Brutus
[Moderator Hat ON]
Brutus, do NOT say a poster has a tiny or nonexistent brain in this forum. You know the rules.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
Didn’t Clinton try something similar when he insisted he did not have sex with Monica Lewinsky (since he was equating “sex” with “sexual intercourse”)? And didn’t the Republicans rake him over the coals for it anyway?
Ah, but it’s not “spin” when a Republican does it…
I thought the argumentation was that sex was something that two people do. As a blowjob has only one ‘active’ party it isn’t sex. So he didn’t lie when he said he hadn’t had sex with that Lewinsky woman.
We get it->Republicans are hypocrits. Now when the hell does bringing up Lewinsky stop being a “debate point”?
Anyhoo, Cheney said they were 1-2 years away from nukes after Gulf War I and we all know how useless UN inspectors were right(at least I’m sure Cheney thinks so)? Is it just me or was the first gulf war more than 2 years ago? Then he “slips” and says he believes they have reconstituted weapons? My initial impression was as Revtim’s, some kind of pieced together jobby. Brutus, your obvious interpretation is not so obvious to me. And despite what you might think, my brain is a medium.
Brutus mispoke! He meant to say “inadequate thought-processing program” 
No, no, no! When Brutus said Reeder’s brain was nonexistent, he was clearly referring to Reeder’s argument. It’s obvious. You liberals are so thick.
… and by “thick” I obviously mean “devastatingly handsome in a rakish Cary Grant fashion”.
No dice, dude. Cheney ain’t Bush. He said what he meant to say, and we all know it. What Cheney couldn’t know is that shortly thereafter a memo apparently went out to spin the justification for the war to read “weapons programs” instead of actual weapons because the actual weapons are nowhere to be found.
Does “reconstituting” a weapon make sense? It made sense to the nonprofit U.K. nuclear verification organization VERTIC in 1998:
It made sense to the Department of Energy when they were talking about the United States’ own ability to add new nuclear weapons to its stockpile:
And look at the language this fellow uses when talking about India and Pakistan:
And there are plenty more examples. Just modify your search to look at articles produced prior to two months ago.
Reconstituting a nuclear weapon means exactly what Cheney meant: keeping a nuclear weapon in a disassembled state and then attempting to rebuild it later. Nobody is going to get away with saying that this was about weapons programs. It was about the weapons, and these guys cannot bullshit their way out of it with a less-than-clever turn of phrase.
Yes, they can. And they will. Notice the intelligent people here who are willing to tie themselves into rhetorical pretzels to defend what is increasingly indefensible. Now consider the not particularly intelligent, persons who have never said “Cite!” in thier lives, the kind of people who are polled and believe there were Iraqis in on 9/11, that the WMD’s have been found.
The mastery of the Presidents image in this case is second only to the utterly astonishing job done with RR. GeeDubva’s image goes straight to America’s most cherished illusions: gruff, direct men who disdain intellectualism, men who value candor over tact regardless of consequences. How many people you know will say they admire people who use thier “gut feelings” to make decisions? (Of course, we’re not talking about intuition…thats for girls, men have “gut feelings”…music cue: Village Peoople, Macho Man…)
These people want to believe him, and believe him they shall. President Rove will shift the argument to “programs” and they will find a coctail napkin that Saddam wrote “nuke” on. And that will be that. Proof of intent, same thing as a weapons “program”, same thing as a weapon. They will say it with a straight face. And they will get away with it.
Bet me.
Let’s see… Who’s twisting the logic, here? The Bush administration had previously said that Saddam was six months away from having a nuclear bomb, IF he could get his hands on the fissionables. They also said that he was trying to build gas centrifuges using imported aluminum tubes. At no point up to the Cheney interview did they ever suggest that Saddam had an actual nuclear bomb.
Then Cheney, in an impromptu discussion says they are ‘reconstututing a nuclear weapon’. A paragraph later, he mentioned a ‘weapons program’.
The possible conclusions:
-
Cheney misspoke and meant to say weapons program, as he did a paragraph later, OR,
-
Cheney contradicted his own administration and actually meant to say “reconstituting a nuclear weapon”, in order to drum up support for a war, even though the phrase in that context makes no sense.
Yeah, it’s we supporters of the administration that are twisting the logic here.
First, you will recall that the old “six months to the bomb” song came from the IAEA report. You remember that old fave rave, I’m sure. How GeeDubya waved it in the air and says “I don’t know what more proof you need…” You remember, don’t you, Sam. The report that didn’t fucking exist!
And then you drag in the ol’ aluminum tubes! Honest to Pete, Sam, try and keep up, OK? The whole aluminum tube Bushwah went down the memory hole months ago! Not even the most bug-eyed Bushista is trying to keep that bit of crapola on life support anymore. That canard is no more, that canard has rung down the curtain and joined the Choir Invisible…
And, honest to pete, do you really imagine you boil the whole campaign of bogus fear down to this one conversation! Get real! These people were drawing mushroom clouds in the public’s mind for months!
Which is the more terrifying threat? A weapon he may have, but cannot use, or a weapon he cannot use and doesn’t even have?
Dear Sam Stone,
If there had only been the aluminum tubes, or if there’d only been the one million pounds of Nigerien uranium, or if there’d only been the al Qaeda-Hussein alliance, or if there’d only been the concern over Iraqi MiGs spraying the US with anthrax, or if there’d only been the out of date photos of Iraqi big rigs, or if there’d only been Cheney’s comment saying “weapon” instead of weapons program, then I’d be more inclined to accept the plausibility of the Bush Admin’s denials.
However, all of these things, (and things I’ve left out), when taken together certainly seem to be indistinguishable from a concerted effort to be misleading.
Maybe you can make the distinction. If so, will you please be so kind as to explain how one goes about making such a distinction.
What a complete red herring! Whether Cheney meant “nuclear weapons program” when he said “nuclear weapons” is the biggest farce I’ve heard in some time. This was a comment made during an unscripted TV program, and I think anyone - whether warmonger or not - is entitled to a little bit of slack when they leave one stupid little word out in the middle of a long, involved thought.
What Rumsfeld’s comment clearly belies is all the hype that Iraq would SOON have nuclear weapons, and that we had to act RIGHT NOW or the US was at risk of becoming a parking lot.
Do you remember “We cannot wait for the final proof – the smoking gun – that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud”? http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/07/bush.transcript/
How about Bush’s cite of the IAEA for an estimate the Iraq was six months away from building a nuclear weapon… only that the IAEA disavowed having made that claim?
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0927-08.htm
Of course, there’s all that bogus stuff about aluminum tubes, uranium from Niger, and god-knows-what-else that was trotted out to make Saddam look like Oppenheimer.
Yes, Rumsfeld is right, in a very narrow way. I know of no claim (excepting a very likely slip of a tongue) that the Adminsitration made that Iraq HAD a nuclear weapon. But their rhetoric and bogus facts would lead anyone to a logical conclusion that Iraq was on the verge of having The Bomb.
Another one of those reasons to go to war that has yet to be backed up by any kind of substantial evidence.
Settle, guys. I didn’t mean to push your “BUSH LIED!” button. Honest. I wasn’t making an argument for or against the evidence itself. My point is that the claim that Cheney said there were nuclear weapons in Iraq means that Cheney went against his own administration’s stated position. Now does that sound likely to you? Or is it more likely that it’s just a slip of the tongue?
A Fruedian slip.
Once again, I submit that just because he’s an old fella and the interview was unscripted, Cheney should NOT get “a little bit of slack” for this “slip of the tongue”.
Cheney is Vice-President of the United States, which makes him Deputy First Interview Giver; among the Vice-President’s staff is an army of speechwriters who transcribe his every spoken word in addition to writing his unspoken ones…
Cheney should thus have been perfectly well-informed of his mistake; the White House has not to date offered a retraction of his statement (and I will take all this back if anyone can show me they did) and the American people were thus swayed by a lie, accidental or otherwise. I’m not suggesting that public sentiment against the war would have been significantly greater had this little tidbit never gotten on the air, just that the administration has a duty to ensure that everything it disseminates is 100 per cent accurate- ESPECIALLY given that the average American is less than well-informed when it comes to the specifics of nuclear arms. You lot can call it a tiny misstatement all you wish; its still one step away Cheney having said “Iraq has a nuclear warhead.”
Look, it is so bloody obvious from the context of the interview that he meant “nuclear weapons program.” I fail to see any need for a retraction when Cheney correctly said during the course of that same interview what we can all make the very tiny logical leap of presuming what he intended.
Examples: "And I think that would be the fear here, that even if he were tomorrow to give everything up, if he stays in power, we have to assume that as soon as the world is looking the other way and preoccupied with other issues, he will be back again rebuilding his BW and CW capabilities, and once again reconstituting his nuclear program. "
“He has pursued nuclear weapons for over 20 years.”
“We know he’s out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the al-Qaeda organization.” (I’ll leave the outrageous aQ mention for another day)
“Well, I think I’ve just given it, Tim, in terms of the combination of his development and use of chemical weapons, his development of biological weapons, his pursuit of nuclear weapons.”
"He’s had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. "
"And over time, given Saddam’s posture there, given the fact that he has a significant flow of cash as a result of the oil production of Iraq, it’s only a matter of time until he acquires nuclear weapons. "
“And there’s no question but what it is going to be cheaper and less costly to do it now than it will be to wait a year or two years or three years until he’s developed even more deadly weapons, perhaps nuclear weapons.”
These are all quotations from the very same interview. If one is confused about whether Cheney actually meant to say that Iraq actually had nuclear weapons, rather than a nuclear weapons program, well, there’s ways to fight ignorance. (Cite. )
And barring that, I would like to hear an explaination of how Cheney could say that Iraq has reconstituted a nuclear weapon when he repeatedly said, in that same interview and in many other places, that Iraq had not developed a nuclear weapon because of the bombing of Osirak and the UN inspectors after Gulf War I. One cannot reconstitute something one never had.
And there is only a one word difference between “dutchboy208 is right” and “Ravenman is right.” 
**Dear Pro-War Apologists,
If there had only been the aluminum tubes, or if there’d only been the one million pounds of Nigerien uranium, or if there’d only been the al Qaeda-Hussein alliance, or if there’d only been the concern over Iraqi MiGs spraying the US with anthrax, or if there’d only been the out of date photos of Iraqi big rigs, or if there’d only been Cheney’s comment saying “weapon” instead of weapons program, then I’d be more inclined to accept the plausibility of the Bush Admin’s denials.
However, all of these things, (and things I’ve left out), when taken together certainly seem to be indistinguishable from a concerted effort to be misleading.
Maybe you can make the distinction. If so, will you please be so kind as to explain how one goes about making such a distinction.
He didn’t say "reconstituted his nuclear weapons, which is what one would expect if he was attempting to say “reconstituted his nuclear weapons program”.
Read the sentence above again… Cheney clearly makes a leap from “Saddam wants some nukes” to “Saddam has some nukes” here… “He’s been trying to get nukes, and we believe he has now obtained some nukes” is how that sentence reads. One could very easily- in fact, if you’d been paying attention, you almost certainly would have- taken Cheney’s words to mean that Saddam now has nukes.
And that is the point, is it not? Not whether the administration truly believed it, but whether they were hinting at it to win support.