Actually Blackstone, you seem to be the only person on this thread that doesn't think what Cheney said was out of line - even amongst those that generally support this administration and/or Iraq.

Actually there are at least two others (see #42 and #43 on this very page), but that's really not what's relevant. What is relevant is that no one can plausibly argue that Cheney was accusing Democrats of sympahtizing with al-Qaeda in that speech. It's simply not there. So what we're left with instead is a bunch of overheated talk of Rovian strategy and quotes from some random pundit and speculation about what Bush might say in the future. Like I said earlier, anyone who wants to examine all that other stuff is free to start a thread dealing with those things. And hopefully then they can stay on topic if that discussion doesn't start to go their way either.

No, that would be your viewpoint, because people have plausibly argued that what he said was over the top, and just because it is 3 people instead of just you doesn't really change that very much.

The fact of the matter is that plenty of people crossing the political spectrum here have been able to read between the lines just fine in Cheney's comments. Line that up with the domino effect with media and pundits and it becomes even more clear.

If you can't or don't care to read between the lines there then I suppose that is your issue, but plenty of people have made a good argument for it.

Well... I can say that I never really argued for or against Cheney. My point is simply that I find irony in the fact that we're abusing Cheney as if he's invented snide remarks from the White House or a Washington office in general. Mud-slinging and absurd comments that marginalize the opposition are seemingly more and more prevalent, as if working against the other party is somehow better for the country.

My personal opinion is that eventually, moderate Americans are going to get sick of this, and hopefully it will force a more civilized political system. These comments are by no means unique to one side of the aisle, and no more/less acceptable if they come from a congressman than from the VP.

When their "good argument" consists of saying "Read between the lines!", I'll take it for what it's worth. The fact remains that there's practically nothing he could say on the subject (short of total surrender to your position) that couldn't be met with that same argument. Scientifically speaking, your explanation fails on the grounds that it's unfalsifiable.



Except that what he said was not mud-slinging. I'm not a huge fan of Cheney either, but I can tell a debatable point from an ad hominem. This was not an ad hominem.

The thing that's partly disturbing about it is the fact that, the standpoint of our adversaries, if you will, in this conflict, and the al Qaeda types, they clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task. And when we see the Democratic Party reject one of its own, a man they selected to be their vice presidential nominee just a few short years ago, it would seem to say a lot about the state the party is in today if that's becoming the dominant view of the Democratic Party, the basic, fundamental notion that somehow we can retreat behind our oceans and not be actively engaged in this conflict and be safe here at home, which clearly we know we won't -- we can't be. --- Dick Cheney (emphasis added)

AND: 1. Together with or along with; in addition to; as well as. Used to connect words, phrases, or clauses that have the same grammatical function in a construction.

2. Added to; plus: Two and two makes four.

3. Used to indicate result: Give the boy a chance, and he might surprise you.


It is irrelevant to me if Blackstone does not agree the vice-president tried to link Al Qaeda and the Democratic Party. You don't have to hold a degree in English to notice the juxtaposition of "Al Qaeda" in the first sentence and the "Democratic Party" in the second is hardly coincidental. Though the printed transcript of Cheney remarks has him starting the second sentence with "And" instead of using it as a conjunction, there is a obvious attempt to join Sentence One to Sentence Two. Al Qaeda. Democratic Party. Cause and Effect?

It is obvious the plan of the Bush Adminstration and the Republican Party in hopes of avoiding a major debacle in the November elections is to scare voters into believing if you vote for Democrats the terrorists will come and kill you. Well, that's to be expected. The president's remarks at his press conference sounded like they came from someone who hasn't caught the news coming out of Iraq for the last six months or so. The remarks of Cheney and Bush the Sock Puppet are only part of staying on message until the first Wedesday of November. It's a time-tested strategy that has worked well for the GOP in the past and they hope if they go to the well again they won't have tapped it dry.

We'll see.

Of course it's not coincidental. He wasn't just throwing out words at random, you know. Cheney thinks the Democrats have a horrible strategy for dealing with al-Qaeda. See? I just put the two in the same sentence for you.

I'll give you credit though, nighttimer. At least you made an attempt, however weak and flimsy to analyze his statement. More than I can say for a few others on this thread.


I'm sorry, and the election plan of the Democrats is...? I'm pretty sure both sides are trying to portray themselves as being tough on terrorism, and their opponents of having a disastrous approach. That's a bit different from accusing the voters on the other side of actually sympathizing with the terrorists, which is what Cube Jockey and a few others on this thread have been claiming Cheney was doing.

But again, I forgot: Only Democrats are allowed to criticize their opponents. When Republicans do it, they're always being underhanded and below-the-belt and borderline tyrannical. Just "read between the lines."

Did Cheney and those who made similar comments go too far?

No and here's why:

The only way this goes "too far" if it stifles debate. Putting your point of view out there is not "demeaning democracy". It is called participating in democracy (actually, politics, but we'll let the muddling of terms go).

In this particular case, Cheney believes that Democrat strategy emboldens terrorists and harms our national security. Of course he is entitled to his opinion, as are we all. Criticizing those that have opposing positions is not anti-democratic, although in this case it is anti-Democrat.

It is just absolutely hilarious to see people continue to defend this. Cheney was talking about the result of a Democratic primary and it is patently obvious what he meant by phrasing his words the way that he did. You go with people like Ned Lamont and you can expect more terrorist attacks. I mean seriously, you'd think anyone with even a basic comprehension of the English language would be able to see that pretty clearly, Nighttimer even took the time to break it down for everyone.

Not only that but he happens to be completely wrong, but don't take it from me why not check out what Michael Scheur has to say about it, you know the ex chief of the Bin Laden unit in the CIA who might actually know a little something about terrorists and terrorism.


I'd suggest reading the whole thing, unless of course anyone that disagrees with the administration isn't to be trusted no matter how unassailable their credentials are.

Is this the same Michael Scheuer that said that bin Laden was not a terrorist, he was a "freedom fighter"? He once called him "brilliant" and leading a "noble cause"?

He rightfully condemns the Clinton approach to capturing bin Laden (which he himself spear-headed).

This guy does have a fairly unique amount of experience in the matter, but that does not make him the end-all and be-all just as Donald Rumsfeld is not the end-all and be-all of military expertise despite his position as Defense Secretary.

Take Michael Scheuer's opinion for what it's worth, but don't over emphasize it.

Not sure what your point is Amlord, from the CIA's perspective that was all true at the time considering we were enabling him and his organization to fight the Russians by proxy. Things of course changed once they left, but you can't exactly throw something out there like that without any context whatsoever. edited to add: And as a side note I do see some questionable quotes on Wikipedia and I would question their context, but defending Scheuer isn't the point as you'll see below. I naturally assumed these comments were in reference to our dealings with him several years ago, looks like that assumption was wrong but doesn't change the point.

But your response to this illustrates a good point that is relevant to the topic. Terrorism is one of those things (sort of like communism in the 50's) that you merely have to hint at and it immediately chills the debate. Want to smear and marginalize your opponent - then you simply equate him or her with terrorists or accuse him or her of supporting terrorists either directly or indirectly with the same effect.

Whether you realize it or not you did that here. You don't really like what this guy has to say so you trot out an out of context statement where he calls our #1 enemy a "freedom fighter". Never mind that it was widely accecpted at the time that he was, that's not important. For the lazy reader you've instantly destroyed this guy's credibility. They'll think "anyone who ever said something like that surely can't be someone I need to listen to".

Now I don't know if you intended to do that or not, I won't make guesses about your motives but the way in which you've done it has that effect.

The exact same thing is true of what Cheney said and what all of the people down the line said (and are still saying) in turn. The beauty of it is that he pulled it off in a very indirect way so people like Blackstone and yourself can defend him when it is perfectly obvious what he was doing.

Right, as if Democrats never claim that going with Republicans will make us less safe or anything. That still doesn't mean anyone's accusing anyone of sympathizing with the terrorists, which is what you've been claiming. Have you given up on that angle, or is there still some explanation you're sitting on that'll clear it all up for everyone?


CJ, "at the time" was April 14, 2006. I don't think it was too widely accepted outside the Islamic world at that time. (assuming it was even ever much widely accepted over here before then either)

This isn't about using buzzphrases like "terrorism" and "Communism" as bludgeons. This is about calling this guy on having views that are completely detached from reality, and yes, that most certainly does call into question his crredibility here. It'd be like quoting a Jim Crow supporter for comments on efforts to improve race relations in this country.

Can't see the forest for the trees, can you?

You trotted out his opinion on the current state of affairs. Given that he has been out of the loop for over two years, his opinion has only slightly more weight than anyone else's.

I point out that this guy isn't exactly neutral and denied OBL was a terrorist a mere four months ago and what do you do? Blindly defend him--as you accuse your political opponents of doing for this administration. It really is funny stuff.

Just admit it, you had no idea who this guy was or what views he represents. You saw his credentials on the Atlantic Monthly story and you ran with it. Examining the source of one's supporting evidence is key to reasonable debate, wouldn't you agree. It is relevant what this guy has said about the issue at hand.

No, I'd say that he still has more weight than you or I as far as his opinion goes. He was in the CIA for 22 years and was the head of the bin laden unit for 3 of them. But he probably contradicts what you'd like to believe soo that means he must be discredited!


Actually Amlord I started to post more about that except that it would be incredibly off topic to get into it. But let's start with the fact that you cited Wikipedia and the quotes you are referencing are taken from Al Jazeera allegedly and they give no source and no context. So we have no way of knowing:
1) If he actually even said those things, and on what date
2) in what context they were said

Given that it comes from Al Jazeera a safe assumption is that they were words taken out of context and meant to play to their audience. He could have easily been having a conversation right now in 2006 about things that were the case 20 years ago. Or he could have perhaps been explaining how the other side sees things. Either way, you take his words out of context and they become something else.

Now if you really want to pursue that issue then actually do some real research and don't just throw up a wikipedia link that has no sources and no context - you'd think after being here as long as you have you'd know you are going to get called on being lazy like that. I posted his words because they were relevant to a particular point you made, and instead of actually responding to the substance of them you decided to discredit him instead - how very GOP of you.

Now as far as Michael Scheuer himself goes, as I was trying to say in my previous post whether that stuff is actually true or not is irrelevant. You've invoked the terrorist card in order to discredit him, and you did it on very shaky evidence to boot.

I don't think that in the 3 years I've been here I've seen you take a position even remotely against the administration and I don't expect you to start now. But the fact of the matter is that equating someone with terrorists now has the same effect as hinting someone was a communist back in the 50's. You talk about stifling the debate, that is stifling the debate.

I mean though, that is just the point. Its not at all about any actually factual understanding of the issue, its red vs. blue and who is going to score really, never mind what the debate or issue ever was.

Imagine if science ran that way, that no need to understand was made paramount, it might be safe to say the earth would still be the center of the universe, though of course I know that’s personal speculation like a great majority of things.

Politics more often then not takes on the slander approach to dealings or interactions in such a system. Is it sad, well maybe, it also can be fun to view at times.

My point is this, I have no credentials, last time i checked who does, are they the prime people running shows. I remember watching a clip that was brought up not to long ago, from General Collin Powell, he basically stated that lots of the intelligence used to convince the public that Iraq was a needed war probably should not have been used for various reasons, why does no one care one someone like that says such, well people on each side will have a tow the line gut reactions, that’s typical anymore.

The America public should care nothing more then for a government that is not selfish, you see that many conservatives would come out of the woodwork to slam Clinton for putting our nation in danger or not doing enough to keep us safe, is this same standard applied to the current admin by such people? Will the democrats grill there man as much as they do this administration, no, so taking both sides into account, I could really care less about a majority of things they say, simply because for the most part they all speak like the know but that hardly ever reflects in reality, or if actually analyzed or researched for hours on end is simply full of holes, but yet of course such regimes come to define our environments we are hard pressed to be able to understand, more so from a convoluted government that lacks accountability or visibility, this is why I follow the natural law party, or the scientism approach, simply to try and end such corruption and fallacy not so much as if it would work cant really know that.

Yet each side will be happy in the ignorant bliss of a cycle that never ends, and of course will not cop to any mistakes and most likely claims any benefits that come along to something they did at sometime, its disgusting overall.

Of course they can continue on this path, its perfectly legal, but is it healthy for America, is it healthy in regards to simply being able to understand the issue. I mean what it really boils down and says to me is the reason they have to throw mud and simply talk hypothetical is simply because each side lacks any real understanding on how to combat terrorism, its about that simple, and like I have said many times before, its not a democrat or a republican label we should be looking for at this time in regards to who will get your state owned vote, it should be someone that can actually bring something to the table, we simply do not have this, which is scary. Why do so called experts have to debate how to battle terrorism? When do we say we should try something different?

Right now any town or place in America is a possible target for terrorism that can be attacked, we know they are out there planning, but on the news all I hear about in Iraq, and then groups of people talking smack about that while actual terrorists are simply in some hotel in any nation on the earth plotting, I simply don’t understand why there is not more outrage, just because our forces happen to be tied up in Iraq does not mean another 9/11 cant occur. Iraq has a million valid questions attached to it, but for the most part its impossible to get any answers, save stay the course, I could care less who was saying that, I would still be demanding some truth.

I didn't "invoke the terrorist card". I gave context to his opinion.

If I said that Donald Rumsfeld, the leader of the most powerful military for the last 6 years believes we are winning in Iraq and we have enough troops, what are you going to use to refute Rumsfeld's views?

Of course Rumsfeld's opinion has weight, just as Mr. Scheuer's does. However, an appeal to authority does not close the book. It is a factor, but so are other things.

Mr. Scheuer is not a rabid anti-war Bush hater. He seems to be a principled "we're doing this wrong" critic. Which is fine. We are doing things in closer alignment to how he wanted them done under the Clinton administration. He does tend to put his foot in it from time to time. For instance, in his antiwar.com articles, he has used terms like "coming home to roost" in reference to 9/11.

I don't want to discredit him, I want to give his remarks context, that's all.

yo democracy is like rock and roll, you just wait around waiting for the next pink floyd to tell you what to wear.

Like hey, Radiohead, man, they don't hit it like they used to, see?

So I'm just waiting for hillary clinton kna'mean? or maybe barrack obama or evan bayh who the horse is evan bayh? Electable man what a hoot.

Ok, so its like this: God made Adam and eve, right? But they couldn't agree everything, right?

So we here in america gotta look into redefining our marriage man there a little glass plates being tossed across the living room these kids are doing badly in school and God said you can't waste minds, son, that's just knowledge kid ark ark ark.

So it's like this, though. Hillary Clinton that chick is sooo boring. And that's not how democracy's supposed to work. Now maybe Dick Cheney is trying to use fear tactics, but its like a poem, see? all kinds of 10th graders are reading it all kinda different ways.

Honestly though.

Dick Cheney has a right to say what he's gotta say so maybe the point is that this isn't how democracy is supposed to work, this is how education isn't supposed to work. chicanery ol cheney. vote up, people! and get witty wit it.


and take back your existence or CNN will sled.

I believe Cube Jockey and the majority (not a few others) in this thread are not "claiming" Cheney attempted to draw a link between Al Qaeda and the Democrats. If you read closely Blackstone, you will find they are saying that was exactly what our press-shy vice-president was doing.

In a presidential adminstration this controlling, not even a fart happens spontaneously.

Thanks for the back-handed compliment regarding my analysis of Cheney's statement. Though while you found it "weak and flimsy" that is exactly how I would characterize your defense of Dick "Go (blank) yourself, Pat Leahy" Cheney's remarks.

Cheney's foul mouth

Oh---that's right. Cheney probably really didn't mean to suggest Senator Leahy perform an anatomically impossible act upon himself. Probably....

But then again....

When asked if he had cursed at Leahy, Cheney answered, "Probably."

"Do you have any regrets?," Neil Cavuto asked.

"No. I said it," the vice president responded.

Dick Cheney: Class Act

So maybe you'll understand why people are so reluctant to give Cheney the benefit of the doubt, Blackstone because when it comes to showing contempt and disrespect for people he disagrees with, Dick has a history.

Maybe you'll understand. Probably you won't.



After I stopped laughing, I'd probably just provide some facts. Like this.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Opposition among Americans to the war in Iraq has reached a new high, with only about a third of respondents saying they favor it, according to a poll released Monday.

Just 35 percent of 1,033 adults polled say they favor the war in Iraq; 61 percent say they oppose it -- the highest opposition noted in any CNN poll since the conflict began more than three years ago.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/21/iraq.poll/

...and this.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S. Marine Corps said Tuesday it has been authorized to recall thousands of Marines to active duty, primarily because of a shortage of volunteers for duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Up to 2,500 Marines will be brought back at any one time, but there is no cap on the total number of Marines who may be forced back into service in the coming years. The call-ups will begin in the next several months.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/22/marines.ap/index.html

...and this too.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a strong supporter of the war, suggested this week the Bush team has only itself to blame for setting unrealistic expectations.

"One of the biggest mistakes we made was underestimating the size of the task and the sacrifices that would be required," McCain said. " 'Stuff happens,' 'mission accomplished,' 'last throes,' 'a few dead-enders.' I'm just more familiar with those statements than anyone else because it grieves me so much that we had not told the American people how tough and difficult this task would be."

Such statements, he said, have "contributed enormously to the frustration that Americans feel today because they were led to believe this could be some kind of day at the beach." Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) offered a similar assessment. "I think we undersold how hard the war would be," he told reporters this week. "I think we oversold how easy it would be to create democracy. I think we missed by a mile how much it would cost to rebuild Iraq."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...82301878_2.html

And finally this.

It is startling to hear, in private conversations, how widely and deeply the U.S. officer corps despises this secretary of defense. The joke in some Pentagon circles is that if Rumsfeld were meeting with the service chiefs and commanders and a group of terrorists barged into the room and kidnapped him, not a single general would lift a finger to help him.

Some of the most respected retired generals are publicly criticizing Rumsfeld and his policies in a manner that's nearly unprecedented in the United States, where civilian control of the military is accepted as a hallowed principle. Gen. Anthony Zinni, a Marine with a long record of command positions (his last was as head of U.S. Central Command, which runs military operations in the Persian Gulf and South Asia), called last month for Rumsfeld's resignation. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who ran the program to train the Iraqi military, followed with a New York Times op-ed piece lambasting Rumsfeld as "incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically," and a man who "has put the Pentagon at the mercy of his ego, his Cold Warrior's view of the world, and his unrealistic confidence in technology to replace manpower."

But the most eye-popping instance appears in this week's Time magazine, where retired Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold, the former operations director for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, not only slams the secretary and what he calls "the unnecessary war" but also urges active-duty officers who share his views to speak up. Newbold resigned his position in late 2002—quite a gesture, since he was widely regarded as a candidate for the next Marine Corps commandant. His fellow officers knew he resigned over the coming war in Iraq.

http://www.slate.com/id/2139777/

Donald Rumsfeld---like his soul brother Cheney, pushed for this war. Lied us into this war. Lied about the reasons for this war. Lied about what would happen when we got into this war and how we would know we were making progress. They lied, continue to lie and I continue to change the number of American soldiers killed and wounded in Iraq.

An appeal to authority? Not when the authority has forfeited its credibility. Like Rumsfeld.

Thanks, nighttimer, for not only proving my point but emphasizing it.

The fact that Rumsfeld has insider information and a leadership position in running things doesn't mean his opinions on the matter is gospel.

Similarly, Michael Scheuer has an opinion, has some insider knowledge (from a few years ago) failed to catch bin Laden before 9/11 (just as Bush & co. have failed since) and he has made some sympathetic comments towards Al Qaida in general and OBL as a person.

In this case, Cheney has a right to his opinion and an avenue for expressing it, just as Howard Dean does, just as John Murtha does, just as every other politician or political beast has. It is ironic that this debate is premised on the idea that Cheney expressing his policy differences with certain others means that he is demeaning democracy instead of engaging in it.

No one was claiming his remark was "spontaneous", whatever that's supposed to signify. That's the second time you've made a completely irrelevant point about his speech. The first time was when you made the brilliant deduction that it wasn't a "coincidence" that he mentioned the Democrats and al-Qaeda in the same speech. Gee, really? I thought he just set his word processor to start randomly grabbing words off the Internet.


Maybe if there was some doubt to give him the benefit of, you'd have a point. But the fact that he once said a bad word to someone doesn't mean he's accusing his opponents of sympathizing with terrorists. To go by your standards (and many others' on this thread), anything he says on the subject will be taken to be "out of line", because of what he once said to Pat Leahy. You keep insisting that he said something here that he did not, but you have nothing whatsoever to back it up, beyond some arcane point surrounding the definition of the word "And".

For those who might be still be confused by this, his paragraph followed the standard format used by politicians in an election season. First they define the problem under discussion. Then they say, "And when we see the [fill in the blank: Democrats/Republicans/whatever] saying this or doing that, that doesn't bode well for our ability to do something about the problem. Vote for them and they'll just make the problem worse." Etc., etc., etc. All standard fare, all part of what democracy is about. It doesn't "demean" it, and it doesn't "go too far".

Well, since apparently only a few people in the world think that Cheney is entitled to comment on how our enemies would view the Lieberman / Lemont election, I'll chime in. We all know that these guys follow our news; Bin Laden even paraphrased Michael Moore regarding a 'book about a goat' at one point. I will go out on a limb and say that, given the choice, Al Qaeda prefers the waspy candidate to the Jewish candidate. God forbid, the guy wins an election and they have to deal with him, an agent of the Zionist Entity and all. That said, I think that we are all nuts if we think that this particular enemy gives a whit whether the "neocon" or "conserative" guy or the "liberal" guy wins - they want us all dead.

There have been isolationist tendencies in both major parties at different times in history. To ask what a 'retreat to our shores' would mean vis a vis our enemies seems to me to be a perfectly legimate line of inquiry. Maybe it's so unpopular because it hits home so hard. As we saw in Afghanistan, South Lebanon and now Somalia, taking pressure off these Islamists just gives them time to re-arm. Their hatred of the West doesn't decrease, despite the wishful thinking. Then, we have a bigger problem to deal with later at some point. What will President Feingold do when pirates from the Islamic Republic of Somalia hijack merchant ships, or build a dirty bomb, or start a war somewhere.

As for Rummy's leadership and optimism, in a poll of actual Iraqis, more now believe that the country is on the right track vs. the wrong track, up 10 points since March. They are actually more optimistic about their country than the Americans are and, with 2 exceptions, this has been true since 2004.

You're kidding...right....right? You really think this is Jew vs. Gentile???? That Al Qaeda (or anyone else in the middle east, for that matter) give's a rat's behind who won the Connecticut primary??? Good grief.

That's venturing into tinfoil hat territory...and that limb looks mighty brittle.

I would like to add that W Bush was in office when 9-11 occurred. That the terrorist attack that brought on the war on terror took place with that person in office, not some person lacking a backbone as is slowly being hinted at, which relates to the topic at hand surrounding the idea if you do not support the current admins strategy you are really just working for the terrorists or simply happen to be weak on defense or something. I read a neat little joke on a political humor site, it had W Bush running against Jesus, and used the words of Jesus basically to say Jesus was soft on crime, national defense and would install socialism basically, I of course got a huge laugh out of it simply because W wears religion on his sleeve, and those don’t just happen to be my words, Ronald Reagan’s son I think spoke that phrase at his fathers funeral.

Ugh. The skewed logic of this "Well, we've got to stay THERE or fight 'em HERE" line of thought is so repulsive it makes me want to throw up.

How powerful was Al Qaeda in Iraq BEFORE we invaded? Oh, that's right. Al Qaeda didn't start coming into Iraq until we showed up expecting to be showered with flowers, adulation and cheap oil. When will the Right run out of contrived reasons to justify this farce?

The Bush Adminstration likes to brag, "Well, we haven't been hit since September 11." Big deal! How many years had we gone without being hit PRIOR to 9-11-2001? Osama bin Forgotten hit us pretty darn good then. Plots on the scale of 9/11 takes Al Qaeda years to pull off. The absence of another terrorist attack on our home turf doesn't mean it's any less likely to happen. It just hasn't happened yet..



Golly gee carlitioswhey. You've sure shown me a thing or two. I'd be optomistic about the war too if it were the Iraqis footing the bill and their soliders were doing the bulk of the fighting. I somehow doubt the majority of Americans now opposed to the war are going to change their mind due to a highly suspect poll by a poll listed on the site of a partisan Republican policy group.

Any group listing former ambasssador to Iraq, Paul Bremer as a member of their board of directors is going to be a bit suspect in how unbiased their agenda is.

Feel free to puke. Terrorists still want you dead.

I've been called a lot of things, but "The Right" is certainly the most interesting lately. Oh, and by the way, do you want us to win or lose the "farce" ? You can please give us a 3 or 4 letter answer. (hint - "win" or "lose")

Less than one. The USS Cole was hit in October of 2000. Thanks for asking

I agree with you. So, you'll of course be honest and say that, in 2011, when we have a president Clinton II, and terrorists strike in some creative way, it's just the way it is. Not former president GW Bush's fault, just that it takes years to plan. Hoo Ahh.

Golly Gee Mr. Foreign Policy Genius, but you surely noticed that Senator John McCain is the head of the organization conducting the poll that I cited. Must be highly suspect, since you have quoted him at length in this very thread. You are a much better writer than you are a debater.

Well, I think that Cheney has read quite well what it takes to take a country to war- the saying atributed to Herman Goering at the Nuremburg trials remembers this quote:

Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

But, that was actually AT the trials- it was in the proceedings he said this, while in the cell to a man named Gustave Gilbert- who wrote the "nuremburg diaries". Goering did not think of himself as an anti-semite, that had he known around in 41 or 42 the scope of the atrocities, he would have "forced a showdown".

The actual conversation went like this:

We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."


There is the important check and balance that Goering mentioned that i think gets so lost in todays debate- the ""In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

It seems as though Cheney doesn't like that idea too much- that someone may very well put him right into check!

This has been the tactic throughout the history of this regime- anyone that disagrees with them is "anti-American" or "must hate America" -

in fact, it has become part of our pop culture and joking and lexicon of our language.

Ya, no doubt Cheney and Rove and the "sock puppet in charge" pretty much understand this is the only trump card they got left- to convince our very, very dumb voting public that a vote for Lamont is a vote for Al-Quaida.

It may very well work, our collective IQ as a nation is pretty much retarded in the extreme.

I'm kinda surprised that it hasn't been brought up in this debate that the Democrats have the very same strategy that Cheney is being accused of here...linking Republicans with terrorists.

Democratic strategist Michael Brown:



Full Transcript here.

Also note the comments from Howard Dean I referenced earlier in this thread. Numerous other Democrats have echoed this theme.

So, what really is the difference? We have the Republicans stating that they think the Democratic strategy will cause terrorism, and we have the Democrats stating that they think the Republican strategy is causing terrorism. This will be how it plays out during this election cycle. Both sides are going to try to win the 'security' vote by stating that the other sides policies are making us less safe. I don't think either side has any room to criticize the other here....both are equally guilty. If anything, the Democrats are doing it more, which is typical from the party not in power (which usually is more critical of the party in power's policies). But certainly, IMHO, the Democrats have no ground to cry wolf here.

Maybe the Democrats are using the same tactics as the Republicans in arguing that the opponents strategy is making the U.S. not safer, but their is of course a big difference here. The democrats are not in power and therefore have less influence on the whole situation. They have a stronger argument if they say that this particular strategy adopted by the Bush administration is not making the U.S. (or at least the U.S. troops)any safer. Anti-Americanism, during the Bush administration, in large parts of the world have indeed become stronger. There is not a lot of love for the U.S. in, for example, the Middle East. The Republicans can only say the same about their political opponents on hypothetical grounds which makes their statement sound a lot more like propaganda.

Senator McCain's presence on the board of directors of a Republican pro-Iraqi group doesn't remove their overt political slant. McCain is a supporter of the war. Two other board members (Chuck Hagel and Brent Scowcroft) oppose the war and support withdrawal. Takes all kinds.



Well, I guess I know now who cast the tiebreaking vote for Wertz in this year's Best Overall Debater category.

So, if we pull out today, and there is a civil war, we haven't 'won' or 'lost' we just got 'out' and that would be good. Were you as ambivalent about the millions of dead Vietnamese and Cambodians, or is it just Iraqis, or maybe all non-Americans? And if America quits poking around into other countries, do you think that the resulting power gap won't be filled by, oh, Iran or China? Will that create more or less dead Americans in the long term?

You asked 'how many years' not 'how many times.' I'm quite aware of the other attacks that you listed, and never said there was "less than one" incident. I must say I'm continually amazed at the dismissal of our embassies as if they aren't sovereign US territory, not just by you but by everyone. I'm only slightly less offended by the obfuscation of the Khobar Towers investigation by the Saudis. We never should have put up with that noise.

We agree on this.

Did Cheney and those who made similar comments go too far?

Yes they did go to far. Labeling those with different opinions as terrorists is frightening! Different points of view should be encouraged by those in authority.

nighttimer:

I never asked you whether you read my posts, nor do I care either way. Pedantic is otherwise a pejorative [and insulting] term, at least in our culture. Do wish me to reply to the same by reporting that what is trivial to you is not trivial to me? And, sorry, but the law otherwise presumes you to be incompetent to testify to my state of mind, so there goes your claim that I somehow emphasize my knowledge through the use of my vocabulary. And if I have a fondness for the rules, well, I don't, but if I did, I am an attorney, I did take an oath, and we are otherwise supposed to be a nation of law and not of men, so presumably rules might mean something to me.

Now to respond to the only substantive point that you made, (1) I never said that Hitler was a liberal, only that he was on the left side of the political spectrum, (2) some on the left, Marxist communists, falsely propagandized that Hitler was a fascist and so a member of the right side of the political spectrum, and (3) some on the left have adopted that false propaganda as their modus operandi.

Lastly, you might otherwise wish to refrain from calling any human, pedantic, given that persons with Asperger syndrome tend to speak pedantically [as it were] [see: http://tinyurl.com/j3kwy ]. Of course, my and their humanity was of no concern to you when you used that term. But thanks for proving my point re the rather crass insensitivity exhibited by more than a few on the left side of the political spectrum.

KaNe:

Did Cheney call anyone but members of al-Qaeda, terrorists? No? Then why are you reporting that he did? Some others here otherwise don't understand the English language and its grammar, since while "and" connects, it does not mean that things "equate." And the connection is simply that the enemy wants to destroy our will to fight. Cheney otherwise simply said that al-Qaeda will take the proposed action of some as indicating that they are indeed destroying our will to fight. And by the way, re Iraq, why are so many so unhappy? Is it because al-Qaeda in Iraq is making war on us and our Iraqi allies and there seems to be no end in sight? And what is the proposed action of some? With that in mind, why would anyone come to a conclusion other than that the proposed action of some tells al-Qaeda that it is indeed destroying our will?

Lastly, if our will is not at issue, then please explain this:

http://www.psywarrior.com/nviet3.html
http://www.psywarrior.com/nviet4.html

Were the North Vietnamese proposing to win that war by papering our troops to death with leaflets? Or were they instead trying to undermine our will to fight?

Now please note the North Vietnamese use of our antiwar movement. Does not that alone prove Cheney right?

Ever hear of Bui Tin? Bui Tin was on the general staff of the NVA and received the unconditional surrender of the Republic of Vietnam on April 30, 1975. With regard to the matter of our will and our enemy's attempt to undermine the same, Bui Tin has said:

"Q: How did Hanoi intend to defeat the Americans?
A: By fighting a long war which would break their will to help South Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh said,
'We don't need to win military victories, we only need to hit them until they give up and get out.'

Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?
A: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.

Q: Did the Politburo pay attention to these visits?
A: Keenly.

Q: Why?
A: Those people represented the conscience of America. The conscience of America was part of its war-making capability, and we were turning that power in our favor. America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win."

So, now, please tell me, what was so wrong with what Cheney said? There may be good reasons to not be in Iraq, though that is the subject of another debate, but please don't claim that Cheney was wrong in claiming that certain proposed action would only serve to embolden our enemy in al-Qaeda, as such proposed action most certainly will not only have that effect, as the Bui Tin interview makes plain, it will also serve as a valuable recruiting tool for our enemy as well. And, no, we are not saying that you or anyone else is imitating Hanoi Jane, only that the proposed action will have the same emboldening effect and otherwise serve our al-Qaeda enemy in its effort to recruit just that many more adherents to its cause.

Sorry, re the Bui Tin interview, please see:

http://tinyurl.com/hjnhv

April 1983: 17 dead at the U.S. embassy in Beirut.

October 1983: 241 dead at the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut.

December 1983: five dead at the U.S. embassy in Kuwait.

January 1984: the president of the American University of Beirut killed.

April 1984: 18 dead near a U.S. airbase in Spain.

September 1984: 16 dead at the U.S. embassy in Beirut (again).

December 1984: Two dead on a plane hijacked to Tehran.

June 1985: One dead on a plane hijacked to Beirut.

January 1993: two CIA staff killed outside agency headquarters in Langley, Va

February 1993: Six people killed at the World Trade Center

Five and 19 dead in Saudi Arabia in 1995 and 1996

April 19, 1995: Bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City kills 168 people.

224 dead at the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998

its high time that these be addressed in a proper format
and not with force
people dont blow themselves up to make a point without just reasons and do not make me snicker with they love our freedoms and life style thats a line only a fool could digest without snickering

they are the terrorists that did those evil deeds
not the sunis tribesmen who are heroes fighting for their home land as I am sure any and all heroes in america would do if they were invaded themselves

no to address the reasons for the real terrorists is not in the Natl interest
So the terrorists and terrorism will continue
If rusdsian troops were deployed In America and America's army were no more would the American heroes not do the exact same deeds
the deeds are not because they covet your lifestyle and freedoms truth be known they detest it
they want shiri law and dont want drugs and gangsters all over the streets

the root causes for terrorists are many but I will only name a few to be brief

1) America now has 134 bases around the world they protest this they protest the bases in their holy land
and they reject the American hegemony that says American elites can reap all of their resources while they live like cavemen
they reject that America blocks all UN efforts with their veto to have Israel settle it's border disputes while
muslims in pakistan are killed and starved to death
and they reject that Israel refuses to obey the only UN law that they managed to get passed
they reject that Israel can have nucleat weapons and still not have the condemnation brought down on them while Iran can not have nuclear power even

untill these are addressed there can never be peace in their minds
these are my observations of the past 53 years
and don't mis judge my convictions I say this not as anti AMerican or a anto semite as I am a benevolent person of peace and understanding it is all factual

So to say you will win against terror is saying you can do ther impossible
and you can't
these core issues will not only have to be redressed but they will have to be expanded upon if the war against terrorism is to find an ending
at least that is my perspective
fighting the poor tribesmen of Iraq that are only defending their own country isnt doing anything for
the fight against terrorism
it is expanding terrorism and nothing else
the cosequances are great for America they have lost their prestige in the world
their closest alies Canada,france,Germany all said no TO Iraq war
red flags ought to have been popping up in Washinton instead red aligned news anchors popping juglar veins
over it
how dare those Iraqi tribes men stand up to America and fight for their country and it's resources
in America you would call them heroes anywhere else they are terrorists
how dare hugo chavez own his own oil wells and distribute the country's wealth to his people
how dare the rest of the world breath our ( american ) air without paying for it

that is the message loud and clear for all to see in the world
how can you win the hearts of men with these morals
you can't
these types of wars are usless utterly foolish and only the dumbed down could be apart of it
if America wants war they should roll out fat man H bomb and let it fly
add in a few nutron bombs for good measure that is war
and is even more acceptable than this fiasco going on now
at least we dont kill americans that way nor do we have to slauhter civilians in the streets like hoodlums
or torture 100 inoccent to find one that is guilty

this is a non winnable war like vietnam
heed the wise old mcArthur he was a man of war and knew better then most what it took to win wars
either nuke em or pull up the circus tents this is becoming a mess o potamia