Cheney on Iran

[Wild Cobra]

Cheney: US will not let Iran go nuclear (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071021/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cheney). Part of article:


If Iran continues on its current course, Cheney said the U.S. and other nations are prepared to take action. The vice president made no specific reference to military action.

"We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon," he said.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

"run run run Cheney's havin fun!"

[RandomGuy]

Meh. For those of us who knew what a soup sandwich Iraq would be, this kind of shit promotes an incredible sense of deja vu.

I don't care if Iran gets nukes.

[xrayzebra]

Dead-gum-it. How come all you "let's get Iran" folks are so
set against "let's get Iran" Cheney?

How come?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Dead-gum-it. How come all you "let's get Iran" folks are so
set against "let's get Iran" Cheney?

How come?

Well ray it is the dick who got us into the unecessary war. fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me.. ever heard of that?

[xrayzebra]

Oh, I see if Cheney says it, it is wrong. If your bunch says it
it is okay. Got it. Which way do you go. With your bunch or
with my bunch. They both say the same thing.

[xrayzebra]

www.ronpaul2008.com


You have problems with computers, don't you. You know
like learning how to size your post.

Really not surprised. :pctoss

[ChumpDumper]

Oh, I see if Cheney says it, it is wrong.Just going by his track record, that is an accurate statement.

[xrayzebra]

Just going by his track record, that is an accurate statement.


Just wanted to get you on record.

You know how Cheney is. So dead-gum dumb. How much
was it he made with Haliburton?

Oh, did you know Rush put the letter Mr. Reid wrote in
a Haliburton brief case. Made a point about it. Wonder
why?

[clambake]

he's a pro at not putting himself in harms way.

[RandomGuy]

Just wanted to get you on record.

You know how Cheney is. So dead-gum dumb. How much
was it he made with Haliburton?

Oh, did you know Rush put the letter Mr. Reid wrote in
a Haliburton brief case. Made a point about it. Wonder
why?

There is a vast gulf between stupidity and guile.

I have no doubt Cheney is not stupid. I have every doubt that anything he says is true anymore.

[101A]

...

I don't care if Iran gets nukes.
I do.



Signed,

Israel

[xrayzebra]

I do.



Signed,

Israel

I do too.

Signed,
xrayzebra

P.S. You better to, if you really care about your country,
freedom and religion.

[ChumpDumper]

“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.” - Dick Cheney 8/26/2002

That's the kind of record of which I speak.

[xrayzebra]

“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.” - Dick Cheney 8/26/2002

That's the kind of record of which I speak.

I think he had WMD too.

signed,

25,000 Kurds
and Many Iranians who lost their lives.

[Yonivore]

I think he had WMD too.

signed,

25,000 Kurds
and Many Iranians who lost their lives.
Prior to March 2003, Hillary believed that too.

[ChumpDumper]

I think he had WMD too.

signed,

25,000 Kurds
and Many Iranians who lost their lives.I do not mean "15 years ago."

Signed,

The word "now"

[ChumpDumper]

Prior to March 2003, Hillary believed that too.And you believe everything she says too, right?

You trust here explicitly and implicitly.

She could never be wrong in your eyes.

[xrayzebra]

And you believe everything she says too, right?

You trust here explicitly and implicitly.

She could never be wrong in your eyes.

No in ChumpDumper we trust. He knows all, sees all
and hears all. He is the all knowing. And besides that
he hates Bush and Cheney and is a yellow dog dimm-o-crap.

[clambake]

No in ChumpDumper we trust. He knows all, sees all
and hears all. He is the all knowing. And besides that
he hates Bush and Cheney and is a yellow dog dimm-o-crap.
is your new prescription everclear? seriously, all over the place today.

[George Gervin's Afro]

We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly... (in) weeks rather than months.” – Vice President Cheney [3/16/03]


“The notion that it would take several hundred thousand American troops just seems outlandish.” -Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, [3/4/03]


“There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more…Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets.” – Colin Powell, 2/5/03


“Saddam has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons, including Anthrax, botulism, toxins and possibly smallpox. He's amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, Sarin and mustard gas.” - Don Rumsfeld, 9/19/02


“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.” - Vice President Cheney, 8/26/02

“The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons…And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes.” – President Bush, 9/26/02


“Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.” – President Bush, 1/28/03


“We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories.” -President Bush, on locating the mobile biological weapons labs, 5/29/03


“We know where the [WMD] are.” - Don Rumsfeld, 3/30/03


“I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it now.” - Colin Powell, 5/4/03

“
Evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program…Iraq could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year.” - President Bush, 10/7/02


“Saddam is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time.” - V.P. Cheney, 3/24/02

“We do know that Saddam is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon.” - National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 9/10/02



“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” – President Bush, 1/28/03


“We found the weapons of mass destruction.” – President Bush, 5/29/03

"
We know where the WMDs are.” – Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/30/03


“The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.” – President Bush, 3/19/03


There's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I am very confident that there was an established relationship there." - Vice President Cheney, 1/22/04


“The regime of Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction.” - President Bush's UN speech, 9/23/03


“Iraq [is] the central front in the war on terror.” -President Bush's UN speech, 9/23/03


“You can't distinguish between al-Qaida and Saddam.” President Bush, 9/25/02


“There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties.” – President Bush, 9/17/03

[ChumpDumper]

No in ChumpDumper we trust. He knows all, sees all
and hears all. He is the all knowing. And besides that
he hates Bush and Cheney and is a yellow dog dimm-o-crap.I know more than you, which admittedly isn't saying much.

And I vote for Republicans and Democrats in every election.

[Yonivore]

Hey George, how 'bout some Democrat quotes from that time period...

[ChumpDumper]

The Democrats didn't give the order to invade, but their cowardice in abdicating their constitutional responsibilities is well documented.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Hey George, how 'bout some Democrat quotes from that time period...


well considering bush was the guy who decided to start the war i only posted his comments when he was 'certain.

On a side note I'm glad you inquired as to the democrats statements.

Would it be fair to say that Bush had more up to date intel than the dems did during the clinton administration?

Or are we to believe that we had 5 yr old intel we were relying on in order to go to war?

Would it be fair to assume tha Bush had more information at his disposal than did Congress? I would believe that the Commander in Cheif would have.

Would it be possible that Bush gave Congress what he wanted them to see?
Or could he conveniently leave out contradictory information of the evidence he provided them? Information that would cause Congress to re-think what a threat Saddam was? at the time

If Bush witheld any evidence would that be giving Congress everything they needed to vote him authorization to use force?

[Yonivore]

well considering bush was the guy who decided to start the war i only posted his comments when he was 'certain.

On a side note I'm glad you inquired as to the democrats statements.

Would it be fair to say that Bush had more up to date intel than the dems did during the clinton administration?
It'd be fair to say all the House and Senate committees and subcommittees remotely related to intelligence, foreign affairs, or the military had as up to date intelligence as the president. What were the Democratic members of those committees saying contemporaneously to the quotes you posted?


Or are we to believe that we had 5 yr old intel we were relying on in order to go to war?
Well, the Church committee and Clinton's emasculating of the intelligence infrastructure, during his term, made it rather difficult to get human intel from inside the regime.


Would it be fair to assume tha Bush had more information at his disposal than did Congress? I would believe that the Commander in Cheif would have.
No, it wouldn't be fair. Relevant committees had access to the same intelligence and information as did the president.


Would it be possible that Bush gave Congress what he wanted them to see?
That special subcommittee, demanded by Congressional Democrats, already determined the administration neither cherry-picked nor skewed the intelligence presented to Congress. There have been no serious allegations the administration withheld pre-war intelligence.


Or could he conveniently leave out contradictory information of the evidence he provided them? or would cause Congress to re-think what a threat Saddam was?
I seriously doubt that. But, it is fair to say there is a huge intelligence stream and it all needs to be analyzed, classified, and qualified. But, again, the [sorry, the name escapes me at the moment] Congressional committee empaneled to find out if the Bush administration misled Congress found that it had not. What they did find out, however, is that Joe Wilson was a lying scumbag.


If Bush witheld any evidence would that be giving Congress everything they needed to vote him authorization to use force?
There's no evidence he withheld anything material to the AUMF in Iraq.

[Nbadan]

It's the same game-plan all over again...except this time it could be WW3, and what kind of story does this make for the fucken M$M? Somewhere between Hitlary getting kick-backs from Chinese and Paris Hilton getting frozen....are you fucken kidding me?

[Yonivore]

On a side note I'm glad you inquired as to the democrats statements.
And, if you're glad, let's have 'em.

[xrayzebra]

It's the same game-plan all over again...except this time it could be WW3, and what kind of story does this make for the fucken M$M? Somewhere between Hitlary getting kick-backs from Chinese and Paris Hilton getting frozen....are you fucken kidding me?

No you dumb shit, it isn't the same game plan. There
was no game plan in the first instance.

If you think there was, pick up you damn telephone,
get on your damn pc, dial up the old fax and tell you dumb
representative not to be "tricked" this time. See how
simple it is. Better yet, take out an ad in the E-N, write
letters to E-N and tell them how we were tricked before
by a dumbass cowboy and and idiot that shoots his
friends. Come on dan, get on the stick and get it done.
You still got time.............you still got time...........

No, you and the rest of you "We were tricked" bunch
will just sit on your ass and be tricked again. Damn
you are so easy. Bush and Cheney should send Condi
down here to give you a kiss. He screwed you so
bad. Hell were you always that easy. No wonder you
loved Clinton.

[Nbadan]

Back to reality...Iran is firing up the war rhetoric too...


Iran warned on Saturday it would fire off 11,000 rockets at enemy bases within the space of a minute if the United States launched military action against the Islamic republic.

"In the first minute of an invasion by the enemy, 11,000 rockets and cannons would be fired at enemy bases," said a brigadier general in the elite Revolutionary Guards, Mahmoud Chaharbaghi.

"This volume and speed of firing would continue," added Chaharbaghi, who is commander of artillery and missiles of the Guards' ground forces, according to the semi-official Fars news agency.

The United States has never ruled out attacking Iran to end its defiance over the controversial Iranian nuclear programme, which the US alleges is aimed at making nuclear weapons but Iran insists is entirely peaceful. Iran has for its part vowed never to initiate an attack but has also warned of a crushing response to any act of aggression against its soil.

Link (http://www.breitbart.com/print.php?id=071020112808.cc3so4b1&show_article=1)

[Nbadan]

Bahrain and Kuwait prepared for US/Iran war (http://youtube.com/watch?v=1lQXt-G8iO8)

[ElNono]

How about the rest of the world? Powell went to the U.N. with all his evidence. I still remember the televised session. Not to mention that all those countries have intelligence agencies on their own. The outcome of that was that there was not enough evidence to support an U.N. sponsored action against Iraq.
Not that Dubya ever cared what others had to say... he already had his mind set.

[Yonivore]

How about the rest of the world? Powell went to the U.N. with all his evidence. I still remember the televised session. Not to mention that all those countries have intelligence agencies on their own. The outcome of that was that there was not enough evidence to support an U.N. sponsored action against Iraq.
With Russia, Germany, China, and France promising to veto any UNSC action against Iraq, there never would have been enough evidence "to support an U.N. sponsored action against Iraq," whatever you mean by that.

The U.N. is a political organization not a court of law making determinations based on evidence. Finding out that France was selling night vision goggles to Iraq, in the lead up to the war and that Russia was feeding them our war plans; and that Germany, and the U.N. Secretary General's office and, yes, France again, were up to their ears in the Oil-for-Food scandal is probably why there never would have been "enough evidence."


Not that Dubya ever cared what others had to say... he already had his mind set.
Thank God he didn't apply Kerry's "global test."

[ElNono]

With Russia, Germany, China, and France promising to veto any UNSC action against Iraq, there never would have been enough evidence "to support an U.N. sponsored action against Iraq," whatever you mean by that.

The U.N. is a political organization not a court of law making determinations based on evidence. Finding out that France was selling night vision goggles to Iraq, in the lead up to the war and that Russia was feeding them our war plans; and that Germany, and the U.N. Secretary General's office and, yes, France again, were up to their ears in the Oil-for-Food scandal is probably why there never would have been "enough evidence."


Many countries do deals with many other countries. Heck, the US was in bed with Saddam many moons ago. But I guess there are some things that need to be conveniently forgotten when trying to defend the indefensible.

About why the rest of the world probably thought the evidence was bogus:

On 8 November 2002, the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 1441, giving Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" including unrestricted inspections by the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Saddam Hussein accepted the resolution on 13 November and inspectors returned to Iraq under the direction of UNMOVIC chairman Hans Blix and IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei. Between that time and the time of the invasion, the IAEA "found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq"; the IAEA concluded that certain items which could have been used in nuclear enrichment centrifuges, such as aluminum tubes, were in fact intended for other uses.[28] UNMOVIC "did not find evidence of the continuation or resumption of programmes of weapons of mass destruction" or significant quantities of proscribed items.

link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War#U.N._inspections_before _the_invasion)


Sorry, I quoted from Wikipedia... is that considered a liberal site?

[Yonivore]

Many countries do deals with many other countries. Heck, the US was in bed with Saddam many moons ago. But I guess there are some things that need to be conveniently forgotten when trying to defend the indefensible.

About why the rest of the world probably thought the evidence was bogus:

On 8 November 2002, the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 1441, giving Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" including unrestricted inspections by the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Saddam Hussein accepted the resolution on 13 November and inspectors returned to Iraq under the direction of UNMOVIC chairman Hans Blix and IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei. Between that time and the time of the invasion, the IAEA "found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq"; the IAEA concluded that certain items which could have been used in nuclear enrichment centrifuges, such as aluminum tubes, were in fact intended for other uses.[28] UNMOVIC "did not find evidence of the continuation or resumption of programmes of weapons of mass destruction" or significant quantities of proscribed items.

link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War#U.N._inspections_before _the_invasion)


Sorry, I quoted from Wikipedia... is that considered a liberal site?
I don't care what source you use.

The fallacy of your argument is that the IAEA had been out of Iraq since 1998. That's five years for Saddam to conceal, move, hide, dismantle, and frustrate any attempts to find his WMD programs if and when the IAEA was allowed back in.

Frankly, that you find the IAEA's inability to find any weapons in six months --after being unable to do so for 7 years from '91 to '98, particularly after Iraq had five years '98 - '03 to get creative -- is kind of funny.

Post invasion, we've found nuclear plans and hardware buried in a backyard. What's to say there aren't a couple hundred other backyards to be discovered?

Quote whoever you want, no one knows what Saddam Hussein did between the no-fly zones between 1998 and 2003.

[ChumpDumper]

Quote whoever you want, no one knows what Saddam Hussein did between the no-fly zones between 1998 and 2003.You mean we didn't ask Saddam?

[Nbadan]

The fallacy of your argument is that the IAEA had been out of Iraq since 1998. That's five years for Saddam to conceal, move, hide, dismantle, and frustrate any attempts to find his WMD programs if and when the IAEA was allowed back in.


Blah...WMDs have a very limited shelf-life, and we found no evidence that Saddam was mass producing precursors to further any WMD development...fact is, when the IAEA did go back into Iraq, they were only given a short time to do their work not by Saddam, who was cooperating by then, but by the Dubya administration which was hell bent on war with Iraq with or with any evidence from the IAEA....so I find your argument supporting the IAEA inspectors work in Iraq disingenuous...

[LaMarcus Bryant]

world war three
be all that you can be

[Yonivore]

Blah...WMDs have a very limited shelf-life, and we found no evidence that Saddam was mass producing precursors to further any WMD development...fact is, when the IAEA did go back into Iraq, they were only given a short time to do their work not by Saddam, who was cooperating by then, but by the Dubya administration which was hell bent on war with Iraq with or with any evidence from the IAEA....so I find your argument supporting the IAEA inspectors work in Iraq disingenuous...
Fortunately for the world, it's not what you find that's important.

[boutons_]

dubya and dickhead didn't give a shit about WMD, Saddam, or the Iraqis much easier plight under Saddam compared to the current dubya destruction of Iraq.

All the dubya/dickhead justifications for the Iraq invasion AND UNLIMITED OCCUPATION (no exit strategy) were bullshit pretexts for the oil grab, including timing the invasion 8 months before the Nov 03 elections to propagandize dubya as a war president (he barely won anyway).

Arguing WMD is a right-wing distraction from the oil-grab reality.

[DarkReign]

Fuck it, lets burn this motherfucker down. Iran gets the bomb, we invade, war, strife, pain, death and disease. We'll make a movie, it'll be great.

Im bored, why not?

[Yonivore]

but i thought they found wmds?
The did but, that argument's been had ad naseum a couple of dozen times in this forum.

Do you really want to repeat it again?

[Yonivore]

Fuck it, lets burn this motherfucker down. Iran gets the bomb, we invade, war, strife, pain, death and disease. We'll make a movie, it'll be great.

Im bored, why not?
Well, at least you're on board.

[DarkReign]

Well, at least you're on board.

Quite honestly, Im for anything that furthers the complete destruction of society at large, regardless of national affiliation. My disdain for humanity knows little limit. The more dead, the less I care.

I have my moments of Zen where I get all philosophical on the wrongs and rights of the world. But then reality kicks me in the teeth again and I realize that within the current structure of human civilization, the only means for the People to regain control of their own destiny is the complete dissolution of the current societal regimes of control. The government is self-interested in its consolodation of power. Government has worked long and hard to gain more and more and more control and they would allow the destruction of others to retain said control.

So anything that brings this world closer to collapse, I endorse.

[Nbadan]

...well, that pretty much sums up the Bush Administration too....

[ChumpDumper]

The did but, that argument's been had ad naseum a couple of dozen times in this forum.

Do you really want to repeat it again?Yes, show me where Bush himself addresses the people of the United States about the WMDs that were found. I didn't catch that link the last time around.

[xrayzebra]

Many countries do deals with many other countries. Heck, the US was in bed with Saddam many moons ago. But I guess there are some things that need to be conveniently forgotten when trying to defend the indefensible.

About why the rest of the world probably thought the evidence was bogus:

On 8 November 2002, the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 1441, giving Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" including unrestricted inspections by the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Saddam Hussein accepted the resolution on 13 November and inspectors returned to Iraq under the direction of UNMOVIC chairman Hans Blix and IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei. Between that time and the time of the invasion, the IAEA "found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq"; the IAEA concluded that certain items which could have been used in nuclear enrichment centrifuges, such as aluminum tubes, were in fact intended for other uses.[28] UNMOVIC "did not find evidence of the continuation or resumption of programmes of weapons of mass destruction" or significant quantities of proscribed items.

link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War#U.N._inspections_before _the_invasion)


Sorry, I quoted from Wikipedia... is that considered a liberal site?


Nope Wikipedia is not necessarily a liberal site, but
again, it has been shown to have stuff posted by some
who want the best light shown on them. But never
mind.

Why don't you look up Russia and China and you will
see we supported them at one time in a conflict.
You know like WWII. They are just two examples I
can think of just off hand. So your example really
doesn't prove anything. We from allies in WWII to
enemies in the Cold War with both of my examples.