new Repub script-du-jour: dissent is ok, but dissenters are still shit

[boutons2]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/logoprinter.gif (http://www.nytimes.com/)
November 21, 2005
Cheney Assails Critics but Says Debate on Iraq Is Healthy

By DAVID STOUT (http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=DAVID%20STOUT&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=DAVID%20STOUT&inline=nyt-per)
WASHINGTON, Nov. 21 - Vice President Dick Cheney (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/dick_cheney/index.html?inline=nyt-per) sought today to redraw the debate on Iraq, declaring that honest argument over the administration's policy is healthy, but condemning politicians who say President Bush lied about prewar intelligence.

"I do not believe it is wrong to criticize the war on terror or any aspect thereof," Mr. Cheney said in an appearance before the American Enterprise Institute here. "Disagreements, arguments and debate are the essence of democracy, and none of us should want it any other way."

The vice president said "energetic debate" on important issues is the sign of a healthy political system, and one of the reasons he has stayed in public life.

But moments later, he described as "dishonest and reprehensible" any suggestion that President Bush or anyone in his administration had manipulated intelligence to exaggerate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/saddam_hussein/index.html?inline=nyt-per).

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

The vice president did not mention any senators by name. The outspoken Democratic critics of the war include Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, his party's presidential nominee in 2004; Edward M. Kennedy (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/edward_m_kennedy/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the other Democrat from Massachusetts; and Harry Reid of Nevada, the minority leader.

Mr. Cheney's address came a few days after Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, a decorated Vietnam war veteran and one of the Democrats' leading voices on military matters, called for a quick withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.

The House overwhelmingly rejected a withdrawal resolution last week, but the increasing unease over Iraq has been obvious among lawmakers of both parties. The Senate recently voted to demand regular progress reports from the administration.

Mr. Cheney called Mr. Murtha "a good man, a marine, a patriot" and described the congressman as a friend, even though Mr. Murtha referred disdainfully last week to Mr. Cheney's several deferments from military service during the Vietnam era.

The vice president said the former Iraqi government of Mr. Hussein had been considered a threat for years. As for the failure to find weapons of mass destruction after the war, Mr. Cheney said, "The flaws in the intelligence are plain enough in hindsight, but any suggestion that prewar information was distorted, hyped or fabricated by the leader of the nation is utterly false."

"Senator John McCain (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/john_mccain/index.html?inline=nyt-per) put it best: it is a lie to say that the president lied to the American people," Mr. Cheney said. Mr. McCain, Republican of Arizona, is regarded as something of a maverick, never been in lockstep with the White House, and Mr. Cheney's citing of his comments was clearly meant to strengthen the Bush case that while errors were made, none were intentional.

Mr. Reid and Mr. Kennedy reacted quickly to Mr. Cheney's speech, with Mr. Reid calling it "yet another missed opportunity by the vice president to come clean with the American people and lay out a strategy for success in Iraq."

"Rather than giving our troops a plan to move forward in Iraq and changing their failed course," Mr. Reid said, "they continue to ignore the facts and lash out at those who raise legitimate questions about how the administration misused intelligence in its rush to war."

Senator Kennedy said, "In fact, the only thing dishonest and reprehensible is the way the administration distorted, misrepresented and manipulated the intelligence to justify a war America never should have fought." The senator said Mr. Cheney's contention that members of Congress had access to the same intelligence as members of the administration did "defies belief."

Mr. Cheney reiterated the administration's stance that Iraq is "the central front in the war on terror." He scoffed at assertions by administration critics that the Iraq campaign had made America less safe by stirring up hatred against the United States and its allies.

"They overlook a fundamental fact," Mr. Cheney said. "We were not in Iraq on Sept. 11, 2001, and the terrorists hit us anyway."

(boutons: no one's overlooking that. What twisted illogic. dickhead lied about the Saddam-9/11 connection, most Americans were suckered into believing him. AQ was after the US before the Iraq war, duh. How can dickhead say, with crooked mouth in a straight face, that AQ is LESS after the US because of the Iraq war? AQ was, if the reports are true, after the US because occupying US troops' boots were defiling SA sands after the Gulf War)


Administration critics have contended for months that the Bush administration has disingenuously implied a link between the Sept. 11 attacks and Saddam Hussein when, in fact, no such link has been established.

Mr. Cheney said terrorists had misjudged America before in thinking that they could attack the United States with impunity. A hasty retreat from Iraq now, he argued, would convince them that Americans are willing to fold their colors and betray their friends "whenever we are confronted with murder and blackmail."

The vice president said the terrorists' only chance of victory in Iraq lay in a weakening of American resolve. "We will succeed in this mission, and when it is concluded, we will be a safer nation," he said.




Copyright 2005 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html) The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)

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

Iraq was not before the Repub war, but is now a central US-terrorist battlefield. Defeating the terrorists imported into Iraq by the US presence will do nothing to advance the war on terrorism.

[101A]

Hey Boutons.

What would you have us do now?

We ARE in Iraq (regardless of how we got there - it is ultimately irrelevent, isn't it)?

What's your plan? What would make you pee all over yourself giddy if the U.S. were to start doing it in terms of war/foreign policy?

[Phil E.Buster]

Just a PR move since their blatant attacks were alienating many patriotic republicans who are also questioning the war in Iraq.

[gtownspur]

Dissent is okay. Dissenting in order to undermine the country and gain political advantage is the stuff of scoundrels, and if John murtha is guilty of that, I will call him on it. Marine or not. Besides he doesnt speak for the marines, many marines are gungho about completeing the job in Ira(k)q, and shutting someone up becuase he is is foolish.

[101A]

Dissent is okay. Dissenting in order to undermine the country and gain political advantage is the stuff of scoundrels, and if John murtha is guilty of that, I will call him on it. Marine or not. Besides he doesnt speak for the marines, many marines are gungho about completeing the job in Ira(k)q, and shutting someone up becuase he is is foolish.

What he said. Murtha ought not be off-limits because of his service, just as one who didn't serve, but is elected, gets to have an opinion & a vote.

[gtownspur]

Just a PR move since their blatant attacks were alienating many patriotic republicans who are also questioning the war in Iraq.

IF after countless media campaigns to focus on the death tolls in iraq and not the accomplishments from day one, you are going to have many people question their belief. This was not a PR move. This was a move to call Bullshit on the dems, which they were. if anything The democrats are commiting worse things becuase they jumped on board for Iraq just so that they could be counted as hawkish becuase of political expediency. They probably didn't mean what they said like the republicans do, so now that it's expedient to do so the dems are backing off. Now you tell me who is doing PR.

[boutons2]

101A, go pee in your diapers, and fuck yourself while you're at it.

I agree with the consensus that the military was and is too small in Iraq to assure public safety, without which "democracy" is pretentious sham. No shame on the military. They are just Repub pawns. The Repubs buggered the military from day one. They're still buggered. And there aren't enough military peple avaialbe to unbugger them.

A huge blunder was disbanding Saddam's Army and police and refusing to accept them as members of the post-Saddam army+police. Thank you, Repub hack/operative Bremer. 2.5 years too late, Saddam's Sunni/baathist officers/cadre are now being welcomed back to serve. How long will it take for those trained officers to take effective control of the new army+police? months? years?

The deeply flawed Const was approved. Was one milestone to a pro forma democratic structure, which is not the same as functioning successfully, stably as a democracy.

Parliamentary elections are next month. Another milestone. I assume could be conducted in a large, deep pool of voter blood. After that, no more nation-building milestones on the horizon. Pro forma "democray" without any public safety will be in place. ie, a pyrrhic victory at best.

The Repub/military script says the Iraqi army+police on their way to autonomy. Other reports are much less optimistic, even very pessimistic. Congress passed a bill saying dubya is to keep Congress informed, good and bad. Congress is a bunch of naive jack-offs is they think super-secretive, lying, untrustable dubya/dickhead will EVER tell them the truth.

It's not my problem nor my responsibility, but I think by about the middle of 06, if the Iraqi army+police can't stand shouldering the majority of the burden for assuring public safety, if the level level of violence continues as it has for the past 2.5 yeras, then US military needs admit it can't do the job and get the fuck out. Let the "democratized" Iraqis fixe their own problems. 90% of the insurgents are Iraqis anyway, not jihadis.

Of course, the current presence of the US invaders is causing the violence, so maybe if they leave, the violence will diminish to manageable levels? probably not. ie, if the US military can't provide public saftety after 3 years, they should leave.

btw, whereas before Sunnis and Shiites lived side by side in mixed towns, but as result of the US's invasion, and the mostly Sunni violence on passive Shiites, there has been a migration of Sunnis from the mixed towns in the south to Bagdad and the Sunni triangle, while Shiites in the central/north mixed towns are migrating to shiite towns in the south.

ie, Iraq is breaking into Kurdish north, Sunni/central west, and Shiite south. I figure a civil war will occur sooner or later, so the military might as well cut their wasted losses and bug out sooner.

Nobody is "off-limits" for the Repugs. They give lip service to "democratic right to dissent" then trash, slime, vilify the person raising the issue rather than addressing the issue raised. Typical, incorrigible Repugnancy.

[101A]

Boutons,

First, Chill.

Second; I thought so:

You have no ideas. Only criticism. Typical and VERY helpful, that.

[SWC Bonfire]

I was suspicious from the get-go with all that Frenchie-talk in the thread title.

[boutons]

"You have no ideas."

where are yours?

you and swc are contributing wonderful ideas to this thread, just attacks, not a single idea about the issue. typical of 95% of the right in this forum, and of the right in general.

[SWC Bonfire]

you and swc are contributing wonderful ideas to this thread

The difference being that mine was a stupid joke, as opposed to your living and breathing hatred for anything Republican/conservative.

If you actually have read any serious posts of mine you would know that I have defended the French on numerous occasions in this forum based on my actual first-hand knowledge of them and their country. All without posting something from some blog on the internet or using the latest catchphrase from the Bush-Basher consortium.

[SWC Bonfire]

You bash the administration repeatedly for offering an environment in which dissenters are looked down upon, but the second anyone wishes to offer a differing opinion to what you hold in the political arena you call them a "repug". Classy.

[Oh, Gee!!]

You bash the administration repeatedly for offering an environment in which dissenters are looked down upon, but the second anyone wishes to offer a differing opinion to what you hold in the political arena you call them a "repug". Classy.

difference is that the administration is a branch of the government and should not aim to stifle speech (you know, that whole 1st amendment thing?) while my boy, boutons, is a private citizen and can say pretty much whatever the hell he wants.

[Oh, Gee!!]

:spin

double-post

w00t

[SWC Bonfire]

difference is that the administration is a branch of the government and should not aim to stifle speech (you know, that whole 1st amendment thing?) while my boy, boutons, is a private citizen and can say pretty much whatever the hell he wants.

Well, let me know how boutons' rights to free speech have been infringed in the past few years.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Well, let me know how boutons' rights to free speech have been infringed in the past few years.


it doesn't matter if bouton's has, nobody's should be infringed.

[SWC Bonfire]

it doesn't matter if bouton's has, nobody's should be infringed.

Let me know how any American's rights to free speech have been infringed in the past few years.

The founding fathers gave you that right. They didn't say people would like you for it.

[Mr. Peabody]

Let me know how any American's rights to free speech have been infringed in the past few years.

The founding fathers gave you that right. They didn't say people would like you for it.

I think it was the late Chairman Mao who once said "Sir, I do not agree with your opinion, but I will defend to my death your right to express it."

[Oh, Gee!!]

Let me know how any American's rights to free speech have been infringed in the past few years.


Probably several thousand yearly.



The founding fathers gave you that right. They didn't say people would like you for it.

I don't know what this means.

[SWC Bonfire]

I think it was the late Chairman Mao who once said "Sir, I do not agree with your opinion, but I will defend to my death your right to express it."

No, Chairman Mao was an oppressive communist that shot dissenters and charged the family for the bullet.

That was Voltaire.

[SWC Bonfire]

I don't know what this means.

It means look just in this forum alone. A lot of people using their right to dissent. And a lot of people not liking each other. You have to weigh your actions to dissent against the likelihood of your opinions offending others (I know, hardly the case on the internets) and possibly degrading your standing in society on personal, economic and professional levels. It may not be fair, but Americans seem to think that there are no repercussions for their actions. That was never part of the deal.

[Mr. Peabody]

No, Chairman Mao was an oppressive communist that shot dissenters and charged the family for the bullet.

That was Voltaire.

Voltaire wasn't a communist. He was an author/philosopher.

[SWC Bonfire]

Voltaire wasn't a communist. He was an author/philosopher.

OK, let me rephrase that:

That quote should be attributed to Voltaire rather than the Commie Chairman Mao.

[Oh, Gee!!]

It means look just in this forum alone. A lot of people using their right to dissent. And a lot of people not liking each other. You have to weigh your actions to dissent against the likelihood of your opinions offending others (I know, hardly the case on the internets) and possibly degrading your standing in society on personal, economic and professional levels. It may not be fair, but Americans seem to think that there are no repercussions for their actions. That was never part of the deal.

what does this have to do with the 1st amendment? the 1st protects us from the government but rarely (if ever) from each other.

[Mr. Peabody]

It means look just in this forum alone. A lot of people using their right to dissent. And a lot of people not liking each other. You have to weigh your actions to dissent against the likelihood of your opinions offending others (I know, hardly the case on the internets) and possibly degrading your standing in society on personal, economic and professional levels. It may not be fair, but Americans seem to think that there are no repercussions for their actions. That was never part of the deal.

If you put your opinion out there and it is different than someone else's are you dissenting or are they dissenting from you?

I always feel that people are differing from my opinions and not so much that I am differing from theirs.

[SWC Bonfire]

what does this have to do with the 1st amendment? the 1st protects us from the government but rarely (if ever) from each other.

Last I checked people within the government also had the right to use the 1st amendment, even those affiliated with this administration. :tu

[Oh, Gee!!]

Last I checked people within the government also had the right to use the 1st amendment, even those affiliated with this administration. :tu


blatant lies are not protected

:owned

[Mr. Peabody]

Last I checked people within the government also had the right to use the 1st amendment:tu

Unfortunately, those affiliated with the administration don't share your point of view.

[SWC Bonfire]

blatant lies are not protected

:owned

Like attributing a quote from a father of worldwide democracy to one of the most oppressive people in the history of mankind? Doesn't make it a lie just because I said it was, does it?

I feel that my right to express my view has been infringed because you just called me/my political party affiliation/my ideology a name.:rolleyes

[Oh, Gee!!]

Unfortunately, those affiliated with the administration don't share your point of view.

http://norcal3.com/owned/diver-owned.jpg .

[SWC Bonfire]

Not The Red X!!!!

[boutons]

"Americans seem to think that there are no repercussions for their actions. That was never part of the deal."

Exactly. All freedom, no responsibility, from top to bottom. At the political level, it was the Repubs with Bush/Atwater, then Gingrich, then Starr, the frivolous impeachment, the rise of Delay and his total corruption and smash-mouth threats to even his own party, the out-of-control, politicized witch-hunts of the Clintons, then dubya/dickhead/rove in 2000 and since, against the 24x7 chorus of anger and hate of conservative talk radio, that that have taken the iniatiative to de-civilize political speech and actions, non-stop anger and denigration. Even the temporary inter/national solidarity after 9/11 was destroyed by the Repugs starting the Repug war in Iraq, the REAL reasons are still unknown, while all the false ones are extremely well known.

One of the observations after the 2000 elections: The Repubs/conservatives won and they were STILL pissed off as hell. The negative tone of the Repug campaigning was not just to rouse the ignorant rabble to vote Repug, it is a permanent tone of the Repug party and conservatives, even after 10 years running Congress, and 5 years of running the WH.

The reason dickhead is waving off attacks on the run up to the is that is absolutely doens't want anybody to go there. He refuses to address the issues raised, and rather trashes issues and the issue-raisers as illegitmate. He KNOWS the deceitful WHIQ and associated henchmen are vulnerable, and he knows the useless, murderous war is now as unpopular domestically as it always was internationally. He's up to his armpits in a self-made swamp and no way to escape.

[SWC Bonfire]

It's too bad the Gestapo is going to round up all the people in this thread and strip them of their first amendment rights.

[Oh, Gee!!]

It's too bad the Gestapo is going to round up all the people in this thread and strip them of their first amendment rights.


you never know

http://www.drudgereport.com/vpotus.JPG

[SWC Bonfire]

you never know



I do, if they don't take away the second amendment rights first.

[DarkReign]

I do, if they don't take away the second amendment rights first.

HAHAHAHA!

Finally...some humor...

Sheesh, calm down peeps. Our President is a liar and a coward. What has really changed? Nothing. Except the people that didnt like Clinton like Bush and vice versa.

Big whoop. The idea of actually pulling out of Iraq is preposterous. Again, I am into simplifying things.

Your kid breaks the Kool Aid jar on the floor. Halfway thru cleaning up his mess, he quits on the account that no matter how hard he tried, he could never get all the KoolAid.

Your kid breaks the KoolAid Jar, and worman-like keeps scrubbing the floor on the hope that he may clean it all up.

I know...too simple. But its true. Regardless of your position pre or post war, the KoolAid needs to be cleaned. Leaving Iraq now would be international suicide! Sooooo, big talking Cowboy Americans are willing to start shit, but not finish shit. People have been bounced (multiple times) off of bar room floors for starting what they cant finish.

My point is...Iraq MUST be successful. Unless of course you want to hear a month after our exit about the mass genocide and general warfare breaking out alllllll over the newly divided Iraqi geography.

Seriously, to do otherwise is JUST AS BAD as lying to go there. I dont say this often (never actually), but it is one time it is true....2 wrongs do not make a right. In this case, it doesnt even make you even.

Our President fucked up. He aint the first and he aint the last.

----------------

Moreover, its all well and nice to be here, on this forum arguing with fellow Americans about the merits.

But the moment you leave this country, you are ONLY an American. Not a Repug-lican or a Deeem-o-crack, just American. You are judged by which the world perceives you. Like that shit or not, its true.

[Mr. Peabody]

HAHAHAHA!

Finally...some humor...

Sheesh, calm down peeps. Our President is a liar and a coward. What has really changed? Nothing. Except the people that didnt like Clinton like Bush and vice versa.

Big whoop. The idea of actually pulling out of Iraq is preposterous. Again, I am into simplifying things.

Your kid breaks the Kool Aid jar on the floor. Halfway thru cleaning up his mess, he quits on the account that no matter how hard he tried, he could never get all the KoolAid.

Your kid breaks the KoolAid Jar, and worman-like keeps scrubbing the floor on the hope that he may clean it all up.

I know...too simple. But its true. Regardless of your position pre or post war, the KoolAid needs to be cleaned. Leaving Iraq now would be international suicide! Sooooo, big talking Cowboy Americans are willing to start shit, but not finish shit. People have been bounced (multiple times) off of bar room floors for starting what they cant finish.

My point is...Iraq MUST be successful. Unless of course you want to hear a month after our exit about the mass genocide and general warfare breaking out alllllll over the newly divided Iraqi geography.

Seriously, to do otherwise is JUST AS BAD as lying to go there. I dont say this often (never actually), but it is one time it is true....2 wrongs do not make a right. In this case, it doesnt even make you even.

Our President fucked up. He aint the first and he aint the last.

----------------

Moreover, its all well and nice to be here, on this forum arguing with fellow Americans about the merits.

But the moment you leave this country, you are ONLY an American. Not a Repug-lican or a Deeem-o-crack, just American. You are judged by which the world perceives you. Like that shit or not, its true.

In this sense the administration is somewhat in a bind. We can't just pull out of Iraq for the reasons you mentioned. At the same time, we can't increase the amount of resources we are sending to Iraq, to try and finish the job, due to waning public support for the war.

[Oh, Gee!!]

In this sense the administration is somewhat in a bind. We can't just pull out of Iraq for the reasons you mentioned. At the same time, we can't increase the amount of resources we are sending to Iraq, to try and finish the job, due to waning public support for the war.


What do you know? Have you ever been to war? If not, STFU college boy. with all your fancy book-learning and theories of evolution. Hogwash.

[DarkReign]

In this sense the administration is somewhat in a bind. We can't just pull out of Iraq for the reasons you mentioned. At the same time, we can't increase the amount of resources we are sending to Iraq, to try and finish the job, due to waning public support for the war.

Hmm...now that I can agree with. To be honest, and this sounds hokey, I fear for the innocents in Iraq. The people who just want to get by, have no ultra-political views or religious hatreds.

Those are the people that will be sent to the slaughter if we leave now.

And that falls directly on America's hands if it goes down.

My vote, flood the area with any and all available troops and get the damn situation under control. Hole up for another year or 2 and split.

Probably too simplistic. Such is the reason I am an armchair quarterback with a less-than-killer rig.

[Mr. Peabody]

What do you know? Have you ever been to war? If not, STFU college boy. with all your fancy book-learning and theories of evolution. Hogwash.

Have I ever been to war! Have I ever been to war!

I play Call of Duty 2 all the time. You don't know what it's like out there fighting for your country. It has changed me in a way I can never recover from.

[gtownspur]

I think Morons who pontificate that Bush has lied while trying to come across as non partisan are just a bunch of fakes. Has bush been indicted for war? No! Did the democrats have the same info to go into war as bUsh? YEs, and they all had the same chance of going to the CIA to get more info on the intel. So unless there are credible evidence that bush lied or manipulated info, you're just a bunch of hot air. Faulty evidence in hindsight does not indicate lying. If there's anyone to hate it's yourselves for aligning with the war and your democrat party who sold out their principles so they could count on your defense vote.

[DarkReign]

I...am...not...a....Democrat.

Period.

Its called objectivity. Something you lack.

[101A]

Hey Boutons...

What Dark Reign Said.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

I think Morons who pontificate that Bush has lied while trying to come across as non partisan are just a bunch of fakes. Has bush been indicted for war? No! Did the democrats have the same info to go into war as bUsh? YEs, and they all had the same chance of going to the CIA to get more info on the intel. So unless there are credible evidence that bush lied or manipulated info, you're just a bunch of hot air. Faulty evidence in hindsight does not indicate lying. If there's anyone to hate it's yourselves for aligning with the war and your democrat party who sold out their principles so they could count on your defense vote.

You numbskull, bush-wacked, neo-con idiot!! :cuss

Bush and Cheney wanted this war and you know, the American people know it, the UN knows it. Geez louise!!, are you really that stupid?