Unbelievable: Cheney (!) Tired of Fools

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 04:43:05 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

David Ignatius has a remarkable quote in his column today:

"Over the years, he got tired of suffering fools," says one longtime Cheney friend. "He thinks it's all BS."

BS? I'll show you some BS:

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.

You want BS? Here is some BS:

(Videotape, March 16, 2003):
MR. RUSSERT: And even though the International Atomic Energy Agency said he does not have a nuclear program, we disagree.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I disagree, yes. And you’ll find the CIA, for example, and other key parts of our intelligence community, disagree.
And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei, frankly, is wrong.

More?

VICE PRES. DICK CHENEY: My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.

More?

MR. RUSSERT: 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?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection.

MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know. . . . We learned . . . that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s . .

More?

(Videotape, March 16, 2003):
MR. RUSSERT: The army’s top general said that we would have to have several hundred thousand troops there for several years in order to maintain stability.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I disagree. To suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don’t think is accurate. I think that’s an overstatement.

More?

[September 14, 2003] I still remain convinced that the judgment that we’ll need “several hundred thousand for several years” is not valid.

More BS:

I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency."

And the piece de resistance:

[Iraq] will be an enormous success story.

I think the whole country is tired of the damned fools that pretend to run it - the worst Administration in history.

< General Casey: Withdrawal of Troops To Start This Summer | AT&T Ducks Accountability >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Unbelievable: Cheney (!) Tired of Fools | 67 comments (67 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

When men were men... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Oswald on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 06:40:10 PM EST

I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

PPJ's mendacity (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by soccerdad on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 11:42:35 AM EST

re: Saddam and WMD's is reaching epic heights. The neocons have stopped defending this nonsense. But I guess if you are in charge of propaganda and obfuscation here at TL you just keep spouting the nonsense.

The facts are pretty straight forward. The US and England have known since 1995 that Iraq had no stockpiles of WMDs and no active program or one that could be easily reactivated. From 1995-2003 inspectors could find no evidence of said programs. In fact OSP in the pentagon had to be set up in order to funnel bad intel to the WH.

PPJ also depends on the blatently fals claim that Dems = antiwar leftists. Without this claim his house of tettering cards comes tumbling down. As we all know, the Dems are and have been prowar and backed the invasion, because they knew that the war was about resources. This is also why Clinton would not lift Iraqi sanctions. Even today most Dems are prowar but they see the inept way it has been executed.

So the war will continue with the Dems trying to make hay on the incompetence of Bush without significantly changing the direction. The actions of most Dems is a ruse to make the US think that they are fundamentally different than the repubs. Most, with some notable exceptions, are just corporate lackeys who will continue the US's occupation of the energy rich ME.

Soccerdad (1.00 / 1) (#27)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 02:48:44 PM EST

Soccerdad seems to be unable to understand that we have been discussing what was thought/known in the 02 and 03 timeframe. If he could only keep up.

And yes, the Demos backed the invasion... They then dumped that position and started using the troops and the war for political purposes.


Right on Cue (5.00 / 2) (#33)
by squeaky on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 04:21:47 PM EST

The republicans see the troops as a social problem kinda like welfare. Their value is purely political ergo Keyboard Kommandos et al.

...using the troops and the war for political purposes

Rovian rule #1(most likely lifted from Goebbels):

Blame the Dems first for whatever misdeeds you are currently doing.


Gee, squeaky. You mean like this? (1.00 / 1) (#38)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 08:54:25 PM EST

Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM
Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.

Ding! (5.00 / 2) (#54)
by squeaky on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 12:58:45 PM EST

Bullseye. PPJ's 'banner' seems to pop up whenever I out his BS (shooting fish in a barrel). Funny that his attempt to smear me has become a veritable 'white flag'.

Rove would never be so obvious ppj, although you do draw quite a bit from his retarded cousin, (politically speaking) who is much cruder in his application of fascism 101 techniques: Giuliani
the other right wing 'social liberal'.

HAHAHAHA.


Squeaky (none / 0) (#59)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 09:13:26 PM EST

Nah, I just use it to show everyone that you have already told us that you have no regard for the truth.


Truth (5.00 / 1) (#60)
by squeaky on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 09:36:54 PM EST

Nah, I just use it to show everyone that you have already told us that you have no regard for the truth.

hahahaha

ppj and regard for the truth, an oxymoron to be sure.

Definitely a white flag, with a bit of squirm to boot.


: squeaky (none / 0) (#63)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 06:37:19 AM EST

Hey, they're words.

OFF TOPIC TROLL POST (none / 0) (#62)
by Sailor on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 11:58:11 PM EST

Political purposes (none / 0) (#32)
by Dadler on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 03:55:31 PM EST

First, bullsh*t, the Republican Party has trotted out 9/11, terrorism, brave troops, all the exploitation and scare tactics, whenever it needs to make political hay. Good God, man, you aren't that daft.

Second, politicians always act for political purposes, it's their job, politics. The specific actions of those politicians, and the specific purposes for those actions, are what matter and what are in dispute.

Now, please, fire back with how the Dems purposes are simply to undermine the troops so we lose the war, and how their actions are endangering the troops and emboldening the enemy and the rest of the boilerplate. And never criticize Bush for anything he does regarding Iraq. What is your biggest criticism of his mishandling of this mistake of a war? I know, I know, it wasn't a mistake, he hasn't mishandled anything, but you can still muster biggest criticism.


dadler (1.00 / 1) (#39)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 08:58:33 PM EST

Your problem is that 9/11 really happened. Terrorism and "brave troops" also happened.

So what you must claim is that it is all politics.

I remember a time when politics ended at the water's edge.

The Left changed that during Vietnam. I remember you agreeing with that.


: using the troops and the war (none / 0) (#44)
by Edger on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 11:41:27 PM EST

for political purposes kills American troops for those political purposes, Jim.
Where did you say the terrorists come from again, Jim?

We (none / 0) (#23)
by aw on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 11:50:24 AM EST

could have bought a lot of oil for $400 billion and counting, not to mention lost lives. In the end, with the costs of taking care of broken bodies and lives, it's estimated to go up to 2 trillion.

That's a lot of oil. Or a huge program of alternate energy resources. Wasted.


its too bad you cant read (none / 0) (#29)
by soccerdad on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 03:03:00 PM EST

cant come up with anythhing substantive so you misrepresent with a dismissive comment. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you


: this should be with ppj's comment (none / 0) (#30)
by soccerdad on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 03:03:41 PM EST

aw (none / 0) (#49)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 09:43:57 AM EST

You know, you're right.

We could have, but we didn't.

Now, does that tell you that this isn't about oil? That it is really about the security of the US and pushing back the Islamic radicals push against western cizilivation and Jews around the word?

It doesn't? Oh well. No surprise in that. But for a moment there I thought you had made a major step in understanding.


Nah, with the same rights they do have. (4.00 / 0) (#72)
by jondee on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 01:39:46 PM EST

and maybe with some"panties on the head".

Like quotes? (1.00 / 0) (#10)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 08:27:08 AM EST

Since you seem to like quotations, here are a couple that you may not be aware of.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein... We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction..... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

I have many other quotations from leading Democrats if you are interested.

Kerry Quote Out of Context (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by john horse on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 10:00:25 AM EST

PPJ,
In fairness to Kerry, you took his words out of context. His support was not unqualified. Here are some of the parts of his speech that you did not quote from:

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out. . .
If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize "imminent"--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs. . .
Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

Why do folks on the Right, like yourself, continue to use quotes out of context? Who are you trying to fool, the American people or yourselves?


John H (1.00 / 1) (#18)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 10:40:53 AM EST

I did not say his support was unqualified. His flips and flops are well known.

But note that his requirements were met. We worked with the UN, got another useless resolution, had allies when we acted.

As for imminent threat, since it was believed that Saddam had WMD's and was trying for more, the question becomes, when to act. Did Kerry mean when the missiles have been launched, or when it was believed that he could act at any moment.

If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

No, the US did not work with the UN (none / 0) (#28)
by Al on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 03:01:22 PM EST

Bush systematically undermined the UN, and dismissed UN inspections because they didn't show what he wanted. As we all know, the UN inspectors were right all along.

"It" was not believed that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction. As you know, this was a complete fabrication that was foisted upon the public, and upon Congress, by Bush and his gang.

You are well known in this forum, PPJ. We all understand very well that you are not naive.


: al, your ckaims have no substance. (1.00 / 0) (#40)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:13:02 PM EST

I have these and much more.
And if they had no WMD's, why this?

Saddam Hussein's regime offered a $2 million (£1.4 million) bribe to the United Nations' chief weapons inspector to doctor his reports on the search for weapons of mass destruction
Or as Scott Ritter told Time:

I am more aware than any UN official that Iraq has set up covert procurement funds to violate sanctions. This was true in 1997-1998, and I'm sure its true today. Of course Iraq can do this.

And what did David Kay say at the end?

"There were continuing clandestine activities but increasingly driven more by corruption than driven by purposeful directed weapons programmes," argued the 63-year-old former diplomat and sleuth.

Wrong Again PPJ (none / 0) (#34)
by john horse on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 08:28:47 PM EST

PPJ,
Kerry's position would be a flip-flop if he actually believed that Bush met the conditions that he outlined for supporting the war. However, he never did, did he? You and the 30% that supports Bush's occupation of Iraq may believe that he proved Kerry's criteria but Kerry never did. Thsi is important because we are talking about what Kerry actually said and believed.

But lets speak of one of his criteria for support - that there has to be a "grave, imminent threat". You pull out a quote to prove that this criteria was met. However, that is not what you have said in the past. "He (Bush) plainly states that we can not wait until the threat is imminent. He does not say the threat is imminent." Waiting until a threat is imminent is not the same as an imminent threat. Do you believe that the threat was imminent now? If you do, aren't you a flipflopper?


John H (1.00 / 0) (#37)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 08:52:17 PM EST

I didn't say Bush proved anything. I said that he met it. Obviously everyone believed there was WMDs.

My comment re "imminent" is questioning Kerry's definition, not mine. I don't think the threat was imminent and I pray God that it never becomes so because when it does, hundreds of thousands most likely will die.

Waiting until a threat is imminent is not the same as an imminent threat.

And if we had some ham we'd have some ham and eggs if we had some eggs.

The results are the same.


Please Explain (none / 0) (#41)
by john horse on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:22:32 PM EST

re: "I didn't say Bush proved anything. I said that he met it."

Lets review this.
Kerry says that he will support the war if the threat is "imminent."
You claim that Bush met this criteria. ("Please note that he met this criteria.")
You also say that Bush did not meet this criteria because you dont believe the "threat was imminent."

Either the threat was imminent or the threat wasnt imminent. If the threat wasnt imminent then Bush did not meet the criteria.


John H - here is help for you (1.00 / 0) (#53)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 11:13:37 AM EST

First. Kerry says it is okay to attack if we have allies and work with the UN.

Kerry then says:

but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent

Since we did not act unilaterally, the qualifier, "unless that threat is imminent" is of no consequence, and your conclusions incorrect. "Imminent" was not a requirement for Kerry's support since we had allies.

His qualifications were totally met. I thought that was so plain it was understood. I should have emphasized it. My fault.

Out of curiosity then, what did Kerry mean by "that threat was imminent."

W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein... We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation

Dictionary: ready to take place; especially : hanging threateningly over one's head <was in imminent danger of being run over>

Kerry says we need to disarm Saddam. Why? We all know what he has done. And further, "He presents a particularly grievous threat"....... and here is the clincher for imminent....."he is so consistently prone to miscalculation." i.e. Saddam could act, using the WMD's we KNOW (at that time) he has.

Kerry clearly means that he thinks the threat is imminent, and that Bush has his support should multilateral action be impossible.

Now. what did Bush say? First, he disagrees that the threat is imminent.

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option

To me, he is clearly saying that the threat is not imminent, and that we must not allow a threat to become imminent because that would be too late. He is stating his reason for the preemptive strike strategy.

So, now that you understand that "imminent" was not a requirement if Bush acted with allies, and that Kerry considered the threat "imminent," and stating support for Bush should unilateral action be required, I trust you will quit muttering about context when I state that Kerry, and other Demos supported the war, changing later to use it as a political tool. An act I find disgusting.


Lets Move the Debate Elsewhere (none / 0) (#55)
by john horse on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 01:44:59 PM EST

PPJ,
Since we are moving off topic (sorry Big Tent) I propose that we (and anyone else who wants to join) discuss this topic elsewhere. I am thinking of setting up a diary on this website to discuss Kerry. You in?


: John H. (1.00 / 0) (#56)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 07:01:57 PM EST

TL is gracious enough to endure my comments.
She is not gracious enough to extend me the ability to post.
But, there is an Open Thread. Fire away.

It seems to be (none / 0) (#16)
by Edger on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 10:05:12 AM EST

their twisted idea of 'debate', John. Part of the technique is not only not using facts, but purposefully ignoring easily sourced ones.


I like quotes--in context (none / 0) (#12)
by aw on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 08:46:10 AM EST

On 27 September 2002, Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts delivered a speech to the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. An excerpt from that speech includes the following statements:
We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction. Our intelligence community is also deeply concerned about the acquisition of such weapons by Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria and other nations. But information from the intelligence community over the past six months does not point to Iraq as an imminent threat to the United States or a major proliferator of weapons of mass destruction.
In public hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee in March, CIA Director George Tenet described Iraq as a threat but not as a proliferator, saying that Saddam Hussein -- and I quote -- "is determined to thwart U.N. sanctions, press ahead with weapons of mass destruction, and resurrect the military force he had before the Gulf War." That is unacceptable, but it is also possible that it could be stopped short of war.

snopes


Thanks for making my point. (2.00 / 1) (#17)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 10:22:16 AM EST

The point I made demonstrates that the Demos believed, as shown by Kennedy, that Iraq was seeking and developing WMD's. The question in play, was what to do about it. He did not believe Saddam should be called to task. Others did. As shown by Kerry from my same comment.

So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real,......."

You also note that Kennedy said:

does not point to Iraq as an imminent threat

In the final analysis, as Bush said in the 03 SOTU, in the modern world, we can not wait for an imminent threat because when Iraq, or Iran, has nucldear weapons, it is far, far too late. That was, and is, the justification for a preempetive attack strategy. You appear to believe that we should wait for another attack on the US, with the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives. Bush doesn't. I don't. And when forced to re-understand the choices, so will the American people.

Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror, and mass murder. They could also give or sell those weapons to terrorist allies, who would use them without the least hesitation.....
Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

Or as John Kerry said from the same quote:

W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein... We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction

Want some more? I have'em.


Here's Tenet, aw (1.00 / 0) (#19)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 10:47:08 AM EST

That is unacceptable, but it is also possible that it could be stopped short of war

As for Tenet, the operative word is "possible."

Possible - : being something that may or may not occur

And what happens if it is not? How many American lives are you prepared to gamble on?

If you want a villian, look for those who convinced Saddam that we would not invade. Does knowing that we have just had two UN officals arresed for taking birbes in the Oil For Food Program give you a hint where to look??


Good point, Jim (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Edger on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 11:31:42 AM EST

Somewhat like the possible imminence of a possible imaginary attack, possibly by a country, that possibly might, maybe, possibly have developed the possibility of developing something with which they could possibly harm you. if they had any possible way of delivering on the possibility, you mean?

OTOH, do you think it's possible you were just fed a load of bull, Jim? And quite possibly, you believed it.

Well.... hmmm... anything is possible I suppose, Jim.

Possibly.


edger the parse5 (1.00 / 1) (#25)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 02:37:26 PM EST

Thanks for making my point. These things are possible.

So whow many lives are you will to gamble with?


Ah well... (1.00 / 0) (#31)
by Edger on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 03:22:07 PM EST

You know how it is, possibly. ;-)

Life's a gamble. And no one here gets out alive.


EDger (3.00 / 2) (#35)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 08:39:34 PM EST

And that is your justification for being willing to let terrorists attack the US??

Wow.

Weak. Even for you.


Another peachey comment Jim? (none / 0) (#51)
by Edger on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 09:56:55 AM EST

I'm not surprised DA rated it a zero. But I expect someone else will play an offsetting rating game.


There you go Edger (none / 0) (#66)
by Peaches on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 11:17:54 AM EST

I don't consider it a game.

What you don't realize is that when Jim says something foolish it reflects on him, not you. I think people have a right to make their own determination. As I have also said, I have always enjoyed DA's and Jims back and forth, because DA is funny. Rating Jims comment a 0, is not only not funny it is lazy. Hiding comments should be Jeralyns decision, not TL posters, imo.

I have only rated comments that are hidden from view. I do it for the benefit of talkleft visiters. I do not do it to aggrevate you or anyone else here. It's a censorship thing. I think it reflects badly on TL. So, I make a rating to return a comment for view. I apologize if you feel slighted for my efforts.


Not all all (none / 0) (#67)
by Edger on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 11:43:41 AM EST

There are very few comments I think should be hidden. His was not one of them. And I have argued in the past against requests that Jim be censored or banned.

I think DA gave Jim's comment a rating based on what he thought the 'value' of the comments content was, not simply to hide it. And I think he did so expecting someone else to 'unhide' it. I agree with his rating in that sense. I also expected that someone else would rate it slightly higher to 'unhide' it.

If you really think the comments content deserves a 'value' rating of '4' - the second highest value rating you can give it - that is your right.

Knowing you, I don't think you really value the comment content that highly, though. That is my opinion.

A '1' would have sufficed to unhide it, if that is all your intention was....


A 2 (none / 0) (#68)
by Peaches on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 11:49:34 AM EST

would be necessary to unhide it, but someone else might come along and rate it a 0 or 1 and that would hide it again. I am not trying to put a value on the comments using the ratign system. I don't like grading. Value is something much more complex than any rating system could capture. I rate it a 4 to save myself the work of having to go back and rating it again. Any time the average rating is less than one, the comment is hidden.


: I was under the impression (none / 0) (#69)
by Edger on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 11:55:15 AM EST

that a comment is hidden only if it's total rating = 0.
1 (0+1) divided by 2 = .5

: Peace. (none / 0) (#70)
by Edger on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 11:59:00 AM EST

And it's possible, I'll grant you (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Edger on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 11:51:49 AM EST

That what you're looking for here Jim, is the possibility of having a reasonable debait, sorry - I mean debate, on this topic.

If that is possible, I suggest the possibility that you may find one or two or a hundred or so records of it in the TL archives, the other times you've tried so reasonably to debait, I mean debate this topic. Is it possible that it can be laid to rest now?

Possibly?


Edger (1.00 / 1) (#36)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 08:41:00 PM EST

Your idea of topic is to scream, "Bush bad!"

With no one allowed to disagree.

Typical Leftie position.


Try as I might, Jim (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by Edger on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:35:20 PM EST

I can't find any reference to bush in my comment that you claim I said "Bush bad!" in.

Your honest debaiting, I mean debating, tactics are just peachey, Jim.


Edger (1.00 / 0) (#46)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 09:31:35 AM EST

Try to understand the concept of someone describing something.

Pointing out that you only want to echo "Busb bad" is like saying, "Water is wet."


: Sure, Jim (none / 0) (#50)
by Edger on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 09:50:14 AM EST

Busb bad? B-Busb?
I hope we have B-b-b-blue Christmas this year, Jim. We can't wait for 2008.

no comparison (none / 0) (#13)
by syinco on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 08:54:18 AM EST

To the extent that they should have realized that they had only a partial look at the evidence - evidence that was willfully constructed to mislead - and to the extent that they based their decisions solely on their interests in siding with the public emotion at the time, I grant that they are fools.

But as Al said, Cheney is not a fool, he is a liar. His motives and actions are far more sinister; his consequences far more grave.


Dark Avenger (1.00 / 0) (#26)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 02:40:45 PM EST

But two years earlier, Powell said just the opposite.

The Dark Avenger now proposes that no one can change their minds.

Evidence? Well, I'm sure you'd rather depend on Daily KOS...

Ta Ta (1.00 / 0) (#48)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 09:38:30 AM EST

So you don't read KOS? Okay, that's what you say, but I note that you protest too much.

And my comment said nothing about the why of changing. Must have been too subtle for you.

Ta Ta, Dark Avenger and nice a nice day.

DA (1.00 / 0) (#58)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 09:11:42 PM EST

Yawn......


Dark Avenger (1.00 / 0) (#64)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 06:39:43 AM EST

Boredom......

Yawn..

Got anything to say on the topic??

No? Nothing new.


: DA (1.00 / 0) (#71)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 01:18:18 PM EST

Yawn..
Okay, you don't.
Ta Ta

I looked up "fools"..... (none / 0) (#1)
by kdog on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 04:50:36 PM EST

in Cheney's Dictionary, it said "those who believe in peace, justice, equality, and goodwill toward men."

Dat Cheney! (none / 0) (#2)
by A Citizen on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 05:03:56 PM EST

What a maroon! But wait! The big, shotgun wielding AssClown ain't alone there's Condi-lies-a-lot, and please do not overlook another one of Mr. Bush's favorite fools who's stellar performance lately has been the subject of some commment...

AG 'Abu Graib' Gonzales.

Oh, yeah now there's a fool for ya!

A fascist fool...

The very worst kind.

I don't know, Big Tent (none / 0) (#3)
by Edger on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 05:08:01 PM EST

They sure seem like fools, and by any reasonable measure seem to be only getting results that fools and incompetents would get.

I think they aren't though. Like Gonzales yesterday spewing crap that he must know is absolute crap, and thinking people will fall for it (which some do, amazingly enough), I think Cheney knows exactly what he and Bush are doing, and I think they are getting exactly the results they set out to get.

I think that they think that enough people will think they are fools to not notice that they aren't because to believe they aren't is too unbelieveable... and that they are doing what they do... on purpose and with their eyes wide open:

To allow yourself to think of these people as foolish, incompetent, irrational, or wrong-headed is as mistaken and misinformed as thinking that Hitler was merely a well-meaning but mistaken fearless leader of his people.
Link

Yes,I know... moonbat conspiracy theories, blah, blah, blah

I think if they were fools they would make too many mistakes to be able to get away with what they've gotten away with, and to retain power for this long.

You forgot... (none / 0) (#4)
by desertswine on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 05:12:39 PM EST

How could you leave out:

"Go f*ck yourself." --to Sen. Patrick Leahy

He's Just Self-Loathing (none / 0) (#5)
by archpundit on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 06:32:35 PM EST

Well, to the extreme....

Jeebus (none / 0) (#7)
by Che's Lounge on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 07:17:33 PM EST

where's a cop when you need one?

Cheney is no fool (none / 0) (#8)
by Al on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 07:18:03 PM EST

He is a conscious, deliberate liar. Cheney was after control of Iraq's oil, and he is capable of any lie to justify it. He knows that enough people will believe it to give him the power to do it, too. He won two elections.

: And that is (none / 0) (#9)
by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 07:40:48 AM EST

The ultimate indictment of "Democracy in America".

Cheney is so full of bs that . . . (none / 0) (#11)
by john horse on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 08:30:30 AM EST

Cheney is so full of bs that they dont have to fertilize the White House Rose garden.

He is so full of bs that he cant help spewing it out of his mouth.

He is so full of bs that (oh dont get me started)

Secretes b.s like a protective coating (none / 0) (#20)
by jondee on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 11:06:31 AM EST

So Mr. Seventeen-Ropes-for-Seventeen-Necks, 3,000 dead etc is worried about "lives". Excuse me while I laugh.

Criminal Intent (none / 0) (#45)
by DARRYLMAST on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 08:00:57 AM EST

every comment Dick Cheney ever made was with Ciminal intent. He is a thief and con man a common thug who blongs in a Military Prison. His personal bank accounts should all be raided. All his personal assets taken. Hali should be taken over by the US Military for operation part related to military.

Dick Cheney should be humilated on world television for 6 months and paraded and should spend the rest of his life in jail.

He is the pinnacle of what happened in the last 6 years and he thinks he is the Leader of this Country. Lead him to a cell.

Darryl A. Mast

Darryl (1.00 / 0) (#47)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 09:33:45 AM EST

Would that be after Cheney is given a trial with the same rights you want the terrorists to have??


: What a stupid comment? (none / 0) (#74)
by DARRYLMAST on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 09:56:43 PM EST

Who said I want terrorist to have rights? Dick Cheney gives every terrorist rights by killing ethanol and promoting Oil. Oil the power by which all terror is funded.
It funny, Cheney wants to say he is against terror and strengthens their base every day by digging in deeper with the Saudi Govenment.
Take away a terrorist rights plant corn and burn ethanol in your car. You my friend are for terror rights. The right for terrorist to fund themselves every time a car pulls up to the pump.
Dick Cheney belongs in jail period.