November 21, 2005
Cheney Assails Critics but Says Debate on Iraq Is Healthy
By DAVID STOUT
WASHINGTON, Nov. 21 - Vice President Cheney 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 Ins ute 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.
"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, 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 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. head 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 head 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.
========================================
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.
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?
Just a PR move since their blatant attacks were alienating many patriotic republicans who are also questioning the war in Iraq.
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.
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 Bull 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.
101A, go pee in your diapers, and 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/ head 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 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.
Boutons,
First, Chill.
Second; I thought so:
You have no ideas. Only criticism. Typical and VERY helpful, that.
I was su ious from the get-go with all that Frenchie-talk in the thread le.
"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.
The difference being that mine was a stupid joke, as opposed to your living and breathing hatred for anything Republican/conservative.you and swc are contributing wonderful ideas to this thread
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.
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 he wants.
double-post
w00t
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.
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."
Probably several thousand yearly.
I don't know what this means.
No, Chairman Mao was an oppressive communist that shot dissenters and charged the family for the bullet.
That was Voltaire.
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.I don't know what this means.
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.
what does this have to do with the 1st amendment? the 1st protects us from the government but rarely (if ever) from each other.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
