Why should I believe a single word from Dick “Buckshot” Cheney about Iran? These are the same people that claimed Iraq was minutes away from launching a nuke, and royally screwed up in planning for the Iraq war (leading to the deaths of thousands of Americans). Why would you believe a single word these jackals say?
Should we believe any of these countries?
Or are they all jackals?
It is telling that you have to resort to hyperbole to make your argument. Please show me where the Bush administration said that “Iraq was minutes away from launching a nuke”. The argument was, and continues to be that if we wait until a rogue state is “minutes” from launching any WMD, we are too late.
This constant slight-of-hand that the lefties must resort to really demonstrates the weakness of their position.
“Look over here….Cheney accidently shot a baby! Thats why we need gun control….” Well, he didn’t actually SHOOT a baby, but it doesn’t matter, we still need gun control……
I don’t know whether to believe Dick Cheney or not. Our intelligence apparatus in the Middle East was bad before 9/11 and nothing has changed to correct it. In fact, I would say that Porter Goss, who has single-handedly degraded morale to the point where people in revolt, has made our intelligence gathering significantly worse.
What I do know is that our continued military entanglements in Iraq and Afghanistan, our one-sided dealing with India vis-a-vis Pakistan, and the potential fallout from a UAE ports deal all have strengthened Iran’s hand to the point where we are unable to execute all of the options that once might have been available to us.
Yes, and why would we believe a single word the Iranians say either? I mean, it’s not like their president is a kook who believes that he has been appointed to hasten the end of the world, or who envisions a world where Israel has been “wiped off the map.”
And it’s not like one of their chief diplomats just confessed to duping the Europeans so as to gain more time to continue the development of their nuclear weapons program. And it’s not like they’ve ever taken Americans hostage or anything. And surely you don’t believe for a minute that the religious leaders in Iran acutally teach their followers that America is ‘The Great Satan.’
After all, we know who the real enemy is, don’t we — Darth Cheney and the evil Chimpy McBushburton, who isn’t smart enough to put two words together yet at the same time is the mastermind behind the most evil secret conspiracy in the history of the world.
Actually, Ari Fleischer specifically said to delay in Iraq would cause a “mushroom cloud”, while Tony Blair said Iraq could launch an attack vs. Great Britain within minutes. If citing facts is sleight of hand, call me Karnak.
I have no idea what OW is alluding to. Dick Cheney has never fibbed about anything. Ever. Some of you libs probably even think he lied when he said he had only one beer before shooting his acquaintance in the face and heart. If he came down my street in Philly I believe he would be greeted as a liberator.
Cmon OW,
Read the article. First off its the anti Bush WaPo. Secondly, it cites third hand that the Brits intelligence service said Iraq could “LAUNCH” an attack in 45 minutes. You know what? I can launch an attack right now on Iran. Take it a few decades to get there. Minutes = 45 minutes, these people = British intelligence - all in an attack on Dick Cheeny. How dare Dick Cheney let British intelligence have an opinion the American left doesn’t like.
Dugger (Darn that McChimpycheney Hitlerburton)
The claim at the time was that Iraq possesed the capability for long-range WMD strikes within 45 minutes (and was taken by many to be within the range of our allies, including the UK). Are you seriously claiming the WMD threat wasn’t hyped? That the mission was always to “bring democracy” to Iraq?
Oliver:
Blair:
Maybe you could point me to where Blair claimed Iraq could attack the territory of GB within 45 minutes?
First off its the anti Bush WaPo.
Yes, the Washington Post, who carried water for the Iraq war and was the most hawkish of the so-called liberal media.
Iraq could LAUNCH an attack in 45 minutes
So are you denying that they didn’t say Iraq could attack them within minutes? Or are you denying that they ever said Iraq was a threat at all? Iraq wasn’t able to launch anything of note, the people doing the launching nowadays are Al Qaeda. But who cares about them, right?
And I stand corrected, it was Condi Rice, not Ari Fleischer that lied about Iraq being able to create mushroom clouds. Fleischer’s comment was about looking for smoking guns, saying “The problem with guns that are hidden is you can’t see their smoke.” Except there were no “guns”.
Are you actually referring to Condoleeza Rice who said:
or Bush who said:
Because I’m not aware of any “mushroom” comment from Fleischer.
Many people of both sides thought Iraq was a threat - intelligent people in both White Houses with acess to intell. And you are still wrong on the quote (after correction). She and the Prez say basically that they didn’t want to wait until it was certain Iraq had Nukes.
Still Ok for you not to believe Cheney but you might try finding a factual basis on which to base your belief.
Dugger
Dugger, do you believe everything that Bush and Cheney say. If you do then I have an oil well in the North Pole I will sell you.
Dugger and JWG : Despite both of you being absolutley correct here, you must realize that getting O-Dub to admit that he was wrong is about as much fun as masturbating with the assistance of pumice lotion.
Facts be damned, when you can rant about Chimpy McBu$hitlet
Oliver how do you turn:
The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.
Into:
it was Condi Rice, not Ari Fleischer that lied about Iraq being able to create mushroom clouds
This is the hyperbole I was referring to. Saying there is some “uncertainty” suddenly becomes “ly(ing)”
Look, I realize that this website is nothing but an extended interview for a job as a democratic party apparatchik, but I don’t think even the Demo’s want this sort of easily debunked yellow journalism….
geez. you’re right. Iran definitely has no intentions of getting nukes. And if they did, so what??? We have them, so they can have them too. Plus, it’s not like Ahmadinejad is crazy or anything. Seems like a down to earth guy to me. What do y’all think?
Cheney said — “And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons” — but Pedro and Dugger jump on Oliver for “exagerating.”
Tell me, how’s the weather in fantasy land, boys?
If only we could convince Oliver that Iranians believe in Intelligent Design…
frame, you leave out a key word. What Cheney actauly said was “And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons program.”
Big difference there. Try again.
Nudnik, you’re an idiot:
“We know that based on intelligence that he has been very, very good at hiding these kinds of efforts. He s had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei frankly is wrong. And I think if you look at the track record of the International Atomic Energy Agency and this kind of issue, especially where Iraq s concerned, they have consistently underestimated or missed what it was Saddam Hussein was doing. I don t have any reason to believe they re any more valid this time than they ve been in the past.”
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/cheneymeetthepress.htm
“If you were to interview anyone who just came off hearing that and asked Did the Vice President just claim Saddam had nuclear weapons?
The fact of the matter is that Cheney said exactly this in this Meet the Press interview. Here’s the official transcript (so Nudnik can try again):
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/
I am getting really tired of this particular Republican meme. It seems that every single thing the Administration does these days is entirely excused by these kind of Clinton-esque parsings of language.
“Bush wasn’t lying when he said no one anticipated the breech of the levees, because the weather guy was talking about the topping of the levees. Totally different!”
“What Cheney actually said was ‘And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons program.’ That’s a major distinction!”
So. Do you really imagine that the millions of Americans watching the news broadcast wherein Cheney said that were concerned about the lawyerly parsing of language that transforms the statement into what you think it means? Sadly, no! If you were to interview anyone who just came off hearing that and asked “Did the Vice President just claim Saddam had nuclear weapons?”, well over 90% would have said yes. So in this sense the statement no doubt had the desired effect — scaring people with the spectre of looming mushroom clouds, but providing semantic cover if Cheney were ever called on it later.
Just wait, by the next election we’ll be excusing Bush’s misstatements by pointing out his misplaced commas.
Look, if I cherry pick enough odd unconnected words from the bible I can get it to say “God Is Dead”, but the fact of the matter is the Bush administration pushed the idea that Iraq had nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons it would either use itself or sell to terrorists. That was the entire “reason” we went to war. We all watched these speeches, those facts are simply not in dispute. They presented a case as if they were prosecutors, taking care to exclude all the information that contradicted their “cut and dry” reasoning. I’m someone who supported the first gulf war and action against Hussein, but it was simply a monumental mistake to invade Iraq (congress bears responsibility for giving Bush the authorization, but he made the final call and is the commander in chief making final decisions on the disaster-riddle war plans) - especially when our major enemy remains as Al Qaeda. Now we’ve lost almost 2,500 American lives to create yet another middle-eastern theocracy while Al Qaeda has been allowed to grow.
And I’m supposed to believe a word they say about Iran? It’s like when you see a kid take a cookie and he stares right in your face with cookie crumbs on his mouth, and says he didn’t take any cookies.
And the Iranian mullahs probably do believe in some form of intelligent design. Kooky unscientific beliefs imposed on the populace are a hallmark of backwards theocratic believers (Mullah Omar meet Mullah Dobson).
Isn’t it Dick “BIRDshot” Cheney?
nudnik,
Good catch (which you probably already realized from frame’s incensed ranting).
Dugger
How about you just take Iran’s leaders at their own words ? You are pathetic.
jesus frameone, I actually read that transcript.
on Mar 13 ‘03 Cheney said “And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.”
and in the interview you link he said ” MR. RUSSERT: Reconstituted nuclear weapons. You misspoke.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Yeah. I did misspeak. I said repeatedly during the show weapons capability. We never had any evidence that he had acquired a nuclear weapon.”
You.Guys.Lie.To.Make.A.Point.
This is why my conservative brethren and myself continue to come here and smack down your ridiculous liberal talking points…they are based on untruths and require some adult to come in and stop the echo-chamber from propagating…
Ahhh yes, the lefties have again deflected the conversation.
We’ve gone from
“These are the same people that claimed Iraq was minutes away from launching a nuke”
to
“it was Condi Rice, not Ari Fleischer that lied about Iraq being able to create mushroom clouds”
to:
“the Bush administration pushed the idea that Iraq had nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons it would either use itself or sell to terrorists”
And what was actually said was
“The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.”
The lefties here are using that tried and true debating trick “The Dan Rather “It isn’t actually a genuine document, but it really makes the point…”.
See my first post on this thread, and then following the moving goal post and the hyperbole. I love it when you guys actually prove my arguments for me….
And you wonder why the democrats are going to lose more seats….
Dugger –
“Good catch”? I quoted Cheney exactly. I left nothing out. Nudnik should have done his own homework. That would have required a simple google search of the phrase. Of course all you had to do was follow one of the two links I provided, one of which was to the official MSNBC transcript. What’s your excuse, besides the fact that your brain is mush?
Ya, Pedor, I made a mistake but you’re still an idiot. I linked to a Meet the Press interview from Sept. 13 2003. Cheney made the statement about reconstituted nuclear weapons when he was on the show March 16, 2003. So what we have here is that Russert was following up on a “misstatement” SIX MONTHS after the fact, when the original misstatement was made in his presence on his show. Now tell me, Pedro, what happened between March 16 2003 and September 2003? I believe it was a little thing called the invasion of Iraq on March 20.
Now let’s follow along with Nudnik. There is a big difference between saying “reconstituted nuclear weapons” and “reconsituted nuclear weapons programs.” And yet apparently it’s not such a big deal that, on the eve of war, when Cheney confuses the two, neither he nor Russert, ever alert interviewer that is, feels the need to make the correction until after the war has already ocurred. This whole thread is about exageration and misleading statements. Here’s a classic example: “Oops, did I say nuclear weapons? Sorry, I meant nuclear weapons programs. Oh wait, no I meant, nuclear weapons-related program activities.”
Which is why you and your conservative brethren come here to continuously make asses out of yourselves.
Let’s recap:
Nudnik says there’s a big difference betweem saying “reconstituted nuclear weapons” and saying “reconstituted nuclear weapons programs.”
Pedro, on the other hand, doesn’t think it’s big deal to allow just such a misstatement to stand for six months before correcting the record — even if the misstatement is made on the eve of war.
You guys really should coordinate your idiocy better.
There was actually a study conducted on the administration statements regarding Iraq. Whether misleading, lies or simply wrong can be argued. However, when factoring in long held plans and statements from even a pre-elected Bush, along with damning items like the Downing Street memos it was all just a means to justify an end.
The big lie wasn’t WMD or Iraq threat capabilities. The lie was the notion that there was going to be anything but a war regardless of the evidence against Iraq. The whole diplomacy ploy was just that. Bush went to the N for a single reason - to get a war resolution. When that endeavor failed he immediately launched an invasion.
Statements like this are not evidence:
“France, Britain and Germany broke off negotiations on behalf of the European Union with Iran last year after it resumed enrichment-related activities, which can produce both nuclear fuel and the fissile core of warheads. Since then, they, the United States, Canada, Australia and Japan have been at the forefront of efforts to have the U.N. Security Council take up the Iran issue.”
Under thye NPT Iran has the right to peaceful nuclear energay and the right to enrich uranium to reach that oblective. France, Germany and Britian aren’t the final arbiters to decide how that can happen. With the recent agreements in India the NPT was essentially scrapped.
Not only should we disregard what Cheney because based on his past record of being wrong about pretty much everyhting related to foreign policy, his supposed strength, but also because why would we follow a guy who only has 1/5 of the people behind him? Talk about elitist rule!
Uh, yea. To mispeak on a news show is a whole lot different than saying this was our basis for going to war. I quote bush in the SOTU address.
I’m sorry moonbats, but cheney mispeaking on a sunday morning news show is not a causus belli, and no right winger ever claimed it to be.
the question remains on which member of the administration ever said “Iraq is minutes away from launching a nuke…”
by your “logic” reagan doing a mike-check and saying we are “5 minutes from launching the nuclear weapons” was his “plan” to nuke the soviets.
Keep trying kids, the elections are nigh upon us, and you are just helping to put more votes in the Republican coffers….
I just think back to what all those pro-war pundits and commenters said on the lead up to the war. That probably includes every single one of the ranters trying to defend Bush & Company here. He has them, we can’t afford to be wrong, would a mushroom cloud over NY be proof? Aluminum tubes, vacuum cleaner motors. Gosh you guys change stride quick.
Before the war you were all “he’s got them!!! We have to invade! I’m not willing to risk my hide”. And the administration fed this fear with bullshit, inuendo, associations, false information, questionable intelligence they leaked, faulty conclusions. You guys bought it. Even afterwards, most of you didn’t want to believe there were no WMDs. I remember some right wingies saying in smarter-than-thou type: “we haven’t searched all of Iraq, I suspect them to be hidden in AL Fuqmybut Valley.” or such things. You guys were duped.
Now you pretend you weren’t duped and forget that you were wrong. You excuse the people who duped you and pretend that the flimsy bullshit they fed the press didn’t mean what it said. Mushroom clouds, we know where they [WMDs] are. Programs, caches, ice cream trucks errrr mobile biological weapons labs, and on and on and on. The people who spouted that crap in the administration knew it was flimsy at best, spread it like the gospel and was heard by you Warvangelicals who repeated it like you were speaking in tongues.
Duros that is not mislead…that was bad intel. Someone stating something in good faith, then having it proven wrong in the future is not a crime.
Unfortunately leaders have to make decisions for the future based on the data they have in their hands then. Unlike you and your lefty comrades, they can’t sit back and wait for the outcome, then tell the world how it should have been.
The entire rational world had the same opinion of Saddams WMDs, the UN included. His responsibility was to DEMONSTRATE he destroyed his KNOWN WMDs. Bush described this well in his rationale for war (see the 2003 SOTU address). All of the above “re-brandings” were part of the original description of why we went into Baghdad, though I agree the emphasis changed in time.
In short, I was not “mislead”. The worlds intel was wrong, and Saddam was a nutcase, and Iraq and the world is now a better place.
Dr. P
So you don’t thnk you were misled at all, then? You don’t find it strange that the military action in Iraq has been re-branded 3 times since we invaded without provocation? From Searching for WMDs to Liberating the Iraqi people from a Ruthless Dictator to Bringing Democracy to the Middle East; that sort of track-switching doesn’t bother you at all?
The President, then, by your reasoning, misspoke during the SOTU address and the infamous 16 Words that later proved to be false?
Speaking of cherry-picking information…
Agreed Saddam was a nutcase, but I don’t see how you can say Iraq is a better place.
And yes, I agree that leaders have to go with intel they are given, but in the case of full-scale war, isn’t it incumbent on the leaders to get confirmation of of that intel? Yes, they had intel backing up their plans for invasion, intel that later proved not so credible, intel that was carefully crafted to reveal the facts that they desired. I do not believe - and this is not left-wing bias talking - that the threats posed by the administration at the time were as time-sensitive as they made them out to be. That we had to invade NOW or else America would be bombed by Saddam. That was not a credible threat and you know it.
The facts have proven since then that this President and this administration had a hard-on for Saddam from the moment they put the W’s back on the West Wing computer keyboards. And no amount of intel would have dissuaded them from invading. I’m sorry you can’t see the forest for the trees.
“Iraq and the world is now a better place.”
Explain.
Yes, please do. and try to leave out all the hearsay about Saddam throwing people off of buildings and shit because if you don’t have proof, it won’t count.
http://fdd.typepad.com/fdd/2006/01/alert_saddams_c.html
Just some video for you to peruse.
So you think that Saddams torture was hearsay? he was just a poor, misunderstood old guy?
You and frame don’t believe that the world is better off without saddam?
You answers will prove enlightening to all that read them…..
the world would be better off without a lot of people in it.
Ryan Seacrest, Simon Cowell, Paris Hilton jump immediately to mind…
Did anyone see that SCIFi movie about aliens who come to earth and need 5 million earthlings or else they’ll die? I got a list going…
I mean I never said the worls is not better off without Saddam.
oohhhh, the irony.
Sorry, i misspoke.
Hell, man, let’s face it. the world would be better off without a lot of people in it.
Yes, Dr. P, those videos are ideed, disturbing. But I gotta say, I still don’t see the moral comaprison. How is that behavior worse than some of what is still being perpetrated? I’m watching these guys beat on people with batons and it looks like Rodney King. How is it worse than how some of our own people are treated? And I will not draw the conclusion that the LAPD cops that beat on Rodney King were sanctioned by the federal governement. One had does not wash the other in this case.
Does that make sense? I’m not being flippant, I ask that with respect.
And no, I don’t think Saddam is a great guy, and no, I don’t think OBL is misunderstood and wasn’t held enough as a child.
“The Righteous are beset on all sides by the tyranny and inequity of evil men…”
“You and frame don t believe that the world is better off without saddam?”
Um, you haven’t actually told us why you think the world is better off without him.
No, Dr., that is not what I said. I never said the world is better off without Saddam. As i said before, I agree with you that he is a whackjob and should not be in a position of authority.
I know it’s tempting to cast aspersions on people who disagree with the party line, but don’t make that leap of faith. You were just going off earlier about how leftists fill in the blanks where cons are concerned. Now you’re doing it.
We want facts and not rumors, thus we must hate America, right? We disagree when people refuse to think for themselves and parrot the talking points from Fox News, so we must automatically hate freedom, right?
Knock it off. It’s beneath all of you.
It is horrible what the Iraqis have been through , both before and since Saddam. Am I wrong? I don’t think that the spectre of roadside bombings is really an improvement in the Iraqi way of life, do you?
Besides, what were talking about? Oh yeah. Whether or not we the people are getting lied to.
Of course you avoid answering the questions& again, and I don t blame you. You are a Saddam apologist, and unwilling to even take a principled stand against a monster like him.
Whoa, whoa, whoa!
How many times have I said I agree with you that having Saddam out of power is better than having him in Power? I’m not apologizing for anybody here. I’m simply trying to tell you that just because one guy is out of the loop does not make life in Iraq all peaches and sausages.
I did answer your questions. But let me clear it up for you. Iraq is better off without Saddam in power. The world is better off without Saddam in power. In general. I think what frame and I are trying to get through to you is that, yes it’s better without Hussein, life in Iraq isn’t better. It still sucks to live in Iraq. Instead of the Republican Guards (anybody get that?) kicking in your door at 4 am, it’s the Marines looking for insurgents. YES, I SUPPORT OUR TROOPS AND THE JOB THEY ARE DOING!!! From the viewpoint of a TYPICAL IRAQI CITIZEN, there is little distinction.
Evil is as evil does, man.
Yeah, that’s what I mean. How is life better for these people? Because the guys throwing people off of roofs have newer uniforms?
Any word on why the 2 guys who blew up the mosque were wering Iraqi police uniforms? Were they “insurgents” posing as Iraqi police, or were they actually Iraqi police officers who happened to be Sunni?
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result.
Dr. Pedro is of the belief that simply removing Hussein from power de facto made the life of Iraqis better. The tyranny has been lifted!
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again, before you can even begin to suggest that Iraqis are better off than they were before the invasion you have to convince me that Hussein’s arrest did indeed result in the end of his reign of terror. As I understand it, the vast majority of the insurgency is still made up of Hussein loyalists and other Sunnis who benefitted under his rule. They are, in effect, carrying out Hussein’s reign of terror only in a different form — onlynow they have the assistance, welcome or unwelcome, of maniacal foreign jihadists who weren’t targetting the Iraqi people before the war.
Hussein may be in jail but his reign of terror is far from ended.
Pedro, you’re fond of WWII analogies, what if, at the end of World War II, we had captured Hitler but well into 1948 the SS was still able to murder at will on a large scale through Germany and Europe? Would that sound like mission accomplished to you?
Unfortunately people murder on a large scale throughout the arab world. The difference as I see it, is that this is not a state sponsored murder. While if you are the one that is killed, it doesn’t much matter, but for the rest of society it does.
For example, more than 2000 people were murdered in california in 2004. But everyone of those murders were investigated and someone tried to bring a murder to justice.
Iraq had hundreds of thousands of murders via the Hussein’s. No one was looking to bring anyone to justice.
Me, I prefer random violence that I may be able to protect against vs state -sponsored violence that may just knock on my door one night without my being able to do a thing about it.
Of course you avoid answering the questions…again, and I don’t blame you. You are a Saddam apologist, and unwilling to even take a principled stand against a monster like him.
Like I said, please do more of that in public while proclaiming yourself a democrat….It is good for my party….
“You are a Saddam apologist, and unwilling to even take a principled stand against a monster like him.”
Absolute bullshit, Pedro and you know it. What an asshole.
sorry duros, my comments were in moderation a while….that explains the disconnect
Pedro –
Iraqis are no better off now then they were under Hussein because American forces have yet to actually end Hussein’s reign of terror. And how the fuck would you know if Iraqis are “dying randomly at much lower level” now? Do you know how many Iraqis died “randomly” every week under Hussein? Do you have statistics on this? I’d love to see them if you do. Just give me a link that breaks down the number of violent deaths in Iraq per month in the three years before our invasion. Go ahead, just give me that. Or is this just something that you, like Dugger, feel with your gut?
I think maybe we agree duros.
Perhaps our difference is that I DO think that iraqis are better off. I think they are dying randomly on a much lower level (as I concede, if you are one of the people dying it doesn’t much matter).
If you agree that the world is a BETTER place without the Husseins, then do you just think it wasn’t worth what we “paid” for it?
Frame remains unable to actually admit that the world is better off…I’m an “a-hole” but he still won’t admit the world is better off….
Thanks Frame, thats all I need to know.
You equate random homocide bombings with prisons built to torture children, mass graves and state sponsored terrorism.
The BDS is strong in you, to the point of irrationality….
“dr” pedro may only be repentant after the liberators out-kill, out-torture, out-evil Saddam. Until then it’s all just frat house hijinx. Now that Saddam is in custody and his reign of evildoing is over, he cannot pad his numbers. But Bush is playing catchup. Bush is already ahead in the “sectarian violence on his watch” category.
“You equate random homocide bombings with prisons built to torture children, mass graves and state sponsored terrorism.”
Of course. It doesn’t matter to you that the same people who built the prisons (which we’re now using to torture people, BTW) are the ones carrying out the random bombings, assassinations, kinappings, torture, etc. All we did was force them to switch their tactics but in fantasy land that equals victory! How about those statistics, idiot?
“You equate random homocide bombings with prisons built to torture children, mass graves and state sponsored terrorism.”
And I might add that one of the growing problems in Iraq is the existence of Shiite militia members in the army and police forces, thugs exacting sectarian revenge and violence under color of authority. Meet the new boss same as the old boss. Victory!
Oh I think we are very clear where the leftists are on this issue. The “liberators” (those american troops you guys keep holding your noses and trying to support) will soon “outkill,outtorture and out evil Saddam”
So American troops =worse than Saddam.
Also, we are using prisons in Iraq to “torture”. Care to back that up? Photos of americans chopping off limbs, throwing people off roofs, shooting people in the back of the head, blowing them up, feeding them into shredders? Or are you referring to the episode when prisoners were humiliated, and the perpetrators are now in Leavenworth?
You idiots still don’t see the difference between government sponsored evil, and evil that is perpetrated and prosecuted.
Thats ok, like I said, please preach your statements above far and wide, perhaps you can get Ollie to headline it in his “Things the Democrats can do to win” columns, sure to be a vote getter…..
No, American troops do not = Saddam.
Bush=Saddam? No.
Cheney=Saddam? You betcha.
You know, there was a reason we didn’t storm Baghdad in 1991. This Administration forgot that. The fact of the matter is, Dr., that while Saddam was an evil asshole, he held the entire region together (yes, through fear, murder, rape, genocide and assasination, admittedly), much like Tito did in Yugoslavia. The fact of the matter is that the region needs someone like that to keep the factions in line. We removed that glue and the country is slowly falling apart. Again, I am not making excuses for Saddam Hussein, his family or his party but yes, to answer your question, I think the cost of Iraq’s freedom may ultimately be too high.
And we shouldn’t go exporting Democracy when we can’t get it right at home..
And, BTW, thanks for that Dr. I agree with you on quite a few things, I think. Liked what you had to say about evolution and ID “theory.”
Well, now that the state doesn’t carry out indiscriminate acts of violence, the people can go about the American way of randomly indiscriminate acts of violence against each other.
Is that what you mean when you say life is better in Iraq today? it isn’t the local sheriff who shoots you in the back of the head for being Sunni/Shi’a/Baath/Kurd anymore; now it’s your neighbor. Or the guy down the street who runs the fruit stand.
Sounds a lot like Kosovo/Rwanda/Somalia/Sudan.
It is a great philosophical question duros. It is like they used to say in Italy under Mussolini (or Yugoslavia under Tito as you point out), “The trains run on time….”
So just so I understand, are you suggesting that certain parts of the world need or deserve a tyranical despot?
Our failure to go to Baghdad in ‘91 was a political one. We had a vaunted “Coalition” who refused to let us. Now a right winger like myself can make some pretty strong arguments as to why. Mainly, half our coalition was making a fortune off of Hussein…i.e. the french, germans and russians. I also believe this is the primary reason we weren’t greeted as “liberators”.
When we left Iraq, all those Kurds etc that were fighting a behind the lines campaign were DECIMATED….
“So American troops =worse than Saddam.”
Fuck you, Pedro. It’s pretty damn clear that I’m not making any such equation. HUndred of prisoners have died under suspicious circumstances while in US custody and if you are claiming that torture isn’t, now, officially sanctioned by the Bush administration explain why Bush asserted his right to torture even as he signed a bill banning its use? But that’s not the real point.
The real point is that the same people are behind the violence occurring in Iraq right now and the violence that occurred in Iraq under Hussein, acting with the same means and for the same ends. The only demonstrable difference is that the Shiites are emboldened to fight back and they’re fighting back under the color of authority. Have you been reading stories about the Shiite militias that have permeated the new Iraqi police force and army? Of course, not, because it flies in the face of the wonderful paradise we’ve created in Iraq. The one in which the state doesn’t carry out indiscirminate acts of violence and vengeance. You live in a fantasy land, Pedro.
Not to mention diverting necessary resources from the War on Terra’.
As Johnny cochran might say; “When thousands die, the cost is too high!”
Simple questions frame…
Is Iraq better off now than with Saddam? Yes or no, no invective, no attacks against me.
Are US troops better or worse than the republican guard. Yes or no, no invective, no attacks against me.
Duros, it also sounds like South Central LA or Cabrini Green in Chi.
Again, I would rather take my chances with my neighbor who is trying to kill me than if the whole government is trying to kill me.
As Winston Churchill used to say…”Democracy is the absolutely worst form of government, except for all the OTHER forms of government out there…”
I would have to answer yes to both, though you didn’t ask me.
I found this on Huff Post. Thought you all should know;
Let’s review SOME of the republicraps shenanigans while in office, as we know, they’re very pure and “christian.”
1. Memogate: The Senate Computer Theft
2. Doctor Detroit: The DOJ’s Bungled Terrorism Case
3. Dark Matter: The Energy Task Force
4. The Indian Gaming Scandal
5. Halliburton’s No-Bid Bonanza
6. Halliburton: Pumping Up Prices - The scandal:
In 2003, Halliburton overcharged the army for fuel in Iraq.
7. Halliburton’s Vanishing Iraq Money
8. The Halliburton Bribe-apalooza - Halliburton, is
alleged to have paid more than $100 million in bribes to
Nigerian officials, from 1995 to 2002,
9. Halliburton: One Fine Company - The scandal: In 1998 and
1999, Halliburton counted money recovered from project overruns
as revenue, before settling the charges with clients.
10. Halliburton’s Iran End Run - The scandal: Halliburton may
have been doing business with Iran while Cheney was CEO.
11. Money Order: Afghanistan’s Missing $700 Million Turns Up in Iraq
12. Iraq: More Loose Change - The scandal: July 2004 finding
that a significant portion of CPA assets had gone missing –
34 percent of the materiel controlled by Kellogg, Brown & Root –
13. The Pentagon-Israel Spy Case
14. Gone to Taiwan - The scandal: A high-ranking State
Department official, Donald Keyser, was arrested and
charged in September with making a secret trip to
Taiwan and was observed by the FBI passing documents to
Taiwanese intelligence agents in Washington-area meetings.
15. Wiretapping the United Nations
16. The Boeing Scandal: In 2003, the Air Force contracted
with Boeing to lease a fleet of refueling tanker planes at
an inflated price: $23 billion.
17. The Medicare Bribe Scandal
18. Tom DeLay’s PAC Problems
19. Tom DeLay’s FAA: Following Americans Anywhere
20. In the Rough: Tom DeLay’s Golf Fundraiser
21. Busy, Busy, Busy in New Hampshire - The scandal:
an Election Day scheme meant to depress Democratic
turnout by “jamming” the Democratic Party phone bank with
continuous calls for 90 minutes.
22. The Medicare Money Scandal
23. The Bogus Medicare “Video News Release”
24. Pundits on the Payroll: The Armstrong Williams Case
25. Ground Zero’s Unsafe Air
26. John Ashcroft’s Illegal Campaign Contributions
27. Intel Inside … The White House
28. Duck! Antonin Scalia’s Legal Conflicts
29. AWOL - The scandal: George W. Bush, self-described “war president,”
did not fulfill his National Guard duty.
30. Iraq: The Case for War
31. Niger Forgeries: Whodunit?
32. In PlameGate
33. Abu Ghraib
34. Guantánamo Bay Torture?
35. Scooter Libby Indicted
36. Yellow Cake
37. Tom DeLay’s Indictment
38. Conviction of republican representative “Duke” Cunningham
39. Terry Schiavo
40. Tax Cuts DURING war
41. U.S. MILITARY ** DEATHS** IN IRAQ: 2,271
42. U.S. MILITARY **WOUNDED** & **MAIMED** IN IRAQ: 47,400
43.IRAQI **CIVILIAN** men, women and
CHILDREN DEAD (MINIMUM): 130,000
30,000 (says dubya 12-12-05)
44.Please feel free to ADD to this list! (not you DUBYA)
45. Haliburton NO-BID contracts (HQ now off-shore, NO TAXES that way)
46. Abramoff scandal
47. Hurrican Katrina relief(?) still waiting
48. Outing a CIA agent (Plame)
49. Michael (Brownie) Brown, FEMA “head” and cronie
50. Willful INVASION of PRIVACY, SPYING on AMERICAN CITIZENS
51. Blatant Disregard for the Constitution of the USA Willful Violation of the Fourth Amendment
52. Blatant failures of the “entitlement organization” the DHS
53. Bin Ladin SITLL at large!
54. ILLEGAL WIRETAPPING, ARTICLE NUMBER TWO IN THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT FOR NIXON
55. SPYING ON AMERICANS (NO WARRANT) Now refereed to as “Terrorists Surveillance Program”
56. ABRAMOFF INDICTED, PLEADS GUILTY
57. OPENING AND READING UNITED STATES MAIL
58. FRIST AND THE S.E.C.
59. SCOOTER LIBBY INDICTED
60. MEDICARE FIASCO
61. The DUBYA administration’s proposal to sell up to 200,000 acres of national forest land.
62. Little Tommy Dale DeLay seated on the DOJ subcommittee to oversee the Abramoff SCANDAL
63. “dr” Billy (quack, quack) Frist and House Speaker Dennis (the bastard) Hastert
engineered a backroom legislative maneuver to protect pharmaceutical companies from
lawsuits, tucked into a Defense Department appropriations bill at the last minute without
the approval of members of a House-Senate conference committee
64. DUBYA’S campaign promise to remove mercury from all vaccines (Oct.2004)
65. Bill Frist, Dennis Hassert and Roy Blunt slipping in legislation into the Defense Bill to
admonish vaccine makers from lawsuits (Dec 2005).
66. Republican controlled house leaders slipping in legislation to
protect Eli Lily from lawsuits in PA1.
67. Jeff Gannon, Talon News, White House press corps.
68. DUBYA continues to IGNORE the North Korean Nuclear Armaments
69. The Building of TORTURE compounds in Morocco with American TAX PAYER DOLLARS
70. Cheney “Cover-Up” of shooting his hunting buddy, and
ensuing Heart Attack due to “bird-shot” entering his heart.
71. Congressional INVASION in private medical family matters; Terry Schiavo.
72. NO ARMOR for the troops
73. Accounting of CASH sent to Iraq for “contractors”
74. The SOARING DEFICIT
75. The Bush Administration spent $1.4 billion in taxpayer dollars on 137 contracts with
advertising agencies over the past two-and-a-half years, according to a Government Accountability Office
76. CIA “director” Porter Goss warned in an agency-wide e-mail that any officer suspected of leaks could be subject to an
immediate lie detector test (Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP)”
77. Vice President Cheney disclosed that he has the “power” to declassify
sensitive government information, via “executive order of DUBYA” authority that
could set up a criminal defense for his former chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby.
78. Foreign companies, UAE, controlling AMERICAN PORTS! DUBYA “says” he will VETO
any legislation to preempt his insanity.
79. DUBYA “claims”he was unaware of the pending sale of shipping operations
at six major U.S. seaports to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates
80. DUBYA IGNORES PDB, dated 08-06-01 warning of IMMINENT TERRORIST THREAT,
also IGNORES warning from then NSA, RICE.
81. Defense contractor, Mitchell Wade, admitted that he paid
California Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (republican) more than
$1 million in bribes in exchange for millions more in government contracts.
82. The Army has decided to reimburse a Halliburton subsidiary for nearly all of
its disputed costs on a $2.41 billion no-bid contract to deliver fuel and repair
oil equipment in Iraq, even though the Pentagon’s own auditors had identified
more than $250 million in charges as potentially excessive or unjustified.
83. VETERANS HEALTH CARE SLASHED by DUBYA’S BUDGET
84. While DUBYA is adamantly against raising “taxes”,
he’s increasingly comfortable with 2007 budget proposal would raise more
than $47 billion in FEES! “Read my lips, no new taxes.”
85. American taxpayers will fork out $500 MILLION during the next
years to fund the “Healthy Marriage Initiative”, a program of the
Department of Health and Human Service’s Administration for Children and Families.
Harriet and Mike McManus are telling us what a healthy marriage really is.
They are founders of Marriage Savers.
The money is part of President Bush’s “deficit-reduction bill”,
which cuts spending on Medicaid, student loan programs and other
vital social programs in which the president apparently has little or
no interest or compassion.
86. A review of a United Arab Emirates-owned company’s plan to take over
operations at key U.S. ports never looked into whether the company had ties
to al Qaeda or other terrorists.
87. The “alleged” criminal investigation of Pat Tillman’s MURDER
conducted by the same group that LIED and COVERED UP his MURDER by “friendly fire”
Amen
“Is Iraq better off now than with Saddam? Yes or no, no invective, no attacks against me.
Are US troops better or worse than the republican guard. Yes or no, no invective, no attacks against me.”
Iraq is not better off now than it was under Hussein. At best, it’s qualitatively the same.
US troops are better than the Republican Guard but that doesn’t change the fact the a majority of Iraqis view them as occupiers and another segment of that majority is trying to kill them.
Now do you want to twist that all out proportion and declare me objectively pro-terrorist?
Hussein was a tyrrant. But you forget that even if he was a tyrant, after so many decades of living under his rule, the oppression becomes, for lack of better words, routine and predictable. Yes, people’s lives could be seriously disrupted on a whim but I’ll bet that the average Iraqi (excluding perhaps the Kurds who got shit all the time and probably should have their own country) knew how to avoid trouble. Now they don’t know when they might get killed: at the market, at school, in their own homes. It’s total chaos and on top of that, they have irregular electricity, unclean water and an economy that’s totally in the tank. They are living under occupation which means that, no matter how great US troops are, they are going to get roughed up, fucked up and maybe killed by the people who say they are there to help. I sympathize with any US soldier at a checkpoint whenever an approaching car starts acting strangely. They don’t want to hurt innocent people but in a chaotic situation that’s going to happen. And when it does, no matter the intention, the whole situation gets that much worse.
What’s your response? More rank glibness?: “Duros, it also sounds like South Central LA or Cabrini Green in Chi.”
What an idiot.
Here is a better question Dr Doper: Is America better off now or before it removed Saddam? It’s a no-brainer.
Thanks frame, great job of rationalizing Saddam’s reign of terror (remember the mass graves? I guess it took the Iraqis a while to learn how to “avoid trouble”. As long as they didn’t use any of the rights that Frame the Great Constitutionalist bandies about, they might live to get married).
By the way, that is the same argument I described previously used to excuse Mussolini…..”At least the trains run on time….”
You spend all your time mewling about how evil BushhitlerMcChimpy is eroding your rights, and then apologize for Saddam because things there were “routine and predictable”
You’re an idiot Frame, but thanks for making that clear to everyone here, my guess is even Ollie and he rest of the “progressives” can even see it now.
Let me sort of clarify that (written in spurts at work):
There is no fundamental difference between Iraq now and Iraq under Hussein except in that the violence under Hussein was more predictable than the violence going on now. The daily experience of this new kind of violence is qualitatively different but the end result of the violence is the same only the thousands killed are in individual graves instead of one mass grave.
Only a mush brain could make the argument that Iraqis are better off now than they were under Hussein because they are being killed by different means.Remember, the people actually doing the killing are the same ones who killed for Hussein, they’ve only switched tactics. And that’s the sum total of Pedro’s big victory.
Where to even start Pedro.
Your disingenuousness knows no bounds but of course that’s tobe expected. You are dishonest from your username on down.
Your claim that state sponsored terror is worse than insurgent sponsored terror is utterly inherently inane and only someone whose brain has been turned to mush by his own state’s propaganda would assert it. I should have my head examined for even dignifying it with a response.
You have yet produce any actual statistics about the rates of “random” state sponsored violence under Hussein in the three years leading up to our invasion. So what’s your point of comparison? Nothing but your subjective understanding of two types of fear you’ve never experienced.
But since the cat’s out of the bag, let’s try again.
Let me ask you, was Hussein in the habit of randomly bombing town squares, markets, mosques, schools, police stations and embassies on a weekly and daily basis for years at a time? Because that’s what’s happening now in Iraq with no end in send. I don’t see any difference between a state dug mass grave with a t