Cheney On The Attack

Faced with some of his worst job approval ratings to date, Dick Cheney has joined the Bush administration's defensive attack on Democratic critics. Actually, I'm not sure I remember a time when Cheney didn't attack Democrats, but it's notable that Cheney is now parroting the same talking points as the rest of the administration.

...the suggestion that's been made by some U. S. senators that the President of the United States or any member of this Administration purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence is one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city.

Some of the most irresponsible comments have, of course, come from politicians who actually voted in favor of authorizing force against Saddam Hussein. These are elected officials who had access to the intelligence, and were free to draw their own conclusions. They arrived at the same judgment about Iraq's capabilities and intentions that was made by this Administration and by the previous Administration. There was broad-based, bipartisan agreement that Saddam Hussein was a threat ... that he had violated U.N. Security Council Resolutions ... and that, in a post-9/11 world, we couldn't afford to take the word of a dictator who had a history of WMD programs, who had excluded weapons inspectors, who had defied the demands of the international community, who had been designated an official state sponsor of terror, and who had committed mass murder. Those are facts. What we're hearing now is some politicians contradicting their own statements and making a play for political advantage in the middle of a war.

First of all, since when did this administration care about defying "the demands of the international community?" Isn't that what they did in invading Iraq? It's interesting that the Republicans are being more careful about their words now, saying that Senators "voted in favor of authorizing force" instead of saying that they voted directly for war. However, it's been quite well documented at this point that the administration withheld key information from the Congress in the run up to war, giving lie to Cheney's claim that Democrats "arrived at the same judgment" as the administration based on the same intelligence.

I'm almost a little concerned about even writing about this because it really isn't worth arguing. A majority of Americans supported the war in Iraq. Now a majority of Americans believe we should get out of Iraq within the next year. A majority of Americans now think the Iraq War was a mistake. Setting aside the fact that the intelligence was misleading, the position that Cheney is attacking Democrats for taking is the position of most Americans. There have been a number of mea culpas from Democrats who now regret their support for the war. No matter how Cheney wants to characterize these admissions of mistakes, I can't imagine the American people faulting the Democrats for no longer supporting the war.

I also think the American people are not so stupid as to fall for the claim that Democratic demands for accountability and investigations are somehow politically motivated while the administration's attacks on their critics are not. These people have next to zero credibility in the eyes of most Americans. Every time one of them goes to a big Republican dinner or a military base or wherever they'll pop up next, they look more and more desperate and dishonest. With apologies to Shakespeare, the administration doth protest too much, methinks.



Display:


Dear Mr. Vice President: (none / 0)

Let me make this perfectly clear. I was against your war. I thought at the very least you sexed up the intel. My fear was that you distorted it.

My fear has been proven to be true, as is increasingly evident with each passing day.

I am not connected to any "double super secret sources." I went by my gut and your administration's behavior.

To be totally honest, I figured Saddam had some broken-down WMD, but I didn't consider him a threat.

I'm not a knee jerk dove. I supported your early actions in Afghanistan.

With regard to Iraq, it is ironically your old boss President Bush 41 that convinced me that trying to overthrow Saddam and reinvent Iraq was not a good idea. I didn't need Howard Dean or anyone else you belittle to convince me of it.

Sir, with all respect, I find you reprehensible and I'm counting the days until you and the President are out of office and hopefully any position that ever has any ability to impact my life.

With vile regards,
The Muse

Today on EWM: Bush: "Democrats Killed Jesus, Invented Disco and Drove Me to Drink"  
"Recently, the British government learned that Democrats met with Pontius Pilate in Jerusalem before the Crucifixion."

by The Muse on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 09:30:57 PM EST

The Veep Has Spoken (none / 0)

Cheney has now said

Everything he has to say

And is all done.

.

by Antifa on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 09:36:21 PM EST

republican hypocritical revisionism (none / 0)

Hi All:

They never cease to amaze me! The Repubs claim that the Dems (a) before the war agreed with Bush about the threat that Sadaam posed but (b) now they are wrongly accusing Bush of tricking the country to war. How many ways can they mislead in one attack? Several ways:

  1.  They claim that everyone believed Sadaam had WMDs, based on what we knew at the time. But by talking in broad generalities they deliberately distort the issue. Back before we invaded, baCck when Bush was trying to sell the war, most people (except for skeptics like Scott Ritter) thought that probably Sadaam had some amount of chemical weaponry and maybe some smaller quantity of anthrax spores. But it is not the case that most people thought Sadaam was so great a threat that we needed to hurry up and invade, even before we gave the weapon inspectors a chance ro finish their job. And more importantly, Bush's big selling point was that Sadaam was likely very close to developing a nuclear weapon that he would likely give to his ally Bin Laden. hardly any of the Democrats who are now criticizing Bush believed that, and Bush had to "interpret" the evidence "creatively" to conclude such himself. I know a lot of people who supported the invasion at the time because they feared the muchroom cloud Bush/Cheney/Rice kept talking about. Bush had to know this was BS and he used it anyway.

  2.  Bush continues to equate voting to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq (if necessary) with supporting the invasion when it happened. Before the war, Bush argued that he needed the authority to get the inspectors back into Iraq. Bush showed that argument to be a lie when he invaded over the objections of the weapons inspectors.

  3.  On the other hand, it was a little naive for Democrats to trust that Bush wouldn't use the authority as cover for doing what he wanted to do in the first place; in fact it is really hard to believe that the Dems didn't know better from the beginning. It seems obvious that they gave him the authority so he'd have the responsibility if Iraq failed, but they  could get credit for supporting the policy if it succeeded. This was serious political cowardice. Still, though, the Bush lies cannot be justified by pointing out the Dems cheap political ploy and Bush is shameless when he tried to rewrite the past. Ubelievable.

Keith
by keith johnson on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 09:42:38 PM EST

of course cheney (none / 0)

didn't mislead the public. just like his chief of staff didn't mislead fitzgerald.  
p.s.--dick, how's chalabi?
by big in japan on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 10:37:45 PM EST

A short and simple rebuttal (none / 0)


When they say:
  • The Dems saw the same intel
  • Dems are rewriting history
we respond with

The Bush Whitehouse
  • misrepresented intel and
  • stopped inspections short.
It's a Republican War, period.


and then unremittingly use the phrase The Republican war in Iraq instead of "War in Iraq".

Frame Shop Lesson: keep it simple, catchy, yet defendable

Alternatives:

  • mispresented instead of misrepresented
  • Republican[-created] war/debacle/quagmire

Also: The Iraq Quagmire was a Republican Creation/Manufacture

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers
by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 10:40:20 PM EST

Re: A short and simple rebuttal (none / 0)

I like the "Republican Quagmire" myself.  
by Eric11 on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 11:55:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Kerry (none / 0)

From TalkingPointsMemo:
"It is hard to name a government official with less credibility on Iraq than Vice President Cheney. The Vice President continues to mislead America about how we got into Iraq and what must be done to complete the still unaccomplished mission."

the lyceum
by mattgabe on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 11:11:23 PM EST

"Mislead" (none / 0)

  Gawd, Kerry just can't stop pussyfooting and equivocating. Say, "Cheney LIED", John. It's not hard. It's accurate. It's simple. Dick Cheney is a LIAR.

by Master Jack on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 11:44:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Mislead" (none / 0)

No kidding.  Everytime he opens his mouth it becomes more and more evident why he lost.
by Eric11 on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 11:56:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Another way to look at it (none / 0)

My only problem with the constant accusations of the President is that it avoids the real discussions that need to be had.  It is one thing to disagree with the Presidents policy decisions and point out reasons why we should not have gone into Iraq it is quite another to accuse the President of treason.

The Democratic Party continues to make the same mistakes over and over again.  The American public is much more evolved with politics these days and is becoming increasing sick of partisan rhetoric.  Rove is once again leading the Democratic Leadership by the nose as the republicans pretend to be hurt by all of the attacks.  In reality he is going by the assumption that if you give the left enough rope they will hang themselves.

For a landslide victory in the 2006 elections the DFL leadership needs to stop focusing on the last four years and start thinking about the next four years.  Honest debate about how to move forward in Iraq is what the American public is yearning for.  The worst that can happen is the Republicans will follow suit and our politicians will began a real discussion on the most important issues facing this nation.

"There have existed, in every age and every country, two distinct orders of men - the lovers of freedom and the devoted advocates of power"
by Classical Liberal on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 11:42:12 PM EST

Re: Another way to look at it (none / 0)

laying out a plan in 2005 - almost a year from the election - is a strategy for failure. it would give them something to attack, and little for us in terms of advocating our positions. let them stew in their own juices- a broad outline of opposition is about the best recipe for taking action until 2006 and then only progressively letting the plan out bit by bit in 2006 so that the bulk of it would come out in Aug 2006
by bruh21 on Thu Nov 17, 2005 at 01:14:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by the way, (none / 0)

isn't it funny to get a lecture on patriotism from someone who's been openly lobbying for the use of torture.  
by big in japan on Thu Nov 17, 2005 at 12:06:57 AM EST

wait, i got one more... (none / 0)

isn't funny that they have approval ratings for an idiot who wore a parka to that auschwitz memorial ceremony?  if being underdressed is patriotic, dick owes me an apology.
by big in japan on Thu Nov 17, 2005 at 12:30:07 AM EST

they hate being called lairs (none / 0)

That's what this is all about having the majority of Americans calling them lairs...and now they think they can fight back by calling us lairs...HA!  it won't work!

BUSH AND CHENNEY ARE LAIRS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by HWS on Thu Nov 17, 2005 at 01:15:02 AM EST

Re: they hate being called lairs (none / 0)

And here I thought they were liars.
Matt Flynn
by Flynnieous on Thu Nov 17, 2005 at 10:11:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Note to Cheney (none / 0)

You show absolute chutzpah in calling Democrats irresponsible... you were the guy who was parroting the LIES that you needed to sell to have the war happen.  Remember Atta and Prague?  You hyped up intelligence that was shitty.  You mislead the American people into the worst strategic blunder in this nation's history.  You have no leg to stand on.  60% of Americans disapprove of the job that you are doing.  Every word you utter in your pathetic defense only serves to fire up your opposition.

Your words serve as fuel to the fire burning within the millions that oppose your cynical, destructive worldview.  I will do whatever it takes to defeat cowardly Republican bullies such as yourself for the rest of my life... the damage you have caused is enough.

by wintersnowman on Thu Nov 17, 2005 at 08:55:34 AM EST

GW's lies are documented (none / 0)

Even apart form the iseue of who knew what about the intelligence, GW's attempts to shield himself from accusations that he lied runs into one big problem.

 On the day he signed the Iraq Resolution in Oct. 2002, he stated that war would be a "last resort."

As late a March 2003, he stated "we are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq."  

Those statements cannot be squared with his decision to invade a few weeks later because at the time UN weapons inspectors were actively conducting inspections throughout Iraq.

by mmurphy on Thu Nov 17, 2005 at 01:10:58 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.