-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Dick Cheney on Iraq and Saddam circa 1992
- Thread starter Incognito
- Start date
- Status
ManDudeChild
Member
It's not a flip flop man. Only the terrorist-loving liberals can flip flop 
Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
It doesnt matter anymore, this country is going down the tubes. We deserve whatever we get. I'll vote for kerry but i really have lost all hope of kerry pulling this one out. The only thing we can hope for is that somehow bush changes in the next 4 years into a respectable leader who we can be proud of. .........
LOL yeah right
LOL yeah right
Tommie Hu$tle
Member
#1. We worked for the Bush I admistration and once the President decided to not continue the assualt then that was it. What Sec of Defense (of cabinet member for that matter) has ever publicly disagreed with the decision of the president he was working under and survived.
CaptainABAB
Member
HalfPastNoon said:
The difference is: 9-11. I mean, 9-11 changed EVERYTHING, so everyone gets one free pass to flip-flop. Like Bush with Nation Building. The problem with Kerry is that he flip-flopped before and after and multiple times since then.
That pretty much sums up my stance on the whole thing , I promised myself in the past that I wouldn't vote ( feeling it wouldn't matter) but decided this year I would just to get Bush out ( not sure if that's iresponsible or not) but Im not sure it's gonna matter too much come November....and you are right we do deserve what we get, the sheer number of Bush supporters without any form of reason or logic I've met all but confirm that in my mind......sighDoc Holliday said:
You may want to consider the context of the situation and the times. Read up on the end of the Gulf War, etc. Kerry has modified his positions post 9/11, and his positions on Iraq have changed while the Iraq situation pretty much stayed the same.
Basically, examine Kerry's positions since 9/11 and compare them to Cheney's positions since 9/11 and I think you will see that the argument that both sides have equally flip-flopped is quite a specious one.
Basically, examine Kerry's positions since 9/11 and compare them to Cheney's positions since 9/11 and I think you will see that the argument that both sides have equally flip-flopped is quite a specious one.
CaptainABAB
Member
HalfPastNoon said:
Yeah, it kinda is if you are a democrat and not if you are a republican.
Manabanana
Member
I will never understand why changing your mind in light of new information = weakness.
"Some new shit has come to light, man!" - The Dude
"Some new shit has come to light, man!" - The Dude
Wow, Cheney is like Nostradamus or something. He predicted the current situation a decade before it happened. Maybe he'll know how the fuck we get out of there. :lol It's a flip-flop or whatever else you call it. But that's not the important part. What's important is that he would say something like this in 92 and then still campaign heavily to undertake this same nightmare he forcasted. Cheney is either a masochist or an idiot. I'm guessing it might be a little from both columns. PEACE.
mrkapawutzis
Member
By bringing up hypocritical statements of the current administration you allow the terrorists to win.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
Example?Makura said:
Cerebral Palsy
Banned
Makura said:
Consider the context of the situation and the times? What's different this time? Beside the little fact that Iraq wasn't trying to invade another country this go around. Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? What is so drastically different that required us going into Iraq this time? The war on terrorism? If that's so important then why did we pull our troops, and focus off of Afghanistan and Al-Qaeda to go into Iraq? At least we got Saddam! Who cares if Bin Laden is running free. The world is safer because of this too! I mean, we've only had two Russian planes downed, a Russian school taken hostage, two buses blown up in Israel, numerous beheadings, and other terrorist acts in the last month. And why stop with Iraq? There are far worse tyrants out there than Saddam could ever wish to be. We should police the world. The only difference this time is that we had no valid reason to enter Iraq, and the fact that Cheney could do a complete 180, given the lack of reasoning for entering this war, is fucking laughable. It's fucking disgusting how the Bush administration is abusing this war time for re-election. Vote Bush or there will be another terrorist attack and your children will die!!!!!!!!!
And I haven't seen Kerry "flip-flop" on the war at all. Kerry voted not on the war, but that the President should have the power to go to war if needed. Now like many others who were duped by G.W., he feels like the President lied and abused his powers to enter a fraudulent war, and this administrations self-proclaimed "success" in Iraq has been a disaster. But eh, why even listen to what Kerry has to say? It's beneficial to the Republican party, considering their voter/member base, to ignore Kerry's views, and just say he holds no position on any issue at all. But wait, how can you have no opinion, but flip-flop!?
Why is that? Why is it that EVERYTHING that the Bush administration has done that has attracted any criticism is immediately brushed aside with "Well shit, 911 happened, where tf were you?". And for the millionth time, WHAT THE FUCK DOES 911 HAVE TO DO WITH IRAQ OR FLIP-FLOPPING ABOUT A WAR WITH IRAQ???CaptainABAB said:
Nintendo Ate My Children
Member
Do people really believe that Kerry was completely oblivious to what his vote for the president's right to go to war would be used for? Come on. If you believe that, you believe Kerry is just as retarded as Bush.
While we're quoting old statements, John Kerry on Crossfire in 1997:
I am sick to death of the left and right turning an immensly complicated issue into "OMG BUSH LIED AND EATS BABIES" or "OMG KERRY SUPPORTS TERRORISM".
Cerebral Palsy
Banned
Nintendo Ate My Children said:
I guess I'm retarded then. Pre-war I don't think I had a clue of exactly how bad Bush was going to fuck up an already bad situation.
I agree with the quote. We shouldn't ignore anyone we feel might be a threat, and we should have the ability to defend ourselves. I don't think this Kerry quote approves lies and the bending of poor intelligence to go to war with Iraq.
You feel the Bush administration has been honest? Hi, welcome to the retard club. Population: Me and you.
Kerry has seriously screwed himself on the Iraq issue. He continually makes himself look bad, when he's got such a great opporunity to hit Bush hard.
He voted to go to Iraq. Now he says that the war was a bad idea. If only he could just say that he was duped by the present administration (re: WMD, links to Osama, etc), he would simultaneously excuse his supposed contradiction and deal a huge blow to Bush. ...right?
He voted to go to Iraq. Now he says that the war was a bad idea. If only he could just say that he was duped by the present administration (re: WMD, links to Osama, etc), he would simultaneously excuse his supposed contradiction and deal a huge blow to Bush. ...right?
Nintendo Ate My Children
Member
How have they been dishonest? Stop rolling your eyes for a second and explain this to my feeble mind.
Ah, good. Usually, the bar is set at "lying," which is so much harder to prove than dishonesty.
1) The perscription drug bill cost over a hundred billion dollars more than they said it would. Not because of an honest mistake, but because an accurate estimate was deliberately supressed until after the bill passed.
2) The administration said that the reconstruction of Iraq could be paid through oil revenues. Larry Lindsey publically estimated the cost of the Iraq operation at about $200 billion dollars and was fired.
3) Bush has said that Iraq is making good progress, counter to the National Intelligence Estimate. Also, Bush said that the NIE's three possible scenarios were "life could be lousy, life could be OK, life could be better." In fact, the best case scenario involved violent drift with no significant improvement.
4) Bush says that Kerry voted for the war. At the time of that vote, Bush said he was working to solve the situation peacefully. Even now he says he wanted to avoid a war. One way or the other, he's being dishonest. (Though Kerry should absolutely have to take some responsibility for the decision to give Bush the authority)
5) Bush either lied or changed his position without any explanation on mandatory emissions standards for carbon dioxide.
6) Bush said Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda. At best this is a rhetorical trick. At worst, a lie.
7) Bush absolutely, positively lied about his personal experience on 9/11/01. Not a policy matter, but still a lie.
8) This is a fun one. Bush said that his budget would cut the deficit in half in five years. At the time, the OMB estimated the budget would be halved in five years, assuming that Bush's tax cuts were phased out. Yet Bush was pushing for the tax cuts to be made permanent. So essentially he was claiming that his budget plan would halve the deficit, when the estimates showed that result only if his plan was defeated.
Bush is still making this claim about cutting the deficit in half, though he can no longer back it up with any numbers. Also, this assumes no AMT reform, and not a single dollar spent in Iraq or Afghanistan after 2005.
9) Bush said that "There's a blue chip survey from leading economists that predict growth this year of 3.3 percent" dependent on Congress passing his tax cut. The survey he was citing did not ask the economists to take the tax cut into account.
10) Bush said that after weapons inspectors were "finally denied access" in Iraq (which happened in 1998), the International Atomic Energy Agency released a report saying Iraq was six months away from developing a nuclear weapon.
In fact, there was an IAEA report in 1998 that said Saddam had been six to 24 months away from this goal, back in 1991, but that the war and inspections had crippled his operation. Ari Fleischer, Bush's spokesman at the time, twice claimed that Bush meant to cite other sources (US intelligence, then the International Institute for Strategic Studies [The IISS report did not have a six month claim]).
11) Bush said that during his campaign he had listed three situations in which running a deficit would be acceptable. There is no record of him saying this, either in Chicago, where he claimed to have said it, or anywhere else. Oddly enough, there is a record of Gore saying this.
12) The "transfer of sovreignty" to the Allawi government in Iraq was moved up a day to head off possible violence. This was widely acknowledged, and the transfer was done quickly and in seclusion. Bush has bragged that it was "not only on time, but ahead of schedule." Literally factual, but very disingenuous.
13) Bush just said "The Taliban is no longer in existence." It is.
14) Rumsfeld and Bush have both cited large figures for Iraqi police forces, 100,000 to 200,000, when the esimates of Iraqi police who have actually completed the training course are much, much lower (less than 10,000).
That's all I've got right now. There are some others (gay marriage/states rights, patient's bill of rights, unsourced and incorrect statistics cited for tort reform, etc.), but it's 5:26 AM, so I hope you'll excuse me for being incomplete.
1) The perscription drug bill cost over a hundred billion dollars more than they said it would. Not because of an honest mistake, but because an accurate estimate was deliberately supressed until after the bill passed.
2) The administration said that the reconstruction of Iraq could be paid through oil revenues. Larry Lindsey publically estimated the cost of the Iraq operation at about $200 billion dollars and was fired.
3) Bush has said that Iraq is making good progress, counter to the National Intelligence Estimate. Also, Bush said that the NIE's three possible scenarios were "life could be lousy, life could be OK, life could be better." In fact, the best case scenario involved violent drift with no significant improvement.
4) Bush says that Kerry voted for the war. At the time of that vote, Bush said he was working to solve the situation peacefully. Even now he says he wanted to avoid a war. One way or the other, he's being dishonest. (Though Kerry should absolutely have to take some responsibility for the decision to give Bush the authority)
5) Bush either lied or changed his position without any explanation on mandatory emissions standards for carbon dioxide.
6) Bush said Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda. At best this is a rhetorical trick. At worst, a lie.
7) Bush absolutely, positively lied about his personal experience on 9/11/01. Not a policy matter, but still a lie.
8) This is a fun one. Bush said that his budget would cut the deficit in half in five years. At the time, the OMB estimated the budget would be halved in five years, assuming that Bush's tax cuts were phased out. Yet Bush was pushing for the tax cuts to be made permanent. So essentially he was claiming that his budget plan would halve the deficit, when the estimates showed that result only if his plan was defeated.
Bush is still making this claim about cutting the deficit in half, though he can no longer back it up with any numbers. Also, this assumes no AMT reform, and not a single dollar spent in Iraq or Afghanistan after 2005.
9) Bush said that "There's a blue chip survey from leading economists that predict growth this year of 3.3 percent" dependent on Congress passing his tax cut. The survey he was citing did not ask the economists to take the tax cut into account.
10) Bush said that after weapons inspectors were "finally denied access" in Iraq (which happened in 1998), the International Atomic Energy Agency released a report saying Iraq was six months away from developing a nuclear weapon.
In fact, there was an IAEA report in 1998 that said Saddam had been six to 24 months away from this goal, back in 1991, but that the war and inspections had crippled his operation. Ari Fleischer, Bush's spokesman at the time, twice claimed that Bush meant to cite other sources (US intelligence, then the International Institute for Strategic Studies [The IISS report did not have a six month claim]).
11) Bush said that during his campaign he had listed three situations in which running a deficit would be acceptable. There is no record of him saying this, either in Chicago, where he claimed to have said it, or anywhere else. Oddly enough, there is a record of Gore saying this.
12) The "transfer of sovreignty" to the Allawi government in Iraq was moved up a day to head off possible violence. This was widely acknowledged, and the transfer was done quickly and in seclusion. Bush has bragged that it was "not only on time, but ahead of schedule." Literally factual, but very disingenuous.
13) Bush just said "The Taliban is no longer in existence." It is.
14) Rumsfeld and Bush have both cited large figures for Iraqi police forces, 100,000 to 200,000, when the esimates of Iraqi police who have actually completed the training course are much, much lower (less than 10,000).
That's all I've got right now. There are some others (gay marriage/states rights, patient's bill of rights, unsourced and incorrect statistics cited for tort reform, etc.), but it's 5:26 AM, so I hope you'll excuse me for being incomplete.
Nintendo Ate My Children
Member
How is lying different than dishonesty?
Anyway, the list you provided certainly doesn't paint a glowing picture of the administration, but I'm not seeing anything beyond the pale there. There's a couple of outright lies, some typical political chicanery, and some of it is just meaningless. I doubt any of it is on the mind of the typical "BUSH IS AN EVIL LIAR" rhetoric spouter.
But I do congratulate you on actually having an adequate response.
CaptainABAB said:The difference is: 9-11. I mean, 9-11 changed EVERYTHING, so everyone gets one free pass to flip-flop. Like Bush with Nation Building. The problem with Kerry is that he flip-flopped before and after and multiple times since then.
Why one free pass to flip flop on IRAQ? They had nothing to do with 9-11 nor did they pose an immediate threat to the United States in regards to terrorism. Unlike... umm all the countries surrounding them.
Anybody remember when Kerry said that he was going to be compassionate with the way he'd handle Iraq if he became President. Then right after that Dick Cheney said that you shouldn't vote for a guy that would be compassionate in a war because the terrorists would eat him alive or something like that. Well Bush said the EXACT SAME THING about a month before Kerry and after places like the Daily Show showed the video of Bush and then Cheney right after one another (it was pretty funny) and then Cheney STFU with attacking Kerry about it.
That was another Cheney flip flop and another embarassment to his campaign but the people are so dumb they'll probably vote these two morons in. Its always okay for them to do something wrong and if they screw up they blame other people or events and its okay but if Kerry does something then he's a weak flip flopper.
That was another Cheney flip flop and another embarassment to his campaign but the people are so dumb they'll probably vote these two morons in. Its always okay for them to do something wrong and if they screw up they blame other people or events and its okay but if Kerry does something then he's a weak flip flopper.
Nintendo Ate My Children said:
For starters, the real reason we are in Iraq, and the real reason we've been in Iraq since day 1 was to build military bases (14 in construction or already completely to this day, so far) on a country in the middle east, and lets face it, no country out there was gonna let us build em there for no reason, so we just needed an excuse.
And why do we need (so many) military bases in Iraq? To control the oil. But why do we need to control the oil when we, as the U.S., don't see any of it? Because that oil goes to China, and China for all you non-news savvy buffs is quickly becoming a world super power, one that could seriously threaten the U.S. and rival us via their military and economy. And we certainly don't want that.
So, in conclusion, Bush, his entire administration, the CIA, and most importantly the Pentagon have lied outright NUMEROUS times (flip-flop crazy) about why we are in Iraq. It wasn't WMD, it wasn't ties to terrorism, it certainly was not to "fix" their country to american ideals (there are dozens of other countries that are MUCH worse off than Iraq ever was), and god knows it wasn't ties to 9-11...
It's all lies, and the ignorant american public just eats it all up, not to say kerry would be much better for the job. we're fucked as a country either way.
BTW: those following Iraq: TODAY:
Dozens Killed in Attack Near U.S. Convoy in Western Baghdad
By TERENCE NEILAN 9:02 AM ET
Thirty five were killed and dozens wounded, including 10 U.S. soldiers, in an attack at a ceremony for a new sewage plant.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/30/international/middleeast/30CND-IRAQ.html?oref=login&hp
Meanwhile Bush pretends like the situation is improving, fuck him.
The Dick Cheney statement is hilarious, but this thread reminded me once more of how much the whole "flip-flopper" topic really is Kerry's fault. I don't care what he claims to have thought Bush was going to do with the authorization to go to war -- if people not at all involved in politics could see what was going on, so could he.
Keep in mind I'm in no way a Bush supporter -- I'm just disheartened at how inadequate of a candidate John Kerry is shaping up to be.
Keep in mind I'm in no way a Bush supporter -- I'm just disheartened at how inadequate of a candidate John Kerry is shaping up to be.
I don't get how so many can back up Bush.
War = Wrong.
Bush = retarded guy who leads US to unneeded war.
You should only go to war when its inevitable. And its only inevitable when the other side starts it.
Why can't people see this? Are they all so cought up in political detail BS that they can't see thee overall picture? I hate how people are brain washed to vote for a political party, I mean, the republicans can put a monkey for election and millions would go vote for it.
Now I don't want to pick on republicans, democrats would do the same thing.
Reasons I hate Bush:
1) Goes to war for no valid reason, unnecesary war, etc...
2) He is stupid. This probably leads to all the other reasons.
3) Wants oil drilling in wild life refuges.
4) Rejected the Kyoto treaty when all was set and done.
5) Wants to cut down national forests to "prevent wild fires".
Edit: 6) Big ass record breaking $$$ deficits.
Thats what I know and I'm not much into politics. I'm sure there are lot more things I don't know about.
Edit: To the guy below me, I would vote fore Dean over Kerry and Bush, even though I don't know much about him.
War = Wrong.
Bush = retarded guy who leads US to unneeded war.
You should only go to war when its inevitable. And its only inevitable when the other side starts it.
Why can't people see this? Are they all so cought up in political detail BS that they can't see thee overall picture? I hate how people are brain washed to vote for a political party, I mean, the republicans can put a monkey for election and millions would go vote for it.
Now I don't want to pick on republicans, democrats would do the same thing.
Reasons I hate Bush:
1) Goes to war for no valid reason, unnecesary war, etc...
2) He is stupid. This probably leads to all the other reasons.
3) Wants oil drilling in wild life refuges.
4) Rejected the Kyoto treaty when all was set and done.
5) Wants to cut down national forests to "prevent wild fires".
Edit: 6) Big ass record breaking $$$ deficits.
Thats what I know and I'm not much into politics. I'm sure there are lot more things I don't know about.
Edit: To the guy below me, I would vote fore Dean over Kerry and Bush, even though I don't know much about him.
BigGreenMat
Member
BRING BACK DEAN! BRING BACK DEAN!
Makura said:
So Bush opposing the 9/11 commission and then finally supporting it doesn't count? Or him not allowing Rice to testify in front of it, and then relenting? Specific weapons of mass destruction turning into "weapons of mass destruction related program activities?" Osama bin Laden being an important target in the war on terror, but then becoming someone we shouldn't be concerned about?
Bush has had plenty of post-9/11 flip-flops, you're just ignoring them.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked