Ok, so Cheney appears really worried about this “single day of war” where terrorists could use WMD against the American people.
He said this in the context of defending the Iraq War. But what I don’t get , is how the war has prevented anything at all. It seems apparent that even if there were WMD in Iraq, we still have no clue where they are.
Apparently, the administration line is that the war was a successful strike in the war against terror. So the “liberation” angle can be left out of this debate.
Has this war helped prevent any terrorists from obtaining WMD? I’d like some proof.
Seems even more likely to me that if Saddam had WMDs, he would have given them to terrorists once invasion was imminent. That would hurt the US more than using them in a fruitless attempt to repel invading forces.
The administration needs to just shut up about the war. They are politically tone deaf when it comes to waging war.
Clinton never deigned to explain himself when he took military action against several nations. He let people debate it all they wanted while he stayed above the fray and just did whatever the heck he thought was best. By engaging the critics, the Bush administration is only giving them more ammunition. Let the talking heads make their cases. Besides, the pundits have made a much better case for war than this administration ever did. Let them continue to make that case and get the heck out of the debate.
The same position of authority we all speak from, duh.
New Republic, Andrew Sullivan, Charles Krauthammer, Thomas Friedman, Amer Taheri, Glenn Reynolds, and Ralph Peters all made a great case for war.
Heck, if you want to get into political authority, several Democratic Congressmen and the Clintons made a better case for war than the Bush administration did.
**You’ve posted an awful lot of crap, adaher, in your short time here.
How’s about backing some of it up?
**
In liberals we trust, all others must cite extensively.
That’s a matter of opinion, but I don’t know how you could say that. You may disagree with his positions, but he expresses them in a well-thought out way without resorting to the kind of windbaggery of a Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter.
And let’s not forget the great Christopher Hitchens, another passionate hawk.
Adaher has a point: the Bushiviks and thier coterie of gelded journalists have made a case for war. In fact, they’ve had to make several of them, as each in turn has collapsed under the weight of its own unproven premises.
I don’t think Mr. Cheney is attempting to produce an argument, he is working feverishly to keep the choir from bolting the Church and joining the Hairy Krishna.
Drill down far enough and you reach a stratum of the American public who are entirely willing to stuff thier fingers in thier ears and sing the National Anthem. They are the bedrock upon which the Bushiviks rest thier increasingly slender chances of re-election. These people do not require facts, are not interested in facts. When shown news that says “Admin on counter-offensive” they are reassured. Sublime in thier faith, they are perfectly willing to be sold the sizzle, rather than the steak.
Mr. Cheney is making no effort to convince me and mine. I would never get past the Purity of Thought scanners at the Heritage Foundation door, my mind is corrupted by skepticism and facts. To convince the unconvinced, one must present a case open to questioning. Mr. Cheney will do this when we are all carrying umbrellas to protect from pig flop falling from the skies.
Cheney could promise to tuck you in and sing sweet lullabies, you still aren’t going to vote for Bush in '04. Why should he waste the effort in speaking to the far Left?
If by the “Far Left” you mean such a section of the people who are skeptical to the point of disdain, he had better start speaking to us, and toot damn sweet.
He he might as well because doesn’t need to say anything at all to the knee-jerk supporters. Their swallowing of the constantly shifting line of “justification” for the Iraq adventure shows me that they can’t be driven away in any case.
You mean everybody who is skeptical of the Bushiviks faith-based foreign policy is on the extreme left? Wow! We’re going to need more room for our convention!
No. But we can still take you in New York, and Boston is seriously screwing up preparations. Seriously! Boston is a crappy convention town anyways, and you’ll win exactly zero votes more than you already have by having the convention there.
Fire those incompetents and come down here. We’ll do a better job, we got more Democrats than Boston does anyways, and the attendees will have a better time. We’ve got better mass transit (you guys love mass transit, right?), stronger municipal and hotel unions (unions! C’mon, you guys live for unions!), left-wing entertainment figures (you think Barbra is schlepping to Boston? Survey says – BXXXT!) and all sorts of cool stuff. I bet we could even convince Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick to do The Producers that week.
Call your local Democratic party leaders and email the national leaders and tell them you want the convention in New York City.
“Has this war helped prevent any terrorists from obtaining WMD?”
Clearly no.
One possible case is that Iraq didn’t have any WMD at the time of the war in which case the war obviously didn’t prevent this.
The other case is that Iraq did have some WMD which is even worse because it means that the WMD have been lying around for months under no one’s control. Who knows where they have been moved and who might get hold of them. In this case the war has increased the chances of terrorists obtaining WMD.
Calling yourself ‘skeptical’ of GW’s foreign policy is disingenuous at best. You have made up your mind long ago; Being skeptical implies that you are undecided.
IT’s hard to back up Cheney. No one has screwed up the case for war more than he with his completely fabricated statements about nuclear weapons and Al Qaeda and 9/11.
How anyone could mess up the case for a cause as just as the liberation of Iraq is beyond me, but the administration managed to do it.
