Dick Cheney - free pass on lying?

Why don’t people get more alarmed by the routine lying of Dick Cheney?

In May 2005 he said that the Iraqi insurgency was on its last legs.

In 2002-03, he repeatedly said there was “no doubt” that Saddam had WMD even though they had no evidence of such weapons. He is still saying this.

In 2002-03 he repeatedly said Saddam was involved in 9/11. He is still saying this.

This is not intended as a liberal rant. I’m just wondering why he is never held accountable for his lies. What is the dynamic involved whereby he can do this, and people just blow it off.

Some Republicans actually believe that Saddam was involved in 9/11.

Beyond that, I don’t think very many people care about Cheney whether he’s telling the truth or not. Cheney is not well-liked outside of the hardcore, neo-imperialist wing of the GOP; with Bush’s approval ratings tanking, I can only imagine how low Cheney’s are.

Traditonaly we cut the undead a bit of slack.

Cheney did make a nice excuse about how violent things can get in the last throes… soon after naturally. It didn’t look nice when Rummy said it was a few more years of “last throes”. Thank God Cheney isn’t a doctor. (“Nah the patient isn’t suffering… its just the last throes…”)

The undead are now putting Johnny Cochran on retainer to deal with your slanderous connection between the gentle brain eating zombies, blood sucking vampires, shambling mindless ghouls and Dick Cheney.

He didn’t insult anyone. That’s the only thing that seems to get people riled up these days. Maybe on the Iraqi insurgent’s version of the SDMB he’s being lambasted with threads like: “Last throes? You aint’ seen nuthin’ yet!!!”

“Remember, it isn’t a lie if you believe it.”
-George Costanza

I proudly voted against Bush/Cheney twice. I have no idea how someone, even if they were inclined to, could vote for Bush and against Cheney. If there were, that would be the best way to hold a Vice President accountable for horrible judgment. Unless being deluded is a crime, I don’t think impeachment should be used as a tool to recall unpopular politicians.

Cheney has already said the reason he avoided the draft during Vietnam is that he had other priorities than military service.

So on these occasions mentioned above, he had other priorities than to tell the truth.

Because, so many of his supporters are apologists.

He is not receiving a free pass. And he’s done a fine job of “non-lying.” And for fuck’s sake, he’s a politician.

This is a complete nonstarter.

You have a direct Cheney quotation supporting this assertion, of course?

'Cuz here’s one from 9/18/2004 that says otherwise:

“In June, Cheney said ‘we don’t know’ whether Iraq was involved in 9/11.”

Also in that link you can find a statement which might explain why some people believe, or believed at that time, that Iraq was potentially involved in the 9/11 attacks. A statement that didn’t come out of Cheney’s, or any other Bush administration official’s, mouth.

So there ya go.

if you look exactly ONE paragraph down from the quote that you cited, you would read: “In September 2003, Cheney said Iraq under Saddam had been “the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.””

Not to pile on, but I’d want a cite for this, too.

Politicians parse the truth. You may well object to things they suggest or imply or untruths they allow people to believe by not correcting; they generally know how to avoid the direct out-and-out lie.

I don’t think you’ll find any direct lies; OTOH I can provide multiple cites for Cheney doing exactly the sort of politician thing I listed above.

I saw that. But what that does not say is that “Saddam was involved in 9/11,” as asserted in the OP. It says only that Al Qaeda had bases inside Iraq; nothing about Saddam himself having anything to do with either the terrorist camps, or the terrorists. Hell, it doesn’t even say that Saddam knew the camps existed.

I’m looking for a direct quote, confirming Soylent Gene’s assertion in the OP that, Cheney said Saddam was involved in 9/11. To my knowledge, which I’ll readily admit is less than extensive, neither Cheney, nor Dubya, has ever made such a succint statement as fact.

Why bother with the nitpicking? It’s no secret that they (Bush and Cheney) just keep speaking of the two in the same breath, repeatedly and in public. Nitpicking gets away from the fact that they implied that the two were intertwined, so we would infer that they were one and the same, and thus support the Iraq war.

But if neither of them actually said the exact words, “Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks,” that gives them a free pass on bullshitting, eh? It’s the whole right-wing “imminent threat” hair-splitting nonsense all over again…

I dont have a cite, but I’ll work on it. I am going on what I have heard Cheney say on numerous Sunday morning talk shows through the years. He used to use the phrase “no doubt” about many of his assertions.

Does he ever say “the is a direct link to Saddam and 9/11”? Probably not.

But he is often disingenous and makes links between Saddam influencing the terrorist world “that was responsible for 9/11”.

I’m **sure ** he knows he’s making the indirect Saddam- 9/11 link to convince the uninformed.

Remember the Downing Street Memo. The intelligence was shaped to fit the policy.

I have trouble calling that a lie.

In that case, please see my thoughts here.

I’m not sure I follow. Your posts in that thread seem to have nothing to do with whether or not Saddam was a positive influence on Islamofascist terrorism.