Cheney is out of his mind
 

Cheney: 'I Basically Don't' Think Bush Administration Responsible For Afghanistan Problems | TPMDC

While I don't agree 100% with Obama's handling of Afghanistan, I can't even partially accept that the current situation there isn't a result of failures in the 7 years previous Obama taking office. The ultimate failure which was having Bin Laden in our grasps and letting him get away.

The initial goal in Afghanistan wasn't to nation-build, yet that's what we're stuck doing now. Diverting massive resources that could have been utilized in Afghanistan to fight a war in Iraq is also a major failure - especially since none of those WMD fabrications ever materialized.

He is a fool.

That man deserves to be waterboarded
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I will give Bush the benefit of the doubt with one thing: I think many of the misfires that have occurred abroad with foreign relations, AFG/Iraq, treatment of prisoners, illegal wiretapping and others precipitated through Cheney's pressures and influences on Bush.

Give it a rest JD. I can arrange a bird hunt where you two can talk this out.

:rotf2::rotf2::rotf2:

Give it a rest? Just because you praised the ground the previous administration walked on, doesn't mean everyone does.

I'm certainly not alone in the opinion that Cheney is delusional. Some of the most conservative people I know think he's a complete scumbag.

Maybe buckman sees alot of himself in cheeney and likes him :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Quite a good point.:rotf2:

Clinton had the first chance at Bin Laden and chickened out.

Clinton also didn't thrust us into 2 wars and then deny that the failures of those wars were cause by his administration's decisions.

We were attacked! He didn't thrust us into 2 wars. As a matter of fact Clinton prepared the ground work for those wars. You really need that hunting trip.

I hate people that post from iPhone/Mobile devices:)

You're right. Damn that Saddam for attacking us.

Have you been to a dentist lately? All that kool-aid will give you cavities.

WMD's fabricated:confused: Unless you prefer living in denial read either of these articles, so at least you are truely informed.

Senate OKs 'BioShield' bill for anti-terror drugs | The San Diego Union-Tribune
or maybe this one:
WMDs Found in Iraq

The media choose to pass over the weapons that were found, so people could live misinformed, delusional or just perpetually in denial.
Supporting politicians blindly just because of their party affiliation is just stupidity in it's purist form. It's time to do away with the parties and choose the best person for the job without the letter following their name on a ballot. Lets even the playing field by either having every politician be affiliated with one party or have no party affiliation, then let people fiqure out who to vote for.

Hit back with facts not just propaganda (see below). How many resolutions should he have been able to break before we said enough is enough. I will get back with the facts (not proganda) when I have them but I believe he violated 6 out of 14 (I'll check so don't qoute me) resolutions placed upon him. I will become better informed by checking the FACTS to back up my point of view. Also he had 6 months to get rid of/hide the WMD's before we invaded, I would think that was plenty of time. Plus if memory serves me correctly we sold him WMD's back in the 80's (I will have to verify this so don't consider it fact until verified)

Facts:1.something true and accurate 2. reality

propaganda: 1. The systematic propagation of a given doctrine.
2. Ideas,information, or other material disseminated to win people over to a given doctrine.

I'll be away until Sunday evening so until then get some facts and perhaps then we may continue this discussion like adults...ok?

Phew... thank you for the education.

So proof of WMDs are a Congressional allocation of funds for vaccines due to a single roadside bomb containing nerve agents and some no-name book? There have already been wide-spread reports of the yellowcake, a handful of shells capable of delivering nerve agents and many reports from field agents that WMDs were found (which were quickly retracted). However, the supposed "stockpiles of WMDs" that were the premise for the invasion have never been verified, and actually found to be inaccurate by multiple different sources.

With abysmal approval ratings (mostly due to his invasion of Iraq), Bush would never have allowed "the media to pass over the weapons that were found", as you put it. There would have been widely publicized speeches - maybe even with him flying in via fighter jet onto an Aircraft Carrier with a "See, We Told You" sign behind him.

While you're away, maybe try to find some actual sources of information and then perhaps there will be some justification to your condescending tone. Nice try though.



P.S.I still really like that lure you made though.

Bush wasn't as adept as self credit as Obama is. You never heard Bush say "Clinton left me a mess" in every speech. It's called class, Obama has none. The Dems have less.
You can say what you want JD, but Bush had humility.Maybe he had good parents.

WMD became a nuclear weapon to those who blame Cheney, Halliburton or Rumsfeld. Don't you remember the fear from the left that our troops were walking into a biological slaughter.
You need to come up with a new ending too. "Nice try though":rotf2:

Where are the retractions (someone is stating their new opinion)? Any actual WMD is a fact. Does it have to be placed in front of you for it to actually exsist? How many WMD's had to be found for them to exsist? No matter the amount, any is proof of it's exsistence?
Think about it..6 months to hide or dispose of the weapons...give a drug dealer 6 minutes to hide his drugs before the cops come in. Do you think he could do it? The area (Iraq) is like a giant litterbox full of sand.
What about the WMD's we supplied/sold Iraq? Yeah; those did'nt exsist either. Think about it...does that make sense? I will gladly state a retraction if proven incorrect and have tried to be open minded. Hard hold in your hand evidence trumps someones words.

I may sound condescending but you still insist they never did exsist and say that WMD's were the reason for the war. It wasn't the sole reason for the war.:wall:

I am leaving now so when I return late Sunday I'll read any facts you may use as weapons to change my opinion.

Those that don't believe he had WMD now believe the global warming fairy tale

he's got a point there. could also blame Clinton for the internet bubble and lack of controls in financial services. Funny, I had a few super lib teachers at my house for Thanksgiving and they were goign off on how Bush stopped all this regulation in financial services which caused the recession. I dindt want to get into an argument, but asked, can you name one regulation he stopped.......silence. How come the libs, who claim to be so educated, have very little facts to base their opinions on?

I think Im going to print up ENDless/this War bumper stickers, I bet no Dems will buy 'em.

(This could go into the Speech thread or here)

It's funny.. I was listening to D & C on EEI this AM, and they were on a rant that Obama "Lied" to get the anti-war voters.

He had very clearly said he wanted to more aggressively pursue al Queda in AFG while drawing down in Iraq. Both with a proposed time-line. Now if they stick to these time-lines remains to be seen if they can or will do this.

This seems to be the direction headed. If anti-war people voted for him w/o listening to this, then Tough Sh-t.

Yeah I do. However, it was due to the fear-mongering of warehouses packed with chemical weapons and the multiple supposed locations where Saddam was actively manufacturing chemical weapons.

I haven't insisted Saddam "never possessed WMDs." The hundreds of thousands of Kurds killed by gas in the 80s proves that he possessed them at one point. However, there is little to no proof he built up stockpiles after inspectors left in 1998. The lead UN inspector had confirmed 90-95% of Saddam's weapons were destroyed - along with the other 5-10% more than likely destroyed prior to inspections.

The US is capable of finding secret underground nuclear facilities in Iran, finding Saddam in a random hole on a farm and knowing when N. Korea is readying for new missile tests - you're telling me they couldn't track multiple entire warehouses worth of weapons being transported? Not to mention the machinery required to make those weapons. In that case, Saddam must also have done an excellent job making the weapon manufacturing locations look like they hadn't been used for years.

What were the other reasons for the Iraq war?
Saddam supporting terrorism? Bush's own CIA director stated that there was no qualified connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. After the US invasion, the lack of a connection has been confirmed.

Then there's always the "well he tried to kill my daddy" reason.

The United States is not the world's police force. If the threat from Iraq was so severe, Bush should not have had any problem getting all of our Allies on board. I'm sure today, there are a lot of foreign leaders breathing a sigh of relief that they didn't believe the Bush administration's loosely strung together facts, fabricated information and inaccurate "intelligence".

There was absolutely no international gain by invading Iraq. We're no less at risk with Saddam out of power, than we were with him in power - if anything, we're more at risk.

Hypothetical and IMO wrong. Not to mention what would have happened when his brutal sons took power. Saddam and his family killed thousands and thousands of thier own people. I guess that's just not important either. He was Ok in power in your book.

:liquify:

If hypothetical and wrong, explain and support the reasons why.

I don't think it was Ok for Saddam to be in power, just like I don't think it's ok for many of the leaders of African countries to be in power. However, the US *is not the world's police force*, something you have agreed with me on numerous times. Sorry to everyone else, but we have enough of our own problems in this country. When we don't have veterans sleeping on park benches, children in soup kitchens and an ever increasing crime rate nation-wide, then we can focus on other countries. Until then, it's not our problem to fix on our own - the international community as a whole should step in to fix those problems.

After the WMD reasons and supporting terrorism reasons for war failed, the Bush administration spun the topic to say "hey, Saddam is a really bad guy. We've liberated the Iraqi people. We succeeded." Strangely, that's not at all what the presented reasons for going to war were.

At the end of this, there will be no "success" in Iraq. The "mission" (whatever it's been spun into now) will never be accomplished.

You are 100% wrong saying that we are not the worlds police force, we have always been the worlds police force, we are still in Korea and Japan. Kuwait started this whole mess in the middle east. We should never had stopped the Jews in the six day war. The only reason that it was a six day war is because the US stopped them from conquering the rest of the middle east.

We have not liberated the Iragi people, they can't have a barcadi and coke without thinking they may be bombed while sitting at a sidewalk cafe.

There were WMD's, ask the Kurds when 80,000 women and children were bombed and gased in one day in 1988 or 89. Apparently you do not think 80,000 is mass destruction.

Apparently you did not read the entire thread. I never denied that Saddam possessed WMDs *at one time*. However, there were not the massive stockpiles and manufacturing facilities as reported during the buildup to war.

Johnny, why are you letting them flog you around with such simple rhetorical trickery?

Funny part is, it's probably unintentional :hihi:

-spence