The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

A Draft-Dodging Liar whose lies kill American Soldiers

Yesterday Dick Cheney said this on the America Hater.. I mean… Rush Limbaugh Show…

From MSNBC.COM:

Cheney contended that al-Qaida was operating in Iraq before the March 2003 invasion led by U.S. forces and that terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was leading the Iraqi branch of al-Qaida. Others in al-Qaida planned the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

“He took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organized the al-Qaida operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June,” Cheney told radio host Rush Limbaugh during an interview. “As I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq.”

The same ole tired lie, one of many LIES that led us into this war.

Also from yesterday…

A declassified Pentagon report released Thursday said that interrogations of the deposed Iraqi leader and two of his former aides as well as seized Iraqi documents confirmed that the terrorist organization and the Saddam government were not working together before the invasion.

Of course, anyone with a brain, anyone who is not a LIAR knew this years ago…

The Sept. 11 Commission’s 2004 report also found no evidence of a collaborative relationship between Saddam and Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida network during that period.

Doesn’t America deserve better than this?

Don’t we deserve, as a nation, leaders who not only lie to start wars, but also LIE to continue them?

Dick Cheney is a lying scumbag, actually, the man is a traitor, he’s done more harm to our nation than a million Monica Lewinsky blowjobs could ever do. Yet, he still serves, he’s still a free man, going on right-winger radio, telling the same old tired lies he’s been telling for years now.

Bush and Cheney should be tried for treason, and sent to rot in the worse prison we have.

Yet there they are, spoiling OUR white house, our country, and the lives of our American Soldiers, while continuing to LIE… and LIE… and LIE.

When will this country finally have enough?

IMPEACH

TRIAL

PRISON

Lets get er done.



http://goofyblog.net/once-again-dick-ch ... some-more/

A continuation of the above. Pretty amazing stuff comes out of Cheney's mouth that's just about as accuarate as his aim with a gun.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html?hpid=topnews

nuskins wrote:A continuation of the above. Pretty amazing stuff comes out of Cheney's mouth that's just about as accuarate as his aim with a gun.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html?hpid=topnews

What are you talking about? Chaney's aim with the gun was pretty good, it's not like he missed.

Other then that this is more political tit for tat bickering between the parties, who cares? And I don't mean that in a pro-Cheney way.

So ATV, why should anyone vote FOR Democrats? OK, you hate Republicans. Do Democrats actually DO anything except say how much they are not like Republicans while they do all the same things that Republicans do?

I have plenty of reason to vote against both parties, so I don't vote for either party. I'm not going to until one of them gives me a reason to vote for them instead of trying to scare me into voting against the other.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

nuskins wrote:A continuation of the above. Pretty amazing stuff comes out of Cheney's mouth that's just about as accuarate as his aim with a gun.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html?hpid=topnews

What are you talking about? Chaney's aim with the gun was pretty good, it's not like he missed.

Other then that this is more political tit for tat bickering between the parties, who cares? And I don't mean that in a pro-Cheney way.

So ATV, why should anyone vote FOR Democrats? OK, you hate Republicans. Do Democrats actually DO anything except say how much they are not like Republicans while they do all the same things that Republicans do?

I have plenty of reason to vote against both parties, so I don't vote for either party. I'm not going to until one of them gives me a reason to vote for them instead of trying to scare me into voting against the other.

I see you still don't understand what Bush and his buddies have done to the country as well as to the Republican party. Bush's crimes have transcended the political arena and injected slime and evil into the American soul. A large part of our populace has supported aggressive war, war crimes, mass murder on no evidence, attacks on the Constituions, torture, stolen elections, constant lying, corruption, etc. We are morally at grevious fault.
Your constant comparing of Democrats to Republicans is utterly beside the point. These crimes have to be punished and we have to make sure they are never repeated: those who are guilty have to be removed from office, not because they are Republicans or Democrats but because of what they have done.t

crazyhorse1 wrote:I see you still don't understand what Bush and his buddies have done to the country as well as to the Republican party. Bush's crimes have transcended the political arena and injected slime and evil into the American soul. A large part of our populace has supported aggressive war, war crimes, mass murder on no evidence, attacks on the Constituions, torture, stolen elections, constant lying, corruption, etc. We are morally at grevious fault.
Your constant comparing of Democrats to Republicans is utterly beside the point. These crimes have to be punished and we have to make sure they are never repeated: those who are guilty have to be removed from office, not because they are Republicans or Democrats but because of what they have done.t

Chaney is still talking about al Qaeda in Iraq, which is a non-issue since the invasion was about WMDs. The Pentagon says there was no operational collaboration. That's not even what Chaney said, so the Pentagon report didn't contradict Chaney's view. So sure, it's more administration drivel about al Qaeda, which is the ongoing inept communications that allowed Democrats to step back and dump their own culpability on them.

Neither you nor ATV have ever given any verifiable argument Bush lied about WMDs, you just keep saying he did. We still don't know if Bush lied, but we do know the Democrats did because they lied before that he had them or they lied now they knew he didn't, take your pick.

All this is much ado about nothing. Both parties got us in this mess and neither wants to get us out because the mess should be properly defined as the Middle East, not just Iraq.

lie: /laɪ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lahy] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
–noun 1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie

di·vert(d-vûrt, d-)
v. di·vert·ed, di·vert·ing, di·verts
v.tr.
1. To turn aside from a course or direction: Traffic was diverted around the scene of the accident.
2. To distract: My attention was diverted by an argument between motorists.
3. To entertain by distracting the attention from worrisome thoughts or cares; amuse.

and how exactly do you know he is lying, are you a member of the secret service or something?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:What are you talking about? Chaney's aim with the gun was pretty good, it's not like he missed.

Well, that rather depends on what he was aiming at.

ATV wrote:di·vert(d-vûrt, d-)
v. di·vert·ed, di·vert·ing, di·verts
v.tr.
1. To turn aside from a course or direction: Traffic was diverted around the scene of the accident.
2. To distract: My attention was diverted by an argument between motorists.
3. To entertain by distracting the attention from worrisome thoughts or cares; amuse.

Well put, my friend. The Democrats are endlessly diverting attention from their own culpability and lies in Iraq by hysterically attacking the pathectic, identical Republicans for any petty little partisan drivel they can dredge up. Since they can't logically be different then Republicans, screaming hysterically that they are different cannot be described in any better way then "divert."

Well put, good job, keep it up!

Why does EVERY political post eventually end up with you defending the administration by trying to equate them with the Democrats? You stand for NOTHING other than defending the worst President in the history of the United States. That is, and will be, your legacy.

Let's take a quick, simplified look at your logic......

"(edited) equals Liberals"
"Liberals equal Conservatives"
"Conservatives do not equal (edited)"
Thus, defend Conservatives and attack Liberals

This has been the sad logic you've been using for your past one thousand posts.

ATV wrote:Why does EVERY political post eventually end up with you defending the administration by trying to equate them with the Democrats? You stand for NOTHING other than defending the worst President in the history of the United States. That is, and will be, your legacy.

Let's take a quick, simplified look at your logic......

"(edited) equals Liberals"
"Liberals equal Conservatives"
"Conservatives do not equal (edited)"
Thus, defend Conservatives and attack Liberals

This has been the sad logic you've been using for your past one thousand posts.

. Putting words in my mouth. Since I've done it for as you say "one thousand posts" can you show me where I have EVER defended the administration or conservatives?

My logic is liberals = conservatives = government trusters = fools. Show me where this pro-conservative part has been. You tell Trey it's his job to support his accusations (he did, you didn't, that's another story). So, put it up. Where have I argued pro-conservative or pro-Bush?

I'm not going to even bother trying to warn you by private message ATV... they just sit in your mailbox.

We run a PG board. Our rules categorically state that profanity is not to be used ANYWHERE but smack... that includes using characters in place of letters...

... and yet you continue to do so... you have had several warnings about the EXACT same thing.

There won't be any more warnings... the next stroke is some deserved time off.

Your posts have been edited.

Thanks.

My logic is liberals = conservatives = government trusters = fools.

Fair enough. Why is it then that around 95% of your posts involve attacking Liberals?

My logic:

Most Liberals and Conservatives used to be competent. Today, most Liberals and many Conservatives are still competent. Entire Bush administration is incompetent.

Administrations since 1932:

FDR (D) - Competent
Truman (D) - Competent
Eisenhower (R) - Competent
Kennedy (D) - Competent
Johnson (D) - Competent
Nixon (R) - Competent*
Ford (R) - Competent
Carter (D) - Competent
Reagan (R) - Competent
Bush I (R) - Competent
Clinton (D) - Competent
Bush II (R) - Incompetent*

* = Criminal

ATV wrote:

My logic is liberals = conservatives = government trusters = fools.

Fair enough. Why is it then that around 95% of your posts involve attacking Liberals?

My logic:

Most Liberals and Conservatives used to be competent. Today, most Liberals and many Conservatives are still competent. Entire Bush administration is incompetent.

Administrations since 1932:

FDR (D) - Competent
Truman (D) - Competent
Eisenhower (R) - Competent
Kennedy (D) - Competent
Johnson (D) - Competent
Nixon (R) - Competent*
Ford (R) - Competent
Carter (D) - Competent
Reagan (R) - Competent
Bush I (R) - Competent
Clinton (D) - Competent
Bush II (R) - Incompetent*

* = Criminal

For three primary reasons.

- The main one I've said over and over. I have an issue with the endless lies, double standards and America bashing that is the Democratic party and their lap dog liberal press today. Republicans are normal useless political, but the left has gone berserk to a new level of power grabbing hysterical nuts and I'm not going to stop attacking them until they stop it.

- Since I am left on social and right on fiscal, the left is more dangerous in government because you can continue to fight morality laws when the right gets them, but the left growing government is far more permanent. You never get rid of more government when you have it.

- Libs are the ones who keep arguing with me, I have some discussions with the right, but it's leftists who have been arguing so we tend to focus on the issues with them.

In the end, if you want to know about libertarian views I'd be glad to tell you, you can just ask. Anything you want to know?

My view, administrations since 1932:

FDR (D) - Dangerous, worst grower of government ever
Truman (D) - Basically pretty good
Eisenhower (R) - Did little (that's a complement, best thing a pres can do is nothing)
Kennedy (D) - Competent (except the Bay of Pigs)
Johnson (D) - One of the worst presidents in our history. 50K soldiers died in vietnam, 3K and change in Iraq. Vietnam was his economic policy.
Nixon (R) - Would have been competent except for extreme paranoia, deserved to be impeached and removed and would have had he not resigned
Ford (R) - Competent (did nothing in a good way)
Carter (D) - Inept
Reagan (R) - EXCELLENT
Bush HW (R) - Useless, sadly not in a good way
Clinton (D) - Useless, sadly not in a good way
Bush W (R) - Useless, sadly not in a good way

We have sadly had three straight roughly equivalent bad Presidents.

Welp, we thoroughly disagree. History will show you're wrong.

I forget who, claims

Chaney is still talking about al Qaeda in Iraq, which is a non-issue since the invasion was about WMDs

Is that so?

Prove it...even suggest reason to believe it. No one has found WMD;'s in Iraq; peope with common sense and ittle inside knowledge, and people who knew more than any on use, argued the same. No WMD's.

1. Why start a secod war when the first -- even a metaphorical war like the war on terror, the war of drugs, th war on drunk driving -- is not finsihed.

2. Why fight two enemies at once? I pondered that all though 2002.

3. WMD's deteriorate after a few years. Iraq had not replensihed thair stock since 1991. Who thought they had WMD's?

4. The commander of CENTOM did not believe the WMD story. Even an ld retored socoilogy professor explained: (a) mustard gas degenerates, and (b) it has to be fored from a cannor or a rocket. American planes had drivin back artilery anmd rocler launchers past the line where they could hit beyond Iraqi borders.

5. Who could Saddam threaten except other Iraqis?

6. The commander of Centcom (General Anthony Zinni, USMC) says that all the surrounding countries supported the US/UK military blockade of Iraq. They paid for it. A big difference, right, between forcing the US to pay $80 billion per year to blocke Iraq.

7. The I read the works of the neocons. Some is in print, some on-line.

Read the works of Perle, Wolfowitz, and Kristol. You find that Perle had argued since 1991, that the US should blow out Iraq and over-power the unfriendly middle-eastern countries. Perle handed George HW Bush a defense strategy that argued (a) USSR was finished (b) The US was the one dominant world power (c) we shoud use this opportunity to impose US interests on the middle east (d) they fabricated a plan by which the US would conquer Iraq, the most secular country, and use it as a stepping stone to intimitate or conquer Iran and Syria. They are all from the America Enterprise Institute's Project for a New American Century.

(Incidentally, GHW BUsh thiugh that Perle was cracjers and shelved the plan)

It was all on the web, although AEI began to change their plans to refit the catastrohe in Iraq.

Josh Muravchich, of AEI, bosted, in 2002, that he could see a "democratic tsunami" sweepig the middle east. Consider it a friendly domino effect. A NY Post writer even claimed that he could see, by Mayl 2003, that the capture of Badgdad had stopped palestinian terror bombing.

7. It seemed unlikely -- risky -- to anyone who thought in 2002m=, and was not afraid of being calld "soft on terror" in congres. It was easuer outside.

8. Very few social events can be tested true or false. Usualy, there is room to argue. People knew that there were no WMD's in Iraq. They found noe.

9. The invasion and occupation of Iraq has been a disaster -- the worst war in US history.

welch wrote:3. WMD's deteriorate after a few years. Iraq had not replensihed thair stock since 1991. Who thought they had WMD's?

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons...." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapon stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and
sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

welch wrote:Why start a secod war when the first -- even a metaphorical war like the war on terror, the war of drugs, th war on drunk driving -- is not finsihed.

2. Why fight two enemies at once? I pondered that all though 2002.

I guess you haven't read back very far, so let me bring you up to date on my view.

- I oppose the Iraq invasion, as well as Kuwait and Afghanistan. And the war on drugs as well by the way.

- I want to pull out of the Middle East entirely (militarily) and let oil fluctuate with the market and keep government out of oil prices and let our resourceful industry solve the energy problem driven by higher prices.

I am opposed to after Clinton bombed WMDs for 8 years and the Democrats in the Senate intelligence committee and Democratic leadership supporting the invasion the Democrats choosing the blame game.

I am opposed to that with no actual explanation that Bush lied or explanation of how the UN, France and Russia said he had them when they had better intelligence in Iraq then we did the repeated accusation Bush lied is to be deemed proof.

I am opposed to the inane view that it takes stockpiles of WMDs to make him a WMD threat.

I am opposed to that both parties still want our military in the Middle East as the target of terrorists for a problem that shouldn't be ours in order for government to provide artificially cheap oil.

The Dems occupied Northern Iraq, enforced a no fly zone over most of the country and kept passing UN resolutions telling him to disarm and bombing WMD facilities and then just chose the blame game as if they were different.

The Dems keep shreaking hysterically about oil prices while wanting our troops in the Middle East to keep oil prices low, then say "Bush" invaded for oil.

The Dems say they don't want to be targets of terror in Iraq, then they attack US troops as terrorists and torturers and while keeping them in the middle east as targets while tying their hands to only respond to terror attacks and then in proportion rather then taking the war to terrorists.

And the Dems are running on this inane policy rather then offering any actual political agenda and attacking people like me who are just sick of it and neither support nor vote for Republicans.

So if you have questions related to MY views, ask again in that context. Defending Republicans is for Republicans. I agree it's a disaster because while our military is awesome it just shouldn't be our problem, I just blame both and attack Democrats not because I blame them over Republicans but because right now they are the finger pointers.

Sure, plenty of Democrats (and all but one Republican) were fooled into voting for the resolution. The question is, who fooled them?

(Duh)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/

Just because someone spews lots of text doesn't mean that even an ounce of it is worth a damn, Perfect example:

I oppose the Iraq invasion, as well as Kuwait and Afghanistan.

This HAS to be embarassing. Let me guess - Neal Bortz told him this was the right answer.

The Dems occupied Northern Iraq

Still waiting for evidence for this.

enforced a no fly zone over most of the country and kept passing UN resolutions telling him to disarm and bombing WMD facilities and then just chose the blame game as if they were different.

Yea, I'd say 3,257 casualties, a trillion dollars wasted and blown foreign goodwill is different.

The Dems keep shreaking hysterically about oil prices while wanting our troops in the Middle East to keep oil prices low, then say "Bush" invaded for oil

What the hell? Talk about grasping for straws.

then they attack US troops as terrorists and torturers

This falls back to the whole "Democrats hate our troops" thing, which is ridiculous.

while keeping them in the middle east as targets while tying their hands to only respond to terror attacks and then in proportion rather then taking the war to terrorists.

This coming from someone who in the very same post said he didn't believe we should have invaded Afghanistan.

And the Dems are running on this ** policy

We were warned.

ATV wrote:Neal Bortz told him this was the right answer

Just a question, when you agree with Democrats did they tell you the right answer or did you support them because you agreed with them?

Is it only liberals who can agree based on common philosophy? Can't a libertarian agree with a libertarian because they have similar ideology and not because they "told them the right answer?" Or a Republican/Republican or a conservative/conservative for that matter?

Ironically you said he told me the right answer for a point I disagree with him on. Oops. He supports the Iraq invasion as well as Afghanistan, I don't. I don't know his view on Kuwait.

ATV wrote:

Kazoo wrote:The Dems occupied Northern Iraq

Still waiting for evidence for this.

Just want to be clear, you're asking me to document for you that the US Military was in Northern Iraq protecting the Kurds while Hussein was still in power? You are questioning my assertion on that? If you clarify that's what you are doubting me on, I'll document it for you.

A freebie, Clinton attacking the non-existent WMDs in Iraq in 1998.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/ ... inton.html

On the rest, OK, but I wasn't really clear as to a point other then I'm not a Democrat, I'll give you that, I'm not a Democrat.

Just want to be clear, you're asking me to document for you that the US Military was in Northern Iraq protecting the Kurds while Hussein was still in power?

No, I want evidence that.....

The Dems occupied Northern Iraq

Is it just me or is there a difference between sending a small force to help defend the Kurdish people who love us and welcome our presence and some "Dem" invading and "occupying" part of Iraq?

LOL.

To witness someone trying to equate this with our invasion of Iraq is just sad,.......truly sad.

ATV wrote:

Just want to be clear, you're asking me to document for you that the US Military was in Northern Iraq protecting the Kurds while Hussein was still in power?

No, I want evidence that.....

The Dems occupied Northern Iraq

Is it just me or is there a difference between sending a small force to help defend the Kurdish people who love us and welcome our presence and some "Dem" invading and "occupying" part of Iraq?

LOL.

To witness someone trying to equate this with our invasion of Iraq is just sad,.......truly sad.

Look dude, I'm tired of going in circles with you. So I'm stopping. I don't know what "small force" means, we controlled the North, Hussein wasn't allowed there because of US forces, the Kurds weren't going to stop him. It was Iraq, he was leader, I call that occupied, you can call it what you want.

And I gave a long list of policies through the middle east that the parties are the same for and you picked one item out and said that one item makes the parties the same? No, the whole list makes them the same, not each and every item in the list.

When you have something new let me know.

More lies.

we controlled the North

The KURDS controlled (and still control) the North. Is there a difference between temporarily providing them defense and "controlling" them? Uhhhhhhhhh.......Yes?

Hussein wasn't allowed there because of US forces, the Kurds weren't going to stop him.

"Hussein"s governement was NEVER allowed there. That's largely why they gased them (with chemical weapons provided by Donald Rumsfeld under Reagan's authorization - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 4114159191), and that's theoretically what whatever force we sent there was to discourage.

So, now that "Dems occupying Northern Iraq" has been thoroughly debunked, can we not expect to see another retarded comparrison between this and the disaster that is Iraq?

ATV wrote:More lies.

we controlled the North

The KURDS controlled (and still control) the North. Is there a difference between temporarily providing them defense and "controlling" them? Uhhhhhhhhh.......Yes?

Hussein wasn't allowed there because of US forces, the Kurds weren't going to stop him.

"Hussein"s governement was NEVER allowed there. That's largely why they gased them (with chemical weapons provided by Donald Rumsfeld under Reagan's authorization - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 4114159191), and that's theoretically what whatever force we sent there was to discourage.

So, now that "Dems occupying Northern Iraq" has been thoroughly debunked, can we not expect to see another retarded comparrison between this and the disaster that is Iraq?

OK