The verdict on Cheney

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

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

 

You won. Now move on.

204254[/snapback]

 

Don't worry, I have the insulting sarcasm deactivated, i.e. the IGNORE function.

 

And it only has *1* person on it!!! Hmm, I wonder who THAT is????

 

Lemme give you a hint:

[Mickey]

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?

204343[/snapback]

Actually, I really, really, really wish we found WMD's so that our credibility would be restored on this issue. It would make our future diplomatic efforts that much more likely to succeed.

 

The idea that Bush and company will do a better job winning in Iraq than Kerry is to me, pretty comical so I guess we both have a sense of humor. The problems in Iraq were not going to go away no matter who won. Bush had, in my opinion, a clear record of diplomatic failure prior to the war and mishandled the post war struggle from the beginning. A number of prominent Republicans share that opinion so I am no sitting alone on a democrats-only island on that issue.

[ubhockey]

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.

204367[/snapback]

 

These bastards know they can't win a full out war with the US, so they try to win the media war. And because of news agencies at CNN, CBS, and ABC in our homeland, you and I are made to feel like we are the bad guys in the War on Terror.

 

Hence, if these weapons come out into the fold, we'll find them and then we'll look like the good guys to the world. That's the last thing these terrorist want, they want the world to think of us as a selfish, oil-loving country.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

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.

204367[/snapback]

 

In your enlightened view, what are the odds they're in Syria?

[OGTEleven]

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.

204058[/snapback]

We took the kids to the ocean this year and went swimming every day that it didn't rain. We were in the water a lot. Not one time did I see one of these "fish" that supposedly live in the ocean. Maybe they are in area 51.

 

Disclaimer: I realize that my analogy is just as dumb as your Shangri La analogy.

 

It is a known and documented fact that Iraq had those weapons. Despite repeated demands, they provided no proof that the weapons were destroyed. Is that not enough reason to assume that they still have them? If not, is it enough to be suspicious?

 

Further, although WMD was part of the rationale for the war, it was hardly the entire reason. The danger of WMD being passed along to terrorists was a real threat under the old Iraqi regime (and remains so in other parts of the world). The stability of the ME (long term) is also important. I think it is fair to analyze and/or criticize the attempt to instill Iraqi democracy as part of a greater ME plan. I also think that it is fair to say that the "old way" of trying to achieve long term peace was going down the wrong road.

 

Declaring a long term policy that involved regime change "failed" after two years is folly (just as declaring it a success or "on schedule" would be). Supporting the status quo is a bad strategy when the status quo is ticking. I have yet to see a single proactive plan from any journalist/politician/sociologist that would be a step forward in the ME. Have you seen one?

[Berg]

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.

204076[/snapback]

 

Have you not seen the massive shakeup at the Intelligence Agencies?

[Berg]

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.

203942[/snapback]

 

1. To "lie" requires intent. One is not a liar if one is incorrect in good faith. Many people were wrong in this situation, both domestically and abroad. To label them liars is self-serving, unless you actually can read minds.

 

2. Just because something does not exist now, doesn't mean it never existed. In this case, the UN documented the existence of massive quantities of WMD after Gulf War I. Iraq was supposed to coordinate the disposal of those through the UN Inspection Team precisely for tracking purposes. They did not do that. They claimed they were destroyed, but never offered proof. What SHOULD concern people most is that there are large quantities of WMD that used to be in Iraq and now have proven not to be. Hopefully, they really were destroyed, but without proof, it is quite possible they were not, and are now in some unknown threat's hands.

 

That's how people should logically look at this. Unfortunately, politics on both sides generally does not allow it.

[Berg]

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]

 

How do you know Afganistan was legitimate? Because the Administration said so?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1.  To "lie" requires intent.  One is not a liar if one is incorrect in good faith.  Many people were wrong in this situation, both domestically and abroad.  To label them liars is self-serving, unless you actually can read minds.

 

2.  Just because something does not exist now, doesn't mean it never existed.  In this case, the UN documented the existence of massive quantities of WMD after Gulf War I.  Iraq was supposed to coordinate the disposal of those through the UN Inspection Team precisely for tracking purposes.  They did not do that.  They claimed they were destroyed, but never offered proof.  What SHOULD concern people most is that there are large quantities of WMD that used to be in Iraq and now have proven not to be.  Hopefully, they really were destroyed, but without proof, it is quite possible they were not, and are now in some unknown threat's hands.

 

That's how people should logically look at this.  Unfortunately, politics on both sides generally does not allow it.

204592[/snapback]

 

Bingo!

 

Those weapons simply did not disappear, nor were they destroyed. They're in Syria, or possibly even Iran. Anyone with half an ounce's worth of commn sense knows that.

 

Saddam thought he could survive this, so he had his baathist cousins next door take care of his toys for him.

[Wacka]

As I have said several times, the biological WMD can all fit into a couple of coolers. Pack them in dry ice or get a couple of dewar flasks (sorta like thermos bottles) of liquid nitrogen, put them in the back of an SUV or panel truck- a few hours later theyare in Syria. Only takes a few weeks to get it up and running again.

[Mickey]

In your enlightened view, what are the odds they're in Syria?

204485[/snapback]

I don't know how deeply our search teams have looked into that issue so I don't really know. As far as I know, there is no proof that they are there now or were taken there. It is not a matter of being "enlightened" it is simply a matter of proof.

At this point, I suppose if we looted every inch of Syria and still didn't find them, you would just suggest that maybe they were taken to Iran and so on and so on.

 

This isn't a right-left issue. The administration has called off the search, essentially throwing in the towel on this one. We are now going to have to deal with this for a long time to come. The next time we try and rally support for something we better have the goods. Our credibility has taken a hit on this issue and I think the administration bears the responsibility for that, especially Cheney.

[Mickey]

We took the kids to the ocean this year and went swimming every day that it didn't rain.  We were in the water a lot.  Not one time did I see one of these "fish" that supposedly live in the ocean.  Maybe they are in area 51.

 

Disclaimer: I realize that my analogy is just as dumb as your Shangri La analogy.

 

It is a known and documented fact that Iraq had those weapons.  Despite repeated demands, they provided no proof that the weapons were destroyed.  Is that not enough reason to assume that they still have them?  If not, is it enough to be suspicious?

 

Further, although WMD was part of the rationale for the war, it was hardly the entire reason.  The danger of WMD being passed along to terrorists was a real threat under the old Iraqi regime (and remains so in other parts of the world).  The stability of the ME (long term) is also important.  I think it is fair to analyze and/or criticize the attempt to instill Iraqi democracy as part of a greater ME plan.  I also think that it is fair to say that the "old way" of trying to achieve long term peace was going down the wrong road. 

 

Declaring a long term policy that involved regime change "failed" after two years is folly (just as declaring it a success or "on schedule" would be).  Supporting the status quo is a bad strategy when the status quo is ticking.  I have yet to see a single proactive plan from any journalist/politician/sociologist that would be a step forward in the ME.  Have you seen one?

204575[/snapback]

The analogy would be applicable if you searched the entire ocean with teams of expert divers trained in finding even the slightest hint that a fish was or at least had been there and had the best equipment in the world to use in their search. If they scoured the entire ocean and found no fish, I would suspect that the fish were not there.

 

The argument that you are using about us knowing they had such and such at one point and Iraq not having proved what happened to them has been used for a long time. It might be compelling if we were still on the outside looking in but we aren't anymore. We are inside and have the run of the house. They aren't there. It is kind of like Amelia Earhart. I know she existed at one point and I can't prove what happened to her but there is no doubt that she is long gone.

 

I haven't declared this whole thing a failure yet. I believe the pre-war diplomacy was a failure and that the post war phase was botched from the beginning. Even if all turns out well in the end, these are failures that are now in the books. It is like the depression, it was a bad deal, a major failure of the securities system. As it turns out however, although the depression was a failure, America is a success none the less. It is not an all bad, all good world.

[Alaska Darin]

The analogy would be applicable if you searched the entire ocean with teams of expert divers trained in finding even the slightest hint that a fish was or at least had been there and had the best equipment in the world to use in their search.  If they scoured the entire ocean and found no fish, I would suspect that the fish were not there.

 

The argument that you are using about us knowing they had such and such at one point and Iraq not having proved what happened to them has been used for a long time.  It might be compelling if we were still on the outside looking in but we aren't anymore.  We are inside and have the run of the house.  They aren't there.  It is kind of like Amelia Earhart.  I know she existed at one point and I can't prove what happened to her but there is no doubt that she is long gone.

 

I haven't declared this whole thing a failure yet.  I believe the pre-war diplomacy was a failure and that the post war phase was botched from the beginning.  Even if all turns out well in the end, these are failures that are now in the books.  It is like the depression, it was a bad deal, a major failure of the securities system.  As it turns out however, although the depression was a failure, America is a success none the less.  It is not an all bad, all good world.

204695[/snapback]

Implying, of course, that they are willing to release evidence that they have simply to win the political battle that didn't cost them the last election? Big picture.

[Terry Tate]

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.

204266[/snapback]

For someone who supports the war in Iraq, you sure are doing a lot of bitching, or - as someone likes to say - 'to be charitable', nit-picking about it.

 

If you're handing in a verdict that Cheney, Bush, Powell and everyone else in the administration are liars, prove it. Your examples (Clinton, Nixon) were proven liars.

 

Lacking any proof, your post may be a little premature.

[Mickey]

1.  To "lie" requires intent.  One is not a liar if one is incorrect in good faith.  Many people were wrong in this situation, both domestically and abroad.  To label them liars is self-serving, unless you actually can read minds.

 

2.  Just because something does not exist now, doesn't mean it never existed.  In this case, the UN documented the existence of massive quantities of WMD after Gulf War I.  Iraq was supposed to coordinate the disposal of those through the UN Inspection Team precisely for tracking purposes.  They did not do that.  They claimed they were destroyed, but never offered proof.  What SHOULD concern people most is that there are large quantities of WMD that used to be in Iraq and now have proven not to be.  Hopefully, they really were destroyed, but without proof, it is quite possible they were not, and are now in some unknown threat's hands.

 

That's how people should logically look at this.  Unfortunately, politics on both sides generally does not allow it.

204592[/snapback]

The idea that he was simply fooled and a lot of smart people were is an after the fact excuse. If you look through most of the public comments, the administration was very careful about what they were saying about the WMD's. A lot of the remarks were right up there with the old "depends on what your definition of what is is". They made sure to say alot about WMD's and there was certainly an impression created that they thought WMD's were stockpiled and ready to go. When you go back and look though, given their precise words, they almost always stopped short of claiming there were WMD's in Iraq, no question about it.

 

The only one to really go out there and make claims beyond what the intel supported was Cheney. His remarks were not endorsed or repeated by anyone. He made those comments long before Tenet made the slam dunk comment so you can't cover his substantial keester with that. If he has said, "We think" there are WMD's or "Evidence indicates" or "It is likely that" or something along those lines which is what they all did, he would have some defense here but he didn't. He said there was "no doubt", not "in my opinion there is no doubt" or "in the opinion of experts there is no doubt".

 

I made it clear I don't know what was in his heart. I do know what he said and when he said it. If you want to give him the benefit of every doubt and hold him to the lowest standard and let him pass the buck to some one else for comments he made, fine. I think that if you are the Vice President of the United States and you are talking about reasons for invading another country and the resulting loss of life, guilty and innocent life, you ought to be held to the highest standard.

 

As for the presence of the weapons in Iraq in 1991, it shows how desparate the argument is getting for the right, that they have to go back to conditions 13 years before the 2003 war for WMD evidence. It is not logical to assume because you don't know how something went away it must still be there. The reality is that they simply are not there and we have looked everywhere with experts who have had unlimited access to the whole country with the best equipment and all the motivation in the world to find them. The logical conclusion is the one even the administration has reached. Give it up.

[Mickey]

For someone who supports the war in Iraq, you sure are doing a lot of bitching, or - as someone likes to say - 'to be charitable', nit-picking about it.

 

If you're handing in a verdict that Cheney, Bush, Powell and everyone else in the administration are liars, prove it. Your examples (Clinton, Nixon) were proven liars.

 

Lacking any proof, your post may be a little premature.

204735[/snapback]

He said there was "no doubt" that there were WMD's in Iraq. We have searched the country from top to bottom and they aren't there. If I tell you there absolutely is a purple cat in my pocket and you look and there is no cat, I lied about the cat. I suppose if I was a republican you would excuse my comment by concluding that maybe the cat entered a time warp in the instant before you looked in my pocket and will someday show up in Syria. When Cheney produces a cat, then we'll talk.

[Alaska Darin]

He said there was "no doubt" that there were WMD's in Iraq.  We have searched the country from top to bottom and they aren't there.  If I tell you there absolutely is a purple cat in my pocket and you look and there is no cat, I lied about the cat.  I suppose if I was a republican you would excuse my comment by concluding that maybe the cat entered a time warp in the instant before you looked in my pocket and will someday show up in Syria.  When Cheney produces a cat, then we'll talk.

204767[/snapback]

There better be a cat in your pocket - if you're just happy to see me there's going to be a problem.

[Mickey]

There better be a cat in your pocket - if you're just happy to see me there's going to be a problem.

204771[/snapback]

[Terry Tate]

If I tell you there absolutely is a purple cat in my pocket and you look and there is no cat, I lied about the cat.

204767[/snapback]

If there really was a purple cat in your pocket at one time, and all available intelligence could be interpreted as meaning the cat was possibly still there, and you told me there was 'no doubt' the cat was still there, and getting ready to have kittens - I might fault you for drawing a wrong conclusion, and I might even question your motives for wanting me to believe a cat is there, but I wouldn't call you a liar unless I had proof that you knew the cat wasn't there when you stated it was.

 

Not to make excuses for anyone. Just saying, you're putting the cart before the purple cat.

[Berg]

The idea that he was simply fooled and a lot of smart people were is an after the fact excuse.  If you look through most of the public comments, the administration was very careful about what they were saying about the WMD's.  A lot of the remarks were right up there with the old "depends on what your definition of what is is".  They made sure to say alot about WMD's and there was certainly an impression created that they thought WMD's were stockpiled and ready to go.  When you go back and look though, given their precise words, they almost always stopped short of claiming there were WMD's in Iraq, no question about it.

 

The only one to really go out there and make claims beyond what the intel supported was Cheney.  His remarks were not endorsed or repeated by anyone.  He made those comments long before Tenet made the slam dunk comment so you can't cover his substantial keester with that.  If he has said, "We think" there are WMD's or "Evidence indicates" or "It is likely that" or something along those lines which is what they all did, he would have some defense here but he didn't.  He said there was "no doubt", not "in my opinion there is no doubt" or "in the opinion of experts there is no doubt". 

 

I made it clear I don't know what was in his heart.  I do know what he said and when he said it.  If you want to give him the benefit of every doubt and hold him to the lowest standard and let him pass the buck to some one else for comments he made, fine.  I think that if you are the Vice President of the United States and you are talking about reasons for invading another country and the resulting loss of life, guilty and innocent life, you ought to be held to the highest standard.

 

As for the presence of the weapons in Iraq in 1991, it shows how desparate the argument is getting for the right, that they have to go back to conditions 13 years before the 2003 war for WMD evidence.  It is not logical to assume because you don't know how something went away it must still be there.  The reality is that they simply are not there and we have looked everywhere with experts who have had unlimited access to the whole country with the best equipment and all the motivation in the world to find them.  The logical conclusion is the one even the administration has reached.  Give it up.

204750[/snapback]

 

I really don't know why I bothered, since you didn't manage to understand a single point I made and I should have guessed you wouldn't. Maybe if you go back and re-read several gazillion times, you might get it. Or not.