Cheney Goes on CNN and Acts Like a Dick

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: ayabe
"Insight attributed the information in its article to an unnamed source, who said it was discovered by "researchers connected to Senator Clinton." A spokesman for Clinton, who is also weighing a White House bid, denied that the campaign was the source of the Obama claim."

"Fox News executive Bill Shine told CNN "Reliable Sources" anchor Howard Kurtz that some of the network's hosts were simply expressing their opinions and repeatedly cited Insight as the source of the allegations."
CNN
Sorry Prof, it's false, "researchers connected to Senator Clinton", that's thinner than thin. It they want to add credibility they better come forth with the actual source, but they won't because that source doesn't exist. FNC does this all the time, with their "some people are saying" crap, i.e. our producers want to plant this idea.

So what you are saying is the fact that Clinton denies the story is all the proof we need?
I like that logic.
Let me think.... I could start to list the number of times one of the Clinton's has lied to the American people, but I don't want to waste bandwidth with such a long list.
You are a total FOOL if you take complete heed of a statement like that. Do you really expect the Clinton campaign to say ?yes, we did it!?
The leaking of damaging information about your opponent is one of the oldest tricks in the books.
Let?s look at just a few of the major instances of this happening:
The whole Foley scandal broke when someone who opposes him pushed the story into the media.
The Allen said the ?N? word-Webb is a pedophile stories were pushed by their opposition.
The macaca story came from a guy who was hired by the Webb camp to tape Allen's speeches in hopes of finding an error to exploit.
The whole Dukakis is weak on crime-furlough story came from the Gore camp.
The Joe Biden plagiarized a speech story came from the Dukakis camp.

Let me ask you one question: When the New York Times publishes its ?sources tell us? type articles do you immediately discount what the article says?
Because half the news that comes out of Washington is from these types of unnamed and unidentified sources.

Again you speak with absolute truth and clarity.
The term ignorance is bliss applies to those who would oppose what you are saying Prof.
In facxt those who would oppose what you are saying are most likely in denial as we speak or they are just too young to know any better. 13 yrs old is a tender age and most people who would oppose what you are saying are dealing with one problem and only one problem. That problem is how to get rid of there first zit or acne...lol

True to your rep, the weakest intellectual link on P&N. lol

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: ayabe
Deny all you want, read the bolded part again. If FNC and Insight wanted people to believe their story they would name the source, but they won't because the source doesn't exist. It's probably Dick Morris for all we know.

If you think about, I'm pretty sure that if someone associated with Hillary wanted to discredit Obama, they would have done so on media outlets sympathetic to her and/or Obama, not media sources who go out of their way to attack her. That would lend some credibility to it.

Are you really that foolish? When is the last time anyone in the media reveled their secret or unnamed source?
I suggest you go read up on Judith Miller who WENT TO JAIL before she would reveal her source.
To the media revealing a source is along the lines of killing your kids. You don?t do it no matter what. Reporters would rather go to jail than reveal sources. Because once they reveal ONE source all their other sources would dry up and go away.
Bob Woodward kept the name of ?deep throat? secret for 30 frickin years!!!!

I am sure you just eat up all the ?sources close to the administration? stories that make Bush and Co look bad without ever worrying about who the sources are.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: ayabe
Deny all you want, read the bolded part again. If FNC and Insight wanted people to believe their story they would name the source, but they won't because the source doesn't exist. It's probably Dick Morris for all we know.

If you think about, I'm pretty sure that if someone associated with Hillary wanted to discredit Obama, they would have done so on media outlets sympathetic to her and/or Obama, not media sources who go out of their way to attack her. That would lend some credibility to it.

Are you really that foolish? When is the last time anyone in the media reveled their secret or unnamed source?
I suggest you go read up on Judith Miller who WENT TO JAIL before she would reveal her source.
To the media revealing a source is along the lines of killing your kids. You don?t do it no matter what. Reporters would rather go to jail than reveal sources. Because once they reveal ONE source all their other sources would dry up and go away.
Bob Woodward kept the name of ?deep throat? secret for 30 frickin years!!!!

I am sure you just eat up all the ?sources close to the administration? stories that make Bush and Co look bad without ever worrying about who the sources are.

Since the story is completely made up, you would think Insight would try to deflect some blame for running the story and put their source out there. But they won't because there is no source. CBS had to do this when they ran their Bush ANG story, Fox is deflecting by saying they got it from Insight.

I'm sorry you can't see how transparent this is. I don't care for either one of them, but trying to run hit jobs on people and then fan some imaginary discord between is pretty pathetic.

 

[dahunan]

Prof .. YOU WANT to believe it is from Hillarys camp with all your heart and soul..

BTW, you could be considered in a group of "researchers connected to president bush", your connection is that of a voter and fanatical groupie

 

[BMW540I6speed]

There is nothing like a feeling of besiegement and desperation to make a political movement -- one that knows it is in its "last throes" -- show its true colors.

The Supreme General-Commander has now decreed that any opposition to the "surge" helps The Enemy. Therefore, according to Bush followers -- beginning with the Vice President and moving down -- it is now the solemn duty of every patriotic American, especially those in Congress, to refrain from voicing any objections to the decision made by the Leader and the General.

As usual, Bill Kristol was ahead of the authoritarian curve, last week proclaiming that war critics are "so irresponsible that they can?t be quiet for six or nine months."

Yesterday, Party loyalist Hugh Hewitt unveiled what he and his comrades are calling The Pledge a creepy, Soviet-sounding declaration of loyalty, all based on Gen. Petraeus' decree, that vows to repudiate any Republican who opposes the "surge," and even refuses to donate to the NRCC unless they agree "in writing" that none of the contributions will go to any "surge" opponents.

Bush followers across the Internet are now huddled in strategizing conference calls, and leading right-wing luminaries such as Glenn Reynolds have endorsed The Pledge.

Opposition to the "surge" is "wrong" because Gen. Petraeus said so, said that it would help The Terrorists. What is most notable about this duty of mindless submission to the General is that it emanates from the very top of the Bush movement. In his amazing interview with Wolf Blitzer yesterday, the Vice President dismissed away the notion that things were going badly in Iraq, but -- citing Gen. Petraeus' exchange on Tuesday with Joe Lieberman -- Cheney did identify the one truly grave threat that we face in this war:

Question:" How worried are you of this nightmare scenario, that the U.S. is building up this Shiite-dominated Iraqi government with an enormous amount of military equipment, sophisticated training, and then in the end, they're going to turn against the United States?'

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Wolf, you can come up with all kinds of what-ifs. You've got to deal with the reality on the ground. The reality on the ground is, we've made major progress, we've still got a lot of work to do. There are a lot of provinces in Iraq that are relatively quiet. There's more and more authority transferred to the Iraqis all the time. But the biggest problem we face right now is the danger that the United States will validate the terrorist strategy, that, in fact, what will happen here with all of the debate over whether or not we ought to stay in Iraq, with the pressures from some quarters to get out of Iraq, if we were to do that, we would simply validate the terrorists' strategy that says the Americans will not stay to complete the task --

So... the "biggest threat" is the debate taking place in the U.S. over whether our Leader is doing the right thing -- the true threat to the Glorious War in Iraq is Jim Webb's response to the Leader and Sen. Hagel's disobedience and Sen. Warner's criticisms of the Leader's plans and opposition to the war (shared by an overwhelming majority of Americans). That's what Cheney argued.

The idea that Americans should refrain from debating the propriety of using military force is about as foreign to our political traditions as anything can be.

The Cheney interview, the Lieberman "question" about giving aid and comfort/encouragement, and The Pledge movement are downright creepy, authoritarian, even ominous.: they are also anti-American and reminiscent of the values our enemies supposedly hold. Brings to mind the Russian proverb that we should "choose our enemies wisely for we will become like them."

OTOH Senator Hagel's impassioned plea was refreshing and I don't know if I've ever seen a politician speak with such candor and passion. His Vietnam experience, as well and true conservative principles, were shining through.

In the past week Hagel has (1) claimed that the GOP is not the same party as the one he voted for on a tank in the Mekong Delta in 1967, and (2) made an almost tearful plea to his colleagues that to fail to honestly debate the "surge" when so many lives are at stake is to "fail" the country. While this is refreshing and entirely in line with the foundations of this country, what's troubling is this veteran's comments, rather than sparking a true debate, seem to have started a movement to purge him from the party and cut off his funding.

Like true Machiavellians, they are cutting off the head of the flower that dares to stick its head up, to set an example and quell any other "rebels."

So it looks like the "surge" plan is rapidly growing into a "purge" plan: you either agree with it or we remove your command and even accuse you of treason. You ask for a debate, claiming that you don't doubt the President's motives, and we develop a Loyalty Oath against you.

Reactions within the GOP to Hagel's words and to the Pledge movement will be telling. Thus far, it looks to fall along the lines of "with us or against us" which isn't surprising, but, once again, is very troubling.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: ayabe
"Insight attributed the information in its article to an unnamed source, who said it was discovered by "researchers connected to Senator Clinton." A spokesman for Clinton, who is also weighing a White House bid, denied that the campaign was the source of the Obama claim."

"Fox News executive Bill Shine told CNN "Reliable Sources" anchor Howard Kurtz that some of the network's hosts were simply expressing their opinions and repeatedly cited Insight as the source of the allegations."
CNN
Sorry Prof, it's false, "researchers connected to Senator Clinton", that's thinner than thin. It they want to add credibility they better come forth with the actual source, but they won't because that source doesn't exist. FNC does this all the time, with their "some people are saying" crap, i.e. our producers want to plant this idea.

So what you are saying is the fact that Clinton denies the story is all the proof we need?
I like that logic.
Let me think.... I could start to list the number of times one of the Clinton's has lied to the American people, but I don't want to waste bandwidth with such a long list.
You are a total FOOL if you take complete heed of a statement like that. Do you really expect the Clinton campaign to say ?yes, we did it!?
The leaking of damaging information about your opponent is one of the oldest tricks in the books.
Let?s look at just a few of the major instances of this happening:
The whole Foley scandal broke when someone who opposes him pushed the story into the media.
The Allen said the ?N? word-Webb is a pedophile stories were pushed by their opposition.
The macaca story came from a guy who was hired by the Webb camp to tape Allen's speeches in hopes of finding an error to exploit.
The whole Dukakis is weak on crime-furlough story came from the Gore camp.
The Joe Biden plagiarized a speech story came from the Dukakis camp.

Let me ask you one question: When the New York Times publishes its ?sources tell us? type articles do you immediately discount what the article says?
Because half the news that comes out of Washington is from these types of unnamed and unidentified sources.

Again you speak with absolute truth and clarity.
The term ignorance is bliss applies to those who would oppose what you are saying Prof.
In facxt those who would oppose what you are saying are most likely in denial as we speak or they are just too young to know any better. 13 yrs old is a tender age and most people who would oppose what you are saying are dealing with one problem and only one problem. That problem is how to get rid of there first zit or acne...lol

True to your rep, the weakest intellectual link on P&N. lol

You know that when JEDIYoda aligns with your cause, you should think twice -- something that should give ProfJohn pause, but you just know that it won't.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Churchill in the House, Jan 27, 1942:

"Since my return to this country, I have come to the conclusion that I must ask to be sustained by a Vote of Confidence from the House of Commons. This is a thoroughly normal, constitutional, democratic procedure. A Debate on the war has been asked for. I have arranged it in the fullest and freest manner for three whole days. Any Member will be free to say anything he thinks fit about or against the Administration or against the composition or personalities of the Government, to his heart's content, subject only to the reservation, which the House is always so careful to observe about military secrets. Could you have anything freer than that? Could you have any higher expression of democracy than that? Very few other countries have institutions strong enough to sustain such a thing while they are fighting for their lives. . . .

We have had a great deal of bad news lately from the Far East, and I think it highly probable, for reasons which I shall presently explain, that we shall have a great deal more. Wrapped up in this bad news will be many tales of blunders and shortcomings, both in foresight and action. No one will pretend for a moment that disasters like these occur without there having been faults and shortcomings. I see all this rolling towards us like the waves in a storm, and that is another reason why I require a formal, solemn Vote of Confidence from the House of Commons, which hitherto in this struggle has never flinched. The House would fail in its duty if it did not insist upon two things, first, freedom of debate, and, secondly, a clear, honest, blunt Vote thereafter. Then we shall all know where we are, and all those with whom we have to deal, at home and abroad, friend or foe, will know where we are and where they are. It is because we are to have a free Debate, in which perhaps 20 to 30 Members can take part, that I demand an expression of opinion from the 300 or 400 Members who will have sat silent.

It is because things have gone badly and worse is to come that I demand a Vote of Confidence. This will be placed on the Paper to-day, to be moved at a later stage. I do not see why this should hamper anyone. If a Member has helpful criticisms to make, or even severe corrections to administer, that may be perfectly consistent with thinking that in respect of the Administration, such as it is, he might go farther and fare worse. But if an hon. Gentleman dislikes the Government very much and feels it in the public interest that it should be broken up, he ought to have the manhood to testify his convictions in the Lobby. There is no need to be mealy-mouthed in debate. There is no objection to anything being said, plain, or even plainer, and the Government will do their utmost to conform to any standard which may be set in the course of the Debate. But no one need be mealy-mouthed in debate, and no one should be chicken-hearted in voting. I have voted against Governments I have been elected to support, and, looking back, I have sometimes felt very glad that I did so. Everyone in these rough times must do what he thinks is his duty."

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Sen. Hagel committed other sins this week..

Hagel revealed in an interview that the original administration draft of the 2002 AUMF authorized the President to initiate war anywhere in the Middle East, from Greece to Central Asia; at the insistence of Congress, the AUMF was limited to Iraq.

Here's part of that interview:

{Q]It?s incredible that you had to ask for that.

[Hagel]It is incredible. That?s what I said to Andy Card. Said it to Powell, said it to Rice. Might have even said it to the president. And finally, begrudgingly, they sent over a resolution for Congress to approve. Well, it was astounding. It said they could go anywhere in the region.

{Q]It wasn?t specific to Iraq?

[Hagel]Oh no. It said the whole region! They could go into Greece or anywhere. I mean, is Central Asia in the region? I suppose! Sure as hell it was clear they meant the whole Middle East. It was anything they wanted. It was literally anything. No boundaries. No restrictions.

{Q]They expected Congress to let them start a war anywhere they wanted in the Middle East?

[Hagel]Yes. Yes. Wide open. We had to rewrite it. Joe Biden, Dick Lugar, and I stripped the language that the White House had set up, and put our language in it.

{Q]But that should also have triggered alarm bells about what they really wanted to do.

[Hagel]Well, it did. I?m not defending our votes; I?m just giving a little history of how this happened. You have to remember the context of when that resolution was passed. This was about a year after September 11. The country was still truly off balance. So the president comes out talking about ?weapons of mass destruction? that this ?madman dictator? Saddam Hussein has, and ?our intelligence shows he?s got it,? and ?he?s capable of weaponizing,? and so on.

{Q]And producing a National Intelligence Estimate that turned out to be doctored.

[Hagel]Oh yeah. All this stuff was doctored. Absolutely. But that?s what we were presented with. And I?m not dismissing our responsibility to look into the thing, because there were senators who said, ?I don?t believe them.? But I was told by the president?we all were?that he would exhaust every diplomatic effort."

 

[dahunan]

What is most sad is that our attack there only aided our enemies and made it harder to control or keep track of our enemies

 

[BMW540I6speed]

"Apparently, Dick "other priorities" Cheney has the sufficient courage for war, but Vietnam veterans Chuck Hagel (and Jim Webb and Jack Murtha and on and on) lack that courage, the "stomach." It's amazing how often it works out that way."

Even my distracted mind has been able to observe that no veteran of the US armed forces is safe from a Republican smear regarding either "national security" issues or "having the stomach" gut checks.

John Kerry. John Murtha. Colin Powell. Jim Webb. Barry McCaffrey. George McGovern. Gen. Batiste. Chuck Hagel. Max Cleland. Eric Shinseki. John Paul Stevens. John Warner. Wesley Clark. Jack Reed. Walter Mondale.

Here's some "gut check" Republicans who had "other priorities" and did not serve:

Dennis Hastert, Tom DeLay, Roy Blunt, Bill Frist, Mitch McConnell, Rick Santorum, Trent Lott, George Allen, John Ashcroft, Jeb Bush, Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, Phil Gramm, John Kyl, John Cornyn, Elliot Abrams, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Doug Feith, Spencer Abraham, George Pataki, George Will, Bill O'Reilly, Paul Gigot, William Bennett, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Bill Kristol, Sean Hannity, and Ralph Reed.

It is no coincidence that ever since the Republicans lost their ass in the recent elections and had their policies rejected in the polls by overwhelming majorities most Americans are now considered to be traitors by the rump-executive.

I am also not surprised that the conservatives who thought what happened in El Salvador was a good thing also think that Americans should shut up when a general says so. I have been saying that the Republicans' solid-south political culture has more in common with Latin America than that of the US, and that the continued reliance on men like Negroponte revealed the thinking behind the tactics of intimidation practiced by the conservatives since 9/11, that they were importing into this country the anti-democratic tactics they used to support right wing dictators in Latin America, but now we are to take a "pledge" on the words of a general to shut up and stop questioning the failed policies of our government?

They call it "The Pledge." I call it "People's Exhibit #1."

I don't oppose these people because they are Republicans or because they are conservatives. No, I oppose them because they are not Americans. They are nothing but an anti-constitution insurgency.

And they are in their last throes.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
Sen. Hagel committed other sins this week..

Hagel revealed in an interview that the original administration draft of the 2002 AUMF authorized the President to initiate war anywhere in the Middle East, from Greece to Central Asia; at the insistence of Congress, the AUMF was limited to Iraq.

Here's part of that interview:

{Q]It?s incredible that you had to ask for that.

[Hagel]It is incredible. That?s what I said to Andy Card. Said it to Powell, said it to Rice. Might have even said it to the president. And finally, begrudgingly, they sent over a resolution for Congress to approve. Well, it was astounding. It said they could go anywhere in the region.

{Q]It wasn?t specific to Iraq?

[Hagel]Oh no. It said the whole region! They could go into Greece or anywhere. I mean, is Central Asia in the region? I suppose! Sure as hell it was clear they meant the whole Middle East. It was anything they wanted. It was literally anything. No boundaries. No restrictions.

{Q]They expected Congress to let them start a war anywhere they wanted in the Middle East?

[Hagel]Yes. Yes. Wide open. We had to rewrite it. Joe Biden, Dick Lugar, and I stripped the language that the White House had set up, and put our language in it.

{Q]But that should also have triggered alarm bells about what they really wanted to do.

[Hagel]Well, it did. I?m not defending our votes; I?m just giving a little history of how this happened. You have to remember the context of when that resolution was passed. This was about a year after September 11. The country was still truly off balance. So the president comes out talking about ?weapons of mass destruction? that this ?madman dictator? Saddam Hussein has, and ?our intelligence shows he?s got it,? and ?he?s capable of weaponizing,? and so on.

{Q]And producing a National Intelligence Estimate that turned out to be doctored.

[Hagel]Oh yeah. All this stuff was doctored. Absolutely. But that?s what we were presented with. And I?m not dismissing our responsibility to look into the thing, because there were senators who said, ?I don?t believe them.? But I was told by the president?we all were?that he would exhaust every diplomatic effort."

Well, this is precisely the sort of info release that the Administration should be wetting their pants over. A doctored NIE? Is that actionable?

 

[chrisms]

Hehe he made Blitzer squirm a little bit

 

[kage69]

Hehe he made Blitzer squirm a little bit

Yeah, that's generally the reaction people have when someone gives them the "I wish I had my shotgun" look.

Doubly so if the gazer in question is as reptilian as Dick.

You know that when JEDIYoda aligns with your cause, you should think twice -- something that should give ProfJohn pause, but you just know that it won't.

QFT!




And a hearty :thumbsup: to BMW; chickenhawk rich boys talking down to combat vets about the conduct of warfare has been one of my most blood-boiling beefs with this admin. Good to know the disgust at this Pledge nonsense isn't mine alone.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: chrisms
Hehe he made Blitzer squirm a little bit

ayup. wiped that smug grin right off wolfie's face

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: daveshel

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
BTW, Cheney's approval numbers are around 19%.

Oh ok thanks for the update. Ill let his re-election comittee know.

Yes, of course. His credibility is only worthy of consideration in the context of re-election.

He said popularity and it is a pointless considering he is done with public office in under 2 years. He could have 0% popularity and he isnt going anywhere.

Do you actually believe that Cheney has served America well, especially over the last 4 years?

Why are you confused? Is that what I said? In fact what point does your response have at all to do with the topic at hand?

Well you're jumping to his defence, I was wondering if you were doing so because you thought highly of him and the job he has done. I guess from your response you don't.

You`ll have to pardon Red Dawn he is use to asking meaningless questions that have nothing to do with the topic at hand......

Says the king of the exclamation point.... :roll:

 

[her209]

Is this the same Dick that ordered Libby to investigate the Wilsons?

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Here's the video of the two exchanges:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=fFm8FkbOUCg

First Problem: Cheney claims "Enormous success achieved in Iraq" ... uh, really? Is that statement like the "last throes" crap we had to endure last year?

Second Problem: Wolf then asks Cheney about his lesbian daughter ... actually, in fact he reads a statement from "Focus on the Family" a socially-conservative activist group. The group's statement is critical of gay couples having children and that triggers a total melt-down from Cheney.

Compounded with Lynn Cheney's ridiculous behavior on the same show in October, it's pretty clear that the Cheney family is just downright hostile unless they're being tossed softballs on FNC.

You know, after watching Lynn and Dick act like juvenile retards twice in a row, it's no wonder America constantly ranks Dick Cheney's performance at such dismal approval numbers.

orders windex to clean your lefty glasses.
Total meltdown, acted like a dick???? what are you smoking monkey man?

 

[rickn]

I actually think Cheney is ok, he's not afraid to speak his mind, and I find his rather sensible, although a tad arrogant on the subject on Iraq. I liked his response about sitting next to Nancy Pelosi in the HOR, haha. Wolf on the otherhand needs to learn how to conduct an interview. Mike Wallace of 60 mins would have never let ol Dick talk over him like he did with Wolf. Wolf is a terrible interviewer.