caught out as bare faced liars, so you bring up something that has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand. Bravo; Newt Gingrich would be so proud.

Oh, and as much as I hate to step on your silly stereotyping...I would cheefully hit myself in the forehead with a polo mallet before being a "Liberal." Or a Conservative.


Polo mallet?? OMG! :eek:

You've really outted yourself there fella!! I hafta say, who but a rich limo-riding, tofu eating, self hating liberal would have a polo mallet in the first place? :D :D :D

Personally I'd use a baseball bat....since I'm a real American! ;)

-zilla

[Mark]

Originally posted by rikzilla



Polo mallet?? OMG! :eek:

You've really outted yourself there fella!! I hafta say, who but a rich limo-riding, tofu eating, self hating liberal would have a polo mallet in the first place? :D :D :D

Personally I'd use a baseball bat....since I'm a real American! ;)

-zilla

No fair making me laugh!!!!!!! :D :D :D :D

I was going to say croquet mallet, but it didn't seem to have the same punch. Pun intended.

[RandFan,Jr.]

Originally posted by Tricky
And believe me, I know about being passionate. I've learned, though, that raw, obvious anger tends to detract from your message, rather than add to it. I know you are a smart man, RandFan, but this duel with Mark is not displaying that cool, reasoned approach that we have come to expect from you. Thanks Tricky,

I appreciate your sentiment but I am what I am. I will point out that I have appologized on a number of occasions so I often pay the price for my emotions. I am not malicous and I respect people's opinions and when needed I appologize.

In any event thanks and I will try and moderate my responses.

Thanks,

RandFan

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Mark


No fair making me laugh!!!!!!! :D :D :D :D

I was going to say croquet mallet, but it didn't seem to have the same punch. Pun intended.

:D I think you're a gas Mark :D

Now that damned AUP....he's a different story.

So, now in the words of that great American, Forrest Gump, let me say that:

"I'm sorry for busting up your Black Panther party!"

:D

Please return to casting aspertions upon our elected officials! Sorry to have taken it off topic!

-z

[Mark]

Originally posted by rikzilla


:D I think you're a gas Mark :D

Now that damned AUP....he's a different story.

So, now in the words of that great American, Forrest Gump, let me say that:

"I'm sorry for busting up your Black Panther party!"

:D

Please return to casting aspertions upon our elected officials! Sorry to have taken it off topic!

-z

Ditto, dude. :D

As far as casting aspertions (I love that word)...here is a subject for another thread: I believe the only president since WW2 who had an ounce of personal integrity was Jimmy Carter. And he is the most reviled president I can think of. What does that say about American culture?!

Hey..this is my thread, I can I hijack it if I want to! :D

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Mark

So has the precedent for malfeasance in office. That doesn't make it right.

Apples and oranges. One was duly enacted by Congress, the other obviously wasn't.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Crossbow

Well, I find that quite odd since they have already put their hand on a bible and swore before the entire world that they will "Preserve, Protect, and Defend the Constitution to the best of my ability, so help me God."

You have failed as yet to present any evidence that they aren't abiding by that oath...

[Mark]

Originally posted by Kodiak


You have failed as yet to present any evidence that they aren't abiding by that oath...

Uh huh. Except for their own words.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Mark


Uh huh. Except for their own words.

"X"...

Please try again...

[Mark]

Originally posted by Kodiak


"X"...

Please try again...

Republicans remind me of the O.J. jury. If O.J. had jumped up and cried, "I'm guilty! I'm guilty!" the jury would have yelled, "No you're not! No you're not!" :D

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Mark


Republicans remind me of the O.J. jury. If O.J. had jumped up and cried, "I'm guilty! I'm guilty!" the jury would have yelled, "No you're not! No you're not!" :D

That's a fine Red Herring...

Please try again... :)