PDA

View Full Version : Does this make Cheney a FLIP-FLOPPER??



ClintSquint
09-10-2004, 12:42 PM
But only because it showed him up for the jerk he really is:

Cheney Softens Comments on Kerry and Terror Threat

GREEN BAY, Wis. (Reuters) - Vice President Dick Cheney on Friday tempered comments he made earlier this week that warned of the risk of another terrorist attack if Democratic Sen. John Kerry were elected president.

In an interview with the Cincinnati Enquirer, Cheney said he wanted to "clear up" the stir created by his remarks, which he made Tuesday in the Des Moines, Iowa.

"I did not say if Kerry is elected, we will be hit by a terrorist attack," Cheney said in an interview with the newspaper during a campaign swing through the battleground states of Ohio and Wisconsin where he is working to bring swing voters to the Republican side.

The vice president said what he had meant was that if the United States is attacked again, he believed Kerry would fall back on a "pre-9/11 mind-set" on foreign policy instead of the "pre-emptive" doctrine pursued by President Bush.

After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States the Bush administration adopted a policy of pre-emptive military action to attack foes before they could become a threat.

"Whoever is elected president has to anticipate more attacks. My point was the question before us is: Will we have the most effective policy in place to deal with that threat? George Bush will pursue a more effective policy than John Kerry," Cheney said in the interview.

Kerry campaign spokesman Phil Singer responded that "Sen. Kerry has been very clear in saying he will hunt down and kill the terrorists before they get us."

Cheney, at a town hall appearance in Des Moines on Tuesday, said it was essential that Americans make the right choice in the Nov. 2 president election "because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again."

"We'll get hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States and that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mindset if you will that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts and that we're not really at war."

Kerry's vice presidential running mate, North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, responded on Tuesday that Cheney was using "scare tactics" and said it showed "once again that he and George Bush will do anything and say anything to save their jobs."


We ALL know this is simply back-peddaling... because we all KNOW exactly what he meant when he first said it....

Hey Cheney...Go **** yourself!

Yonivore
09-10-2004, 12:54 PM
In a word, "no."

exstatic
09-10-2004, 01:01 PM
In a word, "Yes". The public impact of his first statement was not what he had hoped. He then backpedaled faster than Deion Sanders.

Spurminator
09-10-2004, 01:05 PM
That's what I took his statements to mean from the beginning. Just because others chose to take a more seedy interpretation doesn't mean that was the intent.

Yonivore
09-10-2004, 01:05 PM
And, we're at an impasse.

At least with Kerry the flip-flopping is irrefutable and clear cut. "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it." He's concise...flip-flops in one sentence.

xrayzebra
09-10-2004, 01:11 PM
Doesn't really matter, what he said the first time was correct.
Clinton tried Kerry's method and see what happened, it
isn't a criminal matter it is a war matter. Even if some of
you lilly livered folks don't like it. It is time someone told
people what the truth of the matter is.

Just remember what happened on the anniversary coming
up: 9/11. That was not a criminal act, it was an act of
war. And not the first damn attack on this country, it was
only one of several. And Clinton and his liberal buddies
sit on their ass and did NOTHING!

Thank God for George Bush.

Tommy Duncan
09-10-2004, 01:12 PM
Oh I think the original statement was quite effective. The Demo (apparently now standard) response that he "crossed the line this time" and was "un-American" only gives the impression that Cheney spoke the painful truth. Edwards really needs to come up with some new lines.

How do you enter into the first presidential election since 9/11 and make your campaign about Vietnam? That's the real problem here and why Kerry's campaign is looking worse than the Duk's now.

It's about time we moved away from the general puffery and pretension of presidential camapaigns and actually address the issues with some clear, direct statements. If Kerry thinks Bush lied then say it. If Bush thinks Kerry's strategy on Islamist terrorism would increase the chance of another attack, say it.

Ruby Ridge
09-10-2004, 01:13 PM
At least with Kerry the flip-flopping is irrefutable and clear cut. "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

That is not a flip flop. Kerry voted on two different bills. We voted for a measure that would have provided 67 bill for the troops and 20 bill to reconstruct Iraq and would have reversed the tax cuts for those making over $ 200,000 per year. He voted against a measure that would have provided 67 bill for the troops and 20 bill for Iraqi reconstruction. Two different bills, two different votes. Zero flip flop.

Bush on the other hand aggressively threatened to veto a bill with bi-partisan support that would have provided 67 bill for the troops and 20 bill in loans to the Iraqis. He signed a measure for 87 bill that was funded by the American taxpayer and did not impact the tax cuts. Flip Flop, not really, two different bills. However using his (and other RNC talking heads and Yoni) logic, Bush flip flopped on the 87 bill as well.

Yonivore
09-10-2004, 01:15 PM
"We voted..."
Are you a Senator?

The rest of your post was "blah, blah, blah pablum."

Ruby Ridge
09-10-2004, 01:23 PM
Uh a typo.

Your narrowmindedness is amazing.

Yonivore
09-10-2004, 01:38 PM
I live to amaze, Ruby.

Joe Chalupa
09-10-2004, 01:52 PM
What bothers me is all the talk about Iraq when the war against terrorism is not in Iraq but in Afghanistan.

Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11. Not one of the terrorists was from Iraq but from SAUDI ARABIA!!

Osama is still at large.

Has everyone forgotten that it was Al Queda and NOT Iraq that attacked on 9/11?

SpursWoman
09-10-2004, 01:55 PM
Has everyone forgotten that it was Al Queda and NOT Iraq that attacked on 9/11?


You do know that Saddam's Iraq had verifiable ties with terrorist organizations, Joe, right?


Hence the war on terrorism and those who support them. :wtf

Yonivore
09-10-2004, 02:03 PM
"What bothers me is all the talk about Iraq when the war against terrorism is not in Iraq but in Afghanistan."
Joe, you do realize the war against Iraq was over in about 21 days, right? It's been a war against terrorist insurgents, Ba'athist remnants, and Islamic extremists ever since the statue fell.

"Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11. Not one of the terrorists was from Iraq but from SAUDI ARABIA!!"
They all belonged to an organization that had numerous contacts and connections with a regime that willing to pay Hamas to commit terrorist acts in Israel. Face it, the Ba'athist regime of Saddam Hussein was a terrorist organization with a national flag.

"Osama is still at large."
Osama is dead.

"Has everyone forgotten that it was Al Queda and NOT Iraq that attacked on 9/11?"
Has everyone forgotten Iraq unconditionally surrendered in 1991 with the cease fire being contigent upon complete compliance with U.N.S.C. resolutions?

Joe Chalupa
09-10-2004, 02:40 PM
WTF!? Again with the "Mission Accomplished" theory.

Uh, the war in Iraq is NOT over.

And those "verifiable" ties you talk about did NOT make Iraq an "imminent" threat, at least not in my eyes.

Osama and Al Queda are in Afghanistan and that is where we should be concentrating at fighting Al Queda.

exstatic
09-10-2004, 02:42 PM
Has everyone forgotten Iraq unconditionally surrendered in 1991 with the cease fire being contigent upon complete compliance with U.N.S.C. resolutions?

Did he kick the inspectors out? No. Dubyah did.

Were any WMDs found? Other than the ones secretly airlifted in black helicopters to Syria? No.

I've seen a lot more disregard for the UN by the Bush43 administration, and the NeoCons here than by Saddam. The UN is evil, unless it's a case of the current admin trying to justify stepping on their dicks by invading a country under false pretenses.

Aggie Hoopsfan
09-10-2004, 02:44 PM
The war in Iraq is over.

We are, unfortunately, smack in the middle of the beginning of a Shi'ite-Sunni civil war.

exstatic
09-10-2004, 02:49 PM
We are, unfortunately, smack in the middle of the beginning of a Shi'ite-Sunni civil war.

I know you saw this coming. So did I, which was one of the reasons I was AGAINST the invasion. Most of the people that were so brutally oppressed under Saddam were pretty much the same ones killing US troops now. WGAF about them?

Better the devil you know than the one you don't. The Shi'ites should eventually win by sheer force of numbers, that is, unless after we leave, Syria decides to wade in to protect their Ba'athist buds, or Turkey decides to squash the Kurds, or...????

Tommy Duncan
09-10-2004, 02:58 PM
That's great, but the underlying assumption is that a Hussein left alone is not a threat. And that's not an easy argument to accept, given the resources at his command and his increasing support of Islamic terrorism, at least rhetorically.

He hates the US & Israel. Well guess who else does?

Of course the counterargument has always been that bin Ladin despised the secularist Hussein. Well did bin Ladin love the US when it was assisting the mujhadeen in defeating the Soviets in Afghanistan?

As for the WMDs, senior elected and appointed officials in both parties here in the US thought he had them as did every other major foreign intelligence service. He certainly had demonstrated that he had no compunction in using them before and I don't see it as a stretch that he would actively seek to develop and procure them again.

The world is better off that his regime has been destroyed and he is behind bars.

Tommy Duncan
09-10-2004, 03:03 PM
Better the devil you know than the one you don't.

This right here is an interesting point. Perhaps the Bush administration should have gone along with the movement of other American "allies" and started to do business with Hussein again. I mean, if the US was really about getting Iraqi oil on the market and did not care about other issues such as terrorism then why not just leave Hussein in power and set the framework for increased investment in exploration and extraction in Iraq?

Nbadan
09-10-2004, 03:23 PM
This right here is an interesting point. Perhaps the Bush administration should have gone along with the movement of other American "allies" and started to do business with Hussein again. I mean, if the US was really about getting Iraqi oil on the market and did not care about other issues such as terrorism then why not just leave Hussein in power and set the framework for increased investment in exploration and extraction in Iraq?

The oil was only part of it. Saddam had switched selling oil from dollars to Euros prompting other Middle East countries to contemplate doing the same. This would have undermined the legitimacy of the dollar on foreign markets and there was no way the powers-that-be in Washington were going to allow that to happen. Now, with the U.S. back in control of oil exports in Iraq, the limited amount of oil coming out is sold once again in dollars.

Tommy Duncan
09-10-2004, 03:25 PM
Um no.

Try again.

Nbadan
09-10-2004, 03:27 PM
Of course the counterargument has always been that bin Ladin despised the secularist Hussein. Well did bin Ladin love the US when it was assisting the mujhadeen in defeating the Soviets in Afghanistan?

As a matter of fact, Bin Laden thanked the current Ambassador to Saudi Arabia for bringing the Americans to help the Mujahadeen against the Russians. Bin Laden was on the CIA payroll until at least 1990.

Tommy Duncan
09-10-2004, 03:31 PM
Indeed.

Nbadan
09-10-2004, 03:38 PM
Doesn't mean that Saddam and Bin Laden had common motivations, just common goals. Saddam despised the Islamics because they threatened his stranglehold on power in Iraq just as they have done in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and there was no way Saddam and his sons were gonna put up with any of that. If anything, Saddam supported terrorists causes in Lebanon as a way of stifling Islamics criticism of his own regime. Much like many of the governments in most Middle East countries used to use oil money to support terror against other countries, as long as it wasn't domestically.

Joe Chalupa
09-10-2004, 03:38 PM
The war in Iraq is NOT OVER.

Tommy Duncan
09-10-2004, 03:42 PM
bin Ladin had shown himself willing to accept the less than acceptable when both were united by a desire to defeat a common enemy.


If anything, Saddam supported terrorists causes in Lebanon as a way of stifling Islamics criticism of his own regime. Much like many of the governments in most Middle East countries used to use oil money to support terror against other countries, as long as it wasn't domestically.

Sure, Hussein likely would not have had a problem supporting terrorist strikes on American/Western targets.

Nbadan
09-10-2004, 03:44 PM
ure, Hussein likely would not have had a problem supporting terrorist strikes on American/Western targets.

For it's limited usefulness, the 911 Commission found no evidence of this. This is purely unsubstantiated.

Tommy Duncan
09-10-2004, 03:59 PM
He had no problem supporting attacks on Israeli targets.

The 9/11 report said there was no evidence that Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Again, as I have made clear, the Iraq invasion was not punitive, but rather based on preemption.

Nbadan
09-10-2004, 04:02 PM
but rather based on preemption.

So we attacked a country that wasn't actively supporting terrorism, nor was it developing nuclear weapons, nor was it currently in possession of chemical or biological weapons all in the name of preemption, right?

Preemption for what? Oil?

Tommy Duncan
09-10-2004, 04:06 PM
So we attacked a country that wasn't actively supporting terrorism,

False. It clearly was.



nor was it developing nuclear weapons,

The regime had definitely attempted to do so in the past.



nor was it currently in possession of chemical or biological weapons all in the name of preemption, right?

Hussein used those weapons on his own people and on the Iranians in the 1980s. The Clinton administration certainly thought he had them and of course so did every major intel agency on the planet. Again, Hussein used them before. What is not clear about this?



Preemption for what? Oil?

Again, the US would have been better served to just leave him be and allow the sanctions framework set up against him to fail if it was just about getting Iraqi oil on the market.

Yonivore
09-10-2004, 04:10 PM
I'm constantly amazed at how many people think the United States of America is the only global entity that has changed it objectives, alliances, and goals over the past 50 years.

Nbadan
09-10-2004, 04:14 PM
False. It clearly was

Under this line of reasoning, the U.S. is partly responsible for the killing of all those Russian kids because we actively support Chechyan rebels, even harboring some of their leadership in the U.S..

Nbadan
09-10-2004, 04:17 PM
The regime had definitely attempted to do so in the past.

Pakistan, Iraq and N. Korea have active nuclear weapons programs, but I guess since they didn't have much oil, their nuclear programs weren't as important to the administration as Iraq's non-existant nuclear program.

Yonivore
09-10-2004, 04:18 PM
You know, Nbadan, we may be in some agreement there. If, and only if, the U.S. continues to see the Chechen Separatist movement as just that, intead of realizing the whole movement has been coopted by Islamic Terrorists for their own purposes.

I'll make my judgement on our future conduct with respect to that conflict. Up until now, however, I am still in support of a free Chechnya...it's just a shame they entered into an unholy alliance with Islamic Extremists.

Tommy Duncan
09-10-2004, 04:19 PM
Well sure, you deal with whom the easiest is to deal with. You make an example out of them.

Those nations weren't exactly going to stop their programs if the US played nice with Hussein.

Nbadan
09-10-2004, 04:35 PM
Those nations weren't exactly going to stop their programs if the US played nice with Hussein

If anything the U.S. action against a unarmed Hussein has only motivated these other countries to step up the development of non-conventional weapons.

Tommy Duncan
09-10-2004, 05:00 PM
Again, they were already doing that and the US had already tried the 'be nice to them' strategy.

Yonivore
09-10-2004, 05:30 PM
I'm with my Secretary of State on the Chechnya issue:


www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/9/10/143059.shtml (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/9/10/143059.shtml)


"On another issue, Powell sought to ease Russia's irritation with his suggestions that ultimately there must be political dialogue to resolve the war for independence in the rebellious province of Chechnya."

"'How this problem of Chechnya will ultimately be solved is something for the Russians to work out,' Powell said. 'With respect to terrorist attacks against innocent Russians, we stand united with the Russians that they have to deal with this in the most powerful, direct, forceful way that they can in order to protect their citizens - the same as we are doing to protect our citizens.'"
Amen to that. And, that's why he's Secretary of State and not me. ;)

JohnnyMarzetti
09-10-2004, 05:34 PM
Too bad he's not president and Bush is.

Yonivore
09-10-2004, 05:35 PM
Well, Secretary Powell seems very comfortable with the fact that President Bush is his boss.

From the same article:

"Asked, meanwhile, if he would serve a second term as secretary of state if Bush won re-election, Powell did not rule it out. 'Time will tell. We will see.'"

"'The president and I have a very strong relationship,' he said."