VP Cheney bitch slappin' VP Biden etc.

Yes, but no one knew there were no weapons. Everyone believed saddam had weapons, including France and Germany. the difference is France didn't want to act because they were in business with Saddam.

so was Germany and Russia. hence the reason they sit this one out

oh I didn't know about Germany and russia.

Germany was sellin him high tech military electronics. Russia was drillin' the shit out of Iraq for oil.
 
among mr biden's many gaffes, lies and outright howlers, he claimed that when the stock market crashed in 1929, FDR went on tv to calm the nation.

Biden, FDR and the Invention of Television | FactCheck.org

So you and Elvis think this is a lie? We had a couple of liars in the last administration but I wouldn't consider a mistake like this a lie.

no, it's not a lie, but i would consider a man of mr biden's age, education, and self proclaimed intellectual superiority who didn't know who was president when the market crashed or when commercial tv became generally available or that fdr was famous for his use of *radio* fireside chats* a moron.

mr biden is, of course, a well documented liar, egotist and plagiarist, but in this instance, he was simply being stupid.

additionally, if you think lying in govt was invented by the previous administration and has been abandoned by the current one, i sincerely feel really badly for you.

In SOME instances it is not really wrong for an Administration to lie.

I wouldn't advocate that "policy" preference too broadly, of course, but I do believe that there are circumstances (national security matters, primarily) where lying is necessary.
 
Yes, but no one knew there were no weapons. Everyone believed saddam had weapons, including France and Germany. the difference is France didn't want to act because they were in business with Saddam.

I have a feeling that someone knew there were no weapons. To believe that every single intelligence agency involved got bluffed by Saddam Hussein is a bit ridiculous.

We were going into Iraq, WMDs or no WMDs.

Bush Sought ‘Way’ To Invade Iraq? - 60 Minutes - CBS News

And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations.

“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

“From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”

And that came up at this first meeting, says O’Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. “There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, ‘Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,’" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001.

Probably the "richest" comments of all as well:

During the campaign, candidate Bush had criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that."

he president had promised to cut taxes, and he did. Within six months of taking office, he pushed a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts through Congress.
But O'Neill thought it should have been the end. After 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, the budget deficit was growing. So at a meeting with the vice president after the mid-term elections in 2002, Suskind writes that O'Neill argued against a second round of tax cuts.

“Cheney, at this moment, shows his hand,” says Suskind. “He says, ‘You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.’ … O'Neill is speechless.”
 
Last edited:
Cheney isn't a liar? bullshit........what about the Iraq war and the fact that SADDAM HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11?????????????

Cheney isn't a miscreant? Well.......first, let's find out what that word means (from Dictionary.com)

mis⋅cre⋅ant
  /ˈmɪskriənt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [mis-kree-uhnt] Show IPA
–adjective
1. depraved, villainous, or base.
2. Archaic. holding a false or unorthodox religious belief; heretical.
–noun
3. a vicious or depraved person; villain.
4. Archaic. a heretic or infidel.

Now.........let's talk about this.........

Miscreant means someone who is depraved or villainous, which if you look at the lies told in the war for oil, the shoddy workmanship of Halliburton in Iraq and at Walter Reed, as well as the no-bid contracts for Blackwater (now XE) which resulted in the deaths of many civilians via murder.

Oh yeah.......let's also talk about Abu Graib, GTMO, as well as Homeland Security and the failure of the Bush Jr. admin to do anything other than rape this country.

Try again Limp Ability.

Limp-ability? Your ability to engage in the art of ad hominem is quite weak. You must be in the same class as bent tight.

As to your "point" (and I use that term with enough scorn to convey the notion that you have no valid point): your willingness to make an unsupported contention is not remotely akin to asserting a fact.

You may feel free to try again, Bikey. It is unlikely that anybody will be holding their breath waiting for something intelligent to come from you next time, either, however.
 
So you and Elvis think this is a lie? We had a couple of liars in the last administration but I wouldn't consider a mistake like this a lie.

no, it's not a lie, but i would consider a man of mr biden's age, education, and self proclaimed intellectual superiority who didn't know who was president when the market crashed or when commercial tv became generally available or that fdr was famous for his use of *radio* fireside chats* a moron.

mr biden is, of course, a well documented liar, egotist and plagiarist, but in this instance, he was simply being stupid.

additionally, if you think lying in govt was invented by the previous administration and has been abandoned by the current one, i sincerely feel really badly for you.

In SOME instances it is not really wrong for an Administration to lie.

I wouldn't advocate that "policy" preference too broadly, of course, but I do believe that there are circumstances (national security matters, primarily) where lying is necessary.

i agree that there are situations where a lie of omission would be necessary, but i have to think about the necessity of a lies of commission. in either case, they should be used sparingly.
 
Not wrong to lie?

Are you a Christian, because I seem to remember something from the 10 Commandments that state "thou shalt not bear false witness"?

Go ahead limp ability, tell us when it's okay for the government to lie to us.
 
among mr biden's many gaffes, lies and outright howlers, he claimed that when the stock market crashed in 1929, FDR went on tv to calm the nation.

Biden, FDR and the Invention of Television | FactCheck.org

So you and Elvis think this is a lie? We had a couple of liars in the last administration but I wouldn't consider a mistake like this a lie.

no, it's not a lie, but i would consider a man of mr biden's age, education, and self proclaimed intellectual superiority who didn't know who was president when the market crashed or when commercial tv became generally available or that fdr was famous for his use of *radio* fireside chats* a moron.

mr biden is, of course, a well documented liar, egotist and plagiarist, but in this instance, he was simply being stupid.

additionally, if you think lying in govt was invented by the previous administration and has been abandoned by the current one, i sincerely feel really badly for you.

not to mention, Biden is a history major.
 
So you and Elvis think this is a lie? We had a couple of liars in the last administration but I wouldn't consider a mistake like this a lie.

no, it's not a lie, but i would consider a man of mr biden's age, education, and self proclaimed intellectual superiority who didn't know who was president when the market crashed or when commercial tv became generally available or that fdr was famous for his use of *radio* fireside chats* a moron.

mr biden is, of course, a well documented liar, egotist and plagiarist, but in this instance, he was simply being stupid.

additionally, if you think lying in govt was invented by the previous administration and has been abandoned by the current one, i sincerely feel really badly for you.

not to mention, Biden is a history major.

well, that's what he claims.

j/k
 
In SOME instances it is not really wrong for an Administration to lie.

I wouldn't advocate that "policy" preference too broadly, of course, but I do believe that there are circumstances (national security matters, primarily) where lying is necessary.

Including lying to go to war?

Or do you believe the whole "If the President does it, it's legal" idea?
 
Yes, but no one knew there were no weapons. Everyone believed saddam had weapons, including France and Germany. the difference is France didn't want to act because they were in business with Saddam.

I have a feeling that someone knew there were no weapons. To believe that every single intelligence agency involved got bluffed by Saddam Hussein is a bit ridiculous.

We were going into Iraq, WMDs or no WMDs.

Bush Sought ‘Way’ To Invade Iraq? - 60 Minutes - CBS News

And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations.

“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

“From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”

And that came up at this first meeting, says O’Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. “There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, ‘Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,’" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001.

Probably the "richest" comments of all as well:

During the campaign, candidate Bush had criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that."

he president had promised to cut taxes, and he did. Within six months of taking office, he pushed a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts through Congress.
But O'Neill thought it should have been the end. After 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, the budget deficit was growing. So at a meeting with the vice president after the mid-term elections in 2002, Suskind writes that O'Neill argued against a second round of tax cuts.

“Cheney, at this moment, shows his hand,” says Suskind. “He says, ‘You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.’ … O'Neill is speechless.”

that contradicts other reports, like that of frontline, which claims Bush was on the fence about going into Iraq. He was being pulled in two different directions. Powell on one side, for no, let's be careful, and on the other by Cheney. Cheney won out.
 
I caught "This Week" with John somebody or other. The featured guest was former Vice President Cheney.

Despite some obvious bias from the new nominal host (last name unknown), VP Cheney rocked.

The following was noted yesterday: Why Cheney attacks - Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei - POLITICO.com

Vice President Cheney is terrific.

:clap2:

Wow! How anyone in america can idolize that sick fuck is beyond all comprehension. Lets just take the secret energy meetings The Dick held where he gave Enron the green light to rape our country. Then there was this little epiphany Cheney had about our eventual occupation of Iraq wheras a map was drawn dividing up the Iraqi oil fields....three years in advance of events. How prophetic. What a lucky guess...what a genius! Mushroom clouds? Destroying an active CIA agent and the brass plate front company working on tracking actual WMDs in the mideast? Good thing he avoided prosecution for treason...you would have to be idolizing him postumously. Ya Cheney the hero....Wow! You seem to have so much sense right up to the point you abandon reason and good judgement alltogether. So what's up with that? Are you Cheneys love child? The Green River Killer was a republican and a vet... Ted Bundy...famous republican serial killer...Are these heros also? They did a thousand times less damage than the ol DICK. It would make more sense if you kicked dick off his pedistal and inserted the two lesser evils. Or do I have my numbers of victims askew?
 
In SOME instances it is not really wrong for an Administration to lie.

I wouldn't advocate that "policy" preference too broadly, of course, but I do believe that there are circumstances (national security matters, primarily) where lying is necessary.

Including lying to go to war?

Or do you believe the whole "If the President does it, it's legal" idea?

FDR's behavior in the run up to ww2 springs to mind.

it's not a perfect world, and to pretend otherwise is to do oneself a disservice.
 
In SOME instances it is not really wrong for an Administration to lie.

I wouldn't advocate that "policy" preference too broadly, of course, but I do believe that there are circumstances (national security matters, primarily) where lying is necessary.

Including lying to go to war?

Or do you believe the whole "If the President does it, it's legal" idea?

The liberals' endless willingness to CLAIM (falsely) that the Bush Administration "lied" to go to war is tired, trite and itself just a bullshit lie.
 
that contradicts other reports, like that of frontline, which claims Bush was on the fence about going into Iraq. He was being pulled in two different directions. Powell on one side, for no, let's be careful, and on the other by Cheney. Cheney won out.

That's one of the few reports I've heard when it's put like that. Every report I've ever hear is that Bush wanted to invade Iraq from Day One.

And then there is this:

Clarke's Take On Terror - 60 Minutes - CBS News

In the aftermath of Sept. 11, President Bush ordered his then top anti-terrorism adviser to look for a link between Iraq and the attacks, despite being told there didn't seem to be one.

The charge comes from the adviser, Richard Clarke, in an exclusive interview on 60 Minutes.

I'm willing to believe his Top Anti-Terrorism Adviser and O'Neill.
 
among mr biden's many gaffes, lies and outright howlers, he claimed that when the stock market crashed in 1929, FDR went on tv to calm the nation.

Biden, FDR and the Invention of Television | FactCheck.org

So you and Elvis think this is a lie? We had a couple of liars in the last administration but I wouldn't consider a mistake like this a lie.

no, it's not a lie, but i would consider a man of mr biden's age, education, and self proclaimed intellectual superiority who didn't know who was president when the market crashed or when commercial tv became generally available or that fdr was famous for his use of *radio* fireside chats* a moron.

mr biden is, of course, a well documented liar, egotist and plagiarist, but in this instance, he was simply being stupid.

additionally, if you think lying in govt was invented by the previous administration and has been abandoned by the current one, i sincerely feel really badly for you.

Lying wasn't invented by them but they kind of finessed it into an art form.
 
The liberals' endless willingness to CLAIM (falsely) that the Bush Administration "lied" to go to war is tired, trite and itself just a bullshit lie.

Except History has shown that they did indeed lie. Every major claim they made turned out to be false.

If I made such major claims at work like that which turned out to be false, I'd be fired. As would you.
 
In SOME instances it is not really wrong for an Administration to lie.

I wouldn't advocate that "policy" preference too broadly, of course, but I do believe that there are circumstances (national security matters, primarily) where lying is necessary.

Including lying to go to war?

Or do you believe the whole "If the President does it, it's legal" idea?

FDR's behavior in the run up to ww2 springs to mind.

it's not a perfect world, and to pretend otherwise is to do oneself a disservice.

Who's the nurd in your avatar?
 
The liberals' endless willingness to CLAIM (falsely) that the Bush Administration "lied" to go to war is tired, trite and itself just a bullshit lie.

Except History has shown that they did indeed lie. Every major claim they made turned out to be false.

If I made such major claims at work like that which turned out to be false, I'd be fired. As would you.

A statement was made.
the statement was false.
therefore, the statement was a lie.

weatherman said it would snow today.
it didnt snow.
therefore, weatherman iied.
doesn't follow.
 
In SOME instances it is not really wrong for an Administration to lie.

I wouldn't advocate that "policy" preference too broadly, of course, but I do believe that there are circumstances (national security matters, primarily) where lying is necessary.

Including lying to go to war?

Or do you believe the whole "If the President does it, it's legal" idea?

The liberals' endless willingness to CLAIM (falsely) that the Bush Administration "lied" to go to war is tired, trite and itself just a bullshit lie.

Really? What about the statements released by the Bush Jr admin about Saddam having WMD's?

What about the Bush Jr. admin trying to draw ties between AQ and Saddam?

Were you even conscious from 2002 until 2008?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top