Letters to the Editor
-
Cheney
In that long list of quotes, you left out the most damning one. Unfortunately I don't have the exact quote, but to paraphrase him, he said that he has seen evidence that others have not. Apparently that is 100% true. He saw evidence that contradicted what he was saying!
-
Cheney the liar
What about his statement that the insurgency was in it's last throws?
-
Right on!
These quotes are exactly the kind of damning evidence against the vice president (and the rest of the Bush administration) that enrage me to the point of uttering a profanity laced rant. His soul must be as black as the blackest of black holes to let him question the integrity and motives of people who are challenging this administration's deceptions.
I don't believe in an afterlife, so I hope that Cheney rots in an earthly hell for his lies and their deathly consequences. Is there no one in the Bush administration who has the integrity of Deep Throat or John Dean who will spill the beans on these pieces of camel dung? It is going to take many years of deliberate effort to restore American credibility after we finally depose these bastards.
-
the american public has unfortunately a very short memory...
wouldn't it be great if someone could air a commercial on tv with all those comments from cheney... just to refresh everyone's memory....
-
War
Is this not another Cheney-Bush "Bring It On" moment. These guys play cowboy while our soldiers die. I honestly think these jerks just declared war on the good citizens of our nation who oppose torture, senseless war, and deceit. It's time for true patriots to take on these jerks and restore the good and genuine values of our nation.
-
throwing words
How can cheney even consider using the word "backbone" I'm a Vietnam Vet that fat slob is a piece of sh_t..........(Mr. Deferment)
-
Throwing words at Dick Cheney
"....less suited to raise the question of truthfulness....?
Given the concrete evidence, the words in that sentence reflect a MSM tactic -- watered down words for what is actually taking place....before our very eyes.
A bold-faced liar is a bold-faced liar is a bold-faced liar. Why mince words?
Why is he not forced to explain -- using side-by-side, or back-to-back, video tapes of him saying one thing and then almost immediately saying the exact opposite. Why does no one CALL HIM on this?????
WHY ARE THESE PEOPLE NOT BEING IMPEACHED??? WHAT DOES IT TAKE?
We need a Constitutional amendment that says that -- if power is held by one party -- in all branches of government -- Executive, Legislative, Judicial -- and there is good evidence of corruption and betraying the best interests of the country and the American people -- then the minority party has permission to pursue impeachment proceedings, including supoenas, etc. without being impeded by the other party.
We sit out here -- feeling powerless because they have grabbed all the power -- in some cases through outright fraud and smear tactics, thanks to Rove's handiwork/legacy -- and we are to believe we HAVE NO CHOICE but wait out the next three years -- of allowing them to continue tearing down the government and this country and its best interests and image in the world -- while these rogue criminals are allowed to tear us apart, rape our budget and natural resources -- including the 2,079 dead and the thousands wounded -- and just LET IT CONTINUE.....like some hapless victims???
I seriously doubt that is what the founding fathers had in mind.
This travesty.
-
Bush/Cheney Revisionism
One of the more frustrating aspects of the current furor over the manipulation of pre-war intelligence is the posturing - on both sides of the aisle - as if the evidence refuting the White House's interpretation of the evidence is a shocking new accusation. I remember it quite differently. What I remember most was Democratic leaderships' failure to step up to the plate with information that was available to me - a lowly paralegal with no political connections whatsoever.
With the limited resources available to me here at my desk (without tapping into Lexis), I found this line by line refutation of the claims made in the 2003 State of the Union address, posted by the Center for Public Accuracy on March 1, 2003. That article links to a News Hour interview which mentions doubts about the purpose of the aluminum tubes and other claims. It also links to the text of a speech given by Dr. ElBaradei, given to the UN the day before the President's speech. In it he states that, while they were not exactly volunteering information, Iraq was being cooperative with the weapons inspectors.
http://www.accuracy.org/article.php?articleId=1030
www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june03/inspectors_1-27.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/28/international/middleeast/28ETEX.html
The Bush administration simply lied in the face of this contemporaneous information. Bush and Cheney's assertions then and now are patently false and it was clearly illegal for the US to invade on the basis of these lies. The President started a war he thought he could win because he knew Iraq was not armed with WMD.
-
Dick Cheney's ethics
Cheney is now accusing Democrats of raising the issue of the Administrations manipulation of intelligence. He forgets that the Downing Street memos raised that issue to the public's attention several months ago and didn't elicit the same response at that time. Cheney's maor opportunity to set the facts straight was when Democratice legislators asked the Administration to release the records of the White House Iraq Group, the intelligence filter that determined which intelligence was fit to broadcast and which should be left out. That request was refused outright and the WHIG is now dismantled, all documents probably shredded. We may never know since there is no longer a requirement for the White House to leave records thanks to W.
-
Lied about why we went to war
Bush/Cheney are being defended on the basis that they did not lie about the fact that they believed Saddam had WMDs.
But that is not the lie they told. Bush/Cheney lied when they said we went to war because Saddam possessed WMDs. They went to war with Iraq because 9/11 gave them the cover they needed to achieve a neocon dream; a Iraq government favorable to the U.S. that would allow us more leverage in the Middle East.
This would never have flown with the American people. So they looked around for a rationale they could use to justify the war. Bringing democracy to the Iraqi people was weak. Why not do that with other countries with repressive regimes? Its not like Iraq was the only one. The WMD argument looked solid and would scare people. The hard part was making it seem that he had the capability to use them. Here is where they used the weakest link in their argument. That Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda and would give the weapons to them to use on the U.S. and our allies. This was not credible but as a scare tactic to use against an America petrified about another 9/11, it worked. For a long time a majority of Americans believed that Saddam was connected to Al Qaeda. Why? Because the Bush administration suggested as much and Americans were ready to believe it.
Do we really need an investigation into how Bush/Cheney decided in late 2001 to go to war with Iraq and how they used the run-up to the war to gather and present only the evidence that supported their pre-determined decision to oust Saddam by military force? Is this news? I read plenty of information and read it long before the war that this was exactly what they were doing. The American people and Congress went along with Bush/Cheney because they were too scared to resist. Bush/Cheney had a plan and vision. It wasn't democratic, it wasn't peaceful, it wasn't planned but it was something big and we needed something big after 9/11. Afganistan wouldn't cut it.
So the investigation should be broader than the Bush Administration because while they exploited the situation, Congress, many Democrats, much of the press and majority of the public allowed themselves to be exploited. We cannot allow Presidents to make decision about war so unilaterally. Congress has the power to declare war. They must reclaim that right in full. Not with resolutions passed long before the fact. They must do their job. They must have the intelligence and question the reasons to go to war. The press must question the intelligence and the rationale. And most importantly the public act as good citizens and get informed and be active in the decision-making process. We all failed on this and we need to hold Bush/Cheney responsible for the enormity of their failures but we must also make changes in our democracy as well.
Maybe the next time a President wants to go to war to fullfill some groups theoretical wet dream, we can all stand up to him and say, we will not kill innocent people and have our troop killed for your machismo.