quote:

Originally posted by imokruok This was one of the most powerful speeches I've seen in the last year or so. He starts with some history, then a hard-line stance on terror, followed by some big slams on John Kerry. A great way to spend an afternoon!

Oh I'm sure it's a wonderful way to listen to Cheney's bullshit rhetoric. How fun indeed.

quote:

After the fall of Soviet communism, some observers confidently assumed that America would never again face such determined enemies, or an aggressive ideology, or the prospect of catastrophic violence. But standing here in 2004, we can see clearly how a new enemy was organizing and gathering strength over a period of years. And the struggle we are in today, against terrorist enemies intending violence on a massive scale, requires the same qualities of leadership that saw our nation to victory in the Cold War. We must build and maintain military strength capable of operating in different theaters of action with decisive force. We must not only have that power, but be willing to use it when required to defend our freedom and our security. (Applause.)

Equating Communist Russia to modern day terrorism is a false comparison, as are the tactics of politics and warfare against them. What Cheney and Bush seem to have a miserable time understanding is that terrorism is everywhere, not in one primary location like Communist Russia or N. Korea.

quote:

We must support those around the world who are taking risks to advance freedom, justice, and democracy,

esp. those countries we coerced with our fallacious case for war,

quote:

just as President Reagan did.

Yes, Reagan did a swell job supporting those countries that took risks for the above mentioned characteristics, like supporting Iraq itself against a hostile Iran.

(even though he turned a blind eye from Saddam gassing his own people).

quote:

American policy must be clear and consistent in its purposes.

That's a wonderful ironic sentiment for our current administration.

quote:

And American leaders - above all, the Commander-in-Chief - must be confident in our nation's cause, and unwavering until the danger to our people is fully and finally removed. (Applause.)

Just like he's done in Afghanistan.

quote:

The attacks of September 11th, 2001, signaled the arrival of an entirely different era. We suffered massive civilian casualties on our own soil. We awakened to dangers even more lethal - the possibility that terrorists could gain chemical, biological, or even nuclear weapons from outlaw regimes, and turn those weapons against the United States and our friends. We came to understand that for all the destruction and grief we saw that day, September 11th gave only the merest glimpse of the threat that international terrorism poses to this and other nations.

How true. Too bad you, Rummy, Condoleeeeeza, and Jr. Bush didn't give a shit about these terrorists until it actually happened. Tell me why again you didn't give 2 shits about what Donald Kerrick, your former National Security Advisor from Clinton who served on your administration, said in regards to Al Qaeda (oh, something about "We will be struck again"). Furthermore, can you tell me why he was no longer invited to any more meetings after he wrote that memo in July 2001?

Finally, can you tell me why you blatantly ignored Richard Clarke, your former Director of Counter-Terrorism in the National Security Council, who urgently tried to draw the attention of the Bush Admin. to the threat of Al Qaeda in a meeting on Aug. 6th, 2001? You know, the briefing which according to reports Clarke stated bluntly that Osama bin Laden intended to attack America soon, and contained the word "hijacking." And why did Bush respond to such a threat with a month long vacation back to his Texas ranch?

quote:

If terrorists ever do acquire weapons of mass destruction - on their own or with help from a terror regime - they will use those weapons without the slightest constraint of reason or morality.

What a solid case for war. If only we can find those damn WMD to support such assertions.....

quote:

Instead of losing thousands of lives, we might lose tens or even hundreds of thousands of lives in a single day of horror.

Or we might lose tens of thousands of innocent lives in the process of going to war for an unsupported assertion, and kill hundreds if not thousands more individuals (including our own servicemen) trying to stabilize the damn region after we completely destroyed and upended the whole place. And we might invite more terrorism to an unstable region and allow them to conjur up more hate and strategic tactics to kill more U.S. and allied servicemen and women.

Oops, already happening.

quote:

Remembering what we saw on the morning of 9/11, and knowing the nature of these enemies, we have as clear a responsibility as could ever fall to government: We must do everything in our power to protect our people from terrorist attack, and to keep terrorists from ever acquiring weapons of mass destruction.

Afghanistan - check.
Iraq - .........

quote:

This great and urgent responsibility has required a shift in national security policy.

Yeah, attack first, ask questions later.

quote:

For many years prior to 9/11, we treated terror attacks against Americans as isolated incidents, and answered - if at all - on an ad hoc basis, and never in a systematic way. Even after an attack inside our own country - the 1993 bombing at the World Trade Center, in New York - there was a tendency to treat terrorist incidents as individual criminal acts, to be handled primarily through law enforcement. The man who perpetrated that attack in New York was tracked down, arrested, convicted, and sent off to serve a 240-year sentence. Yet behind that one man was a growing network with operatives inside and outside the United States, waging war against our country. For us, that war started on 9/11. For them, it started years before.

I wonder what administration was responsible for Al Qaeda's rise?

Hmmmm.

quote:

After the World Trade Center attack in 1993 came the murders at the Saudi Arabia National Guard Training Center in Riyadh, in 1995; the simultaneous bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, in 1998; the attack on the USS Cole, in 2000. In 1996, Khalid Shaykh Muhammad - the mastermind of 9/11 - first proposed to Osama bin Laden that they use hijacked airliners to attack targets in the U.S. During this period, thousands of terrorists were trained at al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. And we have seen the work of terrorists in many attacks since 9/11 - in Riyadh, Casablanca, Istanbul, Mombasa, Bali, Jakarta, Najaf, Baghdad, and most recently, Madrid. Against this kind of determined, organized, ruthless enemy, America requires a new strategy - not merely to prosecute a series of crimes, but to fight and win a global campaign against the terror network.

Agreed, without the perverted pre-emptive doctrine bullshit.

quote:

Our strategy has several key elements. We have strengthened our defenses here at home, organizing the government to protect the homeland.

I call bullshit. You saw how easy it was for ABC Nightline to smuggle in plutonium (or was it uranium) last October?

You know how porous our borders still are to this day?

Pulease.

quote:

But a good defense is not enough. The terrorist enemy holds no territory, defends no population, is unconstrained by rules of warfare, and respects no law of morality. Such an enemy cannot be deterred, contained, appeased, or negotiated with. It can only be destroyed - and that, ladies and gentlemen, is the business at hand. (Applause.)

Agreed.

quote:

We are dismantling the financial networks that have funded terror; we are going after the terrorists themselves wherever they plot and plan.

Only because we now have the personnel to do so. Funny how it runs all around the time of re-elections (that's Mr. Cynicism talking through me).

quote:

Of those known to be directly involved in organizing the attacks of 9/11, most are now in custody or confirmed dead. The leadership of al-Qaeda has sustained heavy losses, and they will sustain more.

Which is why they ONLY killed 201 people and injured several thousand or so last week in Spain.

quote:

America is also working closely with intelligence services all over the globe.

Well, the ones we haven't pissed off, at least.

quote:

The best intelligence is necessary - not just to win the war on terror, but also to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. So we have enhanced our intelligence capabilities, in order to trace dangerous weapons activity.

Now if we can only just interpret the data that the CIA gives us correctly, and try not to embellish it so damn much, we might actually come across as being half-way honest...

quote:

We have organized a proliferation security initiative, to interdict lethal materials and technologies in transit. We are aggressively pursuing another dangerous source of proliferation: black-market operatives who sell equipment and expertise related to weapons of mass destruction. The world recently learned of the network led by A.Q. Khan, the former head of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program. Khan and his associates sold nuclear technology and know-how to outlaw regimes around the world, including Iran and North Korea. Thanks to the tireless work of intelligence officers from the United States, the UK, Pakistan, and other nations, the Khan network is now being dismantled piece by piece.

Ahh yes, and we did sooo much about Khan. Shame on you, Khan, for selling nuke material to our enemies! Bad Khan! Bad!

***slaps Khan on wrist***

quote:

And we are applying the Bush doctrine: Any person or government that supports, protects, or harbors terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent, and will be held to account. (Applause.)

And anyone who stands in our way of a Global Empire we'll trample on without provocation.

Oh, and Mr. Uzbekistan dictator, could you please play more nicer to your people and not be so cruel. Thanks, here's a few hundred million for you.....

quote:

The first to see this application were the Taliban, who ruled Afghanistan by violence while turning that country into a training camp for terrorists. America and our coalition took down the regime in a matter of weeks because of our superior technology, the unmatched skill of our armed forces, and, above all, because we came not as conquerors but as liberators.

Thanks be to Clinton's military.

quote:

The Taliban are gone from the scene. The terrorist camps are closed. And our coalition's work there continues - confronting terrorist remnants, training a new Afghan army, and providing security as the new government takes shape. Under President Karzai's leadership, and with a new constitution, the Afghan people are reclaiming their own country and building a nation that is secure, independent, and free.

Oh, and don't pay any attention to that Taliban thing rebuilding itself. And try to look the other way when the opium trucks drive by.

quote:

In Iraq, we took another essential step in the war on terror. Before using force, we tried every possible option to address the threat from Saddam Hussein.

BULLSHIT! BULLSHIT! BULLSHIT!

Cheney, you're so full of shit it's just not even funny. Why the f$ck did you order all UN weapons inpectors out?!? What was the f$cking rush? Because Saddam was deceiving them? If so, why the f$ck hasn't anything been found?

Utter crap.

quote:

Despite 12 years of diplomacy, more than a dozen U.N. Security Council resolutions, hundreds of U.N. weapons inspectors, thousands of flights to enforce the no-fly zones, and even strikes against military targets in Iraq - Saddam Hussein refused to comply with the terms of the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire. All of these measures failed.

Yep, they clearly were in violation of UN Sanctions. I guess we should be invading Israel next for their violations as well.

quote:

In October of 2002, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly to authorize the use of force in Iraq. The next month, the U.N. Security Council passed a unanimous resolution finding Iraq in material breach of its obligations, and vowing serious consequences in the event Saddam Hussein did not fully and immediately comply. When Saddam failed even then to comply, President Bush gave an ultimatum to the dictator -- to leave Iraq or be forcibly removed from power.

I always wondered how Saddam could have come up with those WMD that Bush told him he should have when we haven't found any yet?

Perhaps it was a loaded demand from Bush? Naw, couldn't be.

And Congress and the UN Security Council voted in favor because they believed in the bogus data Cheney and Rummy were receiving from that lying sack of shit, Chalabi, as well as doing a little bit of embellishing of CIA data themselves in the DIA. Too bad much of that data hasn't panned out.

quote:

That ultimatum came one year ago today - twelve months in which Saddam went from palace, to bunker, to spider hole, to jail. (Applause.) A year ago, he was the all-powerful dictator of Iraq, controlling the lives and the future of almost 25 million people. Today, the people of Iraq know that the dictator and his sons will never torment them again. And we can be certain that they will never again threaten Iraq's neighbors or the United States of America.

Yeah, it's fun beatin' up on the littlest kid on the block. Those fights are always fun to watch.

quote:

From the beginning, America has sought - and received - international support for our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Separate the two wars, dickhead. Blatant disregard of facts on your part. Nearly everyone supported us in one war, most certainly not the other and you f$cking damn well know it.

quote:

In the war on terror, we will always seek cooperation from our allies around the world.

Or coerce them....

quote:

But as the President has made very clear, there is a difference between leading a coalition of many nations and submitting to the objections of a few. The United States will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country. (Applause.)

War slogan:

Support your unilateralist gov't. They'll love you for it by sending your kid to war to get his head and/or limbs blown off.

quote:

We still have work to do in Iraq, and we will see it through.

No matter how long we keep your loved ones illegially over there, passed their given duty requirement. It's only up to about 30,000 people or so right now.

quote:

Our forces are conducting swift, precision raids against the terrorists and regime holdouts who still remain. The thugs and assassins in Iraq are desperately trying to shake our will. Just this morning, they conducted a murderous attack on a hotel in Baghdad. Their goal is to prevent the rise of a democracy - but they will fail.

Could another one of their goals be to get the US Global Empire out of their region?

Nawww.

quote:

Just last week, the Iraqi Governing Council approved a new fundamental law, an essential step toward building a free constitutional democracy in the heart of the Middle East.

Or U.S. puppet government, you choose.

quote:

This great work is part of a forward strategy of freedom that we are pursuing throughout the greater Middle East. By helping nations to build the institutions of freedom, and turning the energies of men and women away from violence, we not only make that region more peaceful, we add to the security of our own region.

Other regions, however, tough shit. Sorry Spain.

quote:

The recent bombing in Spain may well be evidence of how fearful the terrorists are of a free and democratic Iraq.

I'm truly sick of hearing about this shit on how terrorists are fearful of freedom and democracy. This certainly wasn't their f$cking intent in Spain. They are against Spanish support of U.S. hegemony in their region.

No doubt, they are against U.S. style democracy. But this is certainly not their only driving force, and I contend it is NOT their primary driving force either.

quote:

But if the murderers of Madrid intended to undermine the transition to democracy in Iraq, they will ultimately fail. Our determination is unshakable. We will stand with the people of Iraq as they build a government based on democracy, tolerance, and freedom. (Applause.)

YES! Based on the way WE want them to base it on! YES!

quote:

Our steady course has not escaped the attention of the leaders in other countries. Three months ago, after initiating talks with America and Britain, and five days after the capture of Saddam Hussein, the leader of Libya voluntarily committed to disclose and dismantle all of his weapons of mass destruction programs. (Applause.) As we meet today, the dismantling of those programs is underway. I do not believe that Colonel Ghadafi just happened to make this very wise decision after many years of pursuing secretive, intensive efforts to develop the world's most dangerous weapons. He was responding to the new realities of the world. Leaders elsewhere are learning that weapons of mass destruction do not bring influence, or prestige, or security - they only invite isolation, and carry other costs. In the post-9/11 world, the United States and our allies will not live at the mercy of terrorists or regimes that could arm them with chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. By whatever means are necessary - whether diplomatic or military - we will act to protect the lives and security of the American people. (Applause.)

Could it also be that Ghadafi did this more for both political and economic interests? Could he have, by chance, been planning on doing this prior to Iraq?

Well, if not, congratulations. Bullying tactics does reap it's occasional rewards.

quote:

These past three years, as our country experienced war and national emergency, I have watched our Commander-in-Chief make the decisions and set the strategy. I have seen a man who is calm and deliberate - comfortable with responsibility - consistent in his objectives, and resolute in his actions.

Anyone else getting tired of seeing the word "resolute" whenever Bush Co. speaks? Seriously, does this administration have any more of a vocabulary?

quote:

These times have tested the character of our nation, and they have tested the character of our nation's leader. When he makes a commitment, there is no doubt he will follow through. As a result, America's friends know they can trust - and America's enemies know they can fear - the decisive leadership of President George W. Bush. (Applause.)

And his enemies can know that they can target Bush's troops anytime they damn well please, since Bush told them to "Bring 'em on".

quote:

The President's conduct in leading America through a time of unprecedented danger - his ability to make decisions and stand by them - is a measure that must be applied to the candidate who now opposes him in the election of 2004.

Yeah, be firm in what you say, just like Bush:

http://www.house.gov/appropriations...aughtonfilm.htm

quote:

In one of Senator Kerry's recent observations about foreign policy, he informed his listeners that his ideas have gained strong support, at least among unnamed foreigners he's been spending time with. (Laughter.) Senator Kerry said that he has met with foreign leaders, and I quote, " who can't go out and say this publicly, but boy they look at you and say, 'You've got to win this, you've got to beat this guy, we need a new policy,' things like that." End quote.

Didn't the new Spanish PM mention that he supported Kerry?

quote:

A few days ago in Pennsylvania, a voter asked Senator Kerry directly who these foreign leaders are. Senator Kerry said, "That's none of your business." (Laughter.) But it is our business when a candidate for President claims the political endorsement of foreign leaders. At the very least, we have a right to know what he is saying to foreign leaders that makes them so supportive of his candidacy. American voters are the ones charged with determining the outcome of this election - not unnamed foreign leaders. (Applause.)

Yes, we have a right to know who's lying and who isin't.

Oops, there goes all our politicians.

quote:

Senator Kerry's voting record on national security raises some important questions all by itself. Let's begin with the matter of how Iraq and Saddam Hussein should have been dealt with. Senator Kerry was in the minority of senators who voted against the Persian Gulf War in 1991. At the time, he expressed the view that our international coalition consisted of " shadow battlefield allies who barely carry a burden." Last year, as we prepared to liberate Iraq, he recalled the Persian Gulf coalition a little differently. He said it was a "strong coalition," and a model to be followed.

If he did say that recently, he admittedly spoke too soon. But then again, he was sold on the misleading data that came from you, Dick, from which you got it from that lying bastard, Chalabi. So who's to blame here for this war?

quote:

Six years after the Gulf War, in 1997, Saddam Hussein was still defying the terms of the cease-fire. And as President Bill Clinton considered military action against Iraq, he found a true believer in John Kerry. The Senator from Massachusetts said, quote, "Should the resolve of our allies wane, the United States must not lose its resolve to take action." He further warned that if Saddam Hussein were not held to account for violation of U.N. resolutions, some future conflict would have " greater consequence." In 1998, Senator Kerry indicated his support for regime change, with ground troops if necessary. And, of course, when Congress voted in October of 2002, Senator Kerry voted to authorize military action if Saddam refused to comply with U.N. demands.

A scenario from which was carried out by Bush. However, I wonder if Clinton would have ordered UN inspectors out so we can bomb the crap out of that country, WITHOUT FIRM EVIDENCE OF WMD? Furthermore, I wonder if Kerry would have supported such an action from Clinton?

Likely not on both counts.

quote:

A neutral observer, looking at these elements of Senator Kerry's record, would assume that Senator Kerry supported military action against Saddam Hussein.

Please call me when you have an idea what a neutral observer might observe, Dick.

quote:

The Senator himself now tells us otherwise. In January he was asked on TV if he was, quote, "one of the anti-war candidates." He replied, "I am." He now says he was voting only to, quote, "threaten the use of force," not actually to use force.

So? What's your point? Some folks thought Bush would have actually given the UN inspectors a chance to do their job, and not push them aside for a pre-emptive strike. Kerry was most certainly one of them.

quote:

Even if we set aside these inconsistencies and changing rationales, at least this much is clear: Had the decision belonged to Senator Kerry, Saddam Hussein would still be in power, today, in Iraq. In fact, Saddam Hussein would almost certainly still be in control of Kuwait. (Laughter.)

Give me a f$cking break, Dick.

quote:

Senator Kerry speaks often about the need for international cooperation, and has vowed to usher in a "golden age of American diplomacy." He is fond of mentioning that some countries did not support America's actions in Iraq. Yet of the many nations that have joined our coalition - allies and friends of the United States - Senator Kerry speaks with open contempt. Great Britain, Australia, Italy, Spain, Poland, and more than 20 other nations have contributed and sacrificed for the freedom of the Iraqi people. Senator Kerry calls these countries, quote, "window dressing." They are, in his words, "a coalition of the coerced and the bribed." Many questions come to mind, but the first is this: How would Senator Kerry describe Great Britain - coerced, or bribed?

You're joking, right? Considering how much pressure Blair is under for some of the bogus shit he came up with? Who the hell are you trying to kid?

quote:

Or Italy - which recently lost 19 citizens, killed by terrorists in Najaf - was Italy's contribution just window dressing? If such dismissive terms are the vernacular of the golden age of diplomacy Senator Kerry promises, we are left to wonder which nations would care to join any future coalition.

I don't know. I guess it depends on how many other countries we plan on invading without solid evidence of an imposing threat.

quote:

He speaks as if only those who openly oppose America's objectives have a chance of earning his respect. Senator Kerry's characterization of our good allies is ungrateful to nations that have withstood danger, hardship, and insult for standing with America in the cause of freedom.

Cute little slant there, Dick.

Crap, gotta run. I'll comment more tomorrow.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

wow a long post with an even longer reply.

This place has gone mad.. it will take me days to catch up! And I've been away for less than 2 horus!

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus wow a long post with an even longer reply. This place has gone mad.. it will take me days to catch up! And I've been away for less than 2 horus!

You just need to drive your tank over it a few times and it will all be the same.....unidentifiable mush

Opus...you know you remind me of my sister when she yells at the TV while watching Cubs games....it is not like they can actually hear you.

Oh wait, scratch that....I forgot abotu the vp being a member of this board.

MrS

___________________
Click the sig to see MrSquirrel

-"Reality" is the only word in the language that should always be used in quotes.

cheney's speech was good.. he basically proved the point that any democrat who supports kerry is a moron which is oh so true.

quote:

Originally posted by rainbow_marble cheney's speech was good.. he basically proved the point that any democrat who supports kerry is a moron which is oh so true.

as opposed to "any republican who supports bush is intelligent"? what a laugh.

quote:

Originally posted by nic01445 as opposed to "any republican who supports bush is intelligent"? what a laugh.

Yes, actually.

haha, is that sarcasm? or are you serious

quote:

Originally posted by tathi haha, is that sarcasm? or are you serious

He's from Texas, so something tells me that he might actually be serious (apologies in advance to any intelligent Texans about, you're a rare breed).

___________________
Currently Whoring:

• Space Tribe Vs Electric Universe - Rabbit Hole
  
• CPU - So It Begins
  
• Too Short & Mistah FAB - The Sideshow
  

quote:

Originally posted by arctic He's from Texas, so something tells me that he might actually be serious (apologies in advance to any intelligent Texans about, you're a rare breed).

Whehehe, here we go again

___________________
"Wenn du dich zum Untergrund zählst, reicht es nicht, es nur zu sagen. Du musst auch viel graben, um es zu werden."

I'm not even going to defend John Kerry because some critiques of his voting record are well-founded (the recent ones like the Patriot Act), others are debunked at www.factcheck.org, but Cheney is a fucking criminal who I'd like to see in cuffs. Even if Kerry were half as corrupt, that would be a substantial improvement.

Great hero you've got there.



http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FB07Aa03.html

quote:

The Day Cheney was Rocked to the Core by Jim Lobe WASHINGTON - If United States Vice President Dick Cheney was hoping that the cold, crisp air of Davos and his private audience with Pope John Paul II late last month would revive his spirits, as well as his standing in the polls, he must be deeply disappointed. Since returning home, he has faced a seemingly unrelenting succession of disclosures and attacks that appear to get worse with each passing day. What the albatross was to the ancient mariner, Cheney is fast becoming to George W Bush's re-election chances. Just consider what happened to Cheney Thursday: the early morning edition of the Wall Street Journal ran an article - first reported by Newsweek - on how Justice Department investigators had asked Halliburton Company for documents relating to US$180 million in allegedly illegal payments by a consortium of companies, including Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root, in connection with the construction of a big natural-gas plant in Nigeria in the late 1990s, while Cheney was Halliburton's chief executive officer. When the Los Angeles Times hit the news stands a couple of hours later, Cheney was right there on the front page with the headline: "Scalia was Cheney Hunt Trip Guest; Ethics Concern Grows." Antonin Scalia is a Supreme Court Justice who was Cheney's guest on a recent and rather costly (to the taxpayer) bird-hunting trip to Louisiana, and who also will soon hear a major case on government secrecy in which the vice president is the defendant. Legal ethics experts quoted in the story, of course, zeroed in on the question of whether Scalia might best recuse himself from hearing the case, but there were also suggestions that perhaps Cheney could have exercised slightly better judgment."It is not just a trip with a litigant. It's a trip at the expense of the litigant," noted one law professor. Finished with the morning papers, Cheney may have tuned in to watch Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director George Tenet deliver a passionate defense at Georgetown University of the official intelligence community's performance in the runup to the Iraq war, only to find himself a target, if only inferentially. While Tenet didn't say anything explicitly about Cheney, he certainly didn't do much to dispel the increasingly strong impression in Washington - among Democrats, it's become a conviction - that, of all of Bush's senior advisers, Cheney and his staff worked hardest to hype what the intelligence community was saying about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction programs. While the intelligence community had concluded that Saddam wanted nuclear weapons, Tenet declared, it also made clear as of late 2002 that Saddam had none, and that he probably would not have been able to make one until some time between 2007 and 2009, at the earliest. That assertion, of course, raises a major question. If the intelligence community agreed that Saddam had no nuclear weapons, where did Cheney get the information that would substantiate his statement on the very day that the US launched its invasion last March: "And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." The answer, according to Democratic members of the Congressional intelligence committees, who have become increasingly outspoken in recent days, is that Cheney and his staff had an independent source of "intelligence" outside the formal intelligence community. Lodged in the Pentagon's policy shop under Under Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith, the now-notorious Office of Special Plans "cherry-picked" raw intelligence, interviewed "defectors", and produced its own talking points and analysis that were "stovepiped" straight to Cheney's office, notably John Hannah, his top Mideast staffer, and I Lewis "Scooter" Libby, his powerful chief of staff. When asked about this theory by a Georgetown student on Thursday, Tenet answered artfully, asserting: "I can tell you with certainty that the president of the United States gets his intelligence from one person and one community - me ... The rest of it, I don't know." In the legal profession, Tenet's reply is called a negative pregnant, an apparent denial that suggests that further questioning may be fruitful. Indeed, Republican Jane Harmon, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, noted in a CNN interview on Thursday evening that, in speaking of "one community", Tenet was effectively confirming that the Pentagon-Cheney channel, that provided a much more alarmist view of Saddam's capabilities, may well have been at work But if Cheney felt displeased by Tenet's performance, things only got worse - much worse - later in the afternoon when United Press International (UPI) reported what has been rumored ever since Attorney General John Ashcroft recused himself from the investigation into the "outing" as a CIA officer by "two senior administration officials" of Valerie Plame, shortly after her husband, retired ambassador Joseph Wilson, had published an article in the New York Times charging that the administration knew that its reports of Saddam's alleged attempts to buy uranium yellowcake in Africa were bogus. Quoting "federal law-enforcement officials," UPI's intelligence correspondent Richard Sale reported on Thursday that the two main suspects were none other than Libby and Hannah. One official reportedly told Sale that Hannah was being advised "that he faces a real possibility of doing jail time" in order to pressure him to implicate higher-ups - presumably Libby, if not, perhaps, Cheney himself. A 1982 law makes deliberately revealing the identity of covert intelligence officers a felony punishable by as many as 10 years in prison. If either Hannah or Libby were officially named as suspects or actually indicted, the impact on Cheney's credibility and electability would be devastating. According to recent polls, Cheney's approval ratings, hovering around 20 percent, are already far below Bush's, which have themselves sunk below 50 percent for the first time in his presidency. Even Halliburton, whose public image has become so tarnished that it has launched a controversial television ad campaign to boost its image, last week listed Cheney's association to the company as a "risk factor" for its shareholders. Republicans in Congress, particularly on the intelligence and foreign relations committees, find themselves having to devote more time and political capital to defending the vice president, and even some influential Republican donors have privately suggested that Cheney bow out. Speculation about possible replacements - most recently, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani (the Republican convention is in New York City, August 30 to September 2.) - is growing steadily. Of course, there's always another day. Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online

___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/

quote:

Originally posted by arctic He's from Texas, so something tells me that he might actually be serious (apologies in advance to any intelligent Texans about, you're a rare breed).

Gotta love the stereotype that all texans are redneck hicks