Cheney is a smart guy

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: db

Originally posted by: JD50
... act as if nothing has changed in 13 years?

What has changed in 13 years to justify invading Iraq?

I dunno, ask congress.

I love this "i'll shove my head so far up my arse that i can't hear you" kind of response.

You already know that the US congress did not give GW a go-ahead to invade Iraq, what they did was to give GW the choice to be used as solution if nothing else worked.

GW (and by GW i mean Cheney) told the UN inspectors to get out, if they had finished and found nothing then not even we (the UK) would have been behind you, GW used war as the first choice, not the last.

You KNOW THIS, so why deny it? Does it make you feel better when you deny reality?

 

[db]

Right, if ya don't have a direct answer to the subject at hand, say anything! Repeat official talking points!

Some people refuse to think for themselves; they let others do their thinking for them, then they repeat it.

Others are so confused that they go with what's familiar: they adopt daddy's politics, and hold fast no matter what.

Still others can only make emotional decisions. Talking logic and facts have no effect on this kind of person.

And then there are shills who have a job to do: promote the party line. Hence the above reference to "apparatchik:
An unquestioningly loyal subordinate, especially of a political leader or organization."

 

[Harvey]

Cheney isn't the only one who was smart enough to understand the situation. In his memoirs, A World Transformed (1998), written with Brent Scowcroft, on pp. 489 - 490, George H.W. Bush predicted exactly what has happened:

Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

Sound familiar? :Q If only his idiot son could read!

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: db

Originally posted by: JD50
... act as if nothing has changed in 13 years?

What has changed in 13 years to justify invading Iraq?

I dunno, ask congress.

What is it about all of you admin sycophants and apologists that you keep trying to shift the blame from the criminals who created the fraudulant, "stovepiped" intelligence, lies, deceptions and outright bullshit they fed Congress and the American people?

Aren't you proud of your Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal?

Aren't you just thrilled that, as of 08/17/07 6:11 pm EDT, 3,706 American troops have died for their lies, tens of thousands more are wounded, scarred and disabled for life?

Why aren't you tossing a party to celebrate the trillions of dollars of current and future debt our great grandchildren will still be paying long after we're gone from this planet?

Come on, guys. Step up, and be proud of the destruction you've wrought on our nation.

 

[JD50]

Wow, apparently some of you people are too fucking stupid to read. Did you see where I said "I do not support Bush or Cheney, they fucked up big time". Read it again, and let it sink in for a minute. The only ones here deflecting are the BDS sufferers, I fully agree with you that GWB and Cheney fucked up when they got us into this mess, but you all don't think that congress should be held accountable to their fuck ups as well, I do. Congress dropped the ball big time, hell, they didn't even read the report before they gave Bush the authority to do whatever the hell he wanted to. I love how you all completely ignore that fact.

Harvey, you and I have been over this countless times, but somehow you keep forgetting and going off on your psycho rants. You have even agreed with me that congress screwed up as well, so whats with your idiotic rambling in this thread?

Point is, Cheney and Bush couldn't have gotten us into this mess if congress would have done their job, but they didn't. That doesn't absolve GWB and Cheney from their responsibilities in this mess, but you all want to completely ignore what congress did and focus on the evil GWB&co. Grow up.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: db
Right, if ya don't have a direct answer to the subject at hand, say anything! Repeat official talking points!
Some people refuse to think for themselves; they let others do their thinking for them, then they repeat it.

Others are so confused that they go with what's familiar: they adopt daddy's politics, and hold fast no matter what.

Still others can only make emotional decisions. Talking logic and facts have no effect on this kind of person.

And then there are shills who have a job to do: promote the party line. Hence the above reference to "apparatchik:
An unquestioningly loyal subordinate, especially of a political leader or organization."

Oh, you mean how this is the third time that I have asked you this question yet you still refuse to answer? "At the time that Cheney made those statements, would congress have given authorization to go invade Iraq?"

 

[db]

There is lots to be thankful for, if you are Haliburton (and oil companies, defense contractors and others) who have profited and continue to profit.

 

[db]

Originally posted by: JD50
[
this is the third time that I have asked you this question yet you still refuse to answer? "At the time that Cheney made those statements, would congress have given authorization to go invade Iraq?"

Ha, I asked you a question, and instead of answering it, you asked me a question.
Then you accuse me of not answering your question. Why should I, or anyone, play your games?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: db

Originally posted by: JD50
[
this is the third time that I have asked you this question yet you still refuse to answer? "At the time that Cheney made those statements, would congress have given authorization to go invade Iraq?"

Ha, I asked you a question, and instead of answering it, you asked me a question.
Then you accuse me of not answering your question. Why should I, or anyone, play your games?

Really? This is how our discussion started in this thread.

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: db
The whole point is, NOTHING has changed.

At the time that Cheney made those statements, would congress have given authorization to go invade Iraq?

How is the statement "The whole point is, NOTHING has changed" a question?

Edit - and actually, your response to my question was "JD50 are you saying going into Iraq was a good idea?" and I even answered that. You might want to try rereading the thread....