Sunday, September 10, 2006

Cheney says it well

Cheney told it like it is on Meet the Press. Man, I wish Cheney was younger. I'd love to vote for him for president:

"I don't know how you can explain five years of no attacks, five years of successful disruption of attacks, five years of defeating the efforts of al Qaeda to come back and kill more Americans. You have got to give some credence to the notion that maybe somebody did something right," Cheney told NBC's "Meet the Press."

He added: "We've done a helluva job here at home in terms of homeland security."

Whoop for that. As usual, the leftist talking points are tired, old, and illogical:

Democrats charge the Iraq war has sucked away billions of dollars that could have been spent to improve domestic security, served as a breeding ground for terrorists, left Osama bin Laden still at large and exposed Afghanistan's U.S.-backed government to a renewed threat from the Taliban.
You know, 52% of the national budget each year goes to personal entitlement spending. Thats $1.45 trillion. The defense budget, by comparison, is a measely 16%, or $466 billion. When Democrats cut pork and end their campaign of huge government with "liberty and free money for all" they can talk about "sucking away" dollars.


Matt said...

I think you (and him) are forgetting the lives that are lost every single day in Iraq and the simple fact that this would not be happening if he and his powerful freinds hadn't pushed so hard to pre-emptively invade a country that had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the attacks of september 11th. Cheney is a scumbag, he's radioactive, no one wants to be seen with him. He's helped his buddies in the military industry make profits that are more than 25% higher in 2003 than they were in 2002. This is about money and power, not national security. You know just as well as him (although unlike him, you won't admit it) that Saddam Hussein had no connection to Al Qaeda and that Iraq was not an imminent threat to us. Pre-emptive war is unjustified. In the words of Abraham Lincoln: "Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever HE shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, WHENEVER HE MAY CHOOSE TO SAY he deems it necessary for such a purpose - and you allow him to make war at pleasure."

k2aggie07 said...

Look, the Phase II intelligence reports have done far from collaborate with your version of the story.

For example, Rockefeller seems to be having memory lapses similar to yours. Direct quote:
“There has been some debate over how ‘imminent’ a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. … It is in the nature of these weapons that he has and the way they are targeted against civilian populations, that documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can.”
In addition, from p 75 of the report:
The ability of al-Qa’ida to procure training in chemical and biological weapons (CBW) particularly concerned the Intelligence Community prior to the war. Prewar reporting about training varied in reliability and was often contradictory. Regarding Iraqi provided CB W training to al-Qa’ida, Iraqi Support for Terrorism judged:

Details on training range from good reports from senior al-Qa’ida members to those of second-hand sources of varying reliability, often the result of long and opaque reporting chains or discussions of future intentions rather than evidence of completed training. The general pattern that emerges is of al-Qa’ida’s enduring interest in acquiring
CBW expertise from Iraq.

CIA also stated that:

Some of the most ominous suggestions of possible Iraqi-al-Qa’ida cooperation involve Bin Ladin’s CBW ambitions. Although Iraq historically has guarded closely its strategic weapons information, experts, and resources, Baghdad could have offered training or other support to al-Qa’ida.

The CIA relied heavily on the information obtained from the debriefing of detainee Ibn al-Shaykh al-Lib& a senior al-Qa’ida operational planner, to assess Iraq’s potential CBW training of al-Qa’ida. The January 2003 paper, Iraqi Support for Terrorism, reported that al-Libi told a foreign intelligence service:

Iraq-acting on the request of al-Qa’ida militant Abu Abdullah, who was Muhammad Atif’s emissary-agreed to provide unspecified chemical or biological weapons training for two al-Qa’ida associates beginning in December 2000. The two individuals departed for Iraq but did not return, so al-Libi was not in a position to know if any training had taken place.

The September 2002 version of Iraqi Support for Terrorism stated that al-Libi said Iraq had “provided” unspecified CBW training for two al-Qa’ida associates in 2000, but also stated that al Libi “did not know the results of the training.“ In the June 2002 paper, Iraq and al Qa ‘ida: Interpreting a Murky Relationship, the CIA also stated that al-Libi claimed Iraq had “provided” unspecified CBW training for two al-Qa’ida associates in 2000. That report
omitted the qualification that al-Libi did not know the results of the training.

Thats straight from the senate select intelligence committee.

So quit with the tired old "Cheney evil, Bush Lied" doctrine. The fact is, everyone (Rockefeller, Bush, Cheney) had access to the same data, drew the same conclusions, and voted for war.

If you want to get mad, get mad at the CIA. If you want to be mad at people, be mad at Rockefeller, Kerry, and others who voted for the war -- they saw the same information Bush did. It came to them from the CIA, not the White House. If Bush lied, then they're in on it too.

k2aggie07 said...

Or you could read this, from the 9/11 Commission report:

"On November 4, 1998, the U.S.Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York unsealed its indictmentof Bin Ladin, charging him with conspiracy to attack U.S. defense installations. The indictment also charged that al Qaeda had allied itself with Sudan, Iran, and Hezbollah.The original sealed indictment had added that al Qaeda had “reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.” This passage led Clarke, who for years had read intelligence reports on Iraqi-Sudanese cooperation on chemical weapons, to speculate to Berger that a large Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khartoum was “probably a direct result of the Iraq–Al Qida agreement.” Clarke added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the “exact formula used by Iraq.” This language about al Qaeda’s “understanding” with Iraq had been dropped, however, when a superseding indictment was filed in November 1998"

Matt said...

--al-Libi was not in a position to know if any training had taken place.

--al-Libi did not know the results of the training.

This Al-Libi guy doesn't sound too trustworthy. WAIT A MINUTE!... I've heard this guys name before.

From the Washington Post:

An al Qaeda commander who initially told interrogators that Iraq had provided chemical and biological weapons training to the terrorist organization later told CIA officers his statement was not true, according to intelligence officials.

Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a Libyan captured in Pakistan on Nov. 11, 2001, later "changed his story, and we're still in the process of trying to determine what's right and what's not right" from his information, a senior U.S. intelligence official said yesterday. "He told us one thing at one time and another at another time."

Al-Libi's statement formed the basis for the Bush administration's prewar claim that Osama bin Laden collaborated with Iraq, according to several U.S. officials.

In an October 2002 speech in Cincinnati, for example, President Bush said: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and gases." Other senior administration officials, including Secretary of State Colin L. Powell in a speech to the United Nations, made similar assertions. Al-Libi's statements were the foundation of all of them.
--Sunday, August 1, 2004

The Rendon Group masterminded this so called "intelligence" after they were paid a sum of 16 MILLION dollars by the Pentagon to target Iraq with propoganda. This administration has a track record of basing it's reliable intelligence off of liars.

Three weeks after the September 11th attacks, according to documents obtained from defense sources, the Pentagon awarded a large contract to the Rendon Group. Around the same time, Pentagon officials also set up a highly secret organization called the Office of Strategic Influence. Part of the OSI's mission was to conduct covert disinformation and deception operations -- planting false news items in the media and hiding their origins. "It's sometimes valuable from a military standpoint to be able to engage in deception with respect to future anticipated plans," Vice President Dick Cheney said in explaining the operation. Even the military's top brass found the clandestine unit unnerving. "When I get their briefings, it's scary," a senior official said at the time.- The Man Who Sold The War

What was the first thing the Bush Administration considered doing after we were attacked on 9/11? Attack Iraq.

Speaking of Richard Clarke:
According to Richard A. Clarke: "I expected to go back to a round of meetings [after September 11] examining what the next attacks could be, what our vulnerabilities were, what we could do about them in the short term. Instead, I walked into a series of discussions about Iraq... I realized with almost a sharp physical pain that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were going to try to take advantage of this national tragedy to promote their agenda about Iraq...By the afternoon on Wednesday [after Sept. 11], Secretary Rumsfeld was talking about broadening the objectives of our response and "getting Iraq."

"On September 12th, I left the video conferencing center and there, wandering alone around the situation room, was the president. He looked like he wanted something to do. He grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room. "Look," he told us, "I know you have a lot to do and all, but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way."

"I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. "But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this."

"I know, I know, but - see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred--" On the Issues ("Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror," by Richard A. Clarke)

What was the one thing Bush, everyone in his cabinet and the PNAC had wanted to do since the fall of the Soviet Union? Invade Iraq. 9/11 was a greenlight for their agenda, how can you not see this? It didn't matter if Iraq was a threat or not. They were going to invade no matter what and by whatever means necessary.

It sounds to me like Iran might have been a better country to invade based on the intelligence in your second comment. Or how about Sudan, how about southern Lebanon? If Saddam was such great buddies with Al-Qaeda, how come he refused to accept any kind of cooperation militarily from them? How come he tried, before the invasion, to find and capture Zarqawi when he was living in Iraq? How come the Bush Administration refused to take out Zarqawi when they had the chance many times in '02? They wanted to bolster their case for invading... sneaky sneaky.

k2aggie07 said...

You're completely missing the point. All the senators who voted for the war in Iraq saw the same information that was presented to the White House and came to the same conclusions independently.

The intelligence wasn't whitewashed before it got to the senate intelligence committee. It went simultaneously from the CIA to the senate and the White House.

That's the point I'm making. You're stubbornly refusing to accept that.

Matt said...

No I'm not missing the point. I discredited basically everything you just said in your previous comments with regards to the "intelligence" used for the case against Iraq. Yes, it's extremely unfortunate that when it came time to vote for the war, almost all democrats, and definetly all repubs voted yay. I didn't focus on that specific comment because I think it's irrelevant to the point that I was trying to make. This was the Bush Administrations agenda from day one, not the senator's or the congressmen who voted for it. I chose to focus on your ridiculous intelligence points instead because we all know now that it was a mistake and that these "reports" weren't drawn from reliable sources. The people who won't admit it are the ones who championed this cause since 12:00 pm on september 11th. Who is it that openly admits they're vote for the war was a mistake by the way? I'll give you one guess: it's not the majority of the republicans in congress.

k2aggie07 said...

If you're on board with that idea, repeat after me:

"I hereby swear to never use the phrase, or any associated phrase: 'Bush lied,' 'Bush's war,' or any other phrase implying that the war was somehow initiated by president Bush, sohelp me God".

Because at this point, you're agreeing with me that the intelligence that led us into Iraq had nothing to do with Bush, had literally worldwide support, and was independently verified.

Therefore, in spite of any and all intelligence flaws, the fault is equally applicable to this administration and this congress, as well as the intelligence agencies (and agents and employees, including Joe Wilson, Richard Clark) who began it.

Based on that, we should be in Iraq still. No matter how we got here, or what you think, you surely understand that to leave now would be foolish, correct?

This is so far off the topic of the original post. Cheney said in five years we've been safe. Clearly, since we've never had five years without a terrorist attack before, we're doing something right. Thats what he said. You added some gobbledegook about "Bush lied people died". Irrelevant.