Cheyney: Liar, or Moron?

[ImaginalDisc]

WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney repeated his assertions of al-Qaida links to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq on Thursday as the Defense Department released a report citing more evidence that the prewar government did not cooperate with the terrorist group.

Cheney contended that al-Qaida was operating in Iraq before the March 2003 invasion led by U.S. forces and that terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was leading the Iraqi branch of al-Qaida. Others in al-Qaida planned the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

<Snip>

However, a declassified Pentagon report released Thursday said that interrogations of the deposed Iraqi leader and two of his former aides as well as seized Iraqi documents confirmed that the terrorist organization and the Saddam government were not working together before the invasion.


The Sept. 11 Commission’s 2004 report also found no evidence of a collaborative relationship between Saddam and Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida network during that period.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17975678/

ETA: Darn it. I misspelled his name in the title.

[hgc]

Symbiosis: Cheney is the liar. His believers are the morons.

[Overman]

Symbiosis: Cheney is the liar. Most Republicians are the morons.

Fixed!

[Darth Rotor]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17975678/

ETA: Darn it. I misspelled his name in the title.
This is odd behavior, and appears to be a stubborn case of "That's his story and he's sticking to it."

Funny, that's how a lot of perps approach reality . . . :boggled:

DR

[Mephisto]

What did you expect, ImaginalDisc? There isn't a single thought from this group that is "out of the box," and this is just another example of, "staying the course."

[ImaginalDisc]

What did you expect, ImaginalDisc? There isn't a single thought from this group that is "out of the box," and this is just another example of, "staying the course."

But, they've never been "stay the course." (http://www.idrewthis.org/d/20061025.html)

[Mephisto]

But, they've never been "stay the course." (http://www.idrewthis.org/d/20061025.html)

:)

Isn't "surge" just another word for "stay the course?" ;)

Oh yeah, the difference is, THIS TIME it's going to work.

[thinkingaboutit]

Symbiosis: Cheney is the liar. His believers are the morons.

This sums it up.

[Michael Redman]

I would think that reminding people that terrorists were able to freely operate only in the part of Iraq we were keeping Saddam from controlling sort of blows up the whole "removing Saddam from power was part of the war on terror" argument.

[RandFan]

Most Republicians are the morons.:rolleyes: Politics forum.

Cleon was right.

[corplinx]

Haven't we been over this every time Cheney has said this?

A. There were links between some operatives and the Saddam goverment.
B. There was no working relationship between Bin Laden and Saddam
C. Iraq was not involved with 911

So the answer is, the moron is you. However, why Cheney keeps repeating this baffles me since the media spins it as "Cheney says Saddam was behind 911" every time he says it.

[Mephisto]

However, why Cheney keeps repeating this baffles me since the media spins it as "Cheney says Saddam was behind 911" every time he says it.

I thought the answer was fairly clear: “See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."—”

[corplinx]

Replying to my own post, Cheney must be a moron to keep saying it because the frequency of it means there some weight to it.

Saying there were links is like saying the Bush family had links Bin Laden. While technically true there is nothing substantive to it.

[thinkingaboutit]

:jaw-dropp Did someone say link between Saddam and Osama?

http://www.alternet.org/audits/50156/

...The link between Hussein and Bin Laden was their banker, BCCI. But the link went beyond the dictator and the jihadist -- it passed through Saudi Arabia and stretched all the way to George W. Bush and his father.BCCI was the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, a dirty offshore bank that then-President Ronald Reagan's Central Intelligence Agency used to run guns to Hussein, finance Osama bin Laden, move money in the illegal Iran-Contra operation and carry out other "agency" black ops. The Bushes also benefited privately; one of the bank's largest Saudi investors helped bail out George W. Bush's troubled oil investments...

[Ziggurat]

Umm... there's no contradiction in the story between what it reports Cheney said and what it reports this new Pentagon report said. Zarqawi was in Iraq, and he was an Al Qaeda leader. That does not require that Saddam was actively helping Al Qaeda. Tolerating their presence is not the same thing as helping them, and the report gives no indication that Saddam did not tolerate their presence, or that Zarqawi and other Al Qaeda elements were not in Iraq. Geeze, this is REALLY basic logic, guys. Why is it slipping through your grasp?

[Upchurch]

A. There were links between some operatives and the Saddam goverment.
In the broadest sense of the word "links", yes. The US had more "links" to the Saddam government and Bin Laden than they did with each other, apparently.

[ImaginalDisc]

So the answer is, the moron is you. However, why Cheney keeps repeating this baffles me since the media spins it as "Cheney says Saddam was behind 911" every time he says it.

From the article.

“He took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organized the al-Qaida operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June,” Cheney told radio host Rush Limbaugh during an interview.

Corplinx: Liar, Moron, or Illiterate?

[LawnOven]

I voted liar

[thinkingaboutit]

Umm... there's no contradiction in the story between what it reports Cheney said and what it reports this new Pentagon report said. Zarqawi was in Iraq, and he was an Al Qaeda leader. That does not require that Saddam was actively helping Al Qaeda. Tolerating their presence is not the same thing as helping them, and the report gives no indication that Saddam did not tolerate their presence, or that Zarqawi and other Al Qaeda elements were not in Iraq. Geeze, this is REALLY basic logic, guys. Why is it slipping through your grasp?
Zarqawi was in Kurdish Iraq. You seem to be grasping at straws.

[Upchurch]

Tolerating their presence is not the same thing as helping them, and the report gives no indication that Saddam did not tolerate their presence, or that Zarqawi and other Al Qaeda elements were not in Iraq. Geeze, this is REALLY basic logic, guys. Why is it slipping through your grasp?
Are you suggesting that Saddam knew the Al-Qaeda elements were in Iraq and were carrying out operations from within his country?

[Michael Redman]

There is no reason to think Saddam tolerated Zarqawi's presence in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq, where Saddam was prevented, by us, from maintaining internal security. As al Queida clearly opposed Saddam's secular rule, it is rather nonsensical to think of Saddam as anything but an enemy of al Queida. Cheney is clearly trying to mislead the public, and make himself look better in the process.

[LawnOven]

Umm... there's no contradiction in the story between what it reports Cheney said and what it reports this new Pentagon report said. Zarqawi was in Iraq, and he was an Al Qaeda leader. That does not require that Saddam was actively helping Al Qaeda. Tolerating their presence is not the same thing as helping them, and the report gives no indication that Saddam did not tolerate their presence, or that Zarqawi and other Al Qaeda elements were not in Iraq. Geeze, this is REALLY basic logic, guys. Why is it slipping through your grasp?


Conclusion 5:… Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi. (p. 109 (http://intelligence.senate.gov/))


http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/10/phase-ii-report-conclusion/


Yes, no?

[Ziggurat]

Yes, no?

Let's take that as true for the moment. Now, does that contradict this statement from the report quoted in the original post:
"Cheney contended that al-Qaida was operating in Iraq before the March 2003 invasion led by U.S. forces and that terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was leading the Iraqi branch of al-Qaida."

No, it doesn't. Now, you may think that this report you link to suggests the best solution wasn't an invasion, but the factual point made by Cheney (namely, Al Qaeda was operating within Iraq with Zarqawi as its local leader) is supported by this report.

[LawnOven]

Let's take that as true for the moment. Now, does that contradict this statement from the report quoted in the original post:
"Cheney contended that al-Qaida was operating in Iraq before the March 2003 invasion led by U.S. forces and that terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was leading the Iraqi branch of al-Qaida."

No, it doesn't. Now, you may think that this report you link to suggests the best solution wasn't an invasion, but the factual point made by Cheney (namely, Al Qaeda was operating within Iraq with Zarqawi as its local leader) is supported by this report.

Ok so 'Yes'.

Then what about this statement?


As for Zarqawi, before our invasion, he wasn’t a member of al Qaeda; was a rival to bin Laden. And at the time, Zarqawi wasn’t in Iraq with Saddam’s blessing; he was operating in a part of Iraq that wasn’t under Saddam’s control. (The Senate Intelligence Committee found that Saddam “attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture Zarqawi and that the regime did not (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/10/phase-ii-report-conclusion/) have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi.”


Granted a very biased "source":

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/06/poor-dick-just-can%e2%80%99t-help-himself/

but that is why I'm asking. Someone perhaps knows better.

[Ziggurat]

Cheney is clearly trying to mislead the public, and make himself look better in the process.

This contention is only supportable if there was an implication in Cheney's statement that goes beyond the actual facts laid out in his claim. Was there such an implication? I don't see it. I see suggestions of such an implication in the AP's characterization of what Cheney said, but they can easily mischaracterize what Cheney said (and I think they've done precisely that by framing the story as if there's a factual contradiction between versions when there isn't). The only actual quote by Cheney in that story,
He [Zarqawi] took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organized the al-Qaida operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June,” Cheney told radio host Rush Limbaugh during an interview. “As I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq.
is pretty much a straight-forward claim which is factually correct. What's misleading about it, exactly?

[thinkingaboutit]

Let's take that as true for the moment. Now, does that contradict this statement from the report quoted in the original post:
"Cheney contended that al-Qaida was operating in Iraq before the March 2003 invasion led by U.S. forces and that terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was leading the Iraqi branch of al-Qaida."

No, it doesn't. Now, you may think that this report you link to suggests the best solution wasn't an invasion, but the factual point made by Cheney (namely, Al Qaeda was operating within Iraq with Zarqawi as its local leader) is supported by this report.
Can you see how a vague fact was used to back an untrue assertion?

[hgc]

Why should Cheney stop? He cares about his core constituency: Rush, corplinx, Ziggurat and the like. They'll back him no matter what, even if the most stupendous gymnastics are required.

[Ziggurat]

Ok so 'Yes'.

Then what about this statement?

What about it? He makes the same mistake in that post that I pointed out in this thread: there's no contradiction between Al Qaeda being in Iraq and Saddam not aiding Al Qaeda. He's not exactly analyzing the situation in any depth. As for his claim that Zarqawi wasn't a member of Al Qaeda, I don't believe I've seen that claim before, and he didn't provide any source for that conclusion. So I'm not going to take Steve's word for it on this one.

[Ziggurat]

Can you see how a vague fact was used to back an untrue assertion?

You'll have to be a lot more specific than that, because frankly I have no idea what you mean.

[LawnOven]

As for his claim that Zarqawi wasn't a member of Al Qaeda, I don't believe I've seen that claim before, and he didn't provide any source for that conclusion.

That's what I was curious about. I was hoping some one knew either way.

[steverino]

“See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in...”

Meph- This cuts both ways. Those friggin' annoying Geico commercials repeat and repeat and repeat. The fact that these commercials repeat doesn't mean they can, or cannot for that matter, save me money on my car insurance. Repetition of a truth does not make it a lie, and repetition of a lie does not make it true.

[ImaginalDisc]

Meph- This cuts both ways. Those friggin' annoying Geico commercials repeat and repeat and repeat. The fact that these commercials repeat doesn't mean they can, or cannot for that matter, save me money on my car insurance. Repetition of a truth does not make it a lie, and repetition of a lie does not make it true.

Bush: Dick, dick! I have great news.

Cheney: Did you find links between Bin Ladin and Saddam?

Bush: No, I just saved a bunch of money on car insurance by switching to Geico!

[Ziggurat]

It irritates me to no end when my opponents get so tangled up in their opinion they can't even tell that they've lost the thread of logic in their arguments. There is NO contradiction between Al Qaeda being in Iraq and Saddam not supporting Al Qaeda. I know people are wrapped up in the idea that Saddam not supporting Al Qaeda means something important, but since not everyone can figure out that it doesn't mean Cheney's a liar because he said Al Qaeda was in Iraq, let me help out with how one can form a real argument using that fact:

Al Qaeda is located in a lot of countries. We cannot invade them all even if we want to, so we have to be discriminating. Afghanistan met the threshold, because 1) they were centered there, and 2) they had significant state support from the Taliban, making their presence there far more dangerous. Since they were not actively supported by Saddam, their presence there did not pose nearly the same risk as Afghanistan, and so was not sufficiently important to justify the cost and risk of an invasion.

See how easy that was? Granted, this argument doesn't get to call Cheney a liar, and I know how emotionally satisfying that can be, but at least there's no actual logical disconnect.

[Michael Redman]

The only actual quote by Cheney in that story,
...
is pretty much a straight-forward claim which is factually correct. What's misleading about it, exactly?You must be joking. What's misleading? How about intentionally omitting the rest of the facts? His statement is not straightforward, it's a half-truth.

Why did Cheney say this? To imply that we could have gotten rid of the terrorists in Iraq by lifting the sanctions and letting Saddam regain control of the North (probably true), or to imply that terrorists were in Iraq with Saddam's blessing (clearly false)?

Seems pretty clear to me that he's going for the lie. The fact that anyone would, today, claim that Saddam tolerated the presence of Islamic terrorists in his country is proof that the lie works.

[Upchurch]

It irritates me to no end when my opponents get so tangled up in their opinion they can't even tell that they've lost the thread of logic in their arguments.
You're missing the point. The facts of the matter are not the issue. It's how Chaney presents them in order to mislead people that is the issue. It is entirely possible (and entirely too common) to not say anything that is technically false but still say it in such a way that leads the listener to a false conclusion.

[LawnOven]

You must be joking. What's misleading? How about intentionally omitting the rest of the facts? His statement is not straightforward, it's a half-truth.



When defending the bush administration most apologists seem to ascribe to a "if he didn't say it, it's not a lie" philosophy, even when it's obvious that something was said in a way to obscure the truth and create an alternate neocon reality.

It irritates me to no end when my opponents get so tangled up in their opinion they can't even tell that they've lost the thread of logic in their arguments.

So alternative points of view are your "opponents"? It's nice that you think of a discussion forum in such adversarial terms. Good for you.

[Ziggurat]

You must be joking. What's misleading? How about intentionally omitting the rest of the facts? His statement is not straightforward, it's a half-truth.

Do you have a transcript of the entire show? Do you actually know the full context in which this statement was made? If all you're going by is the story linked in this thread, then no, you DON'T. If you've got additional information, then provide links to support your argument. How the hell do you know what Cheney ommitted? How the hell do you know that it isn't the AP which ommitted something? I don't think you do. I think you've jumped to a conclusion without supporting evidence because it fits your preconceptions.

[Upchurch]

So alternative points of view are your "opponents"? It's nice that you think of a discussion forum in such adversarial terms. Good for you.
Don't nit pick. That is the nature of debate. He doesn't necessarily mean it as personal animosity. I certainly don't, but in this thread I consider that I have taken an opposing position from Zig and am, thus, his opponent. We may very well be on the same position in the next thread.

[Ziggurat]

You're missing the point. The facts of the matter are not the issue. It's how Chaney presents them in order to mislead people that is the issue.

You're starting from an assumption that you don't have enough evidence for. We have a two sentence quote from Cheney. How on earth can you conclude that from two sentences, you have a full grasp of the nuances of Cheney's presentation? How can you possibly think that you've got a full understanding of the context in which the statement was made? You don't. And yet, that doesn't stop you from jumping to a conclusion, and then thinking that the only thing left to discuss is the consequences of a conclusion that you never had much evidence for in the first place. Why exactly am I obliged to play that game?

[steverino]

When defending the bush administration most apologists seem to ascribe to a "if he didn't say it, it's not a lie" philosophy,


Really? And are those who defended the Clinton administration "apologists" too?

So alternative points of view are your "opponents"? It's nice that you think of a discussion forum in such adversarial terms. Good for you.

Well, again, Lawn, you used the term "apologists" for your opponents.

[Upchurch]

You're starting from an assumption that you don't have enough evidence for. We have a two sentence quote from Cheney. How on earth can you conclude that from two sentences, you have a full grasp of the nuances of Cheney's presentation?

Well, we also have 6 years worth of listening to Chaney play this same game. How many spoon benders do you have to test before you start seeing a pattern and understand what they are doing?

[steverino]

Don't nit pick. That is the nature of debate. He doesn't necessarily mean it as personal animosity. I certainly don't, but in this thread I consider that I have taken an opposing position from Zig and am, thus, his opponent. We may very well be on the same position in the next thread.

Wow! I agree with Upchurch.:eek:

[steverino]

Well, we also have 6 years worth of listening to Chaney play this same game. How many spoon benders do you have to test before you start seeing a pattern and understand what they are doing?

Funny. Cheney-haters used to repeat and repeat and repeat that he was dead, missing, or hiding in a cave in Colorado from the media and public. Now they are saying he has a long, robust, track record of making false statements. So which is it?

[davefoc]

Was Cheney's claim the equivalent of claiming that there were Al-Qaida elements operating in the US before the 9-11 attack?

Cheney for president. Go Cheney, Go.
http://www.nysun.com/article/51783

I noticed one of the people that left a comment to the editorial suggested a Cheney/Keyes ticket. That was a good idea but I like the idea of a Cheney/Nixon ticket. It's true that Nixon is dead but should that necessarily disqualify him?

[Ziggurat]

Well, we also have 6 years worth of listening to Chaney play this same game. How many spoon benders do you have to test before you start seeing a pattern and understand what they are doing?

I see a pattern all right. I see the press jumping on short quotes from Cheney every chance they get, and I see people like you gobbling it up without thinking for a second about whether or not it actually makes sense, or whether there might be more to the story. And this is a perfect case in point. You were so convinced that Cheney is a liar that the accusation alone now seems to suffice. And yet, you can't actually back it up in this case. So now you just refer to a nebulous past history, because hey, I'm not going to be able to shoot down every single accusation of dishonesty against Cheney. And if he ever lied in the past, then what's wrong with labelling him duplicitous now even if he didn't actually mislead anyone in this case? After all, there's a higher truth to pursue. Fake but accurate, and all that jazz.

Weak, Upchurch. Really weak.

[Darth Rotor]

Cheney is clearly trying to mislead the public, and make himself look better in the process.
That isn't working.

Failed turd polishing for fifty, Alex. :p

DR

[Ziggurat]

So alternative points of view are your "opponents"? It's nice that you think of a discussion forum in such adversarial terms. Good for you.

People who hold opposing points of view are opponents in debate. Discussions on this board are commonly debates, and debate is indeed adversarial, which is why it's possible to have debating contests (if it were cooperative, it wouldn't be much fun to watch). But opponents are not enemies, and there have only ever been a few people on this board (and nobody in this thread) who ever qualified as the latter for me.

[Upchurch]

Funny. Cheney-haters used to repeat and repeat and repeat that he was dead, missing, or hiding in a cave in Colorado from the media and public.
I did? When?

Now they are saying he has a long, robust, track record of making false statements. So which is it?
This one. eta: This one as long as you change "false" to "misleading".

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'd like a third option to liar and moron: Orwellian.

Saddam Hussein was our enemy and always was our enemy.

Saudi Arabia is our friend and will always be our friend.

War is peace. Military occupation is democracy. Imprisoning people with no due process is freedom. (You can tell because we don't say "French fries".)

If it weren't so frightening, it would be funny.

[Michael Redman]

Do you have a transcript of the entire show? Do you actually know the full context in which this statement was made? If all you're going by is the story linked in this thread, then no, you DON'T. If you've got additional information, then provide links to support your argument. How the hell do you know what Cheney ommitted? How the hell do you know that it isn't the AP which ommitted something? I don't think you do. I think you've jumped to a conclusion without supporting evidence because it fits your preconceptions.My evidence? Cheney has been saying the same half-truth since before the invasion, to bolster the administration's claim that removing Saddam was a necessary part of the war on terror. Saddam did not tolerate the presence of terrorists in Iraq, but Cheney has been able, by telling this half-truth, to convince many people that he did, and therefore was a threat to us. At least one person posting in this thread has made the claim that Saddam did tolerate the presence of terrorists, if you'll recall, despite a lack of any evidence in support of the claim. Cheney's deception is successful.

True, I am assuming he didn't admit he's been lying all along on Rush's show. I don't think that's jumping to conclusions, however. If I'm wrong, I owe you an apology.

[Darth Rotor]

(You can tell because we don't say "French fries".)

If it weren't so frightening, it would be funny.
Being neither moron, prol, nor drone, I still order French Fries and French Toast. I drink the occasional glass of French wine, though I prefer Italian wines.

What's your problem? Are you afraid that nobody but you (and the clearly superior people who think as you do) can think for themselves?

DR

ETA: Clunky Prose stinks.

[hgc]

Funny. Cheney-haters used to repeat and repeat and repeat that he was dead, missing, or hiding in a cave in Colorado from the media and public. Now they are saying he has a long, robust, track record of making false statements. So which is it?


I have a new theory. He's been busy building false dichotomies out of strawmen.

[Upchurch]

I see a pattern all right. I see the press jumping on short quotes from Cheney every chance they get, and I see people like you gobbling it up without thinking for a second about whether or not it actually makes sense, or whether there might be more to the story.
There might be more to the story, but the point is that he never presents it, does he?

edited to remove silly redundant redundancy.

And this is a perfect case in point. You were so convinced that Cheney is a liar that the accusation alone now seems to suffice. And yet, you can't actually back it up in this case.
Here (http://www.bushoniraq.com/cheney1.html)'s a sampling with analysis, if you are actually interested.


So now you just refer to a nebulous past history, because hey, I'm not going to be able to shoot down every single accusation of dishonesty against Cheney. And if he ever lied in the past, then what's wrong with labelling him duplicitous now even if he didn't actually mislead anyone in this case?

But what if he mislead a lot? How many incidences would be necessary for you to see a pattern? The above link has 51 examples on Iraq alone, some repeated multiple times in good ol' talking point fashion.

[LawnOven]

Really? And are those who defended the Clinton administration "apologists" too?

Yes? maybe? I don't think you will find that you will get that kind of debate from me. You seem to be associating some sort of negative identity with the word 'apologist'. Apologist doesn't mean liar...



Well, again, Lawn, you used the term "apologists" for your opponents.

Again, is there something wrong with the word apologist? That is what Ziggurat is doing.

I don't think of him as my "debate opponent", because I have yet to make a claim in regards to any of Zigguarat's claims.

My opinion on the thread subject was that Cheney was lying. Zigguarat seemed to think differently which is why I was asking him those questions. He was providing what he considered acceptible answers which is what apologists do.

Not every conversation has to be an adversarial debate, where you then claim that those with differing opinions are illogical. Honestly though what really bothered me about that statement was that because others didn't understand the situation the way Zigguarat did, they were illogical, and, "oh, he grows so weary of us simpletons".

Reality in regards to the interactions between humans has always seemed to have a very subjective nature to me and I got tired of prefacing all my statements in this forum with "In my opinion..." a long time ago.

In other words, in this case, Zigguarat seems more interested in the exact words Cheney used, and I and others are more interested in what is going on in his head.

[LawnOven]

People who hold opposing points of view are opponents in debate...

Fine, fine you guys, whatever.

Just, don't refer to people who disagree with you as illogical when debating politics. That's really what pissed me off.


edit: Haha, Ive been participating in this forum longer than either one of you, and you want to lecture me on what goes on here?! :)

[Ziggurat]

There might be more to the story, but the point is that he never presents it, does he?

Cheney doesn't present it? Or the AP doesn't present it? How on earth are you able to tell the difference without a complete transcript? You can't, and yet you insist on doing so anyways.

Here (http://www.bushoniraq.com/cheney1.html)'s a sampling with analysis, if you are actually interested.

No, actually, I'm NOT interested. I told you I'm not playing that game. That wasn't an invitation to keep pushing that logical fallacy.

But what if he mislead a lot? How many incidences would be necessary for you to see a pattern?

We're not talking about a pattern. We're talking about a particular instance. And you can't back up your position on this instance.

[LawnOven]

Cheney doesn't present it? Or the AP doesn't present it? How on earth are you able to tell the difference without a complete transcript? You can't, and yet you insist on doing so anyways.



No, actually, I'm NOT interested. I told you I'm not playing that game. That wasn't an invitation to keep pushing that logical fallacy.



We're not talking about a pattern. We're talking about a particular instance. And you can't back up your position on this instance.

Uh oh, now you guys are debating what you are actually oponents about.

Which means you are not even having this supposed debate yet.

[Upchurch]

In other words, in this case, Zigguarat seems more interested in the exact words Cheney used, and I and others are more interested in what is going on in his head.

I would rephrase what you said as:

In other words, in this case, Zigguarat seems more interested in the exact words Cheney used, and I and others are more interested in the message he is sending.

[Upchurch]

No, actually, I'm NOT interested.
Then:

Don't tell me I can't back it up
Don't tell me that I'm the one mired in political dogma
The discussion cannot move forward because you are not open to other points of view.


We're not talking about a pattern. We're talking about a particular instance. And you can't back up your position on this instance.
I very specifically said I was talking about a pattern of behavior. I very specifically backed up my position. If you want to discuss it, you can't just ignore what I say and keep on ranting your position.

[Ziggurat]

I would rephrase what you said as:

In other words, in this case, Zigguarat seems more interested in the exact words Cheney used, and I and others are more interested in the message he is sending.

Wrong again. I'm saying you can't back up your position on the message he's sending. You can only appeal to this supposed past pattern, but cannot establish that in this case any such deceptive message was intended or relayed by Cheney, by direct words or by implication.

[Ziggurat]

Then:
[LIST=1]
Don't tell me I can't back it up


I didn't say you couldn't show some past pattern. I said you couldn't back up the assertion that Cheney was misleading in this case. You haven't shown that. In fact, you've stopped even trying to.

I very specifically said I was talking about a pattern of behavior.

Yes. After I called you and others on your collective inability to back up the original assertion of this thread regarding what Cheney did in this case.

[LawnOven]

I would rephrase what you said as:

In other words, in this case, Zigguarat seems more interested in the exact words Cheney used, and I and others are more interested in the message he is sending.


Rephrase it however you wish.

Zigguarat is looking at the words and opining that Cheney did not lie.

Others see Cheney engaging in continued and systematic half truths, which have had the net effect of a lie; with this being yet another example.

However Ziggaurat is also opining that the second statement is illogical. which is really what I took issue with.

I suppose one could debate what constitutes a lie.

but until that happens...

[thinkingaboutit]

Do I detect another pattern emerging?

[Michael Redman]

I didn't say you couldn't show some past pattern. I said you couldn't back up the assertion that Cheney was misleading in this case. You haven't shown that. In fact, you've stopped even trying to.The similarity of the present event with the past pattern is evidence of conformity of the present event to the past pattern. Your claim that we are not backing up our position is false.

[Upchurch]

I didn't say you couldn't show some past pattern. I said you couldn't back up the assertion that Cheney was misleading in this case. You haven't shown that. In fact, you've stopped even trying to.
Because maybe, just maybe, this is the time the spoon bender is using his mental powers rather than his hands?

Yes. After I called you and others on your collective inability to back up the original assertion of this thread regarding what Cheney did in this case.
Well, yes. I took it for granted that you were taking Chaney in context rather than completely isolated from anything else the man has said.

[Ziggurat]

The similarity of the present event with the past pattern is evidence of conformity of the present event to the past pattern.

There is NO indication of ANY attempt to mislead anyone in this instance. The only similarity I see between this event and alleged past attempts by Cheney to mislead is that the AP is trying to portray it as Cheney misleading people. But somehow Cheney MUST be lying because the AP would never ever ever slant a story, honest injun. I've got a bridge to sell you.

[Ziggurat]

Because maybe, just maybe, this is the time the spoon bender is using his mental powers rather than his hands?

If you want to argue by analogy, you're still stuck on how he bent the spoon, without having demonstrated that the spoon even bent this time.

[Upchurch]

There is NO indication of ANY attempt to mislead anyone in this instance.

Tunnel vision much?

This instance is just another link in the chain of implications that there was a connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Yes, if you look at an individual link and ignore all the others, you would conclude that there is no chain and that this one link could not support anything.

The only similarity I see between this event and alleged past attempts by Cheney to mislead is that the AP is trying to portray it as Cheney misleading people. But somehow Cheney MUST be lying because the AP would never ever ever slant a story, honest injun. I've got a bridge to sell you.
Actually, it appears that the AP understood the implication that Chaney has been making for the last 5-6 years and is being very clear to point that out.

[Michael Redman]

There is NO indication of ANY attempt to mislead anyone in this instance. You quote me making a perfectly valid argument that there is reason to believe he is trying to mislead the public, and, rather than address my argument, you simply state "there is NO indication . . ." like I haven't said anything at all? And you want me to take you seriously?The only similarity I see between this event and alleged past attempts by Cheney to mislead is that the AP is trying to portray it as Cheney misleading people. Where does this nonsense come from? The AP has nothing to do with Cheney's repeatedly implying that terrorists were in Iraq with Saddam's blessing. The whole justification of the war was that his WMDs would end up in terrorist hands, after all. This isn't AP slant, it's the clear stated position of the administration.But somehow Cheney MUST be lying because the AP would never ever ever slant a story, honest injun. I've got a bridge to sell you.You don't have a bridge. Cheney implied that you have a bridge, and you believed him. Don't get mad at me for pointing out there was never any bridge there to begin with.

[Upchurch]

If you want to argue by analogy, you're still stuck on how he bent the spoon, without having demonstrated that the spoon even bent this time.

Okay, let's parse it.

Chaney made his comments at the same time....
...the Defense Department released a report citing more evidence that the prewar government did not cooperate with the terrorist group.

Why? What was his purpose in marching this factoid back out now if not to imply it as support for his earlier statements that there were operational ties between Saddam and Al-Qaeda?

[Ziggurat]

Where does this nonsense come from? The AP has nothing to do with Cheney's repeatedly implying that terrorists were in Iraq with Saddam's blessing.

The AP most certainly does have something to do with this case. The AP is the vehicle by which we are seeing his words. They are the filter, and they provide what little "context" exists for what are only two sentences by Cheney. The sentences quoted by Cheney are factually correct. In what sense can two factually correct sentences possibly be misleading? Only by context can they be misleading. And once again, the ONLY "context" we have for them is the "context" in which the AP put them. We have NO information about what else Cheney said, and so we have NO way of evaluating the actual context of those two sentences.

The whole justification of the war was that his WMDs would end up in terrorist hands, after all.

Please. Not this pathetic meme again. Go read the congressional authorization for war. You'll see a whole bunch of reasons listed. That you or anyone else obsess about one particular issue does not make it the "whole justification". It isn't, and it never was. And don't come back from reading that document until you're ready to have a serious discussion.

[Ziggurat]

Why? What was his purpose in marching this factoid back out now if not to imply it as support for his earlier statements that there were operational ties between Saddam and Al-Qaeda?

Lots of possible reasons. Maybe he was asked about it. I don't know, and the point is you don't know either. Because you don't know the actual context in which he made the statement. But you believe Cheney must be lying because you're convinced he's just a liar, and the AP must be telling the entire truth because they're telling you he's a liar, and nothing has a ring of truth more than something that agrees with what you already believe.

[Upchurch]

Lots of possible reasons. Maybe he was asked about it. I don't know, and the point is you don't know either. Because you don't know the actual context in which he made the statement. But you believe Cheney must be lying because you're convinced he's just a liar, and the AP must be telling the entire truth because they're telling you he's a liar, and nothing has a ring of truth more than something that agrees with what you already believe.

Well, again assuming that experience counts for nothing, here is the context (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_040507/content/01125106.guest.html)

RUSH: It may not just be Iraq. Yesterday I read that Ike Skelton, who chairs -- I forget the name of the committee -- in the next defense appropriations bill for fiscal '08, is going to actually remove the phrase "global war on terror," because they don't think it's applicable. They want to refer to conflicts as individual skirmishes, but they're going to try to rid the defense appropriation bill, and thus official government language, of that term. Does that give any indication of their motivation, or what they think of the current plight in which the country finds itself?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Sure. Well, it's just flawed thinking. I like Ike Skelton. I worked closely with Ike when I was secretary of defense. He's chairman of the Armed Services Committee now. Ike's a good man. He's just dead wrong about this, though. Think about it. Just to give you one example, Rush. Remember Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist, an Al-Qaeda affiliate. He ran a training camp in Afghanistan for Al-Qaeda, then migrated after we went into Afghanistan and shut 'em down there, he went to Baghdad. He took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organized the Al-Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene and then of course led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June. He's the guy who arranged the booming of the Samarra mosque that precipitated the sectarian violence between Shi'a and Sunni. This is Al-Qaeda operating in Iraq, and as I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq. There's no way you can segment out and say, "Well, we'll fight the war on terror in Pakistan or Afghanistan but we can separate Iraq. That's not really, in any way, shape, or form related." It's just dead wrong. Bin Laden has said this is the central battle in the war on terror.

My emphasis.

And lookie there! The pattern continues just as has for the last 5-6 years...

[Ziggurat]

And lookie there! The pattern continues just as has for the last 5-6 years...

Thanks for the link. But I don't see it showing what you seem to think it's showing. The question he was answering wasn't about whether or not it was right to go into Iraq. The question was about whether to keep using the term "war on terror". Al Qaeda is in Iraq. That is beyond doubt. Whether or not we should have tried to fight them there, whether or not it's been worth the cost, we ARE fighting them there. Whether or not it started out that way, Iraq is definitely an important front against Al Qaeda right now. Cheney is right about that, that's the essence of what he's saying, and you're grasping for straws. You can't seem to deal with the fact that there are a lot more questions regarding Iraq than whether or not the initial decision to invade was a mistake. So in that sense, yes, the pattern continues. But hey, as long as you're enjoying yourself. :rolleyes:

[Michael Redman]

In what sense can two factually correct sentences possibly be misleading? You can't be serious. That question doesn't really even deserve the explanation it has already received. (which you ignored).
Only by context can they be misleading. And once again, the ONLY "context" we have for them is the "context" in which the AP put them. We have NO information about what else Cheney said, and so we have NO way of evaluating the actual context of those two sentences.Once again, this is wrong. Not only wrong, silly. He says the same thing over and over again, it is unreasonable to ask for proof that this time he did not mean something completely different. We don't need the full context to reasonably predict why he's repeating the same old line. You have proof to the contrary? Great. Let's see it. Otherwise, we'll reasonably assume the obvious.Please. Not this pathetic meme again. Go read the congressional authorization for war. You'll see a whole bunch of reasons listed. That you or anyone else obsess about one particular issue does not make it the "whole justification". It isn't, and it never was. And don't come back from reading that document until you're ready to have a serious discussion.OK, fixate on the work "whole" , and ignore what matters:

The administration said Saddam had WMDs.

Cheney said al Quieda was operating within Iraq.

Chaney justified the invasion partly to prevent al Queida from using Iraq's WMDs against us. (Remember "we don't want to smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud over an American city"?)

These are all facts. These facts are evidence (whether you admit it or not) that Cheney's repeated restating of the fact that there terrorists in Iraq, without mentioning that Saddam was powerless to do anything about it, is intended to make people believe that allowing Saddam to remain in power increased the risk that Americans would be subject to terrorist attack by WMDs.

Which was, of course, and still is, a lie.

[Upchurch]

Whether or not it started out that way, Iraq is definitely an important front against Al-Qaeda right now.

{snip}

You can't seem to deal with the fact that there are a lot more questions regarding Iraq than whether or not the initial decision to invade was a mistake.

Irrelevant. The question at hand is whether or not Chaney habitually misleads the public to support statements that he and the administration were grossly wrong about, namely a connection between Al-Qaeda and Saddam before the Iraq invasion.

How do you parse this statement?
This is Al-Qaeda operating in Iraq, and as I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq.
Separately, each half of that statement is true. Chaney has combined the two true, but non-sequitor, statements. Lacking a joining relationship, the reader is left to come up with one and infer that Iraq had operational ties with Al-Qaeda*.

I suppose this brings us back to the thread title. If Chaney is doing this intentionally, he is a liar. If he isn't, he's a very lucky moron.




eta: * Or rather, Al-Qaeda was operating in Iraq under Saddam Hussain and thus implying that Al-Qaeda had operational ties with Iraq.

[Upchurch]

Once again, this is wrong. Not only wrong, silly. He says the same thing over and over again, it is unreasonable to ask for proof that this time he did not mean something completely different. We don't need the full context to reasonably predict why he's repeating the same old line. You have proof to the contrary? Great. Let's see it. Otherwise, we'll reasonably assume the obvious.
It isn't unreasonable to ask for proof that he has done the same thing, yet again, that he has done in the past. But at what point can you say "enough already" and just assume for the sake of getting on with life that he is going to act the same way he has always acted?

[Ziggurat]

Irrelevant. The question at hand is whether or not Chaney habitually misleads the public to support statements that he and the administration were grossly wrong about, namely a connection between Al-Qaeda and Saddam before the Iraq invasion.

No, it isn't. The question at hand is whether or not Cheney was being a liar in this particular instance. That's what the original post was about, in case you forgot. YOU moved the goalpost on that, not me.

Separately, each half of that statement is true.

Which is just another way of saying that the statement is true.

Chaney has combined the two true, but non-sequitor, statements. Lacking a joining relationship, the reader is left to come up with one and infer that Iraq had operational ties with Al-Qaeda*.

In other words, Cheney is a liar because he didn't stop you from thinking something more than he actually said. Which amounts to him being guilty because you can't think straight. You're not impressing me, Upchurch.

[Ziggurat]

The administration said Saddam had WMDs.

Yes. Along with both the Clinton and the first Bush administration. And the CIA under both Clinton and Bush. This was primarily a CIA screwup.

Cheney said al Quieda was operating within Iraq.

Which is true.

Chaney justified the invasion partly to prevent al Queida from using Iraq's WMDs against us. (Remember "we don't want to smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud over an American city"?)

The administration claim was much broader than that. It was to prevent Saddam from giving WMD's to terrorist organizations which might use them against us or our allies. Al Qaeda isn't the only terrorist organization out there, and Saddam DID have operational ties to other groups which are quite well known.

These are all facts. These facts are evidence (whether you admit it or not) that Cheney's repeated restating of the fact that there terrorists in Iraq, without mentioning that Saddam was powerless to do anything about it, is intended to make people believe that allowing Saddam to remain in power increased the risk that Americans would be subject to terrorist attack by WMDs.

Except that Cheney wasn't even talking about the justification for invasion in this case. He was talking about whether it's appropriate to frame the current conflict in Iraq as part of a broader war on terror, as Upchurch's link shows. You really are blinkered.

[steverino]

You seem to be associating some sort of negative identity with the word 'apologist'. Apologist doesn't mean liar...

Thanks for the clarification. I'd always thought it was like, "A white supremacist is an apologist for racism." Meaning a smaller group needing to defend a bad thing. But I looked it up and you are right.

PS- UPCHURCH- Are you spelling "Cheney" "Chaney" on porpoise?

[Upchurch]

No, it isn't. The question at hand is whether or not Cheney was being a liar in this particular instance. That's what the original post was about, in case you forgot. YOU moved the goalpost on that, not me.

Read it again. From the OP, my ephasis:
WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney repeated his assertions of al-Qaida links to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq on Thursday as the Defense Department released a report citing more evidence that the prewar government did not cooperate with the terrorist group.

{snip}

However, a declassified Pentagon report released Thursday said that interrogations of the deposed Iraqi leader and two of his former aides as well as seized Iraqi documents confirmed that the terrorist organization and the Saddam government were not working together before the invasion.


The Sept. 11 Commission’s 2004 report also found no evidence of a collaborative relationship between Saddam and Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida network during that period.
The article was about Chaney's ongoing repetition of this meme that Saddam and Osama worked together despite evidence to the contrary. Yes, it was about this specific instance in addition to the many other times he drew the connection. Re-read the entire article, if you must.


Which is just another way of saying that the statement is true.
Only if the English language followed strict logical rules. It doesn't, of course, which is what allows for this kind of implication and spin.


In other words, Cheney is a liar because he didn't stop you from thinking something more than he actually said.
Well, yes. That is what imply (http://www.webster.com/dictionary/imply) means. He is a liar (or a moron) because he structured his statement to lead his audience to a conclusion that was not true.


Which amounts to him being guilty because you can't think straight.
I'm not his audience, but otherwise correct.

[Upchurch]

PS- UPCHURCH- Are you spelling "Cheney" "Chaney" on porpoise?
No, my spill chick is. :o

I've added the correct spelling to it's dictionary. Hopefully it will stop.

[fishbob]

Liar

[Ziggurat]

Read it again. From the OP, my ephasis:


In other words, you're basing your argument on how the AP characterized what Cheney said, rather than on his actual words. Can you honestly not think about his words without the AP holding your hand to tell you what they mean?

The article was about Chaney's ongoing repetition of this meme that Saddam and Osama worked together despite evidence to the contrary.

And Cheney meant it that way because that's the way the AP said he meant it? Is that really the best you've got?

Well, yes. That is what imply (http://www.webster.com/dictionary/imply) means. He is a liar (or a moron) because he structured his statement to lead his audience to a conclusion that was not true.

Speak for yourself. I was led to no such conclusion.

Which amounts to him being guilty because you can't think straight.
I'm not his audience, but otherwise correct.

That's just... weak, really.

[Upchurch]

Except that Cheney wasn't even talking about the justification for invasion in this case. He was talking about whether it's appropriate to frame the current conflict in Iraq as part of a broader war on terror, as Upchurch's link shows. You really are blinkered.
No? Then why did Cheney bring up al-Zarqawi and events prior to the invasion?


Remember Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist, an Al-Qaeda affiliate. He ran a training camp in Afghanistan for Al-Qaeda, then migrated after we went into Afghanistan and shut 'em down there, he went to Baghdad. He took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organized the Al-Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene and then of course led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June. He's the guy who arranged the booming of the Samarra mosque that precipitated the sectarian violence between Shi'a and Sunni. This is Al-Qaeda operating in Iraq, and as I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq.


You're telling me that the above isn't a justification for the invasion?

[Upchurch]

In other words, you're basing your argument on how the AP characterized what Cheney said, rather than on his actual words.
I've been using Cheney's actual words, both from this interview and previous statements. I only referred back to the AP article because you did (and incorrectly, at that).

Can you honestly not think about his words without the AP holding your hand to tell you what they mean?
I've been doing that this whole time. I've pointed you to exact quotes within context. I've given you a site that outlines past statements that mirror this one. I don't know what more I can give you.


And Cheney meant it that way because that's the way the AP said he meant it? Is that really the best you've got?
No. Look at my last post. He's re-iterating the Iraq/Al-Qaeda connection just as he has for years, in spite of evidence to the contrary.


Speak for yourself. I was led to no such conclusion.
I think, rather, you won't allow yourself to arrive at such a conclusion.



That's just... weak, really.
Dude, at least I'm presenting an argument. You just keep re-asserting the same claim over and over.

[Ziggurat]

You're telling me that the above isn't a justification for the invasion?

I'm telling you the part you quote is correct, and the question he was answering wasn't about the justification for the invasion. So why do you read it that way? As far as I can tell, the reason is because the AP framed it that way.

[Ziggurat]

I've been doing that this whole time. I've pointed you to exact quotes within context. I've given you a site that outlines past statements that mirror this one. I don't know what more I can give you.

No, I don't suppose you do.

No. Look at my last post. He's re-iterating the Iraq/Al-Qaeda connection just as he has for years, in spite of evidence to the contrary.

Uh, NO. There's no evidence which is contrary to what Cheney actually said. It's not his problem that you keep thinking he said more than he actually did. That is, quite frankly, your own cognitive problem.

I think, rather, you won't allow yourself to arrive at such a conclusion.

Yeah, I admit I have a funny thing about not letting myself arrive at conclusions which don't have supporting evidence.

Dude, at least I'm presenting an argument. You just keep re-asserting the same claim over and over.

That's because you've consistently failed to address my argument. What Cheney said is factually correct. The context in which he said it was not about the decision to invade. Your position relies upon the idea that listeners will automatically be led to believe a rather specific extrapolation BEYOND what he actually said. And you've got no evidence for that other than that the AP jumped to that conclusion and so did you. Basically Cheney lied because you say he meant something other than what his words actually mean. I'm not taking that argument seriously because it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

[corplinx]

Why should Cheney stop? He cares about his core constituency: Rush, corplinx, Ziggurat and the like. They'll back him no matter what, even if the most stupendous gymnastics are required.

You got me. I even shaved my head, developed a heart condition, and had a gay daughter to emulate my hero. Its hardcore Cheney country here.

I put my best friends picture on a dart board and "accidentally" threw a dart at it as well.

[corplinx]

The funny thing is here, theres two memes. One meme is the one Cheney is attempting to spread which is that Iraq is part of the war on terror.

The other meme is the dissenter's meme that Cheney is spreading the falsehood that Saddam was linked to 911. Sadly, you can take a look at this thread and see how many marks here ate it.

[SezMe]

You're starting from an assumption that you don't have enough evidence for. We have a two sentence quote from Cheney. How on earth can you conclude that from two sentences, you have a full grasp of the nuances of Cheney's presentation? How can you possibly think that you've got a full understanding of the context in which the statement was made? You don't. And yet, that doesn't stop you from jumping to a conclusion, and then thinking that the only thing left to discuss is the consequences of a conclusion that you never had much evidence for in the first place. Why exactly am I obliged to play that game?

Zig, I think you've made Upchurch's point. You have displayed the ability to parse the nuances of Cheney's statements. Whether your parsing is correct or not is not at issue. The fact is that such parsing is NOT done by the media nor the average Joe on the street. All that nuance is lost and the end result of Cheney's statement is that the public perceives that Iraq and AQ/911 are closely linked. Which then justified the invasion of Iraq.

In fact, we have evidence for this. Bush (to his credit) said, "We have no evidence of a link between AQ and Saddam" But polls indicated that a large majority of Republicans think there is such a link to this very day.

Cheney is taking advantage of our media-driven, 30-second-sound-bite, headline-news world. He makes a link and that is what gets noticed. Nuance is on the cutting-room floor. And Cheney is no fool. He knows he can get away with it.

[Darth Rotor]

And Cheney is no fool. He knows he can get away with it.
Can I mark you down for a "no" on the second question? ;)

Liar, or Moron?
Politician is the correct answer, of course, which the OP failed to add to the choices. That encompasses a great many low quality traits.

His marksmanship could use some work, while he's at it.

DR

[SezMe]

Funny. Cheney-haters used to repeat and repeat and repeat that he was dead, missing, or hiding in a cave in Colorado from the media and public. Now they are saying he has a long, robust, track record of making false statements. So which is it?

People who disagree with Cheney are not necessarily "Cheney-haters". This crap of claiming people who disagee with Cheney hate him or people who disagree with Bush hate him or people who disagee with Administration policy hate America is getting really old. Political discussions are contentious enough without the silly labeling.

To your point, steveerino, you have created a false dichotomy and a strawman in your first paragraph. Can you show three instances of "Cheney-haters" who "repeat and repeat" that he is "dead, missing, or hiding in a cave".

And can you demonstrate how such an assertion is contradicted by people who assert that "he has a long, robust, track record of making false statements."? Dead, etc. does not conflict with falsification.

[Upchurch]

No, I don't suppose you do.

{snip}

Uh, NO. There's no evidence which is contrary to what Cheney actually said. It's not his problem that you keep thinking he said more than he actually did. That is, quite frankly, your own cognitive problem.

Attacking the person rather than the argument? Nice.


That's because you've consistently failed to address my argument. What Cheney said is factually correct.
Yes, I did. You aren't paying attention. I agreed that the components of what Cheney said is factually correct. It is the way the information is presented that is misleading.

And honestly, you've never addressed this argument except to say "nuh-uh".

The context in which he said it was not about the decision to invade.
And, yet, he injected the connection anyway.



Your position relies upon the idea that listeners will automatically be led to believe a rather specific extrapolation BEYOND what he actually said. And you've got no evidence for that other than that the AP jumped to that conclusion and so did you.
Not automatically, but based on a series of information from the Bush administration and from Cheney himself. It isn't a stretch to believe that listeners will be lead to that conclusion since, as late as 2005 (http://sev.prnewswire.com/computer-electronics/20051229/NYTH02529122005-1.html):

-- Forty-one percent (41%) of U.S. adults believe that Saddam Hussein had
"strong links to Al Qaeda."
-- Twenty-two percent (22%) of adults believe that Saddam Hussein "helped
plan and support the hijackers who attacked the United States on
September 11."
-- Twenty-six percent (26%) of adults believe that Iraq "had weapons of
mass destruction when the U.S. invaded."
-- Twenty-four percent (24%) of all adults believe that "several of the
hijackers who attacked the United States on September 11 were Iraqis."


Which, given that context, Cheney in 2006 proceeds to tell us that:
He [al-Zarqawi] took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organized the Al-Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene


I'm not taking that argument seriously because it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

If you aren't going to defend your position, why do you keep posting?

Don't get me wrong, I welcome your continued participation in this discussion, but you aren't participating by posting "I'm not interested"

[a_unique_person]

Haven't we been over this every time Cheney has said this?

A. There were links between some operatives and the Saddam goverment.
B. There was no working relationship between Bin Laden and Saddam
C. Iraq was not involved with 911

So the answer is, the moron is you. However, why Cheney keeps repeating this baffles me since the media spins it as "Cheney says Saddam was behind 911" every time he says it.

Because every time he says it, he's hoping the guilt by association will stick. "Al Qaeda was operating in Iraq before we invaded, Al Qaeda was behind 9/11, therefore we invaded Iraq."

[slyjoe]

From the article.



Corplinx: Liar, Moron, or Illiterate?

From a BBC profile of Zarqawi:

He first appeared in Iraq as the leader of the Tawhid and Jihad insurgent group, merging it in late 2004 with Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda network. After the US was there.

Doesn't this indicate that the quote from Cheney is incorrect? Not sure this will show up correctly as I'm not sure I grabbed the previous quote right.

[SezMe]

Can I mark you down for a "no" on the second question? ;)

I don't know what the second question is.

But far more importantly, in Post #92 DR has this

Liar, or Moron?


in a quote box which implies that I wrote this based on the previous quote box. I DID NOT. I deplore such false dichotomies and don't like that those words were put in my mouth (keyboard?). Please correct the record, DR.

[Daylight]

Quote:
Cheney said al Quieda was operating within Iraq.


Which is true.


Ziggurat

This Washington Post Article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17970427/) says Cheney did lie.

Hightlights

Captured Iraqi documents and intelligence interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two former aides "all confirmed" that Hussein's regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a declassified Defense Department report released yesterday.

....the report said, the CIA had concluded in June 2002 that there were few substantiated contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and Iraqi officials, and said that it lacked evidence of a long-term relationship like the one Iraq had forged with other terrorist groups.

The CIA had separately concluded that reports of Iraqi training on weapons of mass destruction were "episodic, sketchy, or not corroborated in other channels," the inspector general's report said. It quoted an August 2002 CIA report describing the relationship as more closely resembling "two organizations trying to feel out or exploit each other" rather than cooperating operationally.

From these sources, the report added, "the terms the Intelligence Community used to describe the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida were validated, [namely] 'no conclusive signs,' and 'direct cooperation . . . has not been established.' "

Zarqawi, whom Cheney depicted yesterday as an agent of al-Qaeda in Iraq before the war, was not then an al-Qaeda member but was the leader of an unaffiliated terrorist group who occasionally associated with al-Qaeda adherents, according to several intelligence analysts. He publicly allied himself with al-Qaeda after the U.S. invasion, in early 2004.

[davefoc]

Actually, daylight I think the information that you referred to is only mildly probative with respect to the Ziggurat/Upchurch disagreement.

Mostly it is not relevant because the fact that Hussein was not working with Al-Qaida is generally assumed to be true by, I think, all of the people that have posted in this thread.

Ziggurat's position is that Cheney didn't make the claim that Hussein was supporting or cooperating with Hussein. Upchurch's and others view is that this is a trivial distinction since Cheney's word's clearly suggest that Hussein was involved with Al-Qaida and that since that is widely believed to be false, Cheney made an intentionally misleading statement (lied).

It is interesting that no major news source that I am aware of, has made the parsing argument that Ziggurat seems to be making here. Your link does add one more news outlet that has taken Cheney's words to mean what Upchurch and others have claimed they meant. That seems like at least some evidence that Ziggurat's interpretation is not an obvious one.

I noticed that slyjoe provided some evidence to suggest that what Cheney said wasn't factually correct. That's interesting.

[Upchurch]

Zarqawi, whom Cheney depicted yesterday as an agent of al-Qaeda in Iraq before the war, was not then an al-Qaeda member but was the leader of an unaffiliated terrorist group who occasionally associated with al-Qaeda adherents, according to several intelligence analysts. He publicly allied himself with al-Qaeda after the U.S. invasion, in early 2004.

It never occurred to me to verify that.

I, as a educational programmer in the mid-west, had very little reason or occasion to run across this fact. The Vice-President of an administration using al-Zarqawi as a selling point for the war must surely have.

So, what we have is not only Chaney habitually misconstruing the truth or outright lying in the past, but he also overtly lied in this specific case. My questions to Zig and anyone else who cares to answer is this:

Are you now interested in discussing the possibility that Chaney has been and continues to be dishonest about the nature of the Al-Qaeda/Iraq link prior our invasion?
Given that the the hypothesis that Chaney has and will continue to be dishonest concerning that link has shown to be predictive in this specific case, do you still feel that I must give Chaney the benefit of the doubt the next time he asserts this link or may I safely assume that he is being dishonest yet again?


In other words, at what point do past results indicate future performance?

[Darth Rotor]

I don't know what the second question is.
But far more importantly, in Post #92 DR has this
in a quote box which implies that I wrote this based on the previous quote box. I DID NOT. I deplore such false dichotomies and don't like that those words were put in my mouth (keyboard?). Please correct the record, DR.
I think the term you seek is false attribution. I did not make such an attribution. You inferred incorrectly, but my prose was hardly crystal clear. I did not identify that quote as yours.

The quote I used was words directly from the OP. I used quote, and did NOT add your name thusly
something from SezMe's post

The intent was to ask, jokingly, if first question/choice
Liar
or second question/choice
Moron

as characterizations of Cheney was your choice. The idea was to point to your "no fool" observation as a response to the OP's original question/choice.

Does that clear it up? I suspect I should have used
Liar or Moron to clearly define the source of those words, but since it was taken directly from the thread's title, I figured it would be easily understood. Perhaps I should also have used "choice" instead of "question" for clarity.

Apparently, brevity was a source of confusion, rather than the intended wit. :(

DR

[Ziggurat]

Not automatically, but based on a series of information from the Bush administration and from Cheney himself. It isn't a stretch to believe that listeners will be lead to that conclusion since, as late as 2005 (http://sev.prnewswire.com/computer-electronics/20051229/NYTH02529122005-1.html):


I've seen this argument thrown around quite often, and I was wondering when you'd make it. Problem is, you haven't actually demonstrated what caused those beliefs. Consider, for example, the 22% of people who responded that Saddam helped the attackers. Around the time of the invasion, people were using another statistic about how many people believed Saddam was likely involved in 9/11 to try to show that Bush was misleading people. Problem was, though, that that opinion actually started out very high in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, well before the administration even started talking about Saddam. People arrives at that conclusion on their own, and that opinion came down over time in the leadup to the invasion. And if it was at 22% in 2005, then it continued to go down after the invasion as well. From the polling numbers, is it inconcievable that people have been misled into this opinion by the Bush administration? No, it isn't. But no causal connection has been established, most people demonstrably concluded that in the first place without any input from the administration, and the trend of opinion over time better coincides with the theory that people's opinions were clarified by what Bush administration officials said, not misled. I'm not trying to argue that's the case, merely demonstrate how little the polling numbers actually support the position you're trying to take.

[Ziggurat]

Ziggurat

This Washington Post Article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17970427/) says Cheney did lie.

...

Zarqawi, whom Cheney depicted yesterday as an agent of al-Qaeda in Iraq before the war, was not then an al-Qaeda member but was the leader of an unaffiliated terrorist group who occasionally associated with al-Qaeda adherents, according to several intelligence analysts. He publicly allied himself with al-Qaeda after the U.S. invasion, in early 2004.

This article engages in the same sloppy inuendo that the AP story did: namely, implying that a lack of cooperation between Saddam and Al Qaeda contradicts something in Cheney's recent statement when he didn't claim such cooperation. There's only one new bit of information compared to the AP story, this last paragraph. I'm still looking into the details, but it seems to me so far that while Zarqawi hadn't pledged loyalty to Bin Laden until 2004, his organization took money from and fought on the same side as Al Qaeda prior to the Iraq invasion. So while Cheney's characterization of Zarqawi's connection is debatable, so is the Washington Post's. I may have more thoughts on this later.

[thinkingaboutit]

http://dunamai.com/Humor/BagdadBob/images/bagdad_bob_large.gif

[Upchurch]

I've seen this argument thrown around quite often, and I was wondering when you'd make it. Problem is, you haven't actually demonstrated what caused those beliefs.
Who else was advocating the link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda aside from the Bush administration rather continuously over the last 6ish years?


Consider, for example, the 22% of people who responded that Saddam helped the attackers. Around the time of the invasion, people were using another statistic about how many people believed Saddam was likely involved in 9/11 to try to show that Bush was misleading people.
What statistic was that?


Problem was, though, that that opinion actually started out very high in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, well before the administration even started talking about Saddam.
That's news to me. I was never of that opinion and was rather appauled when I first heard Bush attempt to tie 9/11 back to Saddam. (it cued the Empire Strikes Back theme in my head for the first time.)


People arrives at that conclusion on their own, and that opinion came down over time in the leadup to the invasion.
So, wait a minute. You're willing to believe that a vast number of people came to the conclusion that Saddam had something to do with 9/11 but you insist that I am only of the opinion that Chaney has mislead the public because AP tells me it is so?

That aside, I would love to see your evidence for this rather fantastic claim.


And if it was at 22% in 2005, then it continued to go down after the invasion as well. From the polling numbers, is it inconcievable that people have been misled into this opinion by the Bush administration? No, it isn't. But no causal connection has been established, most people demonstrably concluded that in the first place without any input from the administration,
Then, please, demonstrate.


and the trend of opinion over time better coincides with the theory that people's opinions were clarified by what Bush administration officials said, not misled.
Did you not read the material I provided of what Chaney has said over time on the subject? The trend of opinion over time is more likely due to the vast number of reports that have contradicted what Bush Administration officials have said.

For example, this latest bit of information provided that shows that al-Zarqawi in Iraq wasn't even Al-Qaeda when Chaney said he was. That is fatly contradicted by the evidence he must have surely been aware of. How is this not misleading and an attempt to make people believe something that wasn't true?


I'm not trying to argue that's the case, merely demonstrate how little the polling numbers actually support the position you're trying to take.
Unfortunately, in order for those numbers to not support my conclusion, you've had to set up a rather improbable counter hypothesis that you, yourself, are a long way from actually supporting.

[Upchurch]

http://dunamai.com/Humor/BagdadBob/images/bagdad_bob_large.gif
:D

[Upchurch]

This article engages in the same sloppy inuendo that the AP story did: namely, implying that a lack of cooperation between Saddam and Al Qaeda contradicts something in Cheney's recent statement when he didn't claim such cooperation.
As long as you ignore the context of it coming from Cheney, who has been cheerleading the idea for years, sure.


I'm still looking into the details, but it seems to me so far that while Zarqawi hadn't pledged loyalty to Bin Laden until 2004, his organization took money from and fought on the same side as Al Qaeda prior to the Iraq invasion.
Only for the broadest since of the term "same side" and it appears he took the money with one hand while holding his nose with the other. From the sounds of it, Zarqawi himself would have objected to having been called an Al Qaeda operative before the invasion.

source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zarqawi#Pre_U.S._Invasion_of_Iraq):
Pre U.S. Invasion of Iraq

Before the invasion of Afghanistan, Zarqawi was the leader of an Islamic militant group loosely affiliated with al-Qaeda. When Zarqawi first met bin Laden it was loathing at the first sight as bin Laden distrusted and disliked Zarqawi immediately. In an interview on Al-Majd TV, former al-Qaeda member Walid Khan, who was in Afghanistan fighting alongside Zarqawi's group explained that from the day al-Zarqawi's group arrived, there were disagreements, differences of opinion with bin Laden on a number of issues and positions. Bin Laden also suspected that many of Zarqawi's group members were Jordanian intelligence, disliked Zarqawi's swagger and the green tattoos on his left hand, which he reportedly considered un-Islamic and found Zarqawi hatred of Shiites divisive ). Saif al-Adel, now bin Laden's military chief, was an Egyptian who attempted to overthrow the Egyptian government saw merit in Zarqawi's overall objective of overthrowing the Jordanian monarchy. He intervened and smoothed the relations between Zarqawi and Al Qaeda leadership. It was agreed that Zarqawi will be given $5,000 U.S. dollars to start up his training camp outside the Afghan city of Herat, near the Iranian border. Zarqawi's camp would be as far away as he could be from bin Laden as Saif al-Adel was appointed as the middle man.

Zarqawi's group continued to received funding from Osama bin Laden but pursued "a largely distinct, if occasionally overlapping agenda," according to The Washington Post. Counterterrorism experts told the Washington Post that while Zarqawi accepted al-Qaeda's financial help to set up a training camp in Afghanistan he ran it independently and while bin Laden was planning September 11, Zarqawi was busy developing a plot to topple the Jordanian monarchy and attack Israel.

Nixon Center terrorism experts Robert S. Leiken and Steven Brooke explained that Zarqawi never meant to join al Qaeda. Militants have explained that Tawhid was especially for Jordanians who did not want to join al Qaeda. Even a confessed Tawhid member told his interrogators that Zarqawi was against al Qaeda. Zarqawi's men "refused to march under the banner of another individual or group" recalls Nu'man bin-Uthman, a Libyan Islamist leader now living in London who was in contact with Zarqawi at the time. Shortly after 9/11, a fleeing Ramzi bin al-Shibh, one of the main plotters of the attacks, appealed to Tawhid operatives for a forged visa. He could not come up with ready cash. Told that he did not belong to Tawhid, he was sent packing and eventually into the arms of the Americans.

The Washington Post also reported that German Intelligence wiretaps found that in the fall of 2001 that Zarqawi grew angry when his members were raising money in Germany for al-Qaeda's local leadership. "If something should come from their side, simply do not accept it," Zarqawi told one of his followers, according to a recorded conversation that was played at a trial of four alleged Zarqawi operatives in Duesseldorf.

At least five times, in 2000 and 2001, bin Laden called al-Zarqawi to come to Kandahar and pay bayat — take an oath of allegiance—to him. Each time, al-Zarqawi refused. Under no circumstances did he want to become involved in the battle between the Northern Alliance and the Taliban. He also did not believe that either bin Laden or the Taliban was serious enough about jihad. When the United States launched its air war inside Afghanistan, on October 7, 2001, al-Zarqawi joined forces with al-Qaeda and the Taliban for the first time. He and his Jund al-Sham fought in and around Herat and Kandahar. When Zarqawi finally did take the oath in October 2004, it was only after eight months of often stormy negotiations.



Kind of warms your heart that we've been able to make friends out of enemies, huh?

[/sarcasm]

[davefoc]

I took a look at each statement by Cheney in a paragraph quoted above from the Limbaugh interview and evaluated it as to whether I saw it as misleading or not. I have bolded Cheney's words.

Remember Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist, an Al-Qaeda affiliate. He ran a training camp in Afghanistan for Al-Qaeda,
uncontested, believed to be absolutely true

he went to Baghdad.
apparently true, but a little misleading. He went to Baghdad for medical treatment and it appears that Hussein was not aware of this and had previously tried to capture Zarqawi.

He took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq,
Very misleading. the "there" appears to refer to Baghdad. He was in Baghdad for medical treatment. When he took up residence in Iraq it was in Northern Iraq in an area not closely controlled by Hussein.

organized the Al-Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene and then of course led the charge for Iraq,
Slightly misleading. There was a relationship between Zarqawi and Al-Qaida but Zarqawi was not exactly a member of Al-Qaida. He got some resources from them and recruited under their name, but he was his own guy and was not directly controlled by Al-Qaida. In fact Al-Qaida was opposed to some of his tactics. In particular the mass murders of the Iraqi Shiites and the bombing in Jordan.

until we [the US] killed him last June
Uncontested, believed to be absolutely true. Zarqawi and several others including his second wife and their child were killed in an American bombing attack.

He's the guy who arranged the bombing of the Samarra mosque that precipitated the sectarian violence between Shi'a and Sunni.
Reasonable statement although calling the bombing of the Samarra mosque a precipitating event might be overstating the situation. The Sunnis seemed to have formed an insurgency independent of any Al-Qaida links.

This is Al-Qaeda operating in Iraq, and as I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq.
Highly misleading. There is an obvious implication here that Hussein was in some way cooperating with Al-Qaida and that war was the only way that Al-Qaida in Iraq could have been dealt with. This, by all reports that I am aware of, is absolutely false. The statement also assumes that Zarqawi was part of Al-Qaida. This is not exactly the case but is close enough to being the case that this part of the statement, while not being exactly true is not misleading.

This statement seems to be at the heart of the dispute between Upchurch (et al) and Ziggurat. Ziggurat, assuming I understand him correctly, is making the claim that since this statement is factually correct that no intent to mislead by Cheney should be inferred.

I think Ziggurat is wrong here because:
1. The statement has been universally interpreted by the major news outlets to mean what Upchurch is claiming that Cheney meant it to mean. Not one news source reporting on the statement has resorted to careful interpretation that Ziggurat has chosen to give it.

2. Put in the context of the numerous misleading statements that preceded it, It is difficult to see how Cheney meant to do anything other than mislead by the statement.

3. It is just impossible that an accurate description of this situation could leave out the fact that the location of Zarqawi's base affiliated with Al-Qaida was in an area not closely controlled by Hussein.

There's no way you can segment out and say, "Well, we'll fight the war on terror in Pakistan or Afghanistan but we can separate Iraq.
Not misleading but just Cheney's opinion that many people would disagree with. My guess is that the US is more subject to terror attacks as a result of the Iraq war and not less. So, IMHO, there was a way to fight the war on terror in Afghanistan without attacking Iraq.

Summary (IMHO of course)
Did Cheney make any factually incorrect statements?
I couldn't identify one.

Did Cheney make any misleading statements?
Yes

Did Cheney lie?
I don't know. I think Cheney intentionally made misleading statements. By some definitions of "lie" I think it is reasonable to conclude that Cheney lied.

ETA: I should have added that there doesn't seem to be a clear cut difference between what Cheney did and the routine spinning that goes on all the time by spokesman for various points of view. If Cheney is judged to have lied here then a lot of partisan speech in the media could be seen as lies also. Clearly Cheney's statement was in a gray area between truthful and untruthful speech. I tend to agree with Upchurch's view that the nature of the speech was misleading enough to be considered untruthful. But, given that Cheney didn't intentionally make an unequivocal misstatement of fact it seems that it can not be determined unequivocally that he lied..

It is interesting that there probably won't be a public defense of Cheney's statement similar to the one Ziggurat has made here. Cheney supporters are unlikely to want to attribute such calculated parsing to Cheney and Cheney's supporter probably believe to some degree that Cheney's apparent inference was true and Ziggurat's defense of Cheney requires and acknowledgment that it wasn't true.

[steverino]

To your point, steveerino, you have created a false dichotomy and a strawman in your first paragraph. Can you show three instances of "Cheney-haters" who "repeat and repeat" that he is "dead, missing, or hiding in a cave".

1) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1001663,00.html

2) http://waltondammerung.prwdot.org/archives/001952.html

3) http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20011012/ai_n10731973

The term "Cheney-Hater" is simply a tag I place on people who, um, hate Cheney.-Steve

[Dorian Gray]

[url]ETA: Darn it. I misspelled his name in the title.
And you're staying the course with the misspelling, I see. Your thread title, right or wrong. We're either with you or against you.

[Dorian Gray]

Basically Cheney lied because you say he meant something other than what his words actually mean. I'm not taking that argument seriously because it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.Okay, then will you explain what Cheney actually meant when he said "This is Al-Qaeda operating in Iraq, and as I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq." What did he mean? It's a direct quote, not from the AP, a quote right out of Cheney's mouth.

Tell me what else that quote can mean BESIDES that al-Qaeda was operating in Iraq before we invaded Iraq - which has been shown to be false?

[Dorian Gray]

ETA: I should have added that there doesn't seem to be a clear cut difference between what Cheney did and the routine spinning that goes on all the time by spokesman for various points of view. You don't? How unbelieveably myopic of you. The difference between Cheney and other spokesmen is that when Cheney made misleading statements, they led to a war resulting in thousands of deaths and/or are used in an attempt to justify that same war.

Did Al Gore's movie cause any deaths? How about Michael Moore's movies, or Ann Coulter's books? Because I'm just not sure - all I can see is this transparent knife.

[Dorian Gray]

This article engages in the same sloppy inuendo that the AP story did: namely, it disagrees with my point of view Fixed that for ya.

[Upchurch]

You don't? How unbelieveably myopic of you.
I imagine that davefoc was speaking in terms of structure or technique, however:
The difference between Cheney and other spokesmen is that when Cheney made misleading statements, they led to a war resulting in thousands of deaths and/or are used in an attempt to justify that same war.

Did Al Gore's movie cause any deaths? How about Michael Moore's movies, or Ann Coulter's books? Because I'm just not sure - all I can see is this transparent knife.
This is a very good point.

We're not talking about a city alderman pimping a zoning bill. We're talking about a sitting Vice President using deceit in order to convince the US people to enter into a voluntary war. A voluntary war that was, at best, misguided or, at worst, designed further some wingnut PNAC political agenda.

[davefoc]

I imagine that davefoc was speaking in terms of structure or technique, however:


I think that is right. Partisans often make statements that, while factually correct, leave out relevant information that conflicts with the point they are making. I thought Cheney's statement used a similar technique. Meaning that it fell in the gray region between a complete and truthful representation and a representation that was factually incorrect.

From my perspective, the implications of the statement were wrong enough and the information left out was so important to a complete and truthful representation of the situation that I thought the statement was dishonest. But since the statement didn't contain misstatements of fact, it was arguable that the statement was not dishonest, rather it was just putting forth the facts that support one's view as is very commonly done by partisans of a particular view.

[steverino]

This is a very good point.

No it isn't. It is pointless, intellectual laziness, and bumper sticker second-guessing. It's all woo, anyway, just speculation + bias.

Same old BS.

[Upchurch]

No it isn't. It is pointless, intellectual laziness, and bumper sticker second-guessing. It's all woo, anyway, just speculation + bias.
How so?

[Ziggurat]

That's news to me.

No surprise there.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data082303.htm

These polls show that on September 13, 2001, just two days after the attacks and well before Bush started talking publicly about Iraq, 78% of the public thought it was somewhat or very likely that Saddam was personally involved in the attacks. These numbers went down, not up, over time.

[Ziggurat]

Tell me what else that quote can mean BESIDES that al-Qaeda was operating in Iraq before we invaded Iraq - which has been shown to be false?

What source are you using which indicates that this claim is false? The AP report certainly doesn't indicate it's false.

[Ziggurat]

I think Ziggurat is wrong here because:
1. The statement has been universally interpreted by the major news outlets to mean what Upchurch is claiming that Cheney meant it to mean.

News outlets don't determine the actual meaning of things. This is a mixture argument ad populum and appeal to authority, and it's a logical fallacy.

Not one news source reporting on the statement has resorted to careful interpretation that Ziggurat has chosen to give it.

That's because the press sucks and group-think is rampant. When's the last time you read a news story in a major media outlet and thought, "Wow, that's a detailed and insightful analysis!"?

2. Put in the context of the numerous misleading statements that preceded it, It is difficult to see how Cheney meant to do anything other than mislead by the statement.

And all those misleading statements are misleading because the press keeps telling you they're all misleading, and reporting them in a context in which they appear misleading.

3. It is just impossible that an accurate description of this situation could leave out the fact that the location of Zarqawi's base affiliated with Al-Qaida was in an area not closely controlled by Hussein.

Accurate for what purpose? Context matters. The context of this question was about whether the current conflict in Iraq is properly considered part of a broader "war on terror", not whether or not we were justified in invading. It is just impossible that an accurate description of Cheney's comments could leave out the question he was responding to. And yet, it did.

[Azure]

Fixed!

Wow, way to stereotype.

Are you saying 20% of the people who voted for Bush/Cheney, but do not approve of them now are still idiots?

Or whatever percentage that is?

[Upchurch]

No surprise there.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data082303.htm

These polls show that on September 13, 2001, just two days after the attacks and well before Bush started talking publicly about Iraq, 78% of the public thought it was somewhat or very likely that Saddam was personally involved in the attacks. These numbers went down, not up, over time.

Hey, thanks for finally joining the conversation. It's amazing how you can use a news poll when it agrees with what you already believe and then turn around and within 15 minutes berate the press for being misleading when it doesn't agree with what you already believe.

That aside, it isn't true that the Bush administration started talking about Iraq sometime after September 13, 2001. The Bush administration was focused on Saddam since the campaign. Apparently (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml) (if you can trust that dang biased press), the Bush administration was planning on drawing the connection the same day as the attack. Of course, they would need to have some sort of mechanism (http://boortz.com/nuze/200609/09162006.html) for perpetuating that sort of meme, whatever form that may take.

Also, you've fallen into the same trap that you accused me of. You've shown a public opinion, but you have not identified what that opinion was based on.


You still have a long way to go to back up the list of claims you've racked up in this thread, but I am glad to see that you've started to participate.

[Ziggurat]

Hey, thanks for finally joining the conversation.

Your attention is not particularly high on my list of priorities. I will participate whenever I choose. I demand no more of anyone else, and you will get no more from me.

It's amazing how you can use a news poll when it agrees with what you already believe and then turn around and within 15 minutes berate the press for being misleading.

Your statement implies that there's a contradiction in my position. There isn't. The poll results are what they are. I've accused the press of being misleading. With only rare exceptions, however, I do not accuse them of lying. I have no reason to think the poll results are actually false. But considering the exposure that the 2003 results got, along with the lack of exposure the 2001 results had which might place the 2003 results in some context, I'd say the press was misleading about the poll results. Doesn't mean the results aren't correct.

That aside, it isn't true that the Bush administration started talking about Iraq sometime after September 13, 2001.

It sure as hell is in connection to 9/11 and Al Qaeda, which is rather the relevant issue here, isn't it? If you want to try to argue that people thought Saddam was behind 9/11 because Bush talked about Saddam before 9/11, well, you might as well start blaming Clinton for that opinion too, because he sure as hell talked about Saddam quite a bit (and rightfully so). And if you want to talk about a pattern to deceive regarding the connection of Saddam to Al Qaeda and 9/11, well, how exactly did that pattern start before 9/11 even happened? I suppose if you thought Bush had a hand in 9/11, that sort of thinking might make sense, but I don't think you believe that. So this is basically irrelevant, and you know it. You just brought it up because you thought you could trip me up with it.

Apparently (if you can trust that dang biased press), the Bush administration was planning on drawing the connection the same day as the attack.

You really haven't spent much time thinking about the logic of that bit of info, have you? We're talking about public opinion here. Whatever the administration might have considered doing along those lines, they didn't actually do it. How on earth could those discussions, which were NOT public until very recently, have affected public opinion on a broad scale? Are you positing time travel? Or maybe mind control? Really, what's the logic here?

Also, you've fallen into the same trap that you accused me of. You've shown a public opinion, but you have not identified what that opinion was based on.

Uh, no. You are correct that I did not identify what the opinion is based upon. But my argument and your argument are not equivalent. Your argument depends upon a specific cause being identified for that opinion, my argument does not.

[Upchurch]

And if you want to talk about a pattern to deceive regarding the connection of Saddam to Al Qaeda and 9/11, well, how exactly did that pattern start before 9/11 even happened?
Very excellent straw man. I never said they started linking Al Qaeda to Saddam before 9/11.


I suppose if you thought Bush had a hand in 9/11, that sort of thinking might make sense, but I don't think you believe that.
Good thing, that would be another rather ugly straw man and a argumentative fallacy by trying to paint me as a conspiracy nut job. That would have been just dishonest.

So this is basically irrelevant, and you know it. You just brought it up because you thought you could trip me up with it.
Actually, I was presenting a counter hypothesis and then backing it up. (hint, hint)


You really haven't spent much time thinking about the logic of that bit of info, have you?
Yes, there have been a lot of painting those who don't trust Cheney as irrational, reactionary, dishonest, lazy, and even mentally defective. Is that really necessary?

Do you really feel that those of us who do not agree with you on Cheney and the Bush administration simply cannot be reasonable people with valid reasons for thinking they way we do? (same question to steve and corp)


We're talking about public opinion here.
Which is why people have pointed out that various members of the press have interpreted Cheney's statements the same way that many participants in this thread have, because we are all members of public. And, at least in this forum, the press and members of this board have a very visible voice.


Whatever the administration might have considered doing along those lines, they didn't actually do it.
...until September 2002 to present, of course.


How on earth could those discussions, which were NOT public until very recently, have affected public opinion on a broad scale? Are you positing time travel? Or maybe mind control? Really, what's the logic here?
You know that biased media who spins things? They don't just spin left, ya know. Maybe you noticed that link I gave where one of those media figures related having an hour and a half meeting with the President in 2006 with several other high profile conservative media figures?


Uh, no. You are correct that I did not identify what the opinion is based upon. But my argument and your argument are not equivalent. Your argument depends upon a specific cause being identified for that opinion, my argument does not.
But you did claim you could demonstrate that they reached the conclusion that there was a link between Al-Qaeda and Saddam with no input from the Bush administration. That would require identifying the source and determining that it was not prompted by the Bush administration.

Seems pretty equivalent to me.

[corplinx]

Do you really feel that those of us who do not agree with you on Cheney and the Bush administration simply cannot be reasonable people with valid reasons for thinking they way we do? (same question to steve and corp)


I think its just mostly excuse making to slam cheney. The VP role is one of the most un-important in goverment unless the pres dies.

Going after the Veep through such hoops seems obsessive, unproductive, and a waste of your brain cycles.

My answer is "get a life".

There are a lot of these "get a life" issues where people just sit around flapping their gums about a lot of nothing. The Hillary "Bad Men" comment, the Howard Dean scream, Trent Lott's thurmond birthday remark, tar baby comments, etc, etc, etc.

Going after Cheney for mentioning links between Iraq and Al Q seems like hair splitting for the point of just feeling better about having something to slam a guy who does nothing and is nothing but a fillin in case Dubya gets another pretzel stuck.

Jeez. When Senator Hillary is prez are we going to have a bunch of people splitting hairs about the latest comments from VP Edwards they don't agree with ?

Edited to add: This is the kind of crap people on those crappy debate shows crappily debate about (Hannity/Colmes, etc).

[Upchurch]

So that would be a "yes"?

[Dorian Gray]

What source are you using which indicates that this claim is false? The AP report certainly doesn't indicate it's false.

Tell me what else the quote can mean? And what source? The 9/11 commission report ring a bell?

[Dorian Gray]

News outlets don't determine the actual meaning of things. This is a mixture argument ad populum and appeal to authority, and it's a logical fallacy.



That's because the press sucks and group-think is rampant. When's the last time you read a news story in a major media outlet and thought, "Wow, that's a detailed and insightful analysis!"?



And all those misleading statements are misleading because the press keeps telling you they're all misleading, and reporting them in a context in which they appear misleading.



Accurate for what purpose? Context matters. The context of this question was about whether the current conflict in Iraq is properly considered part of a broader "war on terror", not whether or not we were justified in invading. It is just impossible that an accurate description of Cheney's comments could leave out the question he was responding to. And yet, it did.

Okay, news outlets don't determine the meanings of things, and groups of people just follow each other. Well, last time I checked, the Executive Branch was a group of people, so doesn't this logic apply to them?

And if quoting directly from Cheney's very own mouth doesn't do it for you, then I have no choice but to conclude the following:

You consider YOURSELF the arbiter of what something means.

So, arbiter, tell me: Cheney has mislead or attempted to mislead Americans into believing that there is a clear and unmistakeable link between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein/Iraq in an attempt to convince Americans that an invasion will prevent future attacks against Americans and a war was/is justified and right.

Yes, or no?

And many sources from the entire political spectrum, including George W. Bush himself, have stated repeatedly that there was no link between Iraq/Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

Yes, or no?

[steverino]

Jeez. When Senator Hillary is prez are we going to have a bunch of people splitting hairs about the latest comments from VP Edwards they don't agree with ?

So you think Obama's not gunna be in the picture? Just curious.

[Upchurch]

Jeez. When Senator Hillary is prez are we going to have a bunch of people splitting hairs about the latest comments from VP Edwards they don't agree with ?
Most likely. People are still splitting hairs on Kerry's comments, past and present, and he didn't even win.

[Ziggurat]

Tell me what else the quote can mean? And what source? The 9/11 commission report ring a bell?

I didn't say the quote meant something else. But you can't keep your claims straight. The 9/11 commission stated that there was no known collaboration between Saddam and Al Qaeda. It does not make the claim that there were no Al Qaeda elements in Iraq. Those are two different claims, and your conflation of the two leads you to a conclusion which you cannot actually support.

[ImaginalDisc]

And you're staying the course with the misspelling, I see. Your thread title, right or wrong. We're either with you or against you.

Are you aware that ordinary users cannot edit thread titles?

[ponderingturtle]

:rolleyes: Politics forum.

Cleon was right.

CNN reporting on poll in september 06 (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/06/iraq.poll/index.html)

If a significant percentage of the country, 43% in that poll, believes that Saddam was connected to 9/11. All you need to to assume a strong correlation between this and voting republican to get that to be a pretty supportable statement. As long as you think that continueing to think that Saddam was connected to 9/11 is a good indicator of being a moron.

[Ziggurat]

Okay, news outlets don't determine the meanings of things, and groups of people just follow each other. Well, last time I checked, the Executive Branch was a group of people, so doesn't this logic apply to them?

The word determine (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/determine) has multiple meanings, and you seem unable to figure out the difference, or when to apply which meaning. So here are the transitive verb definitions:
1 a : to fix conclusively or authoritatively <determine national policy> b : to decide by judicial sentence <determine a plea> c : to settle or decide by choice of alternatives or possibilities <trying to determine the best time to go> d : RESOLVE <she determined to do better>
2 a : to fix the form, position, or character of beforehand : ORDAIN <two points determine a straight line> b : to bring about as a result : REGULATE <demand determines the price>
3 a : to fix the boundaries of b : to limit in extent or scope c : to put or set an end to : TERMINATE <determine an estate>
4 : to find out or come to a decision about by investigation, reasoning, or calculation <determine the answer to the problem> <determine a position at sea>
5 : to bring about the determination of <determine the fate of a cell>

When I say the press does not determine the meaning of something, it should be obvious that I am using definition 1a. It is within everyone's power to "determine" meaning in the sense of definition 4 above. I have no idea where you're trying to go with your statement about "applying" this logic to the executive branch. When it comes to the meaning of words that were actually spoken, the speaker is quite obviously NOT in the same role as the listener.

And if quoting directly from Cheney's very own mouth doesn't do it for you,

It does. Your inability to understand the facts (in particular, your unfounded belief that the 9/11 commission claimed there were no Al Qaeda elements in Iraq prior to our invasion) has nothing to do with what I will or won't accept.

You consider YOURSELF the arbiter of what something means.

Uh, no. I consider myself capable of determining (in the sense of definition 4 above) the meaning of things. I do not, and have never, considered myself solely capable of doing so. You can too. But the fact that you can doesn't mean you did.

So, arbiter, tell me: Cheney has mislead or attempted to mislead Americans into believing that there is a clear and unmistakeable link between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein/Iraqin an attempt to convince Americans that an invasion will prevent future attacks against Americans and a war was/is justified and right.

I know no one who believe in a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq because of anything Cheney said. Furthermore, nobody has produced any evidence that anyone believes this because of what Cheney said. What Upchurch thought was evidence of that (public opinion polls) is in fact nothing of the sort, as I've already detailed. As for what he was attempting to do, well, I'm not interested in trying to dig through years worth of statements, account for their context as well as how they were represented by the press, to try to prove a particular position on his internal motivations. What I am willing to do is consider the what Cheney actually said in a particular instance presented in the original post of this thread. And in this particular instance, Cheney wasn't even talking about the justification for invasion.

And many sources from the entire political spectrum, including George W. Bush himself, have stated repeatedly that there was no link between Iraq/Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

It's true that Bush has said repeatedly that Saddam had no role in 9/11. And isn't it kind of strange? I mean, wouldn't that sort of undercut this supposed attempt to decieve Americans about the connection, if Bush keeps publicly saying it didn't exist? And in terms of the opinion polls, the trend is in the direction of people being convinced by these EXPLICIT statements of a lack of a connection, rather than by implications that there was one.

[Ziggurat]

But you did claim you could demonstrate that they reached the conclusion that there was a link between Al-Qaeda and Saddam with no input from the Bush administration. That would require identifying the source and determining that it was not prompted by the Bush administration.

No, it doesn't. It requires demonstrating that the supposed cause was not present at the time of the effect - it does not require identifying an alternate cause. You're right that Bush talked about Saddam prior to 9/11. But did he talk about Saddam in relation to Al Qaeda prior to 9/11? I don't think so. In fact, I don't think most people were even aware of the existence of Al Qaeda prior to 9/11. I know I wasn't. So how could Bush have possibly convinced 78% of the public that there was a connection if he never even talked about the two of them together? I do not know what made 78% of people think, on 9/13/2001, that Saddam might have been involved with 9/11. I do know what did NOT cause them to think that: namely, something the Bush administration started doing AFTER that date. And I know that because I am deeply convinced time travel is not possible.

[Upchurch]

No, it doesn't. It requires demonstrating that the supposed cause was not present at the time of the effect
Which you have not done.


- it does not require identifying an alternate cause.
How do you propose to determine that the Bush administration had no influence on public opinion if you have not determined what did influence public opinion?


You're right that Bush talked about Saddam prior to 9/11. But did he talk about Saddam in relation to Al Qaeda prior to 9/11? I don't think so. In fact, I don't think most people were even aware of the existence of Al Qaeda prior to 9/11. I know I wasn't. So how could Bush have possibly convinced 78% of the public that there was a connection if he never even talked about the two of them together?
Prior to 9/11, the Bush administration had set up Saddam and Iraq as the number one enemy of the US, did they not? When 9/11 hit and before those responsible were identified, I suppose it shouldn't be surprising that a majority of Americans jumped to the conclusion that Saddam had something to do with it.

I'm not saying that it was intentional, at that early stage, that the Bush administration influenced public opinion in this way, but it was a lucky break for them. And they certainly ran with it. Once Al-Qaeda was identified as the guilty party, the Bush administration often mentioned Al-Qaeda and Iraq in the same breath.


I do not know what made 78% of people think, on 9/13/2001, that Saddam might have been involved with 9/11. I do know what did NOT cause them to think that: namely, something the Bush administration started doing AFTER that date. And I know that because I am deeply convinced time travel is not possible.
I actually do believe that time travel is possible, especially going forward. Going backwards might still be possible, but would be very, very expensive and would probably hurt a lot.

[Ziggurat]

How do you propose to determine that the Bush administration had no influence on public opinion if you have not determined what did influence public opinion?

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

The charge is that the Bush administration tricked people into believing that there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11 because they would supposedly imply that such a connection existed. But people believed in the connection before anyone in the administration engaged in ANY of the activity which has been labeled as deceptive.

Prior to 9/11, the Bush administration had set up Saddam and Iraq as the number one enemy of the US, did they not?

Saddam was considered a major enemy by pretty much EVERYONE who paid attention. Because he was. "Number one" is a qualifier I don't think you've established, nor is it particularly relevant when discussing whether or not there was a deliberate campaign to deceive.

When 9/11 hit and before those responsible were identified, I suppose it shouldn't be surprising that a majority of Americans jumped to the conclusion that Saddam had something to do with it.

Quite true. So why blame Bush for people having that opinion? Why attribute it to a supposed campaign of misdirection, when they were perfectly capable of forming that opinion on their own? Where's the actual evidence that anyone was actually decieved? Oh, that's right: you don't HAVE any.

I'm not saying that it was intentional, at that early stage, that the Bush administration influenced public opinion in this way, but it was a lucky break for them. And they certainly ran with it. Once Al-Qaeda was identified as the guilty party, the Bush administration often mentioned Al-Qaeda and Iraq in the same breath.

Once again, you rely on the inability of the public to consider anything more complex than the proximity of two words. Argument from stupidity: the sheeple were to dumb not to jump to incorrect conclusions even when the statements themselves are factually correct. That's a condescending argument, and I don't know why you expect a broader public (who was apparently too stupid not to be tricked by the rhetorical equivalent of a shiny object) to buy into it.

[Upchurch]

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

The charge is that the Bush administration tricked people into believing that there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11 because they would supposedly imply that such a connection existed. But people believed in the connection before anyone in the administration engaged in ANY of the activity which has been labeled as deceptive.
Well, there have been several claims. But here is the one that I've been asking you to back up:
But no causal connection has been established, most people demonstrably concluded that in the first place without any input from the administration,
That is what I asked you to "Then, please, demonstrate."


Quite true. So why blame Bush for people having that opinion? Why attribute it to a supposed campaign of misdirection, when they were perfectly capable of forming that opinion on their own? Where's the actual evidence that anyone was actually decieved? Oh, that's right: you don't HAVE any.
Hold on. People jumped to the conclusion that Saddam might have been involved with 9/11, but once it became clear that Al-Qaeda was responsible and not Saddam, where did the idea come that there was a link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq?


Once again, you rely on the inability of the public to consider anything more complex than the proximity of two words. Argument from stupidity: the sheeple were to dumb not to jump to incorrect conclusions even when the statements themselves are factually correct.
Have you not been to the General Skepticism section of this forum? Why do you think there is a need for debunkers and skeptics in this world? Very smart people are fooled by simple tricks all the time because most people don't pay close attention.

[Ziggurat]

Well, there have been several claims. But here is the one that I've been asking you to back up:

That is what I asked you to "Then, please, demonstrate."

I did. Perhaps you misunderstand me. I was talking about the perception of a connection between Saddam and 9/11. The Bush administration made no such connection, and implied no such connection, prior to September 13, 2001. Yet people concluded there was such a connection. Therefore, they did so without input (about the connection) from the Bush administration. Is that really so hard for you to comprehend?

Hold on. People jumped to the conclusion that Saddam might have been involved with 9/11, but once it became clear that Al-Qaeda was responsible and not Saddam, where did the idea come that there was a link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq?

What, people can't come to conclusions on their own? Isn't it kind of obvious that if people thought (on their own) it was likely that Saddam had a role in 9/11 and then they're told (correctly) that Al Qaeda had a role in 9/11, they'll put two and two together and conclude that if Saddam did have a role (as they already suspected on their own), it would be in helping Al Qaeda?

[Upchurch]

I did. Perhaps you misunderstand me. I was talking about the perception of a connection between Saddam and 9/11. The Bush administration made no such connection, and implied no such connection, prior to September 13, 2001. Yet people concluded there was such a connection. Therefore, they did so without input (about the connection) from the Bush administration. Is that really so hard for you to comprehend?
:eek: I'll be damned.

You changed the subject from "Saddam and Al-Qaeda" to "Saddam and 9/11" and not only didn't I catch it, but I also helped divert the conversation from the main topic to this tangent, thinking we were still talking about the same thing. You are good.


What, people can't come to conclusions on their own?
Well, that was my question to you when you insisted that I only thought Cheney was attempting to mislead the public because AP told me he was.