FingerLakerAv8r From United States of America, joined May 2011, 259 posts, RR: 0 Posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1680 times:
I really don't like the guy but seriously... We need to move on. I highly doubt torture charges will ever be brought against him. I did learn one thing though. You Canadians can get all rowdy every so often I'll be more demure and quiet when I go to Nigara-On-The-Lake this weekend. Would't want to get a stern talkin' too lol
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7467 posts, RR: 5 Reply 2, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1564 times:
Cheney was right in the middle of the decision to invade Iraq. Some feel that Bush was President and Cheney was CEO.
Regardless, Cheney does retain all the responsibilities of his part in that unnecessary 10+ year war. It is right that the public does not forget the disaster he brought to this country as well as the Middle East.
Let the conservatives bow at his feet, but don't expect the rest of us to.
dfwrevolution From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1552 times:
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 2): Cheney was right in the middle of the decision to invade Iraq.
As were 82 Democrats.
Quoting FingerLakerAv8r (Thread starter): I really don't like the guy but seriously... We need to move on. I highly doubt torture charges will ever be brought against him.
If any human rights chargers are brought against Cheney, they would need to be brought against Obama and Holder, too. Despite years of loudly crowing and promising change from the Bush administration, Obama's administration has slowly and quietly retained nearly all of their stances in the WoT. It is obvious now that much of the outrage towards Bush, Cheney, etc was based on partisanship and not principle.
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7467 posts, RR: 5 Reply 4, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1452 times:
The Democrats made one huge error - they believed the crap put out by the White House. They believed the lies.
Reality is best seen in 2 books Bob Woodward wrote. The first was on the first Gulf War under Bush I. A strong book that was very supportive of the Administration, especially President Bush's leadership.
The second book was on the Iraq invasion by Bush II. Same writer, many of the same sources. And one massively different impression left by anyone who has read both books.
The Bush/Cheney (or Cheney/Bush) team was exceptionally good when it came to selling the lies. They were totally incompetent when it came to managing the war that followed the invasion.
But, hey, Halliburton made some really big profits from that unnecessary war, didn't they?
And the American people eventually came to understand the lies that led to that war.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7794 posts, RR: 22 Reply 5, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1412 times:
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 4): The Democrats made one huge error - they believed the crap put out by the White House. They believed the lies.
As told by Bill Clinton, British Intel, French Intel, Russian intel, Saudi Intel, Israeli intel, Egyptian intel and so forth. Everyone of consequence was convinced that Saddam was building WMDs, because that was the impression Saddam wanted to give. Saddam finally realized that he had to get rid of his WMD stockpiles after he got caught hiding them in 1998, but at the same time did not want to appear completely disarmed to his neighbors and his population. This was why he would allow in the inspectors, but then would act fishy and secretive, restrict their movement etc. Saddam figured that if he created enough doubt about his WMDs, he would still appear strong to an Arab (or Iranian) audience, but not supply the proof that he had, without which he was convinced the West would not move. He figured wrong.
All this came out of Saddam's interrogations after his capture.
Was Bush wrong to go to Iraq? In hindsight, yes, but at the same time you have to acknowledge that Saddam was intentionally muddying the waters, and in the post-9/11 period, his actions were enough to convince all those people I listed that he HAD to be hiding something, even if they had no proof. Haven't you ever been convinced of something without proof?
The accusation that Bush and Cheney lied has been debunked over and over. Your repeated insistence that he did lie shows that yes, you are capable of believing something without proof.
arrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2582 posts, RR: 2 Reply 6, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1346 times:
Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 3): It is obvious now that much of the outrage towards Bush, Cheney, etc was based on partisanship and not principle.
On the contrary. That well-founded outrage can now be directed at Obama, Biden etc. because they have perpetuated what Bush/Cheney started. That, combined with monstrosities such as the now-renewed Patriot Act and the just-inked National Defense Authorization Act is Obama's biggest, and perhaps most shocking, failure. Remember when the rallying cry was "we can't let the terrorists win?" Well guess what; they won.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 5): Was Bush wrong to go to Iraq? In hindsight, yes, but at the same time you have to acknowledge that Saddam was intentionally muddying the waters, and in the post-9/11 period, his actions were enough to convince all those people I listed that he HAD to be hiding something, even if they had no proof. Haven't you ever been convinced of something without proof?
Nice rationalization, but they knew that intel was highly suspect before the first Marine boots hit the ground -- but they did such a good snow job that even Colin Powell was successfully sucked in. He had to be, of course, because he was the guy making the pitch to the UN, and ya gotta be able to do sincere if you want to win the hearts and minds. It worked on the American people, unfortunately, but not too many others were convinced.
And it wasn't just "hindsight" that said Iraq was a mistake; there was lots of foresight saying the same thing. But the Bush administration -- along with all those hoodwinked Democrats you mentioned -- didn't want to hear it. The emperor had no clothes, but no one wanted to hear that either.
BTW -- any bets on how long before Iraq descends back into dictatorship mode? Only this time, it might look a lot like the kind they have in Iran.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7467 posts, RR: 5 Reply 7, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1326 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 5): Your repeated insistence that he did lie shows that yes, you are capable of believing something without proof.
I gave you two pretty good references. I mentioned the first book (The Commanders) as it clearly demonstrates that Mr. Woodward is an independent, honest journalist. The second simply makes any reasonable American want to gag at the actions of the White House under Bush & Cheney. Same writer addressing the issues with the same integrity.
But you might not want to read both books. The first shows you how it should be done. The second pretty well strips Bush II & Cheney of any credibility on the invasion. You'd probably be happier not comparing the two wars.
Quoting arrow (Reply 6): BTW -- any bets on how long before Iraq descends back into dictatorship mode? Only this time, it might look a lot like the kind they have in Iran.
It's pretty obvious to me that Iran is going to control Iraq more and more each year. Just another "unfortunate" result of the Iraq Invasion.
Then let's add Afghanistan over time. Actually, put Iran in the center of a map covering your computer screen and start thinking of their potential to spread their power, weapons and terrorism.
ER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2233 posts, RR: 8 Reply 8, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1319 times:
Quoting arrow (Reply 6): That well-founded outrage can now be directed at Obama, Biden etc. because they have perpetuated what Bush/Cheney started. That, combined with monstrosities such as the now-renewed Patriot Act and the just-inked National Defense Authorization Act is Obama's biggest, and perhaps most shocking, failure
And there's STILL people in this country that think he's a liberal......and some that will try to convince us he's soft on terror.
Un-huh - when it comes to foreign policy Obama is a Bush clone.
seb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9835 posts, RR: 17 Reply 9, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1273 times:
Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 3): If any human rights chargers are brought against Cheney, they would need to be brought against Obama and Holder, too.
How so? Because Obama and Holder closed the torture camps or because Cheney set up black sites in third-world countries?
In answer to the other questions: where were the WMDs the Bush propoganda machine said there were tons of in Iraq? Where? Did anyone ever find the WMDs? Was Saddam behind 9/11 like they said? And, what about the stockpiles of WMDs aimed at the United States?
ltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12338 posts, RR: 12 Reply 10, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1261 times:
Former VP Cheney apparently made the choice to not travel to Vancouver, BC Canada as it was believed that he would have faced protesters while giving a speech at a rich white guys club or going to or from it or even face an attempted arrest on human rights violations. I am not sure to what degree of Secret Service protection he gets at this time but perhaps they advised him not to go there at this time due to the heightened risk. I would also suspect he would be a target of al-Queda types or would be's - Canada has a few of them too.
arrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2582 posts, RR: 2 Reply 11, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1254 times:
Quoting ltbewr (Reply 10): Former VP Cheney apparently made the choice to not travel to Vancouver, BC Canada as it was believed that he would have faced protesters while giving a speech at a rich white guys club or going to or from it or even face an attempted arrest on human rights violations.
I thought he did come here -- and he's nixing Toronto because he had to be whisked in and out of Vancouver in the trunk of a car -- or something like that.
Anyway -- no loss to us if he doesn't show. Probably costs us a mint in mountie support for the secret service dudes.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Confuscius From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 3636 posts, RR: 2 Reply 12, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1108 times:
Quoting arrow (Reply 11): he had to be whisked in and out of Vancouver in the trunk of a car
Extraordinary rendition?
So Darth Cheney is pretty much exiled to the United States of Wyoming. It's a nice place, home on the range...where the buffalo roam, where the deer and the antelope play.
tu204 From Russia, joined Mar 2006, 904 posts, RR: 19 Reply 14, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days ago) and read 748 times:
This is one guy I would never shed a tear over if he just happened to die a painfull and humiliating death. Lets hope in his senility he decides to travel to Iraq without his SS escort.
I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7467 posts, RR: 5 Reply 17, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 730 times:
Quoting ER757 (Reply 8): when it comes to foreign policy Obama is a Bush clone.
LOL!
Bush starts to go after OBL, then is sidetracked by OIL. Yep, OIL, not WMD.
Obama gets us out of the totally unnecessary war in Iraq and goes after OBL. Kills the SOB without loss of US life. He has also gone after and killed other senior terrorists.
As for Bush - more Americans in uniform have died in his unnecessary wars than people killed in the 9/11 attacks.
Obama has done a lot to raise the international reputation of the US - a reputation bashed about by the Bush/Cheney Gang.
dfwrevolution From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 706 times:
Quoting arrow (Reply 6): On the contrary. That well-founded outrage can now be directed at Obama, Biden etc. because they have perpetuated what Bush/Cheney started
Then where is it? Obama was inaugurated and it virtually disappeared. Obama has as much ownership of those policies as Bush. Where is even the discussion that Obama committed U.S. forces to combat outside of the conditions of the War Powers Act?
Quoting seb146 (Reply 9): How so? Because Obama and Holder closed the torture camps or because Cheney set up black sites in third-world countries?
Guantanamo Bay - still open
Drone warfare - expanded
Tribunals vs civilian courts - deferred to Bush policy
Intelligence gathering - deferred to Bush policy
Unilateralism - mirrors Bush policy, specifically endorsed by Obama's national security disclosures
Use of preemptive force - mirrors Bush policy, specifically endorsed by Obama's national security disclosures
I'm not saying these are the wrong decisions by Obama, I'm pointing out the absurdity of the rhetoric between the Bush and Obama administrations on national security. I'm also sure that Obama thought he could turn a new leaf when he campaigned and took office, but reality pushed him back to the same positions reached by the Bush administration.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 17): Bush starts to go after OBL, then is sidetracked by OIL. Yep, OIL, not WMD.
If Bush and Cheney knew Iraq wasn't a threat and wanted to secure oil, why didn't they just lift our sanctions on Iraq? We could have bought all the oil we wanted without firing any shots.
Contrary to liberal belief, the Bush administration actually had some bright people who would have recognized the obvious fact that you can't successfully wage a war based on an economic justification.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 17): Obama gets us out of the totally unnecessary war in Iraq and goes after OBL. Kills the SOB without loss of US life. He has also gone after and killed other senior terrorists.
The intelligence that located OBL came from the enhanced interrogation tactics approved by the Bush administration and protested by Democrats.
zkojq From New Zealand, joined Sep 2011, 785 posts, RR: 1 Reply 19, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 660 times:
Sometime last year Bush wanted to go to Switzerland, but it is rumored that they intended to bring some kind of war crimes against him so he didn't go. I guess this is similar. No loss to the world if Bush II and Cheney are stuck in the USA for fear of protesters and prosecution. Why should they be allowed to go an make lots of money from a speech or two while the host nation has to pay for security? Just do a teleconference instead.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 2): Cheney was right in the middle of the decision to invade Iraq. Some feel that Bush was President and Cheney was CEO.
Hey, at least he will have made plenty of money from retained shares in Halliburton. They managed to do rather well with the DOD giving them uncontested contracts. How a nation allows such conflicts of interest to exist is beyond me.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 4): The Democrats made one huge error - they believed the crap put out by the White House. They believed the lies.
At the time, I was convinced too. I was young, naive and didn't fully understand that a president/administration might lie to sell a war to the people of the western world.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 4): But, hey, Halliburton made some really big profits from that unnecessary war, didn't they?
They certainly did.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 5): Haven't you ever been convinced of something without proof?
If would understand if he had been open about the fact that they had no direct proof, but the administration always insisted that there IS WMDs in Iraq, not that there is LIKELY to be. Big difference. Then as the war got underway there were the elements in the media who got rather angry at people for 'Questioning the president at a time of war' - essentially disagreeing with the president made you unpatriotic. If I'm convinced of something but don't have proof, I don't tell others that what I'm convinced of is a certainty.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 5): As told by Bill Clinton, British Intel, French Intel, Russian intel, Saudi Intel, Israeli intel, Egyptian intel and so forth.
Ever heard of the Downing Street Memo? How about Curveball?
Quoting seb146 (Reply 9): In answer to the other questions: where were the WMDs the Bush propoganda machine said there were tons of in Iraq? Where? Did anyone ever find the WMDs? Was Saddam behind 9/11 like they said? And, what about the stockpiles of WMDs aimed at the United States?
And now certain groups are doing it all over again with Iran.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 17): Bush starts to go after OBL, then is sidetracked by OIL. Yep, OIL, not WMD.
Arrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2582 posts, RR: 2 Reply 20, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 614 times:
Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 18): Then where is it? Obama was inaugurated and it virtually disappeared. Obama has as much ownership of those policies as Bush. Where is even the discussion that Obama committed U.S. forces to combat outside of the conditions of the War Powers Act?
I don't know! It staggers me that the US is sleepwalking into police state status and it's happening on the watch of a liberal leftie! Wolf in sheep's clothing if you ask me. The erosion of civil liberties in the last decade is shocking, and runs counter to everything the US is supposed to stand for. In other words, the so-called bastion of freedom has become the very antithesis of the word. I mean, why has there been no outrage over the passage -- with almost unanimous bipartisan support and the signature of Obama -- of the NDAA? That measure alone sets the cause of civil liberties back 200 years and grants powers to the president that Stalin would envy.
You can't keep pinning all this sh*t on Bush/Cheney any more. Granted, they got the ball rolling, but Obama is pushing it downhill! And what do the Republican presidential contenders debate? Birth control, for chrissakes. Oh, and "let's nuke Iran." Sheesh.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7467 posts, RR: 5 Reply 21, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 597 times:
Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 18): Contrary to liberal belief, the Bush administration actually had some bright people who would have recognized the obvious fact that you can't successfully wage a war based on an economic justification.
And it is a pity that the Cheney/Rummy Side was able to push through their unnecessary war.
Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 18): The intelligence that located OBL came from the enhanced interrogation tactics approved by the Bush administration and protested by Democrats.
"enhanced interrogation tactics". Senator John McCain called it torture and I'll accept his judgement over Cheney's.
As for the OBL operation, conservatives just can't stand that a Black Democrat in the White House gave the green light to kill the SOB and a lot of other senior terrorists.
Quoting zkojq (Reply 19): Hey, at least he will have made plenty of money from retained shares in Halliburton.
He was making around $8 Million a year while "serving" as Vice President. Pretty good profits - makes you wonder just how much of that "income" was from sending Americans into war.
Quoting zkojq (Reply 19): How a nation allows such conflicts of interest to exist is beyond me.
Money rules politicians more than ever these days. The Supreme Court decision to let corporations invest in politicians at levels never before seen. Democracy sort of takes a back seat to cash these days.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 2011, 259 posts, 
I'll be more demure and quiet when I go to Nigara-On-The-Lake this weekend. Would't want to get a stern talkin' too lol
From France, joined Jul 2006, 572 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2582 posts, 
From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2233 posts, 
From Russia, joined Mar 2006, 904 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Sep 2011, 785 posts, 
At the time, I was convinced too. I was young, naive and didn't fully understand that a president/administration might lie to sell a war to the people of the western world. 
Printer friendly format 
