Mmmergghh? You really think so - even after the lies which PeachMonkey pointed out previously in this thread?
Why, if Cheney is so straight-forward, were his Energy Commission meetings kept secret?
VP Debate - What'd ya think?
- Thread starter Bob Hubbard
- Start date
Why, if Cheney is so straight-forward, were his Energy Commission meetings kept secret?
Xequat
Black Belt
LOL, I thought that was pretty funny because I was in the middle of typing my response when Peach Monkey posted, so I didn't see them. I'll have to check them out.
P
PeachMonkey
Guest
Xequat said:
Wow, more evidence of incompetence. Allowing Pakistani troops (who were previously allied with the Taliban) to carry the brunt of the fighting at any point where there was a chance of catching the architect of the 9/11 attacks is moronic. US Special Forces backed by US conventional forces should have led the way in that battle.
Xequat said:
I'll concede that he didn't "stall to fill up all his seconds", but the rest of this has clearly been shown to be incorrect
I thought the there was a lot of pointed comments, but that is what the public seems to crave these days. So much for friendly debate. I thought Edwards had much better facts and research, and did a great job presenting it, but his southern drawl and preened looks came off pretty smarmy and a bit on the fey side. Cheney made some good shots, that it turns out were really lies that seemed to be said only for the sound byte quality. He was quick to answer and kept most responses short and too the point, which was nice, but he didn't seem to bring any valid info to the table. The worst part was Dick's perpetual scowl and look like he couldn't be more annoyed at having to do this debate, same as GW. Frankly he looked like the same skeevy corporate sheister that can't seem to hold his temper or keep civil enough not to cuss at fellow senators. Even if I wasn't biased, and I am, I would say this one is a slight favor to Edwards. Current polls say its a tie.
Flatlander
Grandmaster
My understanding was that the primary reason that the Pakistani forces had taken the lead on this was that the conservative Pakistani population would have not been very accepting of US forces on Pakistan soil in any large numbers. Musharraf would have been putting his leadership on the line had he allowed the US to do that, and so they agreed that Pakistani forces should take the lead.PeachMonkey said:
That's not to say that US forces couldn't have done a better job, just that the decision to allow the Pakistanis to cover their own territory was a political decision, so as not to undermine Musharraf's credibility with his own citizens.
kenpo tiger
Senior Master
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2004
- Messages
- 2,061
- Reaction score
- 20
Point is, we had him. Bush blew it. End of story. So how is that an aggressive stance against terrorism and making the US and the world safe from terrorism and terrorists and preventing one of them from showing up with a dirty bomb in one of our major cities?flatlander said:
Flatlander
Grandmaster
Oh, I don't dispute that it wasn't perhaps the most effective solution in terms of expediency. But had the US just simply gone in on their own, the political repercussions would have been significant. It would have completely destabilized Pakistan, and added a huge schwack of them to the Jihad.
I like your post - and I like the fact that you used the word "fey."OULobo said:
And you, flatlander, for using the word "schwack".
P
PeachMonkey
Guest
It looks like we've all been wrong about the whole Tora Bora thing.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0304/p01s03-wosc.html
First off, Tora Bora is in *Afghanistan*. Pakistani troops were not involved.
The US chose to fight using *Afghan tribes*, not Pakistani troops:
"We chose to fight using the Afghans who were fighting to regain their own country," Colonel Thomas says. "Our aims of eliminating Al Qaeda were similar."
Another illuminating quote:
Intelligence lapses or flawed strategy?
Pir Baksh Bardiwal, the intelligence chief for the Eastern Shura, which controls eastern Afghanistan, says he was astounded that Pentagon planners didn't consider the most obvious exit routes and put down light US infantry to block them.
"The border with Pakistan was the key, but no one paid any attention to it," he said, leaning back in his swivel chair with a short list of the Al Qaeda fighters who were later taken prisoner. "And there were plenty of landing areas for helicopters, had the Americans acted decisively. Al Qaeda escaped right out from under their feet."
The intelligence chief contends that several thousand Pakistani troops who had been placed along the border about Dec. 10 never did their job, nor could they have been expected to, given that the exit routes were not being blocked inside Afghanistan.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0304/p01s03-wosc.html
First off, Tora Bora is in *Afghanistan*. Pakistani troops were not involved.
The US chose to fight using *Afghan tribes*, not Pakistani troops:
"We chose to fight using the Afghans who were fighting to regain their own country," Colonel Thomas says. "Our aims of eliminating Al Qaeda were similar."
Another illuminating quote:
Intelligence lapses or flawed strategy?
Pir Baksh Bardiwal, the intelligence chief for the Eastern Shura, which controls eastern Afghanistan, says he was astounded that Pentagon planners didn't consider the most obvious exit routes and put down light US infantry to block them.
"The border with Pakistan was the key, but no one paid any attention to it," he said, leaning back in his swivel chair with a short list of the Al Qaeda fighters who were later taken prisoner. "And there were plenty of landing areas for helicopters, had the Americans acted decisively. Al Qaeda escaped right out from under their feet."
The intelligence chief contends that several thousand Pakistani troops who had been placed along the border about Dec. 10 never did their job, nor could they have been expected to, given that the exit routes were not being blocked inside Afghanistan.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,063
- Reaction score
- 82
It was a good debate, but I'm curious if some of you saw it.
Cheney did not cite 'FactCheck.Org', rather, he cited 'FactCheck.Com', which is an advertising site that was receiving over 100 hits per second earlier today, and forwarding those hits to GeorgeSoros.com. Got to love irony. Perhaps Cheney should've studied interent a bit more from Gore.
Anyhow, an interesting article from Newsweek here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6192327/site/newsweek/
Major points:
Cheney's defense of Iraqi invasion 10/5/2004
1) Iraq was a State Sponsor of Terrorism
2) Abu Nidal operated out of Baghdad
3) Payments to Palestinian suicide bombers
4) "established relationship" with al Qaeda
This is the first time arguments 1, 2, & 3 have been put forth to support the invasion of Iraq. As there are five members of the United Nations General Assembly on that list, it would be unimpressive and uncoercive. Abu Nidal was found dead in 2002, before the invasion of Iraq. And support for Palestinian suicide bombers is a difficult argument to make because allies such as Saudi Arabia also support the Palestinian 'martyrs'.
Lastly, argument 4 has been pretty much disproven by numerous governmental investigations.
The 'Right Wing' continues to try and connect al Qaeda to Baghdad via Zarqawi, partly because this is the best argument. It is a weak argument because the time before the invasion that Zarqawi spent in Iraq was in the Kurdish controlled areas of the country and outside Baghdad's control.
I guess the Vice President is hoping Americans are paying more attention to 'Lost' than to the arguments he has been making over the past 3 & 1/2 years.
Cheney did not cite 'FactCheck.Org', rather, he cited 'FactCheck.Com', which is an advertising site that was receiving over 100 hits per second earlier today, and forwarding those hits to GeorgeSoros.com. Got to love irony. Perhaps Cheney should've studied interent a bit more from Gore.
Anyhow, an interesting article from Newsweek here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6192327/site/newsweek/
Major points:
Cheney's defense of Iraqi invasion 10/5/2004
1) Iraq was a State Sponsor of Terrorism
2) Abu Nidal operated out of Baghdad
3) Payments to Palestinian suicide bombers
4) "established relationship" with al Qaeda
This is the first time arguments 1, 2, & 3 have been put forth to support the invasion of Iraq. As there are five members of the United Nations General Assembly on that list, it would be unimpressive and uncoercive. Abu Nidal was found dead in 2002, before the invasion of Iraq. And support for Palestinian suicide bombers is a difficult argument to make because allies such as Saudi Arabia also support the Palestinian 'martyrs'.
Lastly, argument 4 has been pretty much disproven by numerous governmental investigations.
The 'Right Wing' continues to try and connect al Qaeda to Baghdad via Zarqawi, partly because this is the best argument. It is a weak argument because the time before the invasion that Zarqawi spent in Iraq was in the Kurdish controlled areas of the country and outside Baghdad's control.
I guess the Vice President is hoping Americans are paying more attention to 'Lost' than to the arguments he has been making over the past 3 & 1/2 years.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,063
- Reaction score
- 82
It's still difficult to find polls on the VP debate. And one needs to be wary of the source data. Apparently, more Republicans than Democrats actually watched the debate, so immediately the pool is tilted in that direction.
CBS News Poll of un-committed voters
41% - Edwards
28% - Cheney
31% - Tie
ABC News Poll of registered voters (38% Republican - 31% Democrat - 27 Independent)
43% - Cheney
35% - Edwards
19% - Tie
CBS News Poll of un-committed voters
41% - Edwards
28% - Cheney
31% - Tie
ABC News Poll of registered voters (38% Republican - 31% Democrat - 27 Independent)
43% - Cheney
35% - Edwards
19% - Tie
loki09789
Senior Master
Perception is the key. If that is how he presents himself, that is how the majority of citizens will see him. Remember that humans generally rely on that 70% of non verbal communication to form (sometimes unconscious) reactions to other people. So, if he comes off as a ballsy straight shooter, that is what he is - even if the evidence can point to the contrary with some digging.Feisty Mouse said:
Politics is about impressions as much as it is substance. FDR would NOT have been Pres in a Wheel chair if TV had been around in his day - according to some folks (and I have to agree) because of that 'impression' factor.
Xequat
Black Belt
I'm back...sorry I didn't answer your question, yesterday, FeistyMouse...it was my anniversary, so I wasn't near the computer much. But I looked at PeachMonkey's websites and I will say that there is absolutley no proof, although there is very little easily defeated suggestive evidence of lies. So, yes, i still believe it. I hate making lists, but for ease of reading, here we go.
First issue of them having met before. The point DC was making, that they had never met in the Senate, was still driven home. For all I know, you and I could have met somewhere before, but if I say we've never met and someone finds out that I stood behind you at McDonald's one day and said hello, does that mean I lied? They had never met for more than an introduction and I probably would have forgotten as well. The thing you'll notice about their meetings, though, is that the two meetings never actually occurred in the Senate.
You are using democrats.org as a reference? Pretty desperate. Why not use Kitty Kelley? Read the quotations from Bush and Cheney carefully on the Iraq and 9/11 topic. They talk vaguely about "the enemy" attacking us. Cheney was asked if he was surprised that other people made the connection between Iraq and 9/11 and Cheney said that he wasn't surprised. How is that linking Iraq and 9/11?
The "Senator Gone" thing. Yeah, that was reaching a bit. But it wasn't a lie. I mean, it was a tiny little newspaper, but it still did actually happen.
Hehe, I like the factcheck.com thing, though. That really wsa ironic. I knew about factcheck.org before, so I didn't catch that he said the wrong site. Hilarious that it goes to George Soros site instead. Oops!
Now, if these issues are the only things people can find to say that Edwards won the debate, then Cheney definitely won. I suppose you could agrue that he cheated, but he still won. If lying disqualifies a candidate, then just about every politician ever would be out of a job. Even if he did "lie" about meeting Edwards, it was still a well-connected shot and earned him some points. If Edwards had said "Not true...remember that time I introduced Hillary..." then Edwards would have won that exchange, but it didn't happen, so here we go with the spin altering people's opinions of the debate well after the debate is over. Oh well...hopefully only 4 years of this until Guiliani runs.
First issue of them having met before. The point DC was making, that they had never met in the Senate, was still driven home. For all I know, you and I could have met somewhere before, but if I say we've never met and someone finds out that I stood behind you at McDonald's one day and said hello, does that mean I lied? They had never met for more than an introduction and I probably would have forgotten as well. The thing you'll notice about their meetings, though, is that the two meetings never actually occurred in the Senate.
You are using democrats.org as a reference? Pretty desperate. Why not use Kitty Kelley? Read the quotations from Bush and Cheney carefully on the Iraq and 9/11 topic. They talk vaguely about "the enemy" attacking us. Cheney was asked if he was surprised that other people made the connection between Iraq and 9/11 and Cheney said that he wasn't surprised. How is that linking Iraq and 9/11?
The "Senator Gone" thing. Yeah, that was reaching a bit. But it wasn't a lie. I mean, it was a tiny little newspaper, but it still did actually happen.
Hehe, I like the factcheck.com thing, though. That really wsa ironic. I knew about factcheck.org before, so I didn't catch that he said the wrong site. Hilarious that it goes to George Soros site instead. Oops!
Now, if these issues are the only things people can find to say that Edwards won the debate, then Cheney definitely won. I suppose you could agrue that he cheated, but he still won. If lying disqualifies a candidate, then just about every politician ever would be out of a job. Even if he did "lie" about meeting Edwards, it was still a well-connected shot and earned him some points. If Edwards had said "Not true...remember that time I introduced Hillary..." then Edwards would have won that exchange, but it didn't happen, so here we go with the spin altering people's opinions of the debate well after the debate is over. Oh well...hopefully only 4 years of this until Guiliani runs.
P
PeachMonkey
Guest
Xequat said:
The article pointed out that they actually *had* met at the Senate, and at Senate events.
"On Feb. 1, 2001, the vice president thanked Edwards by name at a Senate prayer breakfast and sat beside him during the event."
"On Jan. 8, 2003, the two met when the first-term North Carolina senator accompanied Elizabeth Dole (news - web sites) to her swearing-in by Cheney as a North Carolina senator, Edwards aides also said."
Xequat said:
Not desperate, just lazy, since I assumed you'd actually read the website, which cited articles, with references, in the Associated Press, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the New York Times, the Washington Times, and Factcheck.org, as well as appearances on NBC's "Meet the Press", the presidential debates, and even Bush's own budgets!
Xequat said:
Again, if you actually *read* the posted articles, you'd find references to specific times when the administration liked Iraq and 9/11.
"Question: "The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?"
Cheney: No. I think it's not surprising that people make that connection." [NBC, Meet the Press, 11/14/03]
Cheney: "If we're successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." [NBC, "Meet The Press," 9/14/03]"
Whether or not Cheney or Edwards won the debate is a separate topic from whether or not they lied, I agree. An educated populace with easy access to all of the facts might feel a bit differently, but given that the majority of Americans will never fact-check these debates, I think that lies and spin can be a very effective tactic.
Xequat
Black Belt
OK, they met two times at Senate events, but not in the Senate. That's what I said before. Maybe you should *read* what I'm writing here and maybe you'll learn something. You picked out one line from my explanation and twisted it to make it look like it represents my entire response. Again, desperate.
I read those sites you cited. What part of this statement connects Iraq and 9/11? :"Cheney: No. I think it's not surprising that people make that connection." [NBC, Meet the Press, 11/14/03]"
And how could I have responded to it with such a question if I hadn't read it? Desperate.
Cheney: "If we're successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." [NBC, "Meet The Press," 9/14/03]"
Ah, now I see the connection. He mentioned Iraq AND 9/11 in the same discussion, so he must be linking them. Nevermind the words in between them that talk vaguely about the terrorists coming from that region, which they did. Yes, he says that wants to make sure that Iraq never again becomes a threat to the US, but he never links 9/11 to Iraq. There were, in fact links (maybe kind of weak links, admittedly) between Iraq and al-Qaeda AFTER 9/11, but there is still nothing saying that Iraq was linked to 9/11 from the Bush Administration that I've ever seen.
See, if you had actually *read* what I wrote and *read* what you cited, instead of scouring them for any desperate way to twist what it says into saying what you hope it says, you'd be able to respond. Please do that and maybe we can not be so hostile. I never strike first on MT, but when someone starts insulting me, I fight back. Let's keep it civil and maybe we'll both learn something.
By the way, good point here :"Whether or not Cheney or Edwards won the debate is a separate topic from whether or not they lied, I agree. An educated populace with easy access to all of the facts might feel a bit differently, but given that the majority of Americans will never fact-check these debates, I think that lies and spin can be a very effective tactic."
I read those sites you cited. What part of this statement connects Iraq and 9/11? :"Cheney: No. I think it's not surprising that people make that connection." [NBC, Meet the Press, 11/14/03]"
And how could I have responded to it with such a question if I hadn't read it? Desperate.
Cheney: "If we're successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." [NBC, "Meet The Press," 9/14/03]"
Ah, now I see the connection. He mentioned Iraq AND 9/11 in the same discussion, so he must be linking them. Nevermind the words in between them that talk vaguely about the terrorists coming from that region, which they did. Yes, he says that wants to make sure that Iraq never again becomes a threat to the US, but he never links 9/11 to Iraq. There were, in fact links (maybe kind of weak links, admittedly) between Iraq and al-Qaeda AFTER 9/11, but there is still nothing saying that Iraq was linked to 9/11 from the Bush Administration that I've ever seen.
See, if you had actually *read* what I wrote and *read* what you cited, instead of scouring them for any desperate way to twist what it says into saying what you hope it says, you'd be able to respond. Please do that and maybe we can not be so hostile. I never strike first on MT, but when someone starts insulting me, I fight back. Let's keep it civil and maybe we'll both learn something.
By the way, good point here :"Whether or not Cheney or Edwards won the debate is a separate topic from whether or not they lied, I agree. An educated populace with easy access to all of the facts might feel a bit differently, but given that the majority of Americans will never fact-check these debates, I think that lies and spin can be a very effective tactic."
P
PeachMonkey
Guest
Xequat,
Since you brought up civility and insults in this thread, I do feel compelled to point out that *you* used the word "desperate" to refer to the use of a list of facts on Democrats.org. The implication of desperation could be taken by some to be insulting; I'll leave others to determine whether you "strike first".
Moreover, it was a clear application of ad hominem reasoning. My comments about you not reading the post were because you chose to attack the source of the points in question, despite the fact that they were backed by citation after citation from journalists, quotes from debates, and the president's own budget. Since simply refuting this site as "desperate" implied that you either did not read the website, or simply chose to ignore the citations, I decided to go with the more charitable of the two conclusions.
As for your points about Iraq and 9/11: the Bush Administration has clearly, since the run-up to the war, referenced Iraq and Al-Qaeda (despite, as was later revealed by the 9/11 Commission, the lack of hard evidence for these links). This is a propaganda technique designed to link the two in the minds of the electorate. The quotes listed are part of that propaganda technique.
Specifically, on "Meet the Press", Cheney declined, when confronted with the 9/11 Commission's report that Hussein had no role, to confirm this information, instead stating that no conclusion was possible because we're "always learning more and more" about links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Again, disinformation and propaganda. See:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney_link_of_iraq_911_challenged/
If you're comfortable with leadership that plays so fast and loose with facts and information, I find myself forced to respect your opinion. Not all of us have that level of comfort, however.
Since you brought up civility and insults in this thread, I do feel compelled to point out that *you* used the word "desperate" to refer to the use of a list of facts on Democrats.org. The implication of desperation could be taken by some to be insulting; I'll leave others to determine whether you "strike first".
Moreover, it was a clear application of ad hominem reasoning. My comments about you not reading the post were because you chose to attack the source of the points in question, despite the fact that they were backed by citation after citation from journalists, quotes from debates, and the president's own budget. Since simply refuting this site as "desperate" implied that you either did not read the website, or simply chose to ignore the citations, I decided to go with the more charitable of the two conclusions.
As for your points about Iraq and 9/11: the Bush Administration has clearly, since the run-up to the war, referenced Iraq and Al-Qaeda (despite, as was later revealed by the 9/11 Commission, the lack of hard evidence for these links). This is a propaganda technique designed to link the two in the minds of the electorate. The quotes listed are part of that propaganda technique.
Specifically, on "Meet the Press", Cheney declined, when confronted with the 9/11 Commission's report that Hussein had no role, to confirm this information, instead stating that no conclusion was possible because we're "always learning more and more" about links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Again, disinformation and propaganda. See:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney_link_of_iraq_911_challenged/
If you're comfortable with leadership that plays so fast and loose with facts and information, I find myself forced to respect your opinion. Not all of us have that level of comfort, however.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,063
- Reaction score
- 82
Xequat, Cheney's visits to the Senate on Tuesday's are usually to meet with the Republican leadership and Republican caucuses in the Senate. As such, he would hardly meet with any Democratic Senator during these visits. This is also a little part of the tale that Cheney didn't tell. It's all about the sound-bite.Xequat said:
Xequat said:
You mean like these quotes?
Meet the Press said:
Fox News said:
White House said:
Xequat
Black Belt
Guys, a link to al-Qaeda does not mean a link to 9/11. The one you posted, michaeledward (Mind if I call you Mike for short? I tend to see your name a lot.) first stated that the Czechs believed it, not that Bush claimed it. The other two, indeed, link Iraq and al-Qaeda, but not about 9/11. Maybe I wasn't clear about my argument.
"Specifically, on "Meet the Press", Cheney declined, when confronted with the 9/11 Commission's report that Hussein had no role, to confirm this information, instead stating that no conclusion was possible because we're "always learning more and more" about links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Again, disinformation and propaganda. See:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/a...911_challenged/"
OK, PeachMonkey, now that's a legitimate source. That one is clear that Cheney had an opportunity to stop the rumors that Iraq and 9/11 were connected and he did not take it. Nothing in there was clearly a lie (mostly due to careful wording...gotta love politics), but I see it as an example of passive deception. I think we might agree on this one.
"Xequat, Cheney's visits to the Senate on Tuesday's are usually to meet with the Republican leadership and Republican caucuses in the Senate. As such, he would hardly meet with any Democratic Senator during these visits. This is also a little part of the tale that Cheney didn't tell. It's all about the sound-bite."
Good point. But it wasn't really a lie. Don't get me wrong, I'm being generous with the word "lie," but I'm just as forgiving to Kerry (although not to Michael Moore and Kitty Kelley.) because that's the nature of the game. Bold-faced lies and plays on people's ignorance are different things.
PeachMonkey, you are right. It was ad hominem reasoning. Actually, that's not even reasoning...it's a logical fallacy by definition. But I'd expect the same if I started quoting Rush Limbaugh or republicans.org. They have an agenda, just like democrats.org. It's OK to discredit a witness in court, right? Same thing here. Maybe I shouldn't have taken that shot because now it makes me look biased rather than opinionated, even though I thought I explained my opinion of what was written as well as where it came from. I still don't see the link in that quotation that could be interpreted as linking Iraq and 9/11. When he talked about establishing a base in the heart of the region that attacked us, I thought it was pretty clear that he meant the entire Middle East, since he said region, not country. And he was right.
"Specifically, on "Meet the Press", Cheney declined, when confronted with the 9/11 Commission's report that Hussein had no role, to confirm this information, instead stating that no conclusion was possible because we're "always learning more and more" about links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Again, disinformation and propaganda. See:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/a...911_challenged/"
OK, PeachMonkey, now that's a legitimate source. That one is clear that Cheney had an opportunity to stop the rumors that Iraq and 9/11 were connected and he did not take it. Nothing in there was clearly a lie (mostly due to careful wording...gotta love politics), but I see it as an example of passive deception. I think we might agree on this one.
"Xequat, Cheney's visits to the Senate on Tuesday's are usually to meet with the Republican leadership and Republican caucuses in the Senate. As such, he would hardly meet with any Democratic Senator during these visits. This is also a little part of the tale that Cheney didn't tell. It's all about the sound-bite."
Good point. But it wasn't really a lie. Don't get me wrong, I'm being generous with the word "lie," but I'm just as forgiving to Kerry (although not to Michael Moore and Kitty Kelley.) because that's the nature of the game. Bold-faced lies and plays on people's ignorance are different things.
PeachMonkey, you are right. It was ad hominem reasoning. Actually, that's not even reasoning...it's a logical fallacy by definition. But I'd expect the same if I started quoting Rush Limbaugh or republicans.org. They have an agenda, just like democrats.org. It's OK to discredit a witness in court, right? Same thing here. Maybe I shouldn't have taken that shot because now it makes me look biased rather than opinionated, even though I thought I explained my opinion of what was written as well as where it came from. I still don't see the link in that quotation that could be interpreted as linking Iraq and 9/11. When he talked about establishing a base in the heart of the region that attacked us, I thought it was pretty clear that he meant the entire Middle East, since he said region, not country. And he was right.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,063
- Reaction score
- 82
Xequat, yes, Mike is fine ... and I do get a bit worked up in this forum, don't I?
You are correct when you point out that only one of the three quotes specifically link 9/11 to Iraq. And while the quote says the Czech's said it, you of course, realize that the Vice President used this statement many times, and in many places, along with the other quotes about Iraq & al Qaeda.
I suggest the reason the Vice President used these arguments in this manner was to fool some of the people all of the time. You will recall that when the United States launched its invasion of Iraq well over 50% of the American public were certain that Iraq was invovled in the 9/11 attacks. Well over 50% of the American public thought that the 9/11 hi-jackers were Iraqi and did not know the majority were Saudi.
It was not an accident that the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Assitant Secretary of Defense used this type of language.
Where else have we heard that language?
Technically, this is also a true statement, isn't it? But we all know it was meant to deceive. So, attributing the meeting between Mohammed Atta and the Iraqi secret service to the Czech's, or attributing the Niger yellowcake purchase contracts to the British Government, does not exactly wash Pontius Pilate's hands, does it?
Thanks for playing - Mike
You are correct when you point out that only one of the three quotes specifically link 9/11 to Iraq. And while the quote says the Czech's said it, you of course, realize that the Vice President used this statement many times, and in many places, along with the other quotes about Iraq & al Qaeda.
I suggest the reason the Vice President used these arguments in this manner was to fool some of the people all of the time. You will recall that when the United States launched its invasion of Iraq well over 50% of the American public were certain that Iraq was invovled in the 9/11 attacks. Well over 50% of the American public thought that the 9/11 hi-jackers were Iraqi and did not know the majority were Saudi.
It was not an accident that the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Assitant Secretary of Defense used this type of language.
Where else have we heard that language?
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."
Technically, this is also a true statement, isn't it? But we all know it was meant to deceive. So, attributing the meeting between Mohammed Atta and the Iraqi secret service to the Czech's, or attributing the Niger yellowcake purchase contracts to the British Government, does not exactly wash Pontius Pilate's hands, does it?
Thanks for playing - Mike
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
Have y'all lost yer marbles?
First off, the Bush government said again and again and again that Hussein was linked to 9/11, and used that claim to ignore the UN, warn the UN inspectors out of Iraq, and launch a war. They were clear, they were specific, they repeated the claim again and again.
second off, the Cheney quotes repeat this claim rather precisely. He quotes the Czech claim about the Hussein/Al Q relation; he says that there was a clear relationship, he repeats the claim and further asserts that Hussein was likely to supply terrorists with weapons.
Even the geographical base quote makes this clear, unless of course you think that the remarks about taking over Iraq to remove the "geographical base," of terrorism meant, I don't know, that we invade Iraq and Bin Laden's cave magically explodes.
And oh yes--syllogism. Hussein was tied to Al Quaida. Al Quaida attacked us. Therefore, Hussein was tied to the attack on us.
And oh, by the by--if Cheney DIDN'T think that Hussein was tied directly to Al Quaida and the attacks, he damn sure had--at a minimum--a responsibility to say so and to quit the VP's job.
First off, the Bush government said again and again and again that Hussein was linked to 9/11, and used that claim to ignore the UN, warn the UN inspectors out of Iraq, and launch a war. They were clear, they were specific, they repeated the claim again and again.
second off, the Cheney quotes repeat this claim rather precisely. He quotes the Czech claim about the Hussein/Al Q relation; he says that there was a clear relationship, he repeats the claim and further asserts that Hussein was likely to supply terrorists with weapons.
Even the geographical base quote makes this clear, unless of course you think that the remarks about taking over Iraq to remove the "geographical base," of terrorism meant, I don't know, that we invade Iraq and Bin Laden's cave magically explodes.
And oh yes--syllogism. Hussein was tied to Al Quaida. Al Quaida attacked us. Therefore, Hussein was tied to the attack on us.
And oh, by the by--if Cheney DIDN'T think that Hussein was tied directly to Al Quaida and the attacks, he damn sure had--at a minimum--a responsibility to say so and to quit the VP's job.
