The requested cite was in post #38 0on page 1 of this thread.
Bolding mine -DG
A little later (refer to the same post) Cheney said “I didn’t say that.”
I guess you missed it on the first reading.
Then you need to read closely and understand what the word “including” means.
There’s not a single word in it I disagree with.
You seem confused because you think I’m defending Bush. I’m not. Please check and see who it was who used the term “unacceptable weaseling”
I’ve offered a bet on this … care to take me up on it, or are you just blustering?
Furt, do you understand that the reference to September 11 in the President’s message to Congress is meaningless in the absence of an assertion that Iraq had a hand in September 11? To think other wise is to think that the September 11 reference is just gratuitous, like a boob shot in a dull movie that does nothing to move the story along but does keep the audience’s attention. As stated above, I can not read the message as anything other than a claim that the invasion of Iraq was premised (at least in part) on Iraqi involvement in the September 11 attack.
If my reading of this is supportable it pretty much leaves the President’s public rational for the war in shambles and relegates the announced basis for the invasion and occupation to the level of fevered imagination and shoddy marketing techniques.
As far as your bet is concerned, do you want to bet that no one from the Administration ever flat footed said that Iraq had nothing to do with September 11, or that someone from the Administration did deliberately and publicly announce that Iraq’s involvement with terrorists had nothing to do with September 11, or that the Administration was careful to attach a September 11 disclaimer to its public drum beating about Iraq and terrorism?
Apparently, at least in this instance, you and I agreed about this Administration’s attitude toward honesty with the electorate and transparency intentions.
I think Tony and George need to talk about their own relationship before they get onto others, Tony seems very submissive.
I think he wants to bet that the statements from the administration have been so duplicitous that he can find 20 to support pretty much any position he chooses. though quite who he thinks is disagreeing is beyond me.
furt is either going through the painful process of admitting that his heros in the administration are full of shit, or he’s just being his usual, stupid disagreeable self. I’m guessing it’s the latter.
These countries were aiding the war effort of Germany by providing money, trade routes, supplies etc.
I bet we went into Africa to cut funds and supplies for the German war effort rather than because Morocco was part of National Socialist Party’s ideological threat.
Hussein and UbL do no share an ideology. Hussein was not providing funds or supplies to UbL.
What is the connection?
Well, that is the currently operable statement.
cribbed from here[SIZE=1]CHENEY: CLEAR LINKS BETWEEN SADDAM, AL-QAEDA; CALLS NY TIMES ARTICLE ‘OUTRAGEOUS’
Thu Jun 17 2004 19:00:33 ET
“…responding to a report from the 9-11 Commission saying it had found no evidence of ‘collaboration’ between Iraq and Al Qaeda” “Vice President Dick Cheney… called the New York Times coverage of the story ‘outrageous’.”
Vice Pres. CHENEY: I disagree with the way their findings have been portrayed.
<snip>
There’s clearly been a relationship.
There’s a separate question. The separate question is: Was Iraq involved with al-Qaida in the attack on 9/11?
<snip>
What The New York Times did today was outrageous. … The press wants to run out and say there’s a fundamental split here now between what the president said and what the commission said. Jim Thompson is a member of the commission who’s since been on the air. I saw him with my own eyes. And there’s no conflict. What they were addressing was whether or not they were involved in 9/11. And there they found no evidence to support that proposition. They did not address the broader question of a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida in other areas, in other ways.
Vice Pres. CHENEY: But that is a separate question from what the press has gotten all in a dither about, The New York Times especially, on this other question [of whether or not there was a general relationship between UbL and Hussein]. What they’ve done is, I think, distorted what the commission actually reported, certainly according to Governor Thompson, who’s a member of the commission.
BORGER: But you say you disagree with the commission…
Vice Pres. CHENEY: On this question of whether or not there was a general relationship.
BORGER: Yes.
Vice Pres. CHENEY: Yeah.
BORGER: And they say that there was not one forged and you were saying yes, that there was. Do you know things that the commission does not know?
Vice Pres. CHENEY: Probably.
BORGER: And do you think the commission needs to know them?
Vice Pres. CHENEY: I don’t have any–I don’t know what they know. I do know they didn’t talk with any original sources on this subject that say that in their report.
BORGER: They did talk with people who had interrogated sources.
Vice Pres. CHENEY: Right.
BORGER: So they do have good sources.
Vice Pres. CHENEY: Gloria, the notion that there is no relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida just simply is not true.
[INDENT][Since there actually is a diagreement between “what the president said and what the commission said,” and if it is outrageous that the NYT would say that ‘there’s a fundamental split here now between what the president said and what the commission said,’ this means that the VPotUSA is just outraged that the NYT would say it?]
BORGER: Well, let’s get to Mohammad Atta for a minute, because you mentioned him as well. You have said in the past that it was, quote, "pretty well confirmed."
Vice Pres. CHENEY: No, I never said that.
BORGER: OK.
Vice Pres. CHENEY: **Never said that. **
BORGER: I think that is…
Vice Pres. CHENEY: Absolutely not. What I said was the Czech intelligence service reported after 9/11 that Atta had been in Prague on April 9th of 2001, where he allegedly met with an Iraqi intelligence official. We have never been able to confirm that nor have we been able to knock it down.
**The Vice President Appears on NBC’s Meet the Press **
December 9, 2001
RUSSERT: Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?
CHENEY: Well, what we now have that’s developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that’s been pretty well confirmed, that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.[/size][/INDENT]
Actually, we’re not. When there’s a duty to see that someone’s informed, allowing a fundamental misconception to persist, (if not flourish), is an example where the obligation to inform was not fulfilled.
And Clinton gets yet another pointless cameo.
Actually, they have an entire set of obligations to the constitution, the electorate, and the nation.
There’re a number of instances where the only defense available to the Admin against charges of lying is the one of incompetece or ignorance. This defense turns what would be a lie into a something that’s merely ‘imprecise’ or a “mis-statement.” The bounds of plausible deniability are stretched perilously thin.
Take the example provided above. Was Cheney lying? Or did he merely forget what he had said? If there were only a few of these types of instances of past operable statements soming in conflict with current operable statements then the plausibility of the denial would be intact. However…
I can’t recall a specific one either. maybe I’m wrong. I’m just speaking to my current impressions of the past.
Depending on how exactly you phrase your guarantee…
Note that the Admin’s denial always take the form of implying that they think that there’s a connection between the two, but that they just can’t prove it yet. The use negative pregnants to deny the connection. This is yet anopther deliberate attempt top keep the issue clouded.
In a way, yes. What you’re seeming to have a problem with is that you think I’m defending Bush. I am not. I am saying is that he is guilty of smarmy political weaseling of exactly the sort Clinton was with “meaning of is,” (only on a far more important issue) … but he is not guilty of lying in the strictest sense, because like Clinton, he parsed his words carefully and phrased everything just so. The larger point is, who came out of the Clinton fiasco looking better, the guy who did the weaselly thing, or the opponents who tried to capitalize on it and ended up overreaching?
You can insist that lying and misleading are exactly the same thing all you want, and in the eyes of some crucial moderates who are not satisfied with Bush but do not hate him, you’re just going to look just like the Pubs who insisted that lying about sex was the same thing as lying about affairs of state. Whether you’re “right” or not is irrelevant.
Pretty much the way I’d put it. Except, sadly, it’s not shoddy if it works.
No they didn’t; they said there was no evidence of involvement. Which is correct.
Yes, they did, which is misleading and wrong, but not lying in the strictest sense.
I supported the war and still do; but I felt in “selling” it, they were sneaky about it, and that was wrong. IIRC I said so on these boards. In 1939, FDR knew a war had to be fought, but he waited until the public was on board. In the end, that waiting probably cost thousands of lives; nonetheless I think it was the right thing to do. Bush short-circuited that process.
To repeat: try to find one single unambiguous statement where they say explicitly and with no wiggle room that Iraq was behind 9/11. I have never seen one, and I bet you never have either. Don’t believe me? Prove me wrong.
Someone may have misparsed when speaking extemporaneously (such are the hazards of cutting the truth so fine), so I’ll allow you may find one (no doubt clarified the next day), which is why I said I can find ten times more where they have said unambigously that there was no evidence of cooperation in re: 9/11. I’ll make that twenty.
Stupid and disagreeble? You resort to an ad hominem and the best you can come up with is “stupid and disagreeable?” Don’t you know I’m malodrous, ignorant and rude, too?
As for “my heroes” … that’d be amusing if it wasn’t sad. Would you care to provide a link to anywhere that I’ve described GWB as anything better than “adequate?” How about one where I said I was planning to vote for him?
I know I can provide one where I said who my first choice for president was … guess which party that guy’s in?
Bingo.
About a WAR. People are DEAD. Lots of them. More to come. It is NOT the same as “misrepresenting” a blowjob.
See above. The guy who “misled” us into a war is going to look worse than those who questioned him. What the hell else do you think?
“Affairs of state” my pasty white ass. It’s a WAR. You’re doing the same sort of wordsmithing you acknowledge Bush has done. Being right or wrong is irrelevant? For a personal vendetta like the Clinton impeachment, maybe. For a war? Quit kidding yourself.
Cut the shit. You’ve been given ample examples already. Need your face rubbed in more? Here are some quick references for your perusal:
http://www.politicalstrategy.org/2003_03_10_weblog_archive.htm
http://www.bushlies.net/pages/9/
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/03/27_lies.html
http://www.alternet.org/story/16274
How much more foolish are you willing to look?
So furt, are you saying that it is wrong to call our current administration liars because they’re just too good at it?
They are obsfuscating, prevaricating knowing twisters of the truth.
But they’re not liars.
Thank you for that exercise in missing the point. I continue to wait for the cite of an unambiguous statement connecting Iraq to the events 9/11 – not imply or suggest, but state flatly – none of which I saw in skimming your links. I continue to offer anyone to put money on it.
No. I’m saying it’s bad politics. Politics is not a moral crusade, and it’s not about being right. Those who actually think it is (as opposed to just blustering as such) often lose.
IMO, when your opponent is in the process of self-destructing, the thing to do is not to gleefully pile on; in so doing you will often garner him sympathy.
furt, I find your “bet” irrelevent. Even if I cannot find a single explicit, specific, and unambiguous reference to Bush and his administration connecting Saddam Hussein to 9-11 (and even if none exist), I am well within the standard use of the English language to suggest that Bush lied about the same issue.
Any native English speaker beyond kindergarten recognizes the definition of “lie” is broader than an explicit statement known to be untrue. Before you continue perpetuating this definitional fallacy, please point to any popular dictionary that limits the definition of “lie” so narrowly.
For example, I note that the dictionary I use by default, Merriam Webster, defines “lie” (third usage) as:
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression
Another popular dictionary, The American Heritage dictionary (found at dictionary.com) shows:
- To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
- To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.
What you define as “standard political weaseling”, easily fits the dictionary definition of lying. Your rebuffs to the contrary are without merit.
I know you will probably dismiss this as well, but…
(from here)
Now, look here, Leander, if you’re going to go around trying to palm off direct quotes as if they were “unambiguous statements”, you will only foster negative credibility for our leadership.
Bad Leander! Bad! Go lie down by your water dish.
Personally, I think Maureen Dowd hit the nail squarely on the head:
Again; you’re trying to prove yourself right on the facts, which is not what I was addressing. I was addressing the potential for political blowback.
No, actually, that’s the sort of thing when I was talking about misparsing. Speaking off the cuff, Cheney came verrry close to making an explicit connection. If you want to take me up on the bet, that might well be submision #1. Let me know, and I’ll start gathering disavowals.
Beg pardon SimonX, somehow I missed your noon post…
Iraq has supplied other terrorist groups; Not AQ; but groups with similar values and goals, and I accept the premise that AQ, Hamas, Hezbollah are all manifestations of the same root threat, much as “fascism” as an ideology was the root threat in the 1940s. This may be where we have differing premises, so YMMV.
It was mostly geography; Morocco enabled control of North Africa, which in turn enabled the Italian campaign.
Yep, Cheney told one there. And saying it is confirmed does come close to suggesting a direct connection; but even in the earlier line, they were still sourcing the Czechs as the CYA.
Agreed 100%, which is what I hold against Bush.
No, those are an officeholder’s responsibilies; what I was getting at was that when it was time to be statesmanlike, W was thinking/acting like a politician, getting support by hook or by crook. I submit we sort of assume candidates will say whatever it takes to win; but I think we expect better of them once they’re in.
Not pointless at all; it is the most immediate example at hand of political overreach. Another would be McCarthy, who had popular support at the start but lost it when he was seen as going too far. The point I’m making is not about the specifics of those cases, but that you never want to risk making yourself look like Javert.
Of course. But what I’m saying is that that’s a conclusion you let the voters reach for themsleves.
For most people, calling someone an out-and-out liar is a very, very big step. When you do it you’re placing a very large burden of proof on yourself, very possibly for no gain. If you say "Some of my opponents’ claims have been a little questionable,” and someone concludes for themselves that your opponent is a damn liar, you look like a bigger man for holding back and being polite.
The crucial factor is the person who agrees that your opponent was misleading, but is hesitant to use the L word. That guy should be inclined to you … after all, he agrees that the opponent misled. But by upping the stakes, you’re forcing him to ask whether or not he thinks “liar” is too strong. For that guy, the issue is now not your opponent’s behavior, but your characterization of that behavior.
To make this plainer: several members of the 9/11 commission have already said that their report does not contradict the Admin. I don’t think you’re going to get much traction by relying on the media’s interpretation of the report over its author’s.
You can get traction by saying “surely you’re aware that poll after poll showed Americans did have this misconception. Why didn’t you work harder to clear things up?” That question gives less of a visceral thrill for the hardliners, but it has a better chance of making headway with the moderates who will decide things.
Many voters, includingthis guy and myself, are frustrated with and disappointed in Bush, yet do not hate him. But the impression I get from the dems is that Bush is evil and I ought to repudiate everything about him; the implication I get is that if I don’t agree, I ought not vote for them.
Okay, if you agree to find ten disavowals from the same source (Cheney, or office of the VP), then I’ll take that bet.