In article , says...
NOVEMBER 21, 2005

SPEAKER: RICHARD B. CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

Great American Liar that is.

(APPLAUSE)

jps

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Dan J.S. wrote:
That's right, it was Bush and Cheney and they all followed. Should I dig
up the video where Clinton said that Saddam had WMDs and is dangerous?

Sure. Right after you dig up the part where Clinton started a war based on
that same info; and convinced Congress to follow along.

Why is it that when you Bush-Cheney Cheerleaders are forced to where you
have to admit wrongdoing by your Fab Two, you immediately invoke Clinton's
name?

DSK


Because Clinton let Osama get away. This is what happens when you use the
wait and see approach. You know why Saddam didnt launch anything at us?
Because we got him first.

That was a good speech, and it was right on.


On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 12:47:13 -0600, Skipper wrote:

NOVEMBER 21, 2005

SPEAKER: RICHARD B. CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

CHENEY: Good morning, and thank you all very much.

And thank you, Chris (ph). It's great to be back at AEI. Both Lynne and
I have a long history with the American Enterprise Institute. We value
the association, and even more, we value the friendships that have come
from our time here. And I want to thank all of you for coming this
morning and for your welcome.

My remarks today concern national security, in particular the war on
terror and the Iraq front in that war.

Several days ago, I commented briefly on some recent statements that
have been made by some members of Congress about Iraq. Within hours of
my speech, a report went out on the wires under the headline, quote,
"Cheney says War Critics Dishonest, Reprehensible," end quote.

One thing I've learned in the last five years is that when you're vice
president you're lucky if your speeches get any attention at all. But I
have a quarrel with that headline, and it's important to make this point
at the outset.

I do not believe it is wrong to criticize the war on terror or any
aspect thereof. Disagreement, argument and debate are the essence of
democracy, and none of us should want it any other way.

For my part, I've spent a career in public service, run for office eight
times, six statewide offices and twice nationally. I served in the House
of Representatives for better than a decade, most of that time as I
member of the leadership of the minority party. To me, energetic debate
on issues facing our country is more than just a sign of a healthy
political system.

CHENEY: It's also something I enjoy. It's one of the reasons I've stayed
in the business. And I believe the feeling is probably the same for most
of us in public life.

For those of us who don't mind debating, there's plenty to keep us busy
these days and it's not likely to change any time soon.

On the question of national security, feelings run especially strong.
And there are deeply held differences of opinion on how to best protect
the United States and our friends against the dangers of our time.

Recently my friend and former colleague Jack Murtha called for a
complete withdrawal of American forces now serving in Iraq, with a
drawdown to begin at once.

I disagree with Jack and believe his proposal would not serve the best
interest of this nation. But he's a good man, a Marine, a patriot, and
he's taking a clear stand in an entirely legitimate discussion.

Nor is there any problem with debating whether the United States and our
allies should have liberated Iraq in the first place. Here, as well, the
differing views are very passionately and forcefully stated.

But nobody is saying we should not be having this discussion or that you
cannot reexamine a decision made by the president and the Congress some
years ago.

To the contrary, I believe it is critical that we continue to remind
ourselves why this nation took action and why Iraq is the central front
in the war on terror and why we have a duty to persevere.

What is not legitimate and what I will again say is dishonest and
reprehensible is the suggestion by some U.S. senators that the president
of the United States or any member of his administration purposely
misled the American people on prewar intelligence.

Some of the most irresponsible comments have come from politicians who
actually voted in favor of authorizing the use of force against Saddam
Hussein.

These are elected officials who had access to the intelligence
materials. They are known to have a high opinion of their own analytical
capabilities.

(LAUGHTER)

And they were free to reach their own judgments based upon the evidence.

CHENEY: They concluded, as the president and I had concluded, and as the
previous administration had concluded, that Saddam Hussein was a threat.

Available intelligence indicated that the dictator of Iraq had weapons
of mass destruction, and this judgment was shared by the intelligence
agencies of many other nations, according to the bipartisan
Silberman-Robb commission.

All of us understood, as well, that for more than a decade, the U.N.
Security Council had demanded that Saddam Hussein make a full accounting
of his weapons programs.

The burden of proof was entirely on the dictator of Iraq, not on the
U.N. or the United States or anyone else. And he repeatedly refused to
comply throughout the course of the decade.

Permit me to burden you with a bit more history.

In August of 1998, the U.S. passed a resolution urging President Clinton
to take appropriate action to compel Saddam to come into compliance with
his obligations to the Security Council. Not a single senator vote no.

Two months later in October of '98, again without a single dissenting
vote in the United States Senate, the Congress passed the Iraq
Liberation Act. It explicitly adopted as American policy supporting
efforts to remove Saddam Hussein's regime from power and promoting an
Iraqi democracy in its place.

And just two months after signing the Iraq Liberation Law, President
Clinton ordered that Iraq be bombed in an effort to destroy facilities
that he believed were connected to Saddam's weapons of mass destruction
programs.

By the time Congress voted to authorize force in late 2002, there was
broad-based, bipartisan agreement that the time had come to enforce the
legitimate demands of the international community. And our thinking was
informed by what had happened to our country on the morning of September
11th, 2001.

As the prime target of terrorists who have shown an ability to hit
America and who wish to do so in spectacular fashion, we have a
responsibility to do everything we can to keep terrible weapons out of
the hands of these enemies.

CHENEY: And we must hold to account regimes that could supply those
weapons to terrorists in defiance of the civilized world.

As the president has said, terrorists and terror states do not reveal
threats with fair notice, in formal declarations. And responding to such
enemies only after they have struck first is not self-defense, it is
suicide.

In a post-9/11 world, the president and Congress of the United States
declined to trust the word of a dictator who had a history of weapons of
mass destruction programs, who actually used weapons of mass destruction
against innocent civilians in his own country, who tried to assassinate
a former president of the United States, who was routinely shooting at
allied pilots trying to enforce no-fly zones, who had excluded weapons
inspectors, who had defied the demands of the international community,
whose regime had been designated an official state sponsor of terror and
who had committed mass murder.

Those are the facts.

Although our coalition has not found WMD stockpiles in Iraq, I repeat
that we never had the burden of proof; Saddam Hussein did. We operated
on the best available intelligence gathered over a period of years and
within a totalitarian society ruled by fear and secret police.

We also had the experience of first Gulf War, when the intelligence
community had seriously underestimated the extent and progress Saddam
had made toward developing nuclear weapons.

Finally, according to the Duelfer report, Saddam Hussein wanted to
preserve the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction
when sanctions were lifted. And we now know that the sanctions regime
had lost its effectiveness and been totally undermined by Saddam
Hussein's successful effort to corrupt the oil- for-food program.

The flaws in the intelligence are plain enough in hindsight. But any
suggestion that prewar information was distorted, hyped or fabricated by
the leader of the nation is utterly false.

Senator John McCain put it best: "It is a lie to say that the president
lied to the American people."

American soldiers and Marines serving in Iraq go out every day into some
of the most dangerous and unpredictable conditions.

CHENEY: Meanwhile, back in the United States, a few politicians are
suggesting these brave Americans were sent into battle for a deliberate
falsehood.

This is revisionism of the most corrupt and shameless variety. It has no
place anywhere in American politics, much less in the United States
Senate.

One might also argue that untruthful charges against the commander in
chief have an insidious effect on the war effort itself. I'm unwilling
to say that only because I know the character of the United States armed
forces, men and women who are fighting the war on terror in Iraq,
Afghanistan and many other fronts.

They haven't wavered in the slightest, and their conduct should make all
Americans proud. They are absolutely relentless in their duties and they
are carrying out their missions with all the skill and the honor we
expect of them.

I think of the ones who put on heavy gear and work 12-hour shifts in the
desert heat. Every day they are striking the enemy, conducting raids,
training Iraqi forces, countering attacks, seizing weapons and capturing
killers.

Americans appreciate our fellow citizens who go out on long deployments
and endure the hardship of separation from home and family. We care
about those who have returned with injuries and who face the long, hard
road of recovery. And our nation grieves for the men and women whose
lives have ended in freedom's cause.

The people who serve in uniform and their families can be certain that
their cause is right and just and necessary, and we will stand behind
them with pride and without wavering until the day of victory.

The men and women on duty in this war are serving the highest ideals of
this nation: our belief in freedom and justice, equality and the dignity
of the individual. And they are serving the vital security interests of
the United States.

There is no denying that the work is difficult and there is much yet to
do. Yet we can harbor no illusions about the nature of this enemy of the
ambitions it seeks to achieve.

In the war on terror we face a loose network of committed fanatics found
in many countries, operating under different commanders. Yet the
branches of this network share the same basic ideology and the same dark
vision for the world.

CHENEY: The terrorists want to end American and Western influence in the
Middle East.

Their goal in that region is to gain control of a country so they have a
base from which to launch attacks and to wage war against governments
that do not meet their demands.

For a time, the terrorists had such a base in Afghanistan under the
backward and violent rule of the Taliban. And the terrorists hope to
overturn Iraq's democratic government and return that country to the
rule of tyrants.

The terrorists believe that by controlling an entire country, they will
be able to target and overthrow other governments in the region and to
establish a radical Islamic empire that encompasses a region from Spain
across North Africa through the Middle East and South Asia all the way
to Indonesia.

They have made clear as well their ultimate ambitions: to arm themselves
with weapons of mass destruction, to destroy Israel, to intimidate all
Western countries and to cause mass death in the United States.

Some have suggested that by liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein we
simply stirred up a hornet's nest. They overlook a fundamental fact: We
were not in Iraq on September 11th, 2001, and the terrorists hit us
anyway.

The reality is the terrorists were at war with our country long before
the liberation of Iraq and long before the attacks of 9/11. And for many
years, they were the ones on the offensive. They grew bolder in the
belief that if they killed Americans, they could change American policy.

In Beirut in 1983, terrorists killed 241 of our servicemen. Thereafter,
the United States withdrew from Beirut.

In Mogadishu in 1993, terrorists killed 19 American soldiers.
Thereafter, the U.S. withdrew its forces from Somalia.

Over time the terrorists concluded that they could strike America
without paying a price, because they did repeatedly: the bombing at the
World Trade Center in 1993, the murders at the Saudi National Guard
Training Center in Riyadh in 1995, the Khobar Towers in 1996, the
simultaneous bombing of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998
and, of course, the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000.

CHENEY: Believing they could strike us with impunity and that they could
change U.S. policy, they attacked us on 9/11 here in the homeland,
killing 3,000 people.

Now they're making a stand in Iraq, testing our resolve, trying to
intimidate the United States into abandoning our friends and permitting
the overthrow of this new Middle Eastern democracy.

Recently, we obtained a message from the number two man in Al Qaida, Mr.
Zawahiri, that he sent to his chief deputy in Iraq, the terrorist
Zarqawi. The letter makes clear that Iraq is part of a larger plan of
imposing Islamic radicalism across the broader Middle East, making Iraq
a terrorist haven and a staging ground for attacks against other
nations.

Zawahiri also expresses the view that America can be made to run again.

In light of the commitments our country has made, and given the stated
intentions of the enemy, those who advocate a sudden withdraw from Iraq
should answer a few simple questions: Would the United States and other
free nations be better off or worse off with Zarqawi, bin Laden and
Zawahiri in control of Iraq? Would we be safer or less safe with Iraq
ruled by men intent on the destruction of our country?

It is a dangerous illusion to suppose that another retreat by the
civilized world would satisfy the appetite of the terrorists and get
them to leave us alone.

In fact, such a retreat would convince the terrorists that free nations
will change our policies, forsake our friends, abandon our interests
whenever we are confronted with murder and blackmail.

A precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would be a victory for the
terrorists, an invitation to further violence against free nations and a
terrible blow to the future security of the United States of America.

So much self-defeating pessimism about Iraq comes at a time of real
progress in that country.

Coalition forces are making decisive strikes against terrorist
strongholds and more and more they are doing so with the Iraqi forces at
their side. There are more than 90 Iraqi army battalions fighting the
terrorists along with our forces.

CHENEY: On the political side, every benchmark has been met
successfully, starting with the turnover of sovereignty more than a year
ago, the national elections last January, the drafting of the
constitution and its ratification by voters this last month and, a few
weeks from now, the election of a new government under that new
constitution.

The political leaders of Iraq are steady and courageous, and the
citizens, police and soldiers of that country have proudly stepped
forward as active participants and guardians in a new democracy: running
for office and speaking out, voting and sacrificing for their country.

Iraqi citizens are doing all of this despite threats from terrorists who
offer no political agenda for Iraq's future and wage a campaign of mass
slaughter against the Iraqi people themselves, the vast majority of whom
are fellow Arabs and fellow Muslims.

Day after day, Iraqis are proving their determination to live in
freedom, to chart their own destiny and to defend their own country. And
they can know that the United States will keep our commitment to them.

We will continue the work of reconstruction. Our forces will keep going
after the terrorists and continue training the Iraqi military so that
Iraqis can eventually take the lead in their country's security, and our
men and women can come home.

We will succeed in this mission. And when it is concluded, we will be a
safer nation.

Wartime conditions are in every case a test of military skill and
national resolve, but this is especially true in the war on terror.

Four years ago, President Bush told Congress and the country that the
path ahead would be difficult, that we were heading into a long struggle
unlike any we have ever known.

All this has come to pass. We have faced and are facing today enemies
who hate us, hate our country and hate the liberties for which we stand.
They dwell in the shadows, wear no uniform, have no regard for the laws
of warfare and feel unconstrained by any standard of morality.

We've never had a fight like this, and the Americans who go into the
fight are among the bravest citizens this nation has ever produced.

All who have labored in this cause can be proud of their service for the
rest of their lives.

The terrorists lack any capacity to inspire the hearts of good men and
women, and their only chance for victory is for us to walk away from the
fight.

They have contempt for our values, they doubt our strength and they
believe that America will lose its nerve and let down our guard. But
this nation's made a decision: We will not retreat in the face of
brutality and we will never live at the mercy of tyrants or terrorists.

CHENEY: None of us could know every turn that lies ahead for America in
the fight against terror. And because we are Americans, we are going to
keep discussing the conduct and the progress of this war and having
debates about strategy.

Yet the direction of events is plain to see, and this period of struggle
and testing should also be seen as a time of promise.

The United States of America is a good country, a decent country, and we
are making the world a better place by defending the innocent,
confronting the violent and bringing freedom to the oppressed.

We understand the continuing dangers to civilization. And we have the
resources, the strength and the moral courage to overcome those dangers
and lay the foundations for a better world.

Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

--
John H

"It's *not* a baby kicking, beautiful bride, it's only a fetus!"

A Famous Hypocrite

On 21 Nov 2005 13:55:33 -0800, wrote:


Dan J.S. wrote:
"DSK" wrote in message
...
Dan J.S. wrote:
By your logic, so is the entire congress and senate... because they all
agreed invading Iraq is the best course of action.

I get it. It's Congress's fault that Bush & Cheney lied to everybody in
order to get approval for the war they wanted?

I guess this is the same sort of logic that Republicans follow when they
want to repeal consumer protection laws... if you buy a lemon, it must be
that you deserve it, even if the salesman lied.

DSK


That's right, it was Bush and Cheney and they all followed. Should I dig up
the video where Clinton said that Saddam had WMDs and is dangerous?

What you and your right wing buddies fail to understand is that Bush
and Cheney had access to information other than what congress had.


Pferdeäpfel !
--
John H

"It's *not* a baby kicking, beautiful bride, it's only a fetus!"

A Famous Hypocrite

.... invoke Clinton's
name?


Dan J.S. wrote:
Because Clinton let Osama get away.

??

How so?

Oh wait, I know... instead of bombing the aspirin factories
(funny how the American right wing now gets it's info from
Russian propaganda sources), CLinton should have accepted
Sudan's offer to hog-tie Osama and torture him for us...

1- that's a fantasy on the same level as Clinton selling
dope to school kids, which has been said by some of the
foamier-at-the-mouth Clinton-haters

2- Osama had not claimed responsibility for attacks on the
U.S. yet. Was Clinton supposed to foresee the future?

No, it's President Bush who vowed to get Osama and then let
him slip away.

Painful, but true.

... You know why Saddam didnt launch anything at us?
Because we got him first.


Really? You mean during the 8 months or so that he was on
the loose after we invaded his country, he had no
opportunity to make a phone call and say "Yes, unleash ouor
WMDs on the Americans"? It would not have taken much from
his busy schedule.

Funny how nobody with an actual real-life clue believes that
Saddam Hussein had any WMDs after the 1st Gulf War (we know
he had them before, Bush & Rumsfeld sold them to him) or
that he had any ties with Al Queda.

You may find it a lot more comfortable to stay wrapped in
your fantasy world rather than venture out here into cold
harsh reality-land.

DSK

"DSK" wrote ...
Dan J.S. wrote:

By your logic, so is the entire congress and senate... because they all
agreed invading Iraq is the best course of action.

I get it. It's Congress's fault that Bush & Cheney lied to everybody in order
to get approval for the war they wanted?

I guess this is the same sort of logic that Republicans follow when they want
to repeal consumer protection laws... if you buy a lemon, it must be that you
deserve it, even if the salesman lied.

*****
In other words, the Bush message is -- as Otter once cheerfully explained to
Flounder
after leading him to disaster -- "You screwed up. You trusted us."
*****

From David Sarasohn - The Oregonian - Wednesday, November 16, 2005

The world is watching Bush and CHENEY sqirm under the tightening noose
of their lies come back to haunt and taunt them. "Criticize the
critics" is their constant theme, much of it doubtless the work of
feckless Karen "They Love Me In The Middle East" Hughes.

But you know, substantial charges of WAR CRIMINALITY might YET become a
reality!

Whatever, the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal is on the run. It's now them
vs. the world. They know it, they feel it - it's why they're lashing
out with such invective and desperation. I'm reminded of when a smiling
Goering thought the victorious allies would greet him as a noble fellow
warrior when Germany fell. Instead, he went jail, to trial, and to his
death by suicide.

Geo. W. "Yeah, Ah'm Drinkin' Agin" Bush is a total fool, of course. But
I'm especially happy to see Dick "Go **** Yourself" Cheney twist
slowly, slowly in his own ****! Maybe justice will finally be served
to these *******s!

=================

MissSouth wrote:

Geo. W. "Yeah, Ah'm Drinkin' Agin" Bush is a total fool, of course. But
I'm especially happy to see Dick "Go **** Yourself" Cheney twist
slowly, slowly in his own ****! Maybe justice will finally be served
to these *******s!

It could be the Dems will miss the South yet again come election time,
Miss South. Why is it the South is so solidly against the Dems effete
corps of impudent snobs?

--
Skipper

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
.... invoke Clinton's name?


Dan J.S. wrote:
Because Clinton let Osama get away.

??

How so?

Oh wait, I know... instead of bombing the aspirin factories (funny how the
American right wing now gets it's info from Russian propaganda sources),
CLinton should have accepted Sudan's offer to hog-tie Osama and torture
him for us...

1- that's a fantasy on the same level as Clinton selling dope to school
kids, which has been said by some of the foamier-at-the-mouth
Clinton-haters

2- Osama had not claimed responsibility for attacks on the U.S. yet. Was
Clinton supposed to foresee the future?

No, it's President Bush who vowed to get Osama and then let him slip away.

Painful, but true.

... You know why Saddam didnt launch anything at us? Because we got him
first.

Really? You mean during the 8 months or so that he was on the loose after
we invaded his country, he had no opportunity to make a phone call and say
"Yes, unleash ouor WMDs on the Americans"? It would not have taken much
from his busy schedule.

Funny how nobody with an actual real-life clue believes that Saddam
Hussein had any WMDs after the 1st Gulf War (we know he had them before,
Bush & Rumsfeld sold them to him) or that he had any ties with Al Queda.

You may find it a lot more comfortable to stay wrapped in your fantasy
world rather than venture out here into cold harsh reality-land.

DSK


The WMDs are in Syria or Iran.

But besides that, we also invaded Iraq to keep pressure on Saudi. We could
not lay sanctions against them directly, by invading Iraq we did an indirect
attack on Saudi. There are politics all over.

And dont talk to me about harsh reality. I spent 4 years in the Marines
(89-93) so I saw my share of what Saddam is capable off. That is harsh
reality.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Dan J.S. wrote:

The WMDs are in Syria or Iran.

But besides that, we also invaded Iraq to keep pressure on Saudi. We
could not lay sanctions against them directly, by invading Iraq we did an
indirect attack on Saudi. There are politics all over.

Good grief. We invaded Iraq to pressure the Saudis. Yes, that's it!

We invaded Iraq because the Bush puppetmasters thought a nice war would
solidify US voters behind the POTUS through the next elections.

\

We invaded Iraq to put the freak on Saudi... to pressure them a little...
that was just one reason. We went into Iraq because Israel was gonna get a
nuke or some other WMD sent in from Iraq, and we do protect them too. We
went in because Saddam has been ****ing with us for over 10 years, shooting
at planes etc that were under UN control.

We went there for many reasons.