The verdict on Cheney

[Mickey]

Read my signature line for Cheney's declaration in August of 2002 that there was "No doubt..." that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. We are now so sure he didn't that we have called off the search, ie wild goose chase, to find them. When the issue has come up over the last two years, the more reasonable among us advocated waiting until the search teams were done before reaching any conclusions. That hasn't stopped many among us from seizing on the first sign of possible WMD proof as the virtual Holy Grail of this issue setting off a post-a-thon that would peter out in a day or two when the claims of proof unraveled.

 

Well the jury is back, it is now historical fact that Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction and he wasn't "amassing" them to use against us as Cheney claimed. Before you go excusing him by blaming Tenet's "slam dunk' comment, consider that he made his statement in August of 2002 and Tenet's "slam dunk" remark wasn't made until December 21, 2002. Before you excuse him by pointing out that prominent democrats also thought he had them consider that none of them thought enough of the proof to go to war based on it and that none of them had the benefit of the inspections that had been reinstated (remember Blix?) and which found nothing. Many of the comments conservatives dig up in this regard are from the time period after inspections ceased so everyone was operating in the dark.

 

I am quite sure that if Cheney were a democrat, his name would never be mentioned by any of you without also calling him a liar. Only he knows in his heart if he is a liar or was so bent on invading Iraq that he saw in the paucity of intelligence precisely what he wanted to see. I can't read his mind and can only go by his words. Those words leave pretty much no option but to conclude that he lied though again, I don't know what was in his heart. Remember at the time, plenty of Republicans, the President included, had the chance to endorse his comments and yet did not. Why? Because the intelligence didn't justify that conclusion and they knew it. That is why they had that meeting back in December of 2002 and why the President looked at the evidence that was presented and was incredulous, asking "... is that it?"

 

Unlike everyone else in the administration, Cheney was willing to go out on a limb and say, with no hedging, that there was "no doubt". I remember hearing the argument here from many at the time that Cheney had access to intel that couldn't be made public and that this secret intel was the basis for his claim. In fact, I seem to recall this theory being expressed in terms of "listen you idiot, I know about intel and you don't because I: a) was in the military once upon a time or b) have read more Tom Clancy novels than you or c) am a conservative so am genetically more able to understand military matters, and therefore I trust that Cheney has secret intel proving WMD's that he can't, for national security reasons, divulge."

 

Whether the war was justifiable quite apart from the whole WMD issue is another question entirely. Lord knows we don't need to rehash that. The only issue here is Dick Cheney. If you want to respond by pointing out your complaints about Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore, FDR or whatever, please start another thread. Lets talk about Cheney and the long term effect this is going to have on our diplomatic efforts. The head of the CIA saying "slam dunk" is bad enough but for the Vice President to make that kind of gaffe is epic.

[OGTEleven]

Read my signature line for Cheney's declaration in August of 2002 that there was "No doubt..." that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.  We are now so sure he didn't that we have called off the search, ie wild goose chase, to find them.  When the issue has come up over the last two years, the more reasonable among us advocated waiting until the search teams were done before reaching any conclusions.  That hasn't stopped many among us from seizing on the first sign of possible WMD proof as the virtual Holy Grail of this issue setting off a post-a-thon that would peter out in a day or two when the claims of proof unraveled.

 

Well the jury is back, it is now historical fact that Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction ........

203942[/snapback]

Mick,

 

I usually read your posts thourougly and find them thoughtful. Wrong, but thoughtful.

 

On this one I stopped reading where I put the dots. Your definition of "historical fact" is a bit off. The weapons have not been found. This does not constitute proof they do not exist.

[PastaJoe]

The weapons have not been found. This does not constitute proof they do not exist.

 

A neighbor told me there's buried treasure in my backyard. I haven't found it yet, but I'm going to keep digging until I do. Just because I haven't found it doesn't mean it's not there.

[boomerjamhead]

It's people like you MIck that forced the Administration's hand on this. It's people like you who were on board with the war when you felt that we were going in there to take out a black and white threat. When we didn't find the WMD, you your likes abandoned the Administration and war effort claiming you had been lied to and to this day you just wont drop it. How in the hell do expect the Administration to try to explain to you that we are going in there to transform the broader Middle East when everything is either black or white to you folks? How easy would it have been for them to make that case? Better yet, how easy would it have been for them to maintain support from you folks? That's what I thought.

 

As Wolfowitz even admitted, they chose the WMD argument becasue they felt it was a way to get everyone on board for the war and that it was a given that Saddam had them. They were right about the former, ended up getting screwed by Saddam with the later.

 

And going back to your sig line, who else would Saddam have used those weapons on? The French?

[KD in CA]

A neighbor told me there's buried treasure in my backyard.  I haven't found it yet, but I'm going to keep digging until I do.  Just because I haven't found it doesn't mean it's not there. 

203978[/snapback]

 

 

That might be a valid analogy if your neighbor had in fact been a pirate known for looting passing ships.

[Mickey]

Mick,

 

I usually read your posts thourougly and find them thoughtful.  Wrong, but thoughtful. 

 

On this one I stopped reading where I put the dots.  Your definition of "historical fact" is a bit off.  The weapons have not been found.  This does not constitute proof they do not exist.

203952[/snapback]

 

Shangri-La has also not been found thus, by your logic, it still might exist. I am willing, despite that, to go out on a limb and say that the non-esistence of Shangri-La is historical fact.

 

The inability to find them despite there being no limits on our ability to search over a long period of time with the best experts and technology we can muster I think very much is proof that there were no weapons of mass destruction. Absence of a thing is proof that it doesn't exist. How definitive that proof may be is another question. We are at the point now where we aren't even going to bother looking anymore because we have looked everywhere, within reason, and they aren't freaking there. That is the reality.

[John Adams]

The night we went to war, President Bush said there is "no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." And Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld once said, "We know where they are." We all remember Powell's debacle at the UN showing proof of WMDs.

 

This has been a black eye, no matter how you look at it. No one is accountable though. Bush's admin is not about accountability if you are loyal to Bush.

[Rich in Ohio]

When did Dick Cheney go on trial???

[Mickey]

It's people like you MIck that forced the Administration's hand on this.  It's people like you who were on board with the war when you felt that we were going in there to take out a black and white threat.  When we didn't find the WMD, you your likes abandoned the Administration and war effort claiming you had been lied to and to this day you just wont drop it.  How in the hell do expect the Administration to try to explain to you that we are going in there to transform the broader Middle East when everything is either black or white to you folks?  How easy would it have been for them to make that case?  Better yet, how easy would it have been for them to maintain support from you folks?  That's what I thought.

 

As Wolfowitz even admitted, they chose the WMD argument becasue they felt it was a way to get everyone on board for the war and that it was a given that Saddam had them.  They were right about the former, ended up getting screwed by Saddam with the later.

 

And going back to your sig line, who else would Saddam have used those weapons on?  The French?

203997[/snapback]

Actually, I supported the war based on reasons having nothing to do with whether there were WMD's there at that time or not. So no, I didn't abandon the administration but I thought of it as sticking by my country and my beliefs, not this group of boneheads. I voted for Kerry because I thought we had a better chance of winning the war with him than with the crew that has botched so much of it so far. The WMD thing is just one of those "botches".

 

You need to find out what my actual views are before launching one of these rants. You have imagined positions you assume every democrat holds and then have assigned them to me.

 

I agree, the truth would have been a harder sell but does that mean that if the President decides that reason A warrants, demands even, that we go to war, he or his administration is justified in lying to the American people to get them to support the war because the real reason, if they knew, would not be sufficient? If that is your excuse, Wolfowitz's admission that the WMD thing was a red herring they used to get support they otherwise could not have obtained, then you must have very little respect for democracy. I think that the administration, any administration, that is going to take this nation to war is obligated to be honest with the American people as to why and if that means the people choose not to go to war, that is their perogative, isn't it? I am not sure that "Gee, we couldn't tell them the truth because then they wouldn't support the war and we really, really wanted to go to war" is a very sound defense of the administration. Really, that is what you are saying is that if they had been straight with us, we wouldn't have supported the war. You see, they don't have a god given right to our support for their policies. We are not a monarchy. We have a right to disagree. The way it works, ideally, in a democracy is you present your argument in free and open debate and let the people decide. The fact that people might not agree with you if they knew the truth doesn't justify playing a shell game with the truth.

 

Now back to the issue. Cheney said in umistakable words that there was no doubt that there were WMD's being amassed against us. He did that long before Tenet's "slam dunk" remark so he doesn't have that cover. That is all fact. Attacking me or anyone else won't change that will it? The question is how should Cheney now be remembered, as the VP who told one of the biggest lies or, to be charitable, made one of the biggest gaffes, ever? How will this effect our diplomatic efforts now and in the future?

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

It's people like you MIck that forced the Administration's hand on this.  It's people like you who were on board with the war when you felt that we were going in there to take out a black and white threat.  When we didn't find the WMD, you your likes abandoned the Administration and war effort claiming you had been lied to and to this day you just wont drop it.  How in the hell do expect the Administration to try to explain to you that we are going in there to transform the broader Middle East when everything is either black or white to you folks?  How easy would it have been for them to make that case?  Better yet, how easy would it have been for them to maintain support from you folks?  That's what I thought.

 

As Wolfowitz even admitted, they chose the WMD argument becasue they felt it was a way to get everyone on board for the war and that it was a given that Saddam had them.  They were right about the former, ended up getting screwed by Saddam with the later.

 

And going back to your sig line, who else would Saddam have used those weapons on?  The French?

203997[/snapback]

 

1. Transform the Middle East into WHAT? A giant union of radical Islamic states that ALL hate the US?

 

HERE is what your TRANSFORMATION is getting them... tick, tick, tick...

 

Assassins go after Al-Sistani's circle

 

2. Not ALL of us supported it from the very beginning, like me. I knew from the START this was a scam, designed to carry out a hidden agenda. You just don't go from Saddam the pest to Saddam the highly dangerous, WMD carryin, Al-Qaeda funding, threat to the entire US in ONE YEAR!!!! Gulf of Tonkin=2002-03 STORY.

 

3. They CHOSE to mislead the American people to get into a war??? CLASSIC case of madness at its worst. You don't go to war to just do it, you go to either DEFEND, or to attack LEGITIMATELY, like in Afghanistan. Trying to lump Iraq in with Afghanistan is SICK.. Two TOTALLY different agendas.

 

4. Always France... you act as if we are the ONLY ones that get POD by em.. not by a LONG shot. Boy, where are all of those 'allies' now? Certainly not providing much to help in the way of manpower!!! SAD.

[Mickey]

When did Dick Cheney go on trial???

204124[/snapback]

Well Richio, we could have responded to your several thousand posts attacking democrats with that type of nonsensical, meaningless response, to wit:

 

"When did ___________ go on trial???"

 

Fill in any democrat's name you want here, Kerry, Hillary, Pelosi etc., etc. We didn't because, well because that would be kind of stupid. These folks are elected political leaders and this is a political discussion board so it is no surprise that we spend time discussing the things they do and say. Let me remind you of the title of the board: "Politics, Polls and Pundits-talk about political and societal matters", am I ringing any bells here?

[boomerjamhead]

Actually, I supported the war based on reasons having nothing to do with whether there were WMD's there at that time or not.  So no, I didn't abandon the administration but I thought of it as sticking by my country and my beliefs, not this group of boneheads.  I voted for Kerry because I thought we had a better chance of winning the war with him than with the crew that has botched so much of it so far.  The WMD thing is just one of those "botches". 

 

You need to find out what my actual views are before launching one of these rants.  You have imagined positions you assume every democrat holds and then have assigned them to me.

 

I agree, the truth would have been a harder sell but does that mean that if the President decides that reason A warrants, demands even, that we go to war, he or his administration is justified in lying to the American people to get them to support the war because the real reason, if they knew, would not be sufficient?  If that is your excuse, Wolfowitz's admission that the WMD thing was a red herring they used to get support they otherwise could not have obtained, then you must have very little respect for democracy.  I think that the administration, any administration, that is going to take this nation to war is obligated to be honest with the American people as to why and if that means the people choose not to go to war, that is their perogative, isn't it?  I am not sure that "Gee, we couldn't tell them the truth because then they wouldn't support the war and we really, really wanted to go to war" is a very sound defense of the administration.  Really, that is what you are saying is that if they had been straight with us, we wouldn't have supported the war.  You see, they don't have a god given right to our support for their policies.  We are not a monarchy.  We have a right to disagree.  The way it works, ideally, in a democracy is you present your argument in free and open debate and let the people decide.  The fact that people might not agree with you if they knew the truth doesn't justify playing a shell game with the truth. 

 

Now back to the issue.  Cheney said in umistakable words that there was no doubt that there were WMD's being amassed against us.  He did that long before Tenet's "slam dunk" remark so he doesn't have that cover.  That is all fact.  Attacking me or anyone else won't change that will it?  The question is how should Cheney now be remembered, as the VP who told one of the biggest lies or, to be charitable, made one of the biggest gaffes, ever?  How will this effect our diplomatic efforts now and in the future?

204131[/snapback]

 

 

Nice to see you back on the see saw Mick.

[boomerjamhead]

1. Transform the Middle East into WHAT? A giant union of radical Islamic states that ALL hate the US?

 

HERE is what your TRANSFORMATION is getting them... tick, tick, tick...

 

Assassins go after Al-Sistani's circle

 

2. Not ALL of us supported it from the very beginning, like me. I knew from the START this was a scam, designed to carry out a hidden agenda. You just don't go from Saddam the pest to Saddam the highly dangerous, WMD carryin, Al-Qaeda funding, threat to the entire US in ONE YEAR!!!!    Gulf of Tonkin=2002-03 STORY.

 

3. They CHOSE to mislead the American people to get into a war??? CLASSIC case of madness at its worst. You don't go to war to just do it, you go to either DEFEND, or to attack LEGITIMATELY, like in Afghanistan. Trying to lump Iraq in with Afghanistan is SICK.. Two TOTALLY different agendas.

 

4. Always France... you act as if we are the ONLY ones that get POD by em.. not by a LONG shot. Boy, where are all of those 'allies' now? Certainly not providing much to help in the way of manpower!!! SAD.

204133[/snapback]

 

 

You need to read up on what I was saying before you go off half-cocked.

[Alaska Darin]

You need to read up on what I was saying before you go off half-cocked.

204159[/snapback]

Why? It's easier to repeat the same things over and over again. This is one of the few times I miss Boomer being here to say "Get over it. You lost."

[ubhockey]

There are WMDs that Iraq had. God forbid that anyone have the commen sense to think that possibily Saddam passed them off to radicals in ... oh I don't know ... any country that borders Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a VERY smart man who manipulated the UN for a decade, the US was the only one that said enough is enough.

 

As for the debacle at the UN some were speaking off. I have maintained that the United States should pull from that corrupt organization. The UN is full of crooks who do no good around the world. The UN uses the US to do all its military might.

 

With all the genocides in Africa, where is the UN??????? Where? They do nothing but blame the US for not doing something about it. Why would it be right to go into Africa and save those people but not into Iraq and save the ones Saddam killed?

 

Can someone please tell me what the purpose of the UN is?

[nobody]

This is one of the few times I miss Boomer being here to say "Get over it.  You lost."

 

(This is not directed at you AD since I know you are not in favor of either party.)

 

You won. Now move on.

[nobody]

Shangri-La has also not been found thus, by your logic, it still might exist.  I am willing, despite that, to go out on a limb and say that the non-esistence of Shangri-La is historical fact. 

 

 

I hope someone is still looking for the fountain of youth.

[Mickey]

Nice to see you back on the see saw Mick.

204157[/snapback]

Maybe you could point out a post of mine contrary to my assertion that I supported the war on different grounds? How about a post that would support your imaginings as to what my postion must have been? Here is what it was and still is:

 

There are people who want to kill us, lots of us, in ways as horrible as possible. They have openly declared this to be their goal for many years and we ignored them (or at least were unwilling to resort to open warfare) because they were unable to make good on their "death to America" threats. That changed on 9-11. Now we have to take them seriously and when necessary, go after them even if it means war. Saddam is one of those threats. If he could engineer another 9/11, he would. If he could get ahold of WMD's, he would and he would use them. If he doesn't have them now, he will spend his life trying to get them and we can't possibly watch him that closely for decades. If it helps him, he would have no problem supporting Al Queda in any way he could. Couple all this with the justification so often argued by Thomas Friedman, the humanitarian arguments and the idea of creating a peaceful, prosperous muslim democracy and I was sold. Where, when and how were all options open for discussion but at the base, I think war was justified.

 

Where I fault these guys is in the execution and the timing of war, not the decision to go to war. Accordingly, I didn't think much of Powell's performance at the UN, I believe that in terms of actual results, our prewar diplomacy was an abject failure. Even if it was, all things considered, the right thing to go to war, that doesn't mean that lying about the justifications for war can be justified. Not by a long shot.

 

Cheney stuck his keester out there and I don't think he should be given a pass. It doesn't really matter if the war was a spectacular success or a dismal failure. Fact is he said there was "no doubt" on the WMD's and did so when the rest of the administration was unwilling to go that far because the intel didn't support it. Would we have gone to war anyway? I don't know and neither do you.

 

I think that Cheney's lie, or to be charitable, "gaffe", is one of the all time biggest in our history, even worse than Clinton's " I did not sleep with that woman..." or Nixon's "I am not a crook" or even GHW's "Read my lips..." All those politicians took their lumps on those and I think Cheney deserves his.

[boomerjamhead]

Mick - I'm not buying your explanation about your unwavering support for this war. My view is based on my interpretation of your posts spanning a couple of years of reading them. I give you full credit for signing on with those of us who were for this war. You were right there with us and I was dissapointed in you when I felt that your support for this was eroding. Thinking that Kerry had a better plan for this war is comical, but that is your opinion and you voted your convictions. Good Job.

 

I really don't care if you call Cheney a liar or not. You really, really, really want to, so go ahead and do it. As a Cheney supporter you have my permission.

 

So on one hand, you have the folks who said, "No doubt, let's roll Saddam." And on the other you had the folks who said, "No doubt, let's not roll him." Who really did have doubts besides those with some kind of twisted sideshow agenda?

[Mickey]

There are WMDs that Iraq had. God forbid that anyone have the commen sense to think that possibily Saddam passed them off to radicals in ... oh I don't know ... any country that borders Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a VERY smart man who manipulated the UN for a decade, the US was the only one that said enough is enough.

 

As for the debacle at the UN some were speaking off. I have maintained that the United States should pull from that corrupt organization. The UN is full of crooks who do no good around the world. The UN uses the US to do all its military might.

 

With all the genocides in Africa, where is the UN??????? Where? They do nothing but blame the US for not doing something about it. Why would it be right to go into Africa and save those people but not into Iraq and save the ones Saddam killed?

 

Can someone please tell me what the purpose of the UN is?

204244[/snapback]

Maybe he turned them into magic beans. There are a hundred different scenarios one can imagine that would explain the vanishing WMD's. Without proof however, you are into Area 51 territory. They have been looking for proof of just what you suggest and, I beleive, come up entirely empty. Besides, these people aren't known for their restraint. If they had them, God help us, they would use them.