The Devil & Dick Cheney

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]Professor X wrote:
LBRTRN wrote:
Profx, Im hardly complaining. Its called reading a person’s words in context. When someone say, “so and so is full of shit,” it is “so and so” to whom he is referring. If we start playing by the rules you are espousing, it then becomes impossible for any politician to defend him/herself from political attacks. If Cheney cant respond to what he views as lies by calling those lies “dishonest and reprehensible” just because some in the general public happen to agree with those making the lies, what does that mean for those with whom you agree when they are lied about?

First, I can’t believe you just used that logic. Commenting against comments made and calling all acts of stating those comments “reprehensible” are two completely different things. One allows a person to vent their version of the story, the other is designed to stop anyone else from making the same claim.[/quote]

Im beginning to think you are just screwing with me. Somehow you have managed to push the goal post back because my original argument was simply that Cheney never called war critics reprehensible. You have yet to admit that he never said that.

You wrote, “commenting against comments made and calling acts of stating those comments “reprehensible” are two completely different things.” If you believe someone is telling a lie, why is it not ok to say that the act of willfully telling that lie is “dishonest and reprehensible?”

Regardless of your answer to that question, show me where Cheney called the “act” anything. He specifically called the charges dishonest and reprehensible. Again, he said, “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.” Note, he said the “suggestion.” What is the suggestion? It is that the Bush administration lied. That, Profx, is commenting on a comment, as you put it.

That is in no way calling those making the argument reprehensible and it is in no way calling “war critics” reprehensible. Keep in mind that my original point was that Cheney never called “war critics” reprehensible, as you claimed in an earlier post.

[quote]
Well, being that those he is talking about are in a position of authority, I would argue that their comments carry just a little more weight than the average citizen. Its not simply what was said, it also has a lot to do with where, and under what circumstances, it was said. And it just so happens, that if you read Cheney’s words in context, that is exactly the argument he makes.

If that were the case, why would the president’s PR team get him to make a statement later backing out of the comment so that people could feel “free” to state what they please? The very actions of the administration contradict what you are trying to say.[/quote]

If you are going to claim that the president backed away from Cheney’s comments, you need to post a quote. The article cited earlier in this thread makes the following claim:

First of all, as I’ve already pointed out, the very premise of the above statement is false because Cheney never called war critics reprehensible. Just because a reporter completely mischaracterizes something, doesnt make it fact. Provide the quote in which the president agreed that war critics are reprehensible and I’ll conceed the argunment (good luck because its hard to agree with a statemnt that wasnt made in the first place). Second, exactly how is the president’s comment in opposition to Cheney’s? The preisident made the comment because people were completely twisting Cheney’s comments into something they arent; namely, a condemnation of war critics. The president’s statement was a clarification for those who cant seem to understand the difference between describibing what they believe to be lies as “reprehensible” and calling critics of the war reprehensible. Bush agreed with the former and was forced to disavow the latter even though no one claimed such in the first place.

[quote]
Still, even that isnt quite the whole story. Notice that they claim Cheney’s comments were dirrected at “critics of the iraq war.” Again, thats a pretty general descriptor. Here is what Cheney actually said (emphasis added):

But in the last several weeks we have seen a wild departure from that tradition. And 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.

So lets review. First, Cheney’s comments werent directed at “war critics;” his comments were directed at “some U.S. senators.” Second, Cheney did not call the senators “dishonest and reprehensible;” he called the “suggestion,” that he and the rest of the administration are a bunch of liers, dishonest and reprehensible.

So, you believe that no americans hold this same view?[/quote]

When did I say that? And more importantly what difference does that make?

[quote]
Let me ask you a question, if John Kerry had won the presidency and at some point in his tenure, Republicans in the Senate were publicly spreading lies about him (as Im sure would have happened at some point) would you expect him to say nothing? I would expect him to call the lies as he sees them…dishonest and reprehensible. If members of the general public believe those same lies then they are believing exactly that…dishonest and reprehensible lies made all the more legitimate by senators who should know better.

Again, I am amazed that you are going certain directions in this argument. That entire run for presidency between both parties was the most blatant mud slinging I personally have ever seen…but then, I haven’t been old enough to vote in that many elections. There was more than enough opportunity for Kerry to call out those who were speaking against him. If he had stated that the act of them speaking their point of view was in fact “reprensible” then you would have a point. You don’t. [/quote]

Once again, when did Cheney state that the “act of them speaking their point of view” is reprehensible. All Im asking you to do, is provide the quote.

Furthermore, I was using a hypothetical example to make a point. For instance, lets say Kerry is president. Cheney comes along and makes a…lets call it a “suggestion” about Kerry. Kerry maintains that this “suggestion” is untrue. However, Cheney keeps making the “suggestion.” In response, kerry makes a speech, and in that speech, Kerry says, “Cheney’s suggestion is reprehensible.” Would you have a problem with that?

Answer that question and provide me with a quote proving your earlier point.

[quote]
You can argue that Bush and his administration are in fact liers but I dont think its fair to argue that Cheney’s comments somehow cross the line, because I think its pretty clear they dont.

Where did I write that Bush and his administration are liars?[/quote]

I apologize, I should have written “one could argue…” I didnt literally mean you.

Simply provide the quote in which Cheney did anything of the sort and you win the argument.

Again, show me where anyone recalled anything and you win the argument.

Oh, and sorry about the spelling and grammer. Im at work so I’m typing fast and I cant really spell check.

142

[quote]vroom wrote:
I get a kick out of it when the best way to counter those arguing for the administration (whether by intent or not) is to point out statements (or retractions) made by the administration…[/quote]

Funny how he didnt actually quote anyone, isnt it? Making a claim is far from proving it.

143

[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
Im beginning to think you are just screwing with me. Somehow you have managed to push the goal post back because my original argument was simply that Cheney never called war critics reprehensible. You have yet to admit that he never said that. [/quote]

I may be screwing with you, but only by showing how your own logic in this instance is faulty. Cheney may have been talking about the comments made by certain politicians, but how much more debate will it take for you to see that this also relates to Americans who hold the same view?

[quote]
If you believe someone is telling a lie, why is it not ok to say that the act of willfully telling that lie is “dishonest and reprehensible?” [/quote]

First, who is saying it is a lie? The one being accused stating that it is a lie doesn’t make it so. Claiming that the act of doing so is reprehensible, no matter how you try to defend it, is to act contrary to our right to free speech. Sorry if that hurts.

[quote]
Regardless of your answer to that question, show me where Cheney called the “act” anything. He specifically called the charges dishonest and reprehensible. Again, he said, “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.” Note, he said the “suggestion.” What is the suggestion? It is that the Bush administration lied. That, Profx, is commenting on a comment, as you put it.[/quote]

Excuse me, but I seem to be misunderstanding. Are you honestly saying that Cheney’s specific quote is NOT referring to the act of making a claim? What exactly is a “suggestion”? The definition for "suggestion is as follows:

[b] 1. The act of suggesting.

  1. Something suggested: We ordered the shrimp, a suggestion of the waiter.

  2. The sequential process by which one thought or mental image leads to another.

  3.   1. A psychological process by which an idea is induced in or adopted by another without argument, command, or coercion.
  2. An idea or response so induced.

  4. A hint or trace: just a suggestion of makeup; the first suggestion of trouble ahead.
    [/b]

Therefore, he very well did call the act of making these statements reprehensible so from his very own words he doesn’t believe in the Constitution.

[quote]
That is in no way calling those making the argument reprehensible and it is in no way calling “war critics” reprehensible. Keep in mind that my original point was that Cheney never called “war critics” reprehensible, as you claimed in an earlier post.[/quote]

Bullshit. By making the statement that the act of claiming that the adminstration may have known one side but relayed another is reprehensible, he is very well calling MANY war critics and their actions reprehensible.

Dude, once you awake, may I suggest taking the blue pill next time.

Right, because politicians don’t lie…huh?

144

[quote]Professor X wrote:
LBRTRN wrote:

Right, because politicians don’t lie…huh?
[/quote]

How could you say that!? You are REPREHENSIBLE!

145

Fightin, that tactic was REPREHENSIBLE!

146

[quote]Professor X wrote:
LBRTRN wrote:
Im beginning to think you are just screwing with me. Somehow you have managed to push the goal post back because my original argument was simply that Cheney never called war critics reprehensible. You have yet to admit that he never said that.

I may be screwing with you, but only by showing how your own logic in this instance is faulty. Cheney may have been talking about the comments made by certain politicians, but how much more debate will it take for you to see that this also relates to Americans who hold the same view?[/quote]

Again, what does that have to with anything? If the charge the Bush administration lied is in fact a lie itself, and its proponents know it as such (as Cheney maintains), then it is a reprehensible charge.[/quote]

If you wish to argue that the senators in question are telling the truth, by all means do so. Because if that is the case, Cheney’s description of their charge is, in fact, incorrect. Furthermore, if Cheney knows they are telling the truth (whcich, if true, must be the case) then his charge is itself reprehensible. Cheney is either right, and therefor justified in his comment, or wrong, and making a reprehensible charge himself. Would you agree to that?

The fact the charges are comming from senators well aware of, and very familiar with, the Intelligence Committee Report, makes the charges (if false) all the more reprehensible. Kept in that context, can you see how these charges comming out of the mouths of senators who ought to know better, is just a little different than the general public believing the same thing?

[quote]
If you believe someone is telling a lie, why is it not ok to say that the act of willfully telling that lie is “dishonest and reprehensible?”

First, who is saying it is a lie? The one being accused stating that it is a lie doesn’t make it so.[/quote]

True…but that isnt what we are debating, is it? I’ve already gone over this above so I wont here…but if he is right, the charges are reprehensible.

Oh, even though I dont want this to turn into a debate over who is telling the truth, the Senate Intelligence Committee Report says the following:

“the Committee was not presented with any evidence that intelligence analysts changed their judgments as a result of political pressure…or that anyone even attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to do so…”

So it seems, Profx, given that these senators are well aware of the above report, their charges are, at the very least, in doubt. Given that the administration maintains they did not lie and a senate investigation lends credence to that claim, it seems to me that the charges in question (considering they came with no real evidence) were nothing more than an attempt to “muddy the water.” If that is the case, would you not agree that the charges are reprehensible?

[quote]
Claiming that the act of doing so is reprehensible, no matter how you try to defend it, is to act contrary to our right to free speech. Sorry if that hurts.[/quote]

Funny.

LBRTRN: You are a lier Profx.

Profx: That is a reprehensible charge, LBRTRN!

LBRTRN: Stop trying to take away my right to free speech!

Silly claims get silly responses.

[quote]
Regardless of your answer to that question, show me where Cheney called the “act” anything. He specifically called the charges dishonest and reprehensible. Again, he said, “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.” Note, he said the “suggestion.” What is the suggestion? It is that the Bush administration lied. That, Profx, is commenting on a comment, as you put it.

Excuse me, but I seem to be misunderstanding. Are you honestly saying that Cheney’s specific quote is NOT referring to the act of making a claim? What exactly is a “suggestion”? The definition for "suggestion is as follows:

[b] 1. The act of suggesting.

  1. Something suggested: We ordered the shrimp, a suggestion of the waiter.

  2. The sequential process by which one thought or mental image leads to another.

  3.   1. A psychological process by which an idea is induced in or adopted by another without argument, command, or coercion.
  2. An idea or response so induced.

  4. A hint or trace: just a suggestion of makeup; the first suggestion of trouble ahead.
    [/b]

Therefore, he very well did call the act of making these statements reprehensible so from his very own words he doesn’t believe in the Constitution.[/quote]

Thats great, you gave me a defenition for suggestion. Question: was Cheney refering to their “act of suggesting” or, was he refering to “something suggested?”

What does suggested mean, Profx?

Suggest:

transitive verb

  • to offer for consideration or as a hypothesis

Q:What did the senators in question “suggest”
or “offer as a hypothesis?”

A:That the Bush administration lied.

Q:What did Cheney say in response to the above suggestion?

A:And the suggestion that has 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.

Cheney says, “the suggestion that’s been made.” He then goes on to explain what that suggestion is, “that the President of the United States or any member of this administration purposely misled the American people.” Cheney finishes by refering to the suggestion as “charges.”

Considering he says specifically that he is refering to a suggestion “made” and then refers to that same suggestion as a “charge,” it seems far more likely that he had in mind “something suggested” and not “the act of suggesting,” as anyone not hopelessly committed to winning an argument can see.

[quote]
That is in no way calling those making the argument reprehensible and it is in no way calling “war critics” reprehensible. Keep in mind that my original point was that Cheney never called “war critics” reprehensible, as you claimed in an earlier post.

Bullshit. By making the statement that the act of claiming that the adminstration may have known one side but relayed another is reprehensible, he is very well calling MANY war critics and their actions reprehensible.[/quote]

Two can play at that game…bullshit! Hey, look at that, I win! Unless you consider a few senators “many,” and what they said as “their actions,” then you are wrong.

[quote]If you are going to claim that the president backed away from Cheney’s comments, you need to post a quote. The article cited earlier in this thread makes the following claim:

“People should feel comfortable about expressing their opinions about Iraq,” Bush said, three days after agreeing with Vice President Dick Cheney that the critics were “reprehensible.”

First of all, as I’ve already pointed out, the very premise of the above statement is false because Cheney never called war critics reprehensible. Just because a reporter completely mischaracterizes something, doesnt make it fact. Provide the quote in which the president agreed that war critics are reprehensible and I’ll conceed the argunment (good luck because its hard to agree with a statemnt that wasnt made in the first place). Second, exactly how is the president’s comment in opposition to Cheney’s? The preisident made the comment because people were completely twisting Cheney’s comments into something they arent; namely, a condemnation of war critics. The president’s statement was a clarification for those who cant seem to understand the difference between describibing what they believe to be lies as “reprehensible” and calling critics of the war reprehensible. Bush agreed with the former and was forced to disavow the latter even though no one claimed such in the first place.

Dude, once you awake, may I suggest taking the blue pill next time.[/quote]

I guess that means you have no quote?
When in doubt, make a snide comment, right? You love to post quotes completely divorced from context but you wont quote Bush’s actual words? Is it because his actual words dont support your opinion?

Right, because thats exactly what my argument has been…huh? Can someone say strawman!

147

[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
Again, what does that have to with anything? If the charge the Bush administration lied is in fact a lie itself, and its proponents know it as such (as Cheney maintains), then it is a reprehensible charge. [/quote]

Why is it so hard for you to understand that some people want to know what really went on with the information? If this had been a democratic president who basically turned his nose up at public relations with other countries and instigated a war partially based on “faulty” intel, we would never hear the end of it. For some reason, when it comes to republicans, no one is to blame and there is the strong desire to just sweep the whole issue under the carpet and continue onward with “Liberate Iraq” campaigns. The accusations of “cherry picking” info aren’t coming from nowhere. They are coming out because many feel they were lied to. Why attempt to quiet this? Why act as if it isn’t relevant? Why pretend as if where there is smoke, there couldn’t possibly be fire? Wouldn’t even you want to know if everything wasn’t on the up and up? If not, why not? Because of the party they belong to? Since when did we start trusting politicians to this degree? I haven’t heard of this type of romantic devotion since Kennedy.

[quote]
If you wish to argue that the senators in question are telling the truth, by all means do so. Because if that is the case, Cheney’s description of their charge is, in fact, incorrect. Furthermore, if Cheney knows they are telling the truth (whcich, if true, must be the case) then his charge is itself reprehensible. Cheney is either right, and therefor justified in his comment, or wrong, and making a reprehensible charge himself. Would you agree to that? [/quote]

The only thing I agree with is that we would all like to know what the hell happened behind closed doors to allow false intel to lead to the deployment of thousands of American men and women. You can pretend as if WMD’s were downplayed to the general public if you want to. Everyone isn’t buying it. WMD’s were what we were all waiting for. Finding Saddam in a hole had none of the appeal that finding a huge bunker filled with Ebola-Nukes would have had.

[quote]
The fact the charges are comming from senators well aware of, and very familiar with, the Intelligence Committee Report, makes the charges (if false) all the more reprehensible.[/quote]

How is that? They are claiming they were not told of the doubts as far as the intel. Don’t you think that is cause enough to start asking some questions? If not, why not?

[quote]
Kept in that context, can you see how these charges comming out of the mouths of senators who ought to know better, is just a little different than the general public believing the same thing?[/quote]

They ought to know better? They are claiming that what they “knew” was cherry picked to present a picture that led to attack as the necessary course of action. Again, why try to silence that?

[quote]
If you believe someone is telling a lie, why is it not ok to say that the act of willfully telling that lie is “dishonest and reprehensible?” [/quote]

Are you honestly saying you don’t understand this point of view? You have every right to disagree, but you truly can’t understand it? Wow.

So, because they weren’t presented with evidence of pressure being placed on those who collected this intel, that means that it is not a possibility? Do tell.

[quote]
So it seems, Profx, given that these senators are well aware of the above report, their charges are, at the very least, in doubt.[/quote]

So was the intel given about WMD’s. The question is, who knew about the doubts while this info was being doled out? Anyone?

Pointing out to you that you are willing to accept that these particular politicians just would never lie about something shows that it is no “straw man” to point out to you again that politicians lie. I am trying to figure out where your loving trust comes from. Is it simply because of the color red and an elephant?

148

[quote]Professor X wrote:
LBRTRN wrote:
Again, what does that have to with anything? If the charge the Bush administration lied is in fact a lie itself, and its proponents know it as such (as Cheney maintains), then it is a reprehensible charge.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that some people want to know what really went on with the information? If this had been a democratic president who basically turned his nose up at public relations with other countries and instigated a war partially based on “faulty” intel, we would never hear the end of it. For some reason, when it comes to republicans, no one is to blame and there is the strong desire to just sweep the whole issue under the carpet and continue onward with “Liberate Iraq” campaigns. The accusations of “cherry picking” info aren’t coming from nowhere. They are coming out because many feel they were lied to. Why attempt to quiet this? Why act as if it isn’t relevant? Why pretend as if where there is smoke, there couldn’t possibly be fire? Wouldn’t even you want to know if everything wasn’t on the up and up? If not, why not? Because of the party they belong to? Since when did we start trusting politicians to this degree? I haven’t heard of this type of romantic devotion since Kennedy.[/quote]

You are equivocating Profx. Im am not arguing that those senators dont have the right to question the Bush admin and im not arguing that they shouldnt have called the Bush admin a bunch of liers. What I am arguing is that the Bush administration has just as much a right to call those charges reprehensible. And in doing so, they are not crushing dissent in any way, as you have claimed.

[quote]
If you wish to argue that the senators in question are telling the truth, by all means do so. Because if that is the case, Cheney’s description of their charge is, in fact, incorrect. Furthermore, if Cheney knows they are telling the truth (whcich, if true, must be the case) then his charge is itself reprehensible. Cheney is either right, and therefor justified in his comment, or wrong, and making a reprehensible charge himself. Would you agree to that?

The only thing I agree with is that we would all like to know what the hell happened behind closed doors to allow false intel to lead to the deployment of thousands of American men and women.[/quote]

I agree…when did I ever say otherwise?

When did I ever say anything to that effect?

100% agreed. But why are you telling me this and what does it have to do with the topic at hand? Again, I am only saying that Cheney didnt call war critics reprehensible.

[quote]
The fact the charges are comming from senators well aware of, and very familiar with, the Intelligence Committee Report, makes the charges (if false) all the more reprehensible.

How is that? They are claiming they were not told of the doubts as far as the intel. Don’t you think that is cause enough to start asking some questions? If not, why not?[/quote]

Once again, I never said they shouldnt ask questions. That is their job after all.

[quote]
Kept in that context, can you see how these charges comming out of the mouths of senators who ought to know better, is just a little different than the general public believing the same thing?

They ought to know better? They are claiming that what they “knew” was cherry picked to present a picture that led to attack as the necessary course of action. Again, why try to silence that?[/quote]

All I’m saying is that according to Intelligence Committee Report, the Bush admin. didnt preasure the intelligence community in any way. So, if the Senate did indeed get cherry picked information, they got it from the intelligence comunity acting on its own(if you believe the report that is).

I have no problem with this line of argument but I just want to make one more point. The Senate Intelligence Committee has complete access to the intelligence community. They have complete access to the same intelligence reports that the administration does (despite what Sen. Biden says). Why in the world is everyone letting the Senate of the hook?

No, I truely cant understand why someone using the word reprehensible in reference to a lie, is wrong. Especially a lie (if it is in fact a lie) of that magnitude.

[quote]
“the Committee was not presented with any evidence that intelligence analysts changed their judgments as a result of political pressure…or that anyone even attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to do so…”

So, because they weren’t presented with evidence of pressure being placed on those who collected this intel, that means that it is not a possibility? Do tell.[/quote]

Because claims were being made that the Bush admin did pressure the intelligence comunity, the Intelligence Committe isued a request asking anyone with information showing examples of pressure to come forward. No one did. Now, that doesnt mean its impossible but it does mean that as of now, the claims are completely unsubstantiated.

[quote]
So it seems, Profx, given that these senators are well aware of the above report, their charges are, at the very least, in doubt.

So was the intel given about WMD’s. The question is, who knew about the doubts while this info was being doled out? Anyone?[/quote]

My guess, everyone involved…the Senate included. However, given Iraq’s history, our underestimation of their capabilities the first time around, and the fact there was quite a bit of evidence supporting the conclusion that Iraq did have WMD, everyone involved simply overestimated iraq’s capabilites this time around, giving more credence to reports saying Iraq possesed WMD. But thats just my guess…the Bush admin may have lied but I’m going to wait for evidence before I make any difinitve statements.

[quote]
Pointing out to you that you are willing to accept that these particular politicians just would never lie about something shows that it is no “straw man” to point out to you again that politicians lie.[/quote]

Well, actually, yes it is, considering I have never said they didnt lie. Once again, this argument was never supposed to be about who lied; it is only about whether or not Cheney called “war critics” reprehensible. So when you say something like, “Are you really telling me politicians dont lie!?” that is by definition a strawman argument. The truth is, I dont know who lied and who didnt…

That’s another strawman argument. I have no “loving trust” for anyone. You, on the otherhand, clearly have a blinding bias. In case you havent figured it out, one can defend an individuals actions when those actions are being mischaracterized without agreeing with everything that individual does and/or says. Is it simply because, in Cheney, you arent seeing the color blue and a donkey?

149

[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
You are equivocating Profx. Im am not arguing that those senators dont have the right to question the Bush admin and im not arguing that they shouldnt have called the Bush admin a bunch of liers. What I am arguing is that the Bush administration has just as much a right to call those charges reprehensible. And in doing so, they are not crushing dissent in any way, as you have claimed.[/quote]

Dude, Bush COULD climb on top of the Whitehouse with Cheney and moon all of DC, however, let’s not pretend as if there would be no consequences. If a president openly agrees with a statement that speaking against the administration is REPREHENSIBLE, you don’t think that would have any consequences as far as “crushing dissent”? I mean, hey, it’s a free country (for now), I guess you can believe what you want.

[quote]
100% agreed. But why are you telling me this and what does it have to do with the topic at hand? Again, I am only saying that Cheney didnt call war critics reprehensible.[/quote]

Yes, he did. We can go back and forth like this until New Years, just don’t fall into “I’m rubber and you’re glue”.

Then what are you having a problem with? If they believed they were lied to, wouldn’t you want to find out if they actually were? Why walk around believing that this administration just would never lie to anyone or at least withold some of the facts?

[quote]
All I’m saying is that according to Intelligence Committee Report, the Bush admin. didnt preasure the intelligence community in any way. So, if the Senate did indeed get cherry picked information, they got it from the intelligence comunity acting on its own(if you believe the report that is).[/quote]

You don’t know this. You don’t have a clue what went on. No one does but the men in question. Anyone who has worked a job knows that there are unspoken requirements and rules. Just because no one has been given proof that you won’t get a raise if you fart in the breakroom doesn’t mean it won’t happen.

I know that probably made sense to you when you were typing it, but now that it is on the screen, are you laughing too? What is my bias? That I don’t trust people to always tell the truth? I would advise you to adopt some of that “bias”.

150

[quote]Professor X wrote:
LBRTRN wrote:
You are equivocating Profx. Im am not arguing that those senators dont have the right to question the Bush admin and im not arguing that they shouldnt have called the Bush admin a bunch of liers. What I am arguing is that the Bush administration has just as much a right to call those charges reprehensible. And in doing so, they are not crushing dissent in any way, as you have claimed.

Dude, Bush COULD climb on top of the Whitehouse with Cheney and moon all of DC, however, let’s not pretend as if there would be no consequences. If a president openly agrees with a statement that speaking against the administration is REPREHENSIBLE, you don’t think that would have any consequences as far as “crushing dissent”? I mean, hey, it’s a free country (for now), I guess you can believe what you want.
[/quote]

Dude, I dont know why I even try but once again, when did anyone say that speaking against the administration is reprehensible? Provide a quote! I have quoted Cheney directly, shown that his use of the word “suggestion” was clearly in reference to what was suggested not the act of suggesting, and shown over and over that he in no way called war critics reprehensible. You have proven absolutely nothing. When I confront you with facts contradicting your arguments you change the subject or throw out strawman arguments in return.

[quote]
100% agreed. But why are you telling me this and what does it have to do with the topic at hand? Again, I am only saying that Cheney didnt call war critics reprehensible.

Yes, he did. We can go back and forth like this until New Years, just don’t fall into “I’m rubber and you’re glue”.[/quote]

Saying, “yes he did” doesnt prove a damn thing Profx. You have offered nothing other than your insistance that he did and Im sorry, but that just doesnt cut it. I, on the other hand, have givin you his words in context. His words say nothing about war critics being reprehensible; anyone with a basic understanding of the English language can see he was refering to specific comments…not war critics. When someone says, “those charges are reprehensible,” what does that mean, Profx?

[quote]
Once again, I never said they shouldnt ask questions. That is their job after all.

Then what are you having a problem with? If they believed they were lied to, wouldn’t you want to find out if they actually were? Why walk around believing that this administration just would never lie to anyone or at least withold some of the facts?[/quote]

Its like I’m talking to a brick wall! Once again, my problem is not with the senators, it is with your claim that Cheney called war critics reprehensible. Stop trying to frame my posistion as something it is not. And for Christ’s sake Profx, when did I ever say this administration “would never lie to anyone?”

I have repeatedly said that I dont know who lied! I have no idea what really happened but considering the senators havent proven their case yet, when they call the Bush admin a bunch of liers, they should expect that claim to be thrown back in their face. So when Cheney calls their claim “dishonest and reprehensible” I have no problem with that, just like I have no problem with the senators making the claim in the first place!

[quote]
All I’m saying is that according to Intelligence Committee Report, the Bush admin. didnt preasure the intelligence community in any way. So, if the Senate did indeed get cherry picked information, they got it from the intelligence comunity acting on its own(if you believe the report that is).

You don’t know this. You don’t have a clue what went on. No one does but the men in question. Anyone who has worked a job knows that there are unspoken requirements and rules. Just because no one has been given proof that you won’t get a raise if you fart in the breakroom doesn’t mean it won’t happen.[/quote]

I never siad, “I know this.” I said, if you believe the report and given the way the Senate works, no evidence has been shown proving the Bush admin lied. Im not saying they didnt lie and I’m not saying they did…ok!?

[quote]
I have no problem with this line of argument but I just want to make one more point. The Senate Intelligence Committee has complete access to the intelligence community. They have complete access to the same intelligence reports that the administration does (despite what Sen. Biden says). Why in the world is everyone letting the Senate of the hook?

I’m not letting anyone off the hook. I don’t fully trust the Senators any more than this administration. However, I would also like to know just who knew that doubts of WMD’s existed and why this was a secret.[/quote]

I would like to know too, Profx. If the president lied, I hope we find out about it. But in the mean time, I dont expect the admin. to sit there and let senators (who have a vested political interest in the outcome) call them liers.

What is your bias!? Now I’m laughing!!! Everyone reading this can see your bias Profx! Its not that you just dont trust people, its that you obviously hate this administration so much that you are letting it cloud your judgement.

Seriously Profx, there are plenty of reasons not to like this administration and there are plenty of great arguements to be made but this isnt one of them. In this case, they did nothing wrong and because you so badly want to find more reasons to dislike them (as if one needs more) you refuse to admit that you have mischaracterized Cheney’s words. You, and people like you, are only doing harm to your own position when you carry on like this.

Feel free to respond to everything I’ve said and dont hesitate to completely mischaracterize my entire argument (as you have already done numerous times). I’m done…