1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Video of Cheney warning that an invasion of Iraq would lead to 'Quagmire' (1994)

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by jo mama, Aug 13, 2007.

Tags:
Page 3 of 3
  1. CometsWin

    CometsWin Breaker Breaker One Nine

    Joined:
    May 15, 2000
    Messages:
    28,028
    Likes Received:
    13,051


    I would say it indicts him for being an idiot or a liar. Since we all know he's not an idiot that makes him a liar who's abused the power of his office. Something definitely happened to him not after 9/11 but after he left his post as Secretary of Defense. While working at Halliburton he advocated the removal of sanctions against Iran and then even prior to 9/11 he was part of a crew in that administration that wanted to run right into Iraq. 9/11 is just a smoke screen. They all knew Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. It's all about money and power, Hayes. It's pretty obvious.
     
    #41 CometsWin, Aug 16, 2007
  2. jo mama

    jo mama Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2002
    Messages:
    14,617
    Likes Received:
    9,144
    for someone who is such a stickler for accuracy you have stated a few mistruths and not rectified them (for the sake of accuracy).

    you stated that "most of the signatories of the letter were never in the administration" - this is false - 11 or 18 (61%) were in the administration.

    you stated that "many have been critics of the administration", yet only offered one - since when does one person constitute "many"?

    you stated "the problem for you is that you think the whole administration was Wolfowitz", when i never even singled him out or mentioned him outside the list of signatories.

    you stated "A couple of the people who signed the letter ended up in the administration, so what! Most of them didn't." - again, it was not "a couple" - it was 11 of 18. that would actually be "most" of them.

    you stated "stop saying Cheney or PNAC letter etc were calling for the invasion of Iraq in the 90s." when i never said cheney called for an invasion. i said pnac, which cheney was a part of. however, i already conceded that i should have said pnac called for the removal of saddam and the use of military action, which in my opinion constitutes intervention (even though they do not explicitly say "intervention").

    i agree that rhetoric is important, which is why you should not make misstatements such as "most of the signatories of the letter were never in the administration" when the fact is, most of them were.

    so the letter was calling for an intervention of some kind (even though they did not explicitly say "intervention").
     
    #42 jo mama, Aug 17, 2007
  3. jo mama

    jo mama Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2002
    Messages:
    14,617
    Likes Received:
    9,144
    so when they say they want to remove saddam and use military action that does not mean "intervention"? by definition, when you attempt to remove a dictator and use military action you are "intervening".
     
    #43 jo mama, Aug 17, 2007
  4. rimrocker

    rimrocker Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 1999
    Messages:
    23,215
    Likes Received:
    10,405
    By my count, 14 have been in the administration.
     
    #44 rimrocker, Aug 17, 2007
  5. HayesStreet

    HayesStreet Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    8,507
    Likes Received:
    181
    How does this make him a liar?

    You're welcome to your opinion. :)


    I dont think being on an advisory board is 'in the administration,' but I will conceed more than I stated were in the administration. Congratulations, that doesn't get you anything.

    I offered two, FF and Perle, you can add Kristol to that list and there are probably others. However, I will gladly conceed three is an iffy 'many,' but should qualify for several. Again, this doesn't get you anything.

    Conceed.


    Same as above.

    Yep. We are in agreement and I am glad you recognize the difference. :)


    Same as above.

    Don't mix and match - anything you do to affect change in another country or system is intervention in the broadest terms be it diplomatic, economic, or military. In this conversation we are specifically talking about what the PNAC (and by your association, Cheney) called for in the late 90s vs what happened in Iraq. The letter called for military 'action' because in it's context 'intervention' would have been a loaded phrase, IMO.

    This is really the same argument as above. If we defined it as you do above then we could say the letter called for nothing since we were already intervening by enforcing no-fly zones.
     
    #45 HayesStreet, Aug 17, 2007
  6. jo mama

    jo mama Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2002
    Messages:
    14,617
    Likes Received:
    9,144
    i stand corrected. :D
     
    #46 jo mama, Aug 18, 2007
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 3 of 3

Share This Page

Style
ClutchFans Dark

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Rockets Content

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now