• Home
  • Friends
  • Groups
  • Share

SIGN IN | HELP
ccabot.gather.com
  • profile|
  • posts|
  • photos|
  • videos|
  • comments|
  • friends|
  • groups
by Cheri Cabot
Member since:
April 4, 2006

Personal About Politics: Hogwash

January 31, 2007 10:48 PM EST (Updated: January 31, 2007 11:31 PM EST)
views: 173 | rating: 8.8/10 (11 votes) | comments: 164

 

 

 fileId:3096224744017378;size:inter;
A day after the President’s less than lackluster State of the Union Address, during an interview with Wolf Blitzer of CNN, Vice President Dick Cheney responded to comments regarding “blunders and failures” in Iraq by saying,  “I just think it’s hogwash.”

Hogwash? Is he joking? This from the Vice President of the United States, an educated man who has served in the White House with four presidents? The man who was CEO of Halliburton Corporation, the world’s largest oilfield services and products company? Former Secretary of Defense and recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom? That’s his brilliant response?

Granted, he has been having a rather bad month, which may explain his crankiness.  First the Democrats swept into Washington with great fanfare and took control of Congress. To add insult to injury, a woman (gasp) was elected Speaker of the House. Not only did Nancy Pelosi take charge of the House, she did it with panache.  Graceful and stylish, she exuded confidence as she took the oath of office and made history. Hold onto your pace maker, Dick, she’s just two ticks away from the Oval Office.

Nancy and Company came armed with a serious agenda. A laundry list of bills they intended to pass, and did, within the first 100 hours that the House was in session.  By passing bills that would raise the minimum wage, require Medicare to negotiate for lower prescription drug prices, cut interest rates on student loans, and repeal subsidies to big oil companies, they struck right at the heart of the power brokers who have had a strangle hold on our purse strings for the last six years.  They have systematically begun to dismantle the hierarchy of power given to the top 1% of Americans by Cheney and the GOP, who methodically tried to erase the Middle Class.

If that weren’t enough to make any ultra-conservative crabby, an African American and a women threw their hats into the ring along with several other Democratic hopefuls, while the slate of GOP candidates remained glaringly stark. At the same time the President’s approval rating continued it’s free fall.

When asked in the same interview if he thought Hillary Clinton would make a good President, Cheney, wearing his permanent scowl, sharply responded, “No, I don’t.”

“Why?” Blitzer asked.

“Because she’s a Democrat.” Cheney answered tartly.

That’s profound.

Blitzer then moved on to the subject of Cheney’s daughter Mary, a lesbian, who is pregnant, and how it ran contrary to the religious right. Cheney replied that he was delighted about having another grandchild,  “And I think, frankly, you’re out of line with that question.”

On Fox News Channel, Tony Snow, White House spokesman defended Cheney’s response. “People should not be trying to draw family members in. I think that family members ought to be off the limits.”

Oh, I get it now. It’s perfectly acceptable to authorize wholesale wiretapping without a court order for the rest of us in the country, but not to ask personal questions about his (Cheney’s) family.

Now his former aide, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby is on trial for perjury and  obstructing the investigation into who leaked the name of former CIA operative, Valerie Plame, to the public. Three witnesses have taken the stand, and fingers are pointing toward Cheney. One wonders how long before Scooter decides he no longer wants to be the sacrificial lamb in this case.

And finally, to top off an already dismal month, the Administration is hard pressed to find support for the deployment of additional troops to Iraq, even within their own ranks. According to the L.A. Times the Vice President responded to the administration’s critics by saying they were “dead wrong” about the war.

Wait. Let me get this straight. We’re supposed to ignore the recommendations of an Iraq Study Group, authorized by the President, a likely resolution by the Foreign Relations Committee condemning the use of additional troops, the expulsion of war hawks from Congress by the voters and war protests from D.C. to L.A.? We’re supposed to believe you when in 2005 you told us  “that the insurgency was in its last throes”?

No, Mr. Vice President, I don’t think so. What’s wrong is a war we were deceived into starting based on half-truths and outright lies. A war that our allies, members of congress, and American citizens no longer support. A war that is costing thousands of lives and, according to a study done in 2001 by Nobel Prize winning economist and Columbia professor, Joseph Stiglitz, along with Harvard budget expert, Linda Bilmes, 1-2 trillion dollars. Yes, that’s trillions.  I’m pretty sure you will be standing all by yourself with your assertion that you are right and everyone else is “dead wrong”.

So, in the last 30 days, after running roughshod over the country for the last six years, Dick Cheney now is watching his political powerhouse begin to deteriorate. Given all that he’s had to deal with this last month, it’s no wonder he’s contentious. Perhaps we should show him a little empathy.

Hogwash.

 

 

Cheri Cabot, Politics Correspondent
Cheri’s column, “Personal About Politics”, published every Tuesday, will reflect on how the life of a 57 year-old, middle class woman is affected by politics, policy and the current state of the nation - a look at the personal aspects of politics. The articles will be posted to Politics.gather.com.

Cheri is a single teacher and writer, living in Southern California.  She has two grown children, one in Iowa and one at Columbia University, and is the proud grandmother of two. Cheri is also a purveyor of fine coffee, warm chatter and dry wit.

You can find all of Cheri’s columns at Personal About Politics.  Keep up with Cheri’s other postings and Gather activity by joining her Gather network – just click here, ccabot.gather.com, and select the orange “Connect” button on the left-hand side of the page.

You’ll find Cheri and other Politics Correspondents, plus celebrity content and plenty of other Politics experts at Politics.gather.com

 

view all photos
You need the latest Adobe Flash Player.
Install the player now
Expand Tags: public forum, affairs of the state, liberal, politics today, us politics, the news cafe, personal about politics, democrat, politics on gather, politics, cheney
Expand To Group: Gather Politics Essential
rate

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10
email
print
link to this page
Paste this link into an email or IM
Bookmark this post:
Facebook
Twitter
Delicious
Buzz
More

Comments: 164

Suzi :Two sides to every story Jan 31, 2007, 11:02pm EST
Excellent commentary on today's political climate and hopefully tomorrow's history.
I say to Cheney's "hogwash", "throw the bum out". Here's a man who collected millions last year as a bonus from halliburton, a company that was awarded a no bid contract. Isn't it time for impeachment proceedings?
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Cheri Cabot Jan 31, 2007, 11:18pm EST
Thanks Suzi....
It's appalling to me that one man, obviously void of any morals, can create so much damage to our country.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Don (is it 2010 yet?) H. Feb 1, 2007, 12:35am EST
Cheri - the hogwash statement was in reference to how Wolfe Blitzer framed a question... as follows:

BLITZER: Here's what Jim Webb, senator from Virginia said in the Democratic response last night -- he said, "The president took us into this war recklessly. We are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable and predicted disarray that has followed."

And it's not just Jim Webb; it's some of your good Republican friends in the Senate and the House are now seriously questioning your credibility, because of the blunders and the failures. Gordon Smith...

CHENEY: Wolf, Wolf, I simply don't accept the premise of your question. I just think it's hogwash.

Just thought I would point that out. Also, worth noting that the State of the Union was generally well accepted as I cruised the various news channels afterward and got the opinion of the many talking heads.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Don (is it 2010 yet?) H. Feb 1, 2007, 12:40am EST
BLITZER: Do you think Hillary Clinton would make a good president?

CHENEY: No, I don't.

BLITZER: Why?

CHENEY: Because she's a Democrat. I don't agree with her philosophically and from a policy standpoint.
----------

This is a very plain and straight forward answer. How do you not get it? It should be simple enough for anyone to understand. And why would he give Hillary any more time? He kept it short and sweet. I like Cheney ... he's a good man. Did you know that the stock options he got from Haliburtan when he retired... all the profits will go to charity. One hundred percent, signed off to a trust that he can not revoke. That's a principled man.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Don (is it 2010 yet?) H. Feb 1, 2007, 12:57am EST
I find it hard to believe that you are a Gather Politics Correspondent. You've taken complete editorial license to pick and choose statements out of context and to use them as a basis for an article bashing the Vice President.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Sean Mac Feb 1, 2007, 2:49am EST
Randall H., What misstatements are you talking about? Everything quoted can be found in the papers, or online video. Care to defend yourself on what Chaney didn't do or say in this article?
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Sean Mac Feb 1, 2007, 3:05am EST
Don, again, what is incorrect here? That other republicans are seriously questioning Bush's new Iraq policy? Just look at the news today and you will see that this statement is true. Are you referring to Blitzer's quote of Webb not being correct? It was a direct quote, so where's the problem? Or are you simply denying that the war in Iraq isn't going well? Just turn on the nightly news and look at the body count for the day. And by the way, Chaney said that he didn't accept the premise of the question, not the way it was framed, you prove this in your own quotes. Here is the definition of Premise as appears in the dictionary: A statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn. Whether Chaney disagrees or not is irrelevant to what the masses think. And just because Chaney doesn't accept the reality of something doesn't mean it isn't true. That's just his nature; he's been denying the truth all his life. So I'm not quite sure what you're debating here. However, you do seem to prove Cheryl's point further by directly quoting what was said. So, thank you.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Sean Mac Feb 1, 2007, 3:13am EST
Again, Don, how did Cheryl quote this wrong? Because she didn't add on the philosophical part of Chaney's sentence? He's still referring to her democratic philosophy, and he plainly said, "Because she is a Democrat." And what talking heads did you listen to after Bush's address; Neocons in denial? And about Chaney giving his money to charity, the key were here is "Will," which means it hasn't gone to charity yet. Which means it probably won't. If he wanted it to go to charity than why not give it to charity now. You can't buy your way into heaven.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Sean Mac Feb 1, 2007, 3:27am EST
Don, I find it hard to believe how little you know about journalism. All of Cheryl's quotes and references come straight form the press. You don't quote a whole book, Don, just sentences. Anyway, the parts left out, as I proved above, make little or no difference at all in the what was meant, and most of all, the attitude conveyed was clear. Just because someone doesn't agree with you, Don, doesn't mean they are wrong. You sound very mush like the Bush administration. You deny the truth so you can sleep at night, and you make arguments that don't follow the rules of logic and reason. But I guess when you have money it doesn't matter. Keep talking loud, because that's the only weapon you have now. The facts are out there to see. Blue is blue and green is green, no matter how much you swear that they are both yellow and red. You're like bush, you all eventually prove the Democrats in your desperate arguments without even realizing it, because you're in a mad effort to discredit it.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Cheri Cabot Feb 1, 2007, 8:43am EST
Don, the scary part thing is, is that Cheny has convinced many, like you that he is a good and principled man. Now that he is being critized loudly and vocally, he has started to become unraveled....hence his testly answers to questions.
I am a Political Correspondent because I am a good writer, my articles create conversation, and I am not a "talking head" for the Bush Administration....meaning I do not write what I am told to write. That is one of the most important rights we have as citizens of the United States of America....freedom of speech. During the last 6 years, that right has been in jeopardy. I find it delightful and refreshing that Gather has provided an open format for people to write and speak freely. They do not
allow only one-sided commentary....if that were the case, you would have been kicked off long ago. But, if you only want to read what makes you happy, I am sure you can find channels that pander to your ultra conservative, head-in-the sand, 'I believe everything Bush and Cheney tell me' mentality.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Sean Mac Feb 1, 2007, 9:11am EST
Well said Cheri!
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Don (is it 2010 yet?) H. Feb 1, 2007, 9:38am EST
Your freedom of speech is in jeopardy? Wow - you're going to add to the baseless claims made in the article.

Sean - let's look at direct quotes from the article here to see things taken out of context:

------------
Vice President Dick Cheney responded to comments regarding "blunders and failures" in Iraq by saying, "I just think it's hogwash."

Hogwash? Is he joking?

....then she follows with ad hominem attacks based on his association with Haliburton.

NOW THE CORRECTION:

Vice President Dick Cheney DID NOT responded to comments regarding "blunders and failures" in Iraq by saying, "I just think it's hogwash."

He responded to the PREMISE of the question. Let's look at what Wolf said:

"...some of your good Republican friends in the Senate and the House are now seriously questioning your credibility, because of the blunders and the failures..."

Wolf is INJECTING his own opinion in the question, and saying that Republicans are questioning Cheney's credibility.

Sean - now it's your turn. Prove it's not hogwash. Show me the quote from ONE republican who speaks of Cheney's "credibility".

It's garbage journalism and Cheney called him on it, and I'm calling Cheri on the same thing.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Melinda T. Feb 1, 2007, 10:18am EST
Cheri, I truly enjoyed your article, I found it informative and thought provoking, two things I believe to be important in political journalism.
I am married to a man who served in our country's Army for 20 years, who knew one of the weapons inspectors searching for WMD's. This inspector reported no WMD's discovered, he made the statement publicly and privately. These reports were not heeded and our soldiers were sent ahead to die seeking to destroy what was not there. The death of these young men is personal in this house (as in so many others), many of the soldiers trained with my husband and on more than one occasion he has acknowledged personal acquaintance with a soldier who perished in Iraq. Our soldiers deserve a better plan, not one that has ultimately put so many of them to death.
The next year in the political arena should be akin to watching a tennis match comprised of differing viewpoints, opinions and ideas. I believe this coming election may be pivotal to the future of our country. This is not to say other elections have held no importance, that certainly isn't true. However there may be a greater opportunity for change than there has been for many years.
As a Political Correspondent you will certainly have much material to work with. I look forward to more thought provoking journalism from you.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Carolyn G. Feb 1, 2007, 11:01am EST
Cheri, I think this was an interesting and insightful look at the man who is one beat from the Presidency. I heard Mr. Cheney's statement during that interview and he was clearly stating he considered the idea of errors and blunders in Iraq to be "hogwash." That is supported by the fact he's not said anything to "correct" what people are saying about this interpretation as opposed to the one Don H. made up.

Just a point to the person who said a columnist here has to be objective and not take sides. That's what a reporter is supposed to do. A columnist always has a personal point of view in their writings.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Diana Raabe Feb 1, 2007, 11:08am EST
Interesting column and some points well made. As far as the "hogwash" response goes, consider the source: this from a man who shot his friend in the face.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Don (is it 2010 yet?) H. Feb 1, 2007, 11:28am EST
Everything has to spelled out for you guys so you understand. Wolf asked IN HIS WORDS THAT WERE WRITTEN BY HIM OR HIS STAFF:

"And it's not just Jim Webb; it's some of your good Republican friends in the Senate and the House are now seriously questioning your credibility, because of the blunders and the failures."

Cheney replies: "Wolf, Wolf, I simply don't accept the premise of your question. I just think it's hogwash."

The definition of Hogwash is: Worthless, false, or ridiculous speech or writing; nonsense.

LIBERALS... clear your minds. Cheney's statement about hogwash was in reference to Wolf's question... which was written down. Wolf did not say this off the cuff.. it was purposelly written down... and it was HOGWASH.

There is no need for me to defend my statements any further because I can't make it any more clear, and you guys couldn't be any more thick in the head.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Sean Mac Feb 1, 2007, 12:56pm EST
Don, again you seem to prove my point. I don't disagree with you about what Chaney actually said, it's on record, but Cheri did not miss quote him, you are simply putting your own spin on it. You said, Vice President Dick Cheney responded to comments regarding "blunders and failures" in Iraq by saying, "I just think it's hogwash." This means that he thinks there are no failures and blunders in Iraq, which means that he disagrees with the facts on the ground, in the press, and public opinion polls, even soldiers and Generals have said mistakes and blunders have been made, his fellow republicans have also admitted it. So, again, what are you arguing? And what is wrong with the comment, "are you joking?" One is not allowed freedom of opinion or press anymore, is that it? Also, it is not Wolf's opinion that republicans are questioning the Bush administration in Iraq, it is public fact! Did you read a paper today? Republican Senators and House Reps have openly admitted to Bush not taking the proper course in Iraq, and yes, making mistakes there. I feel as if I am explaining to a five year old. Facts are facts, whether you want to accept them or not. You, and the Bush administration clearly do not want to accept fact or reality. Also, I cannot read every article in the newspaper for you. I'm sure you are old enough to do that on your own. Also, you want to talk about ad hominen attacks, let's talk about Chaney saying that he thinks Clinton would be a bad president because she is a democrat. And lets talk about the entire bush administration saying anyone who disagrees with them is wrong (by saying that they don't look, nor care about public opinion polls). Now lets look at what an ad hominem attack is:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false

Example of Ad Hominem
Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

Now replace the word "priest" with the word "Democrat," and that is Chaney's argument. And since were talking about fallacies lets look at the ones you and Chaney have committed, Description of Appeal to Authority, of Appeal to Belief, Appeal to Consequences of a Belief, Begging the Question, Circumstantial Ad Hominem, Genetic Fallacy, Personal Attack, Relativist Fallacy, and Straw Man fallacy.

So, you want me to produce evidence that republicans are disagreeing with the Bush administration (and Chaney is a part of the Bush administration, so when people speak of it they are including him). Here is something from the associated press: "We've had four other surges since we first went into Iraq," said Sen. Susan Collins (news, bio, voting record), referring to the administration's plan for an additional 21,500 troops. "None of them produced a long-lasting change in the situation on the ground... In the Senate, Collins joined two Republicans and one Democrat to unveil nonbinding legislation expressing disagreement with Bush's plan." Or there is this one hot off the presses, also from associated press: "WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate moved a step closer to repudiating U.S. President George W. Bush's Iraq strategy on Thursday when a key Democrat backed a Republican-crafted proposal opposing a troop increase." Or, " Key Democratic and Republican senators who oppose President Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq have forged a joint resolution against the increase. The new, non-binding resolution is sponsored by John Warner, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Democrat Carl Levin." Be interested to see how you spin that. You are so out of touch with reality, Don, that it is scary, but what is even more scary is that so is the Bush administration. So if you think Cheri's journalism is garbage journalism then you must also believe that any journalist that doesn't take the noecon view is also a garbage journalist. Whatever makes you able to sleep at night, Don. Now it's your turn. And, please, remember the rules of logic and reason when you speak again.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Joe T. Feb 1, 2007, 1:03pm EST
The premise of Wolf's question was a good one. It's true that Cheney didn't accept it and called it "hogwash," but, the fact is that many of the Republicans are in fact saying the same thing about the blunders in Iraq as Democratic members of the Congress. Cheney is an ideologue who is not in touch with society in general.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Randy W. Feb 1, 2007, 1:14pm EST
Cheri, I suggest that you become a contributor to Gather's "Opinion" section. What you posted can not be called news by any journalistic standard.

Thanks for trying, though.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Sean Mac Feb 1, 2007, 1:17pm EST
First of all Don, since you are so adamant about proof being slapped across your face in order to be acceptable, where is your proof that Wolf didn't write that question himself? This is the type of ridiculous thing you are asking of us to provide you with when facts are right in front of you every day. Now, Don, Even if Wolf didn't write the question, Chaney was still responding to it, and what it was implying through voiced, written, and visual fact. Do you understand how ridiculous you sound when you say that Chaney is arguing that the structure of the question is hogwash and not what was actually being asked? I don't even think Chaney is that stupid. A question is a question, whether Joe blow or his mom writes it, and for you to infer that Chaney was not responding to what was being asked then you are speaking nonsense. Again, if you go back and look at what you have said, you make our argument and contradict yourself at the same time. Your words simply don't make sense when you add up your argument. How can you debate someone who is like that? Someone who says green is not green but really red, or that Joe said, "Yes", and Bob said, "no", and you say that anyone who thinks this is true is wrong because in actuality Joe really said, "yes," and Bob Really said, "No." See the absurdity, Don?
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Sean Mac Feb 1, 2007, 1:21pm EST
Randy, you care to elaborate as to why? Or are you just going on the basis of you disagreeing with her opinion. That is what a columnist does. Or would you like the definition of that too? Did you go to journalism school, since you are such an expert on the topic? Wouldn't spout unless you know what you're talking about.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Suzi :Two sides to every story Feb 1, 2007, 2:15pm EST
I'm not sure how many of you read a newspaper, but the editorial section is filled with opinions and thought-provoking questions, not to be misconstrued as gospel, but to make you think about the subject. If you pick up a New York Times newspaper you'll find editorials by Paul Krugman, Thomas Friedman, Maureen Dowd and other well informed political writers. Attention Don H.: Maureen Dowd has an excellent article in the Saturday, January 27, 2007 OP-ED section. Let me quote her first paragraph as an illustration. "Dick Durbin went to the floor of the Senate on Thursday night to denounce the vice president as "delusional"." Maureen goes on to say that she's ashamed of Dick Durbin, since the word delusional does not even begin to describe the "daftness" of Cheney....and later goes on to call the Vice President "deranged".
Maureen Dowd is a ace political writer for the OP-ED section who vocalizes her opinions on the current state of affairs. Whether you agree or disagree isn't the point. The point is, she writes under our constitutional right: Freedom of speech.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Suzi :Two sides to every story Feb 1, 2007, 2:20pm EST
To Don H. - I almost forgot to ask you, is your real name Jeb? Come on, it's all right, we'll still respect you.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Eddie P. Feb 1, 2007, 3:04pm EST
Don H., did you ever do any psychedelic drugs for an extended period of time? Do you ACTUALLY believe the INANITIES that you BABBLE? I strongly suspect that you do because of your continual insistence on trying to defend the indefensible: Dick Cheney, with an emphasis on the former. Since you, like many other unfortunate guillible Americans with a sheep-like mentality, I will lay something out so CLEARLY, even a feeble-minded fool such as yourself can understand. Ready? Now, turn off your T.V. Fox News, a.k.a. the Republican Party Channel, can wait. You can RECEIVE your political opinion from demagogues like Bill O'Reilly a little later. Your friend, DICK Cheney, with the help of the rest of this REGIME called the Bush administration INTENTIONALLY DECEIVED the American people into going to war by spreading FEAR: Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Remember that? These weapons DID NOT exist. That is what you call an irrefutable fact, Don H. Your buddy, Cheney, told a group of veterans on Aug. 26, 2001, "There's no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction (and that he will use them) against our friends, against our allies and against us." Remember that, Don H.? So we, in essence, we into war under false pretenses. Here's another convient FACT about your principled Mr. Cheney. Did you know that gutless coward received FIVE, I REPEAT, FIVE DRAFT DEFERMENTS when he was eligible to go to war. He told the Washington Post he sought this deferments because, "I had other priorities in the 60's than military service." Yeah, like not going and staying alive. It appears to be just a tad HYPOCRITICAL of Cheney to perfectly willing to send other people's kids to DIE, BE PERMANENTLY MAIMED, OR PSYCHOLOGICALLY CRIPPLED when he himself lacked the COURAGE to go war. In fact, a very large majority of politicians who voted to go to war have never served in the armed forces nor are they willing to send their own kids to go. Here's another interesting fact about your precious Mr. Cheney: he received $30 million in a stock payout from Haliburton when he left the company on Aug. 16, 2000. You actually believe all this money goes to chairty? You, like Cheney are DELUSIONAL swallow that B.S. Cheney and this regime has cost the U.S. trillions of dollars, worldwide credibility for years, and most importantly, countless lives. I think you, Randall H., Karl Rove, President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and the rest of the warmongering, fear/lie-spreading gang of ineptitudes should go hunting with DICK. I'll suggest to ol' DICK that he use 30-30 shells instead of buckshot. Maybe he can CLEAR your very simple minds. I doubt it, though. I understand how overwhelming evidence, based in fact-not half-truths and distortions, confuses and angers ignorant people. Also, the words credibility, integrity, compentency, and moral do not apply at all to this regime: especially DICK. If there was one word to desrcibe DICK, it would be, HOGWASH!
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Don (is it 2010 yet?) H. Feb 1, 2007, 3:07pm EST
Sean - I will take the time to respond to your hogwash just as soon as you learn to spell the Vice President's last name: Cheney. Not Chaney.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Sheryl V. Feb 1, 2007, 3:45pm EST
Wow! Great article Cheri! Just last week you were telling me how much you love to read political fare -- well I now know why -- great political commentary! Who on earth would be more qualified to lead the country than Hiliary I ask -- I mean after all, she has much more experience, 8 previous years in the white house, more as a strong senator, and well.... Bill!
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Suzi :Two sides to every story Feb 1, 2007, 4:20pm EST
Hmmm, a woman for President? If that were the case, I'd hope that Barbara Boxer would step forward.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Sean Mac Feb 1, 2007, 5:27pm EST
Cheney, Cheney, Cheney.... Cheney. Is that good enough for you, Don? Now would you like to respond or do you want to complain some more about spelling? Or can you even respond, or just commeit red herring fallacies?
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Ron (in complete sheeple overload) W. Feb 1, 2007, 6:10pm EST
Interesting exchange here, all of you. Cheney's out look on Iraq would obviously be different from the American populace as a whole, because what he wants, and always wanted to accomplish there is different. Read PNAC statements, etc. All of the price we are paying there is small potatoes to him, and others of the same mindset, and he could care less what you, or I, or Wolf Blitzer, or even Don H. thinks about it. Of course this does make him a complete sham as an elected official, but he has never wavered in his focus, and is not about to. Anyone that considers him delusional should realise that they judge him by a very different yardstick than he, or Bush, or any of the PNAC adherents judge themselves. They are not interested in the trillions of dollars spent, thousands of lives lost, or disapproval of the electorate as a whole, or the whole world, for that matter. When you understand the very large marbles these guys think they are playing for, as opposed to us, that would just like peace, and our gas prices a little lower, a decent job and to be able to support our families, there is no connect of understanding, and no way to reason with them. You, an apple, are trying to understand him, an orange, and it seems incomprehensible. It's comprehensible, though, and when you understand it all, it's pretty reprehensible, as well, but lose the common rhetoric, it does not apply by a mile. This is not politics as usual, this is world domination for the remotely foreseeable future, and beyond. Small wonder he doesn't accept Wolf's premises.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Don (is it 2010 yet?) H. Feb 1, 2007, 6:33pm EST
Ron - you could have just said "I wear a tin foil hat, and it' a little tight tonight" and it would have had the same meaning ;)
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Ron (in complete sheeple overload) W. Feb 1, 2007, 6:34pm EST
As for Hillary becoming president. I doubt it can happen. The rest that the religious right took in this election, and the defection of moderate republicans, will be thrown into reverse and the motors gunned as one, if she gets the nomination. Unless there is a major pushover put up by the repubs, this won't fly. Little old ladies will be standing in the rain for six hours just to vote against her. She is hated, and I don't mean disliked, by a major portion of the american electorate, and her moves to take the middle ground have not lessened that hatred, and have isolated some of her left wing support as well. You want to lose in 2008, keep on cheerleading for her, and it will happen. Ask your grandmother what she thinks of her. Old people vote. Ask several other major sectors of the voting public, the ones that actually show up on election day. She's a crash waiting to happen, and so is Obama. Way too much Rove fodder there for a chance.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Ron (in complete sheeple overload) W. Feb 1, 2007, 6:41pm EST
Don, They wrote it, they published it, and they meant it, obviously. Look around at what has happened, and what has stayed the same in their approach. Are you trying to say they didn't publish it? Are you trying to say there is any indication that they didn't believe in it? Fold a hat for yourself, you're in denial.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Don (is it 2010 yet?) H. Feb 1, 2007, 6:45pm EST
Ron - care to provide specific links to the passages you are referring to, or are we to take your word? I've been on the PNAC a number of times and never found anything conspiratorial in nature. Now, I have seen people take things out of context and spin it into something more devious.... but that's just nonsense. So, help us out. Point us to the truth - and I need context, so the website has links you can copy/paste.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Don (is it 2010 yet?) H. Feb 1, 2007, 6:48pm EST
Sean - you made quite a few comments, so I'll have to quote to keep things in context.

You said "other republicans are seriously questioning Bush's new Iraq policy? Just look at the news today and you will see that this statement is true."

Provide one link to a news story where Cheney's credibility is called into question by a republican. Wolf said it, so it must be true.


You said that Cheney made an ad hominem attack on Clinton. Where? He was asked the question would Hillary make a good President. He said no. Wolf asked why? His full statement was clear "Because she's a Democrat. I don't agree with her philosophically and from a policy standpoint."

That is NOT an attack. It's his reason for not thinking she would make a good president. It's like asking me if I would vote for a communist. I would say no - I don't agree with communists philosophically and from a policy standpoint. How is that an attack.

You made no sense in any of your arguments. You rambled alot with assumptions that you proved points along the way. Just ain't so.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Sean Mac Feb 1, 2007, 6:50pm EST
I agree Ron. What is printed is printed. Don, would be good in the Bush administration - he makes up the present on a day-to-day basis. One can deny the fact that it is raining when it really is raining if one wants to, but it also makes them look rediculaous too, so it all evens out.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Ron (in complete sheeple overload) W. Feb 1, 2007, 6:54pm EST
Don, I'm not chasing conspiracy theory around the net for you, you know what's there, and it's implications, but I have a question or two for you. Why did Wolfowitz want to go straight into Iraq, and not even bother with Afghanistan, the country that harbored Bin Laden? Why are there permanent bases being constructed in Iraq, in direct contradiction of our rhetoric?
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Sean Mac Feb 1, 2007, 7:06pm EST
First of all, Don, if you read all my comments you would see that some of the quotes I used are from the AP in today's newspaper. Go to their website and read the article. Or do you need me to do that for you too? Second, did you read the definition and example of what ad hominem attack is? I believe I pretty much spelled it out for you, then told you to replace Dick's comments in the example. Whether you say that he said, "Because she is democrat. (Period by the way means the end of a sentence, so he said what he said there, whether you quote every sentence after that in the interview or not). Or you add on that he said, "I don't agree with her philosophically and from a policy stand point." It makes no difference. You still can't deny that he said, "Because she is a democrat," and the fact that because she is a democrat that this means her policy standpoint and philosophy is, thus, democratic. That is why they choose to label themselves democratic because it is an ideal (i.e. philosophy). Wow, it's exhausting trying to explain common sense things to a five year old! And as far as it not being an attack, have it your way, but it is still, by definition, an ad hominem fallacy. That can only be disputed by non-humans that don't agree with or apply the standard, accepted norms, and rules and definitions of logic and reason. But Cheney could probably get one of his cronies to change or amend that definition to fit his rhetoric, hasn't stopped him in the past. Go ahead and look up what an ad hominem fallacy is if you don't believe me. Or do you need me to send you too a sight or reference library for that too? Why don't you do your own work instead of insisting others do it for you?
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Don (is it 2010 yet?) H. Feb 1, 2007, 7:07pm EST
Ron - I'm not going to hunt down Wolfowitz's reasoning - you know why he wanted to go to Iraq and it was for all good reasons.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Don (is it 2010 yet?) H. Feb 1, 2007, 7:10pm EST
You guys need to make use of paragraph breaks in your comments. These long winded, single paragraphs are very hard to read and address. Keep your comments short when possible, and try to stick to one point. It's very difficult to respond otherwise.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Sean Mac Feb 1, 2007, 7:16pm EST
Don, I love that phot of Bush on your page where he looks like he's trying to think, poop, and boogie all at the same time. where did you find that!?
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Suzi :Two sides to every story Feb 1, 2007, 7:16pm EST
Ok Don, Let's talk about the Neo-conservatives and their goals in 1997....way before 2001. (FYI, the following people are members of the Neo-Con movement: Cheney, Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, Dan Quayle, Rumsfeld, and other well-known warheads.) In 1997, a document was drafted by the above people stating that it was imperative for this country to invade and conquer Syria, Iran, and yes, Iraq. As you can see 911 played into their plans and one wish has already been granted. Of course, being myopic, the neo-cons couldn't predict the quagmire this country would create. But does this slow them down on the next two wishes? Not a bit. They're getting ready for target Iran. I'm not sure who you are, but I'll bet you already know about the neo-con plan for the Middle East and their website--but I think it's time the American public becomes better informed about whose running this country (into the ground).
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Sean Mac Feb 1, 2007, 7:17pm EST
I don't know if you still have it on your homepage, but i saw it the last time we debated.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Don (is it 2010 yet?) H. Feb 1, 2007, 7:18pm EST
Sean - I succinctly proved that Cheney did not make an ad hominem attack on Hillary.

As for the Wolf Blitzer question being hogwash, I asked you for one small thing. Quote me one republican who said they have lost confidence in Cheney. Wolf said it in his question, and Cheney called it hogwash. You can't just make shit up without backing it up. There must be ONE instance of a Repbublican stating their lack of confidence.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Don (is it 2010 yet?) H. Feb 1, 2007, 7:20pm EST
PNAC NEVER NEVER SAID that it was imperative for this country to invade and conquer Syria, Iran, and yes, Iraq.

Prove me wrong. Show me where they said it. I've already been to the site and refuted these mistatements numerous times. Back it up or shut up.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Sean Mac Feb 1, 2007, 7:21pm EST
No, Don, you proved that he did, you just think that you didn't, because your definition is obviously different than the accepted definition of an ad hominem attack. But there is little use in aguing with some who doesn't agree with a correct definition of sometihng.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Don (is it 2010 yet?) H. Feb 1, 2007, 7:23pm EST
I just googled "PNAC Syria" and got this link:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

It references 1997. I will read and try to find something that backs up your statement, Suzi.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Sean Mac Feb 1, 2007, 7:23pm EST
Don, oh my God, did you not read my direct quotes that I posted from today's papers stating that republicans disagree with the Bush administration and their policy in Iraq?
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Sean Mac Feb 1, 2007, 7:28pm EST
How about this, Don, I'll use your tactics; prove to us that what Cheney meant was not what we think he meant. Be aware though, that if we are going to play y your rules of logic, everything you have asked for from us, you must also supply in you reply. How do you know that that is not what Cheney meant? And how can you prove it? The same line you keep quoting over and over again proves nothing! I want hard fact that you know what was going on in Cheney's head when he said what he said. Now go ahead and respond without answering the question and applying your own standards to the reply.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Sean Mac Feb 1, 2007, 7:30pm EST
I have to go get some work done. I'll be back later.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Don (is it 2010 yet?) H. Feb 1, 2007, 7:31pm EST
I've just read that document and no where do they state that the US must invade and conquer ANY country. Maybe it's the wrong doc, but it cites 1997 and refers to Iran, Syria and Iraq.

Suzi... good luck finding anything that says we must invade and conquer. It's SILLY.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Ron (in complete sheeple overload) W. Feb 1, 2007, 7:34pm EST
Actually Don, I have absolutely no idea, other than PNAC aims, why he would want to bypass Afghanistan to go into Iraq first, although I was never under the illusion terrorism was the main thrust of this war, like most. It amuses me that you just tried to busy me with a search for back up, and reject it when I suggest you do it, of course. Arguing with Don, 101, I have observed. I'll assume a response to the permanent base issue is not forthcoming, as well? I just wondered, since we are purported to be leaving as soon as possible. Of course, with those thirty year sweetheart oil deals that we are attempting to get inserted into their law (or is that done now?), it might be handy to have a base or two when the natives finally get upset about being raped of their oil, mighten it? And it would fit into the PNAC idea that with enough land bases we could free up naval power for the Pacific, use them as a base for further mideast operations, etc.....
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Don (is it 2010 yet?) H. Feb 1, 2007, 7:34pm EST
Sean - I already know that some Republican's disagree with the surge plan, and other plans that have happened or are being planned. But disagreement and having a "lack of confidence" are two different things entirely. You know nothing about leadership and don't understand the weight of such a statement. This is not me finely parsing words and meanings - it is stark. The onus is on you. All you have to do is show me ONE instance.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Don (is it 2010 yet?) H. Feb 1, 2007, 7:37pm EST
Ron - I back my stuff up with direct quotes, in context, and when needed, I provide a link. There is a big difference between how I make my case with you guys. I don't just pull shit out of the air - I back it up.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Don (is it 2010 yet?) H. Feb 1, 2007, 7:39pm EST
The answer to your Permanent Base question has nothing to do with PNAC and everything to do with the fact that we are in a war, and we are heavily invested in Iraq and we plan to have bases there for decades. Again - it has nothing to do with PNAC. That's your fantasy world.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Ron (in complete sheeple overload) W. Feb 1, 2007, 7:49pm EST
Don, that IS PNAC for christs sakes. What are you smoking?
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Ron (in complete sheeple overload) W. Feb 1, 2007, 7:57pm EST
What happened to we will leave just as soon as the Iraqis want us out? What happened to we don't want to appear to be an occupying force? It's all coming true Don, whatever you believe. Putting a different explanation behind it when it is a major objective of PNAC, does not disprove PNAC is being implemented. Open your eyes.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Don (is it 2010 yet?) H. Feb 1, 2007, 8:05pm EST
Ron - Iraq is a soveirgn nation. The US has stated that it would leave if requested to do so by the Iraqi government. At this point in time, we are invited guests.

Again, this has to do with the war and nothing to do with PNAC. IF it is mentioned on the PNAC website, it is merely conincidence, but I would bet my last dollar it's not mentioned.

Now Ron, I just know you can point me directly to this thing in PNAC and the permanent Iraq base. Or is it something you've heard other people say? Tell the truth.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Suzi :Two sides to every story Feb 1, 2007, 8:06pm EST
Ok, let's have some facts. The neo-conservative movement began with Leo Strauss and his thoughts on Machiavelli in the late 1950s, along with Irving Kristol, William Kristol's father who started "In the Public Interest". I. Kristol's wife came up with the idea of the compassionate conservative. Later their son William Kristol started " The Weekly Standard" and a Project for the New American Century in 1997. We already know most of the key players, but let's get to the current situation. One of the members of the Defense Policy Board, Eliot Cohen writes a book called Supreme Command, which is later read, rather tackled by none other than Junior Bush. The main thesis of the book is "War is too important to be left to generals". Well, Rumsfeld and Cheney have certainly proved that. They've been dismissive of our military leaders, have refused to listen to advice by knowledgeable experts on the Middle East and are now working hard to move on to Iran. The obvious connections of the current administration, Bush, Cheney, Rice, et al., to the oil companies and the Saudis is no secret. The administration has shown over and over that they have no concerns for our troops, the American public, and the Iraqi civilians, while the oil companies are making record-breaking profits from this war. Are we safer? Hell no. In the meantime, Homeland Security (in Nazi Germany it was called Security for the Homeland) takes away my toothpaste and shampoo at the airport.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Don (is it 2010 yet?) H. Feb 1, 2007, 8:06pm EST
Candace... once again, you are out of the loop. Start at the top and you will see numerous people said the same thing about the article. I'm just arguing with a few hardcore libs who have trouble backing up statements with fact. People like you ;)
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Don (is it 2010 yet?) H. Feb 1, 2007, 8:10pm EST
Suzi - source your statement about Iran, Syria and Iraq. Get off the liberal conspiratorial rant - it's not impressing me.


"In 1997, a document was drafted by the above people stating that it was imperative for this country to invade and conquer Syria, Iran, and yes, Iraq."

BACK IT UP. It's only one document. You have NO credibility until you can back up what you say.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Ron (in complete sheeple overload) W. Feb 1, 2007, 8:21pm EST
Let's see, we have an administration heavy in PNAC players, we have a war we went into for highly dubious reasons, but that just happens to align totally with PNAC aims, then we have developments in that war that point specifically to objectives lined out in PNAC documents, and a breaking of any promise that didn't align with those objectives, and the administration ignores any and all other voices. It looks, walks, and quacks like a duck to me, Don, but if it looks like a Platypus to you, that's your right, I guess. Either way, Our nation's oldest drive by shooter isn't in this for the good of the common man, and neither is that smirking chimp he hangs out with. JMHO, your mileage may vary.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Don (is it 2010 yet?) H. Feb 1, 2007, 8:21pm EST
I love it. I've asked Sean, Ron, and Suzi each to provide ONE simple bit of proof that backs up their statement. I don't understand why this is so hard.

Ron - PNAC/Iraq Permanant Bases.
Sean - Republicans have 'loss of confidence' of Cheney
Suzi - invade and conquer Syria, Iran, and Iraq

All three of you believe anything. You have no need for first hand knowledge. You just step in line with the liberal talking points.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Don (is it 2010 yet?) H. Feb 1, 2007, 8:26pm EST
Ron - the PNAC site is up and running. Google also works. You should be able to do this. You haven't because it doesn't exist. I am sure it exists on DU, TruthOut, DailyKos,DemocracyNow, CommonDreams, Michael Moore, but... just not on PNAC. Hmmmmm... you might want to check your facts now and then Ron, just to make sure you're getting good information.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Ron (in complete sheeple overload) W. Feb 1, 2007, 8:32pm EST
Don, if you read the 2000 Pnac document, you will find in it references to the fact that we need permanent land bases in the mideast to release naval forces to the pacific, and to be used as backup for other operations in the mideast. I thought you had read the document. Please don't throw me in with others you are engaged with. If you need, the whole document can be posted, but a reference to the document, in PDF form is here:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Ron (in complete sheeple overload) W. Feb 1, 2007, 8:35pm EST
Okay, we cross posted. Same article, same information in it, though.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Don (is it 2010 yet?) H. Feb 1, 2007, 8:45pm EST
Ron - that was the link I provided, not you. Second, there is no mention of permanent bases in Iraq. The word 'base' is used 126 times in the document, and the discussion is about bases all over the world relative to a post cold war world. But there is not ONE word about a permanent base in Iraq specifically. You just lost. You made something up and were unable to back it up.... and now you try to change to something more approximate. I do leave the discussion open if you want to prove me wrong, but I don't think you'll find it in that document.

Ron - let me clarify for you. They mention the word base 126 times. They talk about nearly every existing base in the world and talk about how we should be placed in the future. In other words, there is no specific conspriacy about Iraq - and the discussion is so wide you can make anything out of it. Do you understand why this is a big nothing in regards to the Iraq war? It's a think tank about military strategy and nothing more.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Ron (in complete sheeple overload) W. Feb 1, 2007, 8:58pm EST
Balony, it's all about Iraq, and is the real reason we went in. Saudi's were severely cramping our style as far as numbers and presence, and we needed bases we set the rules on. It's imperitive to the whole plan. You read this whole document, and it becomes obvious what the reasons and aims are. If you choose to wear those big old blinders Don, that's up to you. Anyone else, read the thing and judge for yourself. I guarantee, a little lightbulb will go off in your head. If you really believe your take on it Don, join me in encouraging people to read the whole document, and then you will have tons of allies, right? I don't think so. Read it folks, it's dry, and boring, and supremely enlightening.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Don (is it 2010 yet?) H. Feb 1, 2007, 9:10pm EST
Ron, it's about American defense throughout the entire world. You are dead wrong on this. The document is even generically titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century." It talks about Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. It is broad in it's discussion.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Sean Mac Feb 1, 2007, 9:22pm EST
Now, Don, if I had replied to you questions the way you replied to my last one, you would have asked for evidence? So I ask you again, Don, to follow your own rules. You made them up, so play by them. And I ask you again to answer the question I asked instead of saying that you don't have to answer it because you just know, and because you are above questions like that. Sounds like the Bush administration. I, or anyone for that matter can argue in that manner, but it is not correct. I can also rebut, as you did, that you know nothing about leadership and that the onus is on you. But you see how you get nowhere with that? You see how your logic works? It goes nowhere because you don't provide proof, and you are not in touch with reality. And how dare you make a statement about me, who you know nothing about, as when you said I know nothing about leadership? I detect another fallacy there. And I detect Cheney tactics there as well. In fact, Don, I am now at an Ivy League institution studying politics, and I've worked over seas, so don't talk to me about not understanding leadership and government. Watch yourself. And take a course in basic intro philosophy and politics.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Sean Mac Feb 1, 2007, 9:25pm EST
Again, Don, playing by your tactics; prove us wrong. Why must we prove you wrong? Prove that what the Dems and Republicans said doesn't mean what we have implied it does. Go on now. Prove it. Not by putting a spin on a concisely wonder sentence - anyone can claim that "no" really means "yes", and visa versa, like you have, but to actually have a logical argument takes work and intelligence, which you...
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Eddie P. Feb 1, 2007, 9:27pm EST
Since it is quite evident that you've swallowed this line of B.S. that this war is about "spreading democracy"--just conviently forget the weapons of mass destruction LIE from the White House--I am sure you, unlike your buddy Mr. 5 deferment Cheney, are currently enlisted in the armed forces fighting for freedom. Am I right? I am assuming you are of military eligibility age. Are you? If you are, then I would assume YOU, being a true patriot, should make the sacrifice so many others have made in the name of democracy in the Middle East. Tell, Mr. Historian, when was the last time an Arab country had a democracy of any kind? I'll save you the time. None. Zero. Zilch. Ain't gonna happen. Not in mine or your lifetimes combined. Democracy is a nonexistent entity in the Middle East. It's been that way for a very, very long time.
This ill-conceived war was a disaster from the beginning and the Bush regime is compounding it by wanting to force more American soldiers into a woodchipper. Your pals in the White House insist on OTHER AMERICANS make the ultimate sacrifce while their buddies get rich with being awarded no-bid government contracts (see Halliburton) and their children remain safely at home. See you in Iraq, Mr. Patriot.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Sean Mac Feb 1, 2007, 9:31pm EST
You truly amuse me, Don. You are desperate, but it's pointless to argue with someone who hasn't any reason. Because I know about politics, Don, I also know how politicians use specific rhetoric to spin things and to manipulate debate, but this still must follow the rules of reason, so in the end, they are always found out. You can't fool me, Don. Things are what they are. But keep spinning, and I'll keep picking it apart. I rather enjoy it actually. As I said, you amuse me.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Ron (in complete sheeple overload) W. Feb 1, 2007, 9:36pm EST
So you don't want people to read it and make up their own minds? I know all that you say, but the sections on forward basing, and the mideast make it pretty clear, that given this oportunity, that just fell into their laps with 911, these people, the same PNAC signers that were running our country, couldn't resist the temptation to implement their vision. And there is the fact that we know they were trying to implement regime change from day one of the administration. Put into the context of what we now know, it's pretty obvious. But don't take my word for it, folks, read it and make up your own mind. Don, your agreement is not necessary or sought.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Don (is it 2010 yet?) H. Feb 1, 2007, 9:52pm EST
Sean - in one sentence, tell me what it is you want me to prove. Be concise.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Don (is it 2010 yet?) H. Feb 1, 2007, 9:53pm EST
Ron - I want people to read it. That is why I posted a link to it. Nice try.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Don (is it 2010 yet?) H. Feb 1, 2007, 9:56pm EST
And just to restate, the document is very broad in it's discussion, yet you choose to pinpoint it to Iraq. You are wrong to do so. Anyone who reads it will see it is a wide ranging discussion about the entire world.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Don (is it 2010 yet?) H. Feb 1, 2007, 9:59pm EST
Eddie - in the future, please try to make one point. You may think I am ignoring you, but simply put, it''s not practical to have to argue a list of points. It doesn't make for a good read.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Cheri Cabot Feb 1, 2007, 10:06pm EST
Don, Obviously you didn't read Sean's comment where he gave you some direct quotes from today's AP article. He told you to go to their website and read it for yourself. I'd say that is giving you a source, but I'm pretty sure you wouldn't read it, because it might, just might disagree with your beliefs and ideas. But instead of checking to see if might be true, why don't you just pull a "Rush' or a "Bill O'Reilly" by loudly interrupting anyone who says something you don't like.....or just put your fingers in your ears and scream "I'm not listening, I'm not listening!"
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Don (is it 2010 yet?) H. Feb 1, 2007, 10:13pm EST
Eddie - here goes...

Am I serving? No. It's a volunteer army last I checked. If I were of the age, I think it would be an honor to serve at this time in our history.

Are we in Iraq just to spread democracy? We are in Iraq for many reasons. Primarily, after 911 we thought it wise to change the political landscape in the Middle East. There were multifacteted reasons for going into Iraq and repeating them here is tiresome. If you like, I will do so in another post.

How many democracies in the Middle East? First, lets start off with the fact that we do not expect a Jeffersonian democracy all at once in Iraq. Regardless, the new government there is democratically elected and you can thank George W. Bush for that. You can also count Israel as a democracy - though not perfect. But this is why we need to help change the culture. And allow me to throw this out: the Middle East has been adopting Western culture on a grand scale for the past 100 years or so - and for anyone to think that they can't change - well, they really haven't been paying attention. So, Mr NoNothingAboutHistory, there has already be democracy in the Middle East.

"This ill-conceived war was a disaster from the beginning". Really? I guess you forgot that we overtook the country within a few weeks, and tore down Saddam's statue. There have been many succeess. Why don't you give the troops some credit for once, Mr. Patriot? lol.

Anywho - seems you're out of gas. Next time, tone it down and try to make one point. Don't get all huffy on me.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Suzi :Two sides to every story Feb 1, 2007, 10:16pm EST
Well Don,
I'm going to address one issue at a time. You asked for names of Republicans that no longer support the President's position--I give you this:

A Tale of Two Senators, From Virginia
by Geoffrey Kemp

It would have been unthinkable a year ago that both the senior and junior senators from the traditionally conservative Commonwealth of Virginia would become two of the most powerful critics of President Bush's Iraq War. John Warner has for years been regarded as a most loyal and dependable supporter of Republican presidents. Regarded as the conscience of the Republican Party, he is a man of decency, commanding huge respect, the natural successor to his distinguished former colleague Senator Barry Goldwater.

Until recently, Warner backed virtually all the White House decisions on Iraq. But now he, together with Republican Senators Norm Coleman (MN) and Susan Collins (ME), has offered a non-binding Senate resolution opposing the proposed surge of new U.S. troops into Iraq. This is a painful blow to the White House and demonstrates how serious Bush's problems are. Senator Chuck Hagel, a more maverick Republican, has already come out strongly against the surge, and other Republicans are likely to join the opposition in the coming days. Irrespective of what the Democrats do or say, once a rebellion within the Republican Party takes hold it will be difficult to stop.

More will be coming tomorrow when I go to my file in my office and dredge up the old 1997 statement by the Neo-Cons.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Don (is it 2010 yet?) H. Feb 1, 2007, 10:21pm EST
Cheri - in leadership postions, there is this thing called 'no confidence' motion. Wolf said Republican leaders had a lack of confidence in the Vice President. This is a profound statement. The Vice President correctly called it hogwash becasue no Republcan leader has made such a statement. Sean never provided a Republican leader who made such a statement.

I assure you, the term 'lack of confidence' and 'hogwash' have very specific meanings, and both men knew exactly what they were saying. Cheney was in the right, Wolf was wrong. The VP called him on it. And you, Cheri, misread the dialog.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Don (is it 2010 yet?) H. Feb 1, 2007, 10:24pm EST
Suzi - I already acknowledged in a comment above that there are Republican's who may vote against the President. This is specifically about a dialog between Wolf Blitzer and Vice President Cheney. Why do I have to keep spelling this out?
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Don (is it 2010 yet?) H. Feb 1, 2007, 10:29pm EST
Please refer to my FIRST POST regarding the hogwash statement. It's concise.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Eddie P. Feb 2, 2007, 12:40am EST
I'm just getting started, Don. Let's us get back to your buddy, the lying, gutless coward who masqurades as a patriot: Mr. 5 DEFERMENT DICK Cheney. Here's a very brief list of recent LIES told by our great vice-president.

1. On Oct. 10, 2003, DICK told neocons/jackasses at the Heritage Foundation that Saddam Hussein "had established relationship with al-Qaeda," a charge contradicted by U.S. intelligence briefings Cheney had received before speaking.
The National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq found that saddam's secular regime had NO WORKING RELATIONSHIP with al-Qaeda.

2. In the same speech, DICK, still maintained Iraq was a weapons of mass destruction powerhouse. "If Saddam Hussein were in power today," DICK said, "this ally of terrorists would still have a hidden biological weapons program capable of producing deadly agents on short notice."
It was so well hidden that NO ONE, INCLUDING SADDAM, could find it--just like the nuclear weapons and stockpiles of chemical weapons the White House claimed he had before it launched an UNPROVOKED ATTACK on Iraq. to date, no banned weapons have been found despite a exhaustive mutlimillion dollar search.
"I don't think they existed,"concluded David Kay, the neocon inspector handpicked by the White House to find the weapons evidence, after the fact.

3. DICK, trying futility to justify the Iraq war, tried spinning a fairytale to Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" episode on Sept. 14, 2003. He told Russert that hijacking ringleader Mohamed Atta met in Prague with Iraqi intelligence before 9-11. He claimed the feds haven't been able to discredit it. "We just don't know," said DICK, who a year earlier told Russert the assertion was "credible."
That's not what the FBI director said. "We ran down literally hundreds of thousands of leads and checked every record we could get our hands on, from flight reservations to car rentals to bank accounts," Robert Mueller said in a little-noticed April 2002 speech in San Francisco. "The records revealed that Atta was in Virginia Beach [Va.] during the time he supposedly met the Iraqi in Prague."
DICK knew this.

4. In an interview with Russert about the time of the last one, DICK lied/told him,"I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had now for over three years."
No interest, that is, except for a deferred annual salary and 433,333 shares of unexercised Halliburton stock options. That's right. The shares are worth millions, and DICK'S potential profit goes up with each new contract Halliburton lands.
The oilfied services revenue is driven by contracts, and DICK, who's spent most of his early career in Washington, has been its Goddamn rainmaker. That's why they hired him. Then in 2001, the board parachuted him into the White Hoiuse with a $34 million payout, and 2 years later Halliburton wound up with one of the biggest federal contracts in history, financed at OUR expense.

5. Russert asked DICK if he had any role in the secret $7 BILLION contract the Pentagon gave Halliburton BEFORE the war to rebuild and run Iraq's oil system and even distribute its energy products outside Iraq. "Were you involved in any way in the awarding of those contracts?" Russert asked.
"Of course not, Tim," DICK indignantly replied/LIED. "And as vice president, I have absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of-in any way, shape or form-of contracts led by the Army Corps of Engineers or anybody else in the federal government."
That's not what a Pentagon e-mail uncovered by the government watchdog Judicial Watch suggests. dated march 5, 2003, it says the Halliburton contract "has been coordinated w/VP's [vice president's] office." 3 days later, the Army Corps of Engineers awarded HHalliburton the no-bid contract.

6. Russert asked DICK, "Why was there no bidding?"
"I have no idea," DICK LIED.
There is a 10-page Pentagon document justifying the secret Halliburton deal, declassified in June 2004 thanks to a Judicial Watch lawsuit. In effect, it says DICK'S old firm was favored because it was the only one that could hit the ground running in Iraq--but the only reason it could do that was because the Pentagon gave it a head start. Halliburton got to study its secret contingency plan in November 2002. And a month before the final contract was signed, Halliburton was allowed to "pre-position equipment and personnel" for the Iraq oil project--an advantage Bechtel, Fluor, and other competitors never got.

These are FACTS, Don, not brainless opinions based on misplaced emotion, misinformation, and distorted details. These are not simple, catchy "sound-bites" you hear on Fox News or the screaming idiots on neocon radio. I realize the audience for these media outlets lacks any type of critical thinking skills, but you don't learn anything by listening to these morons. All these media outlets do is reenforce or support your narrow-minded ideas. They tell you HOW AND WHAT TO BELIEVE and all you can do is nod your thick skulls and smile like the sheep that you are.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Ron (in complete sheeple overload) W. Feb 2, 2007, 1:09am EST
Well, I got pulled away, but thank you Don, for joining me in asking people to read the PNAC document. The rest was bs, but I'll take the endorsement to read it. Thanks
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Don (is it 2010 yet?) H. Feb 2, 2007, 1:17am EST
Eddie - you're all over the place. I told you I would address one issue. I could refute any one off those.

Let's start with your line of questioning and where you STOLE/COPY them from:
http://www.antiwar.com/sperry/?articleid=2794

How original, Dickweed. You can fool some of the people some of the time.... ain't gonna get fooled again. LOL

You played yourself, retard.

READ ALL OF THIS - not part... to see what kind of profits Cheney makes. You will see he makes NOTHING after he decided to become VP. The only thing he gets are flat, deferred payments. Anything that has potential for growth is SIGNED AWAY TO CHARITY.

http://www.factcheck.org/article261.html

Thank you. I win, you lose.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Don (is it 2010 yet?) H. Feb 2, 2007, 1:27am EST
Ron - PNAC is a think tank, nothing more.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Ron (in complete sheeple overload) W. Feb 2, 2007, 1:33am EST
Gee, I hate to bring this up, but aren't donations to charity tax deductable? Pretty hefty tax deduction, there, if nothing else. Just noticed your post there, and this came to mind Don, not my argument but........
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Join Gather »
Already a member? Sign in
Ron (in complete sheeple overload) W. Feb 2, 2007, 1:35am EST
That's like saying Nazis are just a political party. Quite true, until the leaders come to power.
reply to this comment
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.