Today on Blogcritics
Home » From Quagmire to Cakewalk – Dick Cheney’s Big Flip-Flop

From Quagmire to Cakewalk – Dick Cheney’s Big Flip-Flop

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

An unlikely new star has emerged on YouTube. Dick Cheney's newly-uncovered video interview from 1994 has gotten over 600,000 views and has got everyone talking.

In this particular video, Cheney (who had been the Secretary of Defense during the Gulf War) is asked whether he thought that U.S. forces should have moved into Baghdad after Hussein's army had been defeated in 1991.

His response was that we shouldn't have because "There wouldn't have been anybody else with us. There would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq." His concern was that once the US toppled Hussein's regime, "then what are you going to put in its place?…It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq." He demonstrated his concern for the troops by asking, "how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth? Our judgment was, not very many, and I think we got it right."


Smart man, that Cheney fellow. So why was it that in 2002 and 2003 this very same man (and his minions) was telling the nation that an invasion of Iraq would be a "cakewalk" and that we would "be greeted as liberators." Neocons were quick to assure us that we needn't worry. The oil revenues would pay for the war, and we should be out of there in practically no time at all.

Of course, over the years, lots of people have questioned why Bush Sr. and his administration had not gone into Baghdad in 1991 to "finish the job." Bush, Cheney, Powell…they all had what I thought were pretty reasonable reasons for not doing exactly that.

So what was it that made Cheney flip-flop and decide that those reasons were no longer valid in 2003? Of course, the answer that he and his people always give is "9/11 changed everything." Well, it might have changed certain people's thinking about whether or not Iraq should be attacked, but how exactly did 9/11 change those predicted consequences that Cheney spoke of so eloquently in 1994?

The answer is… it didn't. Cheney was exactly right about the consequences he had predicted.

He was also a bit of a fortune teller in 1991 when speaking at the Soref Symposium shortly after the war had ended. He told his audience, "If you are going to go to war, let's send the whole group; let's make certain that we've got a force of sufficient size, as we did when we went into Kuwait, so that we do not suffer any more casualties than are absolutely necessary."

So when the average American looks at Cheney's turnabout, what is he to conclude except that Cheney and the rest were so determined to invade Iraq that they deliberately deceived people about the consequences, and were in such a hurry that they didn't even make adequate plans to deal with those very things they had predicted.

Powered by

About Doug DeLong

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Doug, I want to start out by saying two things. First, that I think you’ve hit on a very relevant subject and have a valid question, and you do it in a relatively rational tone, all of which is good. Second, please understand that I am not singling you out for criticism here, but doing what I do with every new post regardless of political orientation if it raises questions or has inconsistencies, just to get discussion started.

    It’s a short article and I have one major quibble and one minor one.

    The minor issue concerns the idea of the oil revenues paying for the war. Neocon detractors repeatedly claim that the Neocons promoted this idea publicly and were all happy that we could have a ‘free’ war. I have yet to see a specific quote attributed to anyone associated with the administration – Bill Kristol on Fox News doesn’t count – who said that we were going to use oil revenues to underwrite the war. As far as I can tell that was never a stated intent and was never acted on in any way.

    The bigger point is that you seem to forget that over a decade situations can change and people can change their minds for perfectly reasonable reasons. In the case of Iraq, between the time of Cheney’s surprising statement and his support for the later invasion, more than a decade had passed, a period during which Iraq was under severe pressure, an embargo and other sanctions which resulted in a massive decline in their economy, infrastructure and ability to wage war. Iraq in 2003 and Iraq in 1991 were very different as far as their potential to resist an invasion. After a decade of ‘softening up’, it was presumably a much easier target, the people were more pissed than ever at the government and it might have been reasonable to assume the invasion (if not the occupation) would be a ‘cakewalk’.

    People DO change their minds, and conditions also change. Suggesting some Neocon mind control or conspiracy is to distort the significance of this change in position by Cheney.

    Dave

  • http://planetjapan.org Doug DeLong

    You have to admit, tho, it’s pretty amazing how he could have been so prescient in 1994 and so completely wrong about pretty much everything relating to this war.

  • Brad Schader

    Things do change over a decade, but his statement of what would happen to an Iraq without Saddam are correct today. He was right in 1994 about what is happening today. The only thing he got wrong was forgetting he knew this. Not that he said it, but that he knew it.

    Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein’s government, then what are you going to put in its place? That’s a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off: part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it — eastern Iraq — the Iranians would like to claim, they fought over it for eight years. In the north you’ve got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey.

  • troll

    *I have yet to see a specific quote attributed to anyone associated with the administration – Bill Kristol on Fox News doesn’t count – who said that we were going to use oil revenues to underwrite the war.*

    Dave – you are correct if you don’t count the cost of rebuilding as a cost of the war…

    what Wolfowitz testified (as quoted by Salon) was: *We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.*

  • http://LesPaulisanexcellentguitarplayerwithanadmirablegraspofgoodjazz. bliffle

    Too bad that US foreign policy is determined by Cheney whimsy.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    The bigger point is that you seem to forget that over a decade situations can change and people can change their minds for perfectly reasonable reasons. In the case of Iraq, between the time of Cheney’s surprising statement and his support for the later invasion, more than a decade had passed, a period during which Iraq was under severe pressure, an embargo and other sanctions which resulted in a massive decline in their economy, infrastructure and ability to wage war.

    You might be missing the point, Dave. What’s amazing about this piece (at least from my perspective) is not that Cheney changed his mind. It’s that in the video he rattles off a set of negative consequences that would have come out of an Iraqi invasion in 1991 – all of which turned out to have been correct when he discared them and invaded Iraq anyway.

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    It’s troubling that Cheney’s apparent wisdom concerning the likely “quagmire” that would result from bringing down Saddam in ’92 did apparently vanish in the haze of 9/11.

    Actually, from a military standpoint, I don’t think things did change all that much. There may well have been more open resistance in Baghdad in ’92 than in ’03. But it more than likely would have fallen fairly quickly.

    It’s the aftermath, the vacuum left without Saddam, the likelihood of guerilla warfare, the probable sectarian violence, the opportunism of al qaida, that was foreseen back then by Cheney and presumably others in ’92 but conveniently forgotten in ’03 by largely the same people. Were they being cavalier or just stupid? It’s just another case of political spin.

    Dave, let’s not give Cheney too much credit. It should be remembered that he is, after all, an asshole.

    Baritone

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Baritone, nothing wrong with being an asshole. Some of our best leaders have been total dickweeds and we’ve loved them for it. They just don’t usually get into such a prominent position.

    As for Cheney’s prescience or lack thereof, I think it all really hinges on one thing. The huge, glaring mistake in Iraq was not how we invaded or why we invaded or whether we wanted oil or any of that crap. It was the idiotic naivete and idealism of the neocons or someone else in power – possibly Bush – in actually trying to set up a democracy and let the Iraqis run things themselves.

    It’s demonstrated in the Wolfowitz quote someone brought up above and in everything the administration did in the first year. We clearly never intended to take the oil, because doing so made no sense. Once the oil was free of Saddam the US would benefit from it no matter who actually controlled it. But for the cost of reconstruction to be low, we HAD to go in with a plan which was based around eliminating Saddam and replacing him with a puppet leader – a new ‘Saddam Lite’ dictator who was beholden to America. That kind of a transition, preserving the mechanisms of internal security and government, would have kept reconstruction costs reasonable and prevented chaos.

    But regardless of the likelihood that the war was sold as a ‘cakewalk’ on that basis, someone stepped in shortly after the invasion was over and decided to make Iraq a grand experiment in democracy, and democracy is the mother of chaos, and so chaos ensued. I said this somewhere else recent, but it’s very true that no good deed goes unpunished.

    Dave

  • http://jonsobel.com/ Jon Sobel

    People are jumping all over Cheney’s old interview as if it’s suddenly a “smoking gun” of some sort which now, at long last, clearly shows the cynicism and/or wrongheadedness of this administration, when it’s nothing but a slightly more blatant example.

    Michael’s point is the key one: not that Cheney et al. changed their minds, but that he got it so right back then. Everything he talked about ten years earlier was still true in 2003. And yet they still went ahead.

    And no one should insult our intelligence with “9/11 changed everything” when everyone knows Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

  • Martin Lav

    Strategies can change, yet execution remains the most important.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    You have to admit, tho, it’s pretty amazing how he could have been so prescient in 1994 and so completely wrong about pretty much everything relating to this war.

    Do you think he took a stupid pill? Do you think he forgot what he believed 10 years before? If he was so very wise at one point, whatever convinced him the war was worth taking on despite the potential for disaster, must have been enormously powerful and persuasive.

    Maybe we should be looking for what that thing might be. And the first person who says ‘oil’ gets to sit in the corner with a dunce cap on.

    Dave

  • http://www.robot-of-the-week.com Christopher Rose

    Where they’d be right next to the gullible folk who think it had anything to do with the war on terror or weapons of mass destruction.

  • REMF

    Well, I was going to say “oil,” but that means I’d end up in the corner with Dave, and there’s no way I’m going to prison over someone like that.
    (MCH)

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    If he was so very wise at one point, whatever convinced him the war was worth taking on despite the potential for disaster, must have been enormously powerful and persuasive.

    Well, it must indeed have been powerful to have overshadowed what he knew to be, and turned out to be, the truth.

    Maybe we should be looking for what that thing might be.

    His ego, perhaps? Off the top of my head I can’t think of any force more powerful than the ego.

    Hubris? Machismo? The need to prove something? The power of suggestion? The simple treachery of memory?

    The need to follow up the invasion of Afghanistan with a similar opportunity for exploiting the trend of post-9/11 jingoism?

  • Lumpy

    How about the presence of a massive arsenal of WMDs in the hands of a known ally if terrorists? Seems like reason enough for me.

    Though we ought to be going after the WMD storage sites in the Beka’a valley right now, unless a covert op already did and actually managed to stay secret.

  • http://planetjapan.org Doug DeLong

    How about the presence of a massive arsenal of WMDs in the hands of a known ally if terrorists?

    Oh, did they finally find those WMD’s? Thank God!!

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    How about the presence of a massive arsenal of WMDs in the hands of a known ally if terrorists? Seems like reason enough for me.

    It does sound pretty scary. Which known ally of terrorists are you talking about?

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    I don’t believe that Cheney was any more on top of the situation back in ’92 than he and the rest of the gang were in ’03. My last sentence in my comment above was more to the point.

    It was the spin that worked back in ’92. It was the way they chose to defend the decision not to got into Baghdad. But by ’03 that was all ancient history. In ’03 it served the administration’s purpose to ignore the reasons for not toppling Saddam on “92. When everything began to turn to shit, they just shrugged their shoulders and claimed that the chaos was all unpredictable, which we now know was a load of crap.

    I agree with Dave about the democracy thing. Look how difficult “democracy” has been in Russia. Iraq and many other middle eastern countries have no experience with democracy. A society must be allowed to grow into it. It took western Europe hundreds of years to fully embrace it. People who have lived all of their lives living under totalitarian regimes cannot be expected to understand the workings of a democracy. And in that vacuum of understanding opportunists will always step in and steal everything in sight and be gone before anyone even knows they were there.

    Also, Dave, I know what you mean about assholes. There are still people here in Indiana who think Bobby Knight is a great guy. Personally, I wouldn’t want to ride in an elevator with the man. I hope you Texans are enjoying his tenure down your way. Keep him down there. Hey, maybe he can set up a good man-to-man defense against Hurricane Dean!

    Baritone

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    I’m only joshin’ ya, of course, Lumpy, and personally I have to give you points for your stick-to-it-iveness. I mean, hell, even President Bush no longer believes there was a massive arsenal of WMDs in Iraq, and yet you just keep on believing!

    Go get ‘em, Tiger. :-)

  • Sicko
  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    I think they could have toppled Saddam in ’92 or in ’03, if they’d just stuck to toppling him and sticking someone else in his place. I hate to say it, but all our problems seem to almost stem from an excessive sense of responsibility and a desire to do the right thing, which sure isn’t the way most people are looking at it, but might be right anyway.

    As for democracy, it’s tough. I think that everyone does understand the concept. It’s kind of natural when any group of people gets together. What they don’t understand is that the larger the scale the harder it is to make it work, and that democracy alone is NOT a government. It’s just a tool. And the structure of government is what they don’t understand, or more specifically, our ideas of the structure of government are not compatible with the cultural background of other societies.

    You want to westernize the middle east you need to start slow from a base which is familiar to people who are tribal in nature and used to autocratic leadership.

    You need a strong leader in a constitutional style monarchy with some inobtrusive western backing – mostly arms and money. I will say it again. The Shah of Iran. Twice. The Shah of Iran. Put aside all your pissiness about how we overthrew the democratically elected legitimate government – which would have descended into tribal chaos in months – and look at the results. While the Shah was in power Iran was prosperous, successful, educated and increasingly friendly to the west.

    Get over your self-righteousness and moral piety. That’s exactly what led the Neocons wrong in Iraq. They are not that far from democrats – hell, they WERE democrats not too long ago. Democracy isn’t the solution for the rough parts of the world, benevolent dictatorship is. They’ve got to walk before they can run. Bring them capitalism and education and satellite TV and cellphones and let them work their way up to fully representative government after a few generations.

    Dave

  • http://LesPaulisanexcellentguitarplayerwithanadmirablegraspofgoodjazz. bliffle

    Not so hard to understand Cheney: he’s an Old Prevaricator. He’s good at rationalizing policies. He makes the ridiculous palatable. He’s glib, and has developed a manner that deceives people into believing that there is some deep purpose behind what he says. But there isn’t anything beyond self-assertion.

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    Bliffle,

    Very insightful regarding Cheney. You hit the nail on the head. He may be the Bush administration’s most adept spin doctor. Cheney does carry an air of being uniquely “in the know” of having greater knowledge than his detractors, but in the end, it’s all smoke and mirrors.

    Dave,

    The Shah was so enamored of and beholden to the west, and the US in particular that his modernization of Iran happened much too fast. It knocked down and stepped on too many sacred cows of the Arab/Muslim cultural and religious traditions. I am hardly an apologist for religion, but it is in the nature of people to take umbrage against those who disrespect traditions. The British learned that the hard way. Now it’s our turn.

    In any event, is it really in the best interest of Iraq and other countries in the region to be “Americanized?” Is life really all about cell phones, IPods and Starbucks?

    Baritone

  • SFC SKI

    I’ll readily agree that the planning for much of this currrent war was poor, the “surge” should have been done in 2004 when Sadr’s militias and others were taking advantage of that period’s withdrawal of personnel, and taking advantage of the dumb-ass idea of pulling troops into super-bases outside of the cities instead of the current plan of outposts in the cities controlling neighborhoods.

    I haven’t seen the video, but I don’t really need to because I remember all the debates of the time. Considering they directly affected me, I was paying attention. Then and now I felt that we should have taken out Saddam in 1991 when we had the opportunity, the overwhleming force, and the consent, or consent by silence, of the rest of the world. No one shed a tear for Ceaucescu (sp?) when he was dragged int othe street and killed by his own, no one would have missed Saddam, except for his few supporters who would have been swinging by the neck, or their heels, alongside him in the end.

    There is a very good book called “The General’s War”. In it, it discusses the recommendations of Scowcroft, Cheney, Powell, and other advisors to the first Pres. Bush in pursuing IRaqi forces all the way to Baghdad. Very enlightening and disheartening.
    Personally, I think the odds for success in regime change were even higher in 1991 for two reasons. The first is that we had definitively defeated Iraqi forces (though many civilian Iraqis in 1991 never actually saw a Coalition soldier, and so never really believe that they had been defeated, but that is another story.) Had the Iraqis actually seen not only regualr Iraqi troops, but Saddam’s personal security troops running in defeat with Us Forces on their heels, I feel they would have been far less likely to support Saddam’s regime any longer, and might then have actually welcomed US troops as liberators with far less guerrilla activities and sympathizers, etc. As it was Saddam had 12 years to freely spread his propaganda, bolster his image, and kill off any homegrown oppositon, as well as prepare for another attack.
    Second, the US military had almost twice as many ground troops in 1991, so the worries about “breaking the Army and Marines” would have been moot, and there would have been far more occupation troops to “flood the zone” against guerrilas and more ably stabilize the country. Ther probably would have been many more capable and willing Iraqis available to build a government as well. Eager to reap the “peace dividend” Americans chose to do what is always done after a war, shortsightedly downsize the military.

    IN short, these videos are only revelations for those who weren’t paying attention the first time, and they were based on the idea that Saddam could be contained and eventually would die off (that’s worked so well with Fidel and Kim Jong Il, hasn’t it?).

    Politically, not finishing the job in 1991 was a huge error, but it was understandable considering Americans who didn’t even know where Kuwait was on August 2nd were running, no, driving to, rallies carrying signs and shouting “No Blood For Oil”.

  • http://LesPaulisanexcellentguitarplayerwithanadmirablegraspofgoodjazz. bliffle

    SFC, amending the TACTICAL circumstances of either invasion doesn’t change the STRATEGIC fact that the USA is better off with Saddam than it is with the current circumstance. With Saddam left in place we have a bulwark against Iran. And we had successfully bottled up saddam in Iraq when we successfully formed a coalition that successfully drove him out of Kuwait.

    It was a savvy move to leave Saddam in place in ’91.

    It was a strategic blunder to invade in 2003.

  • moonraven

    I have a major objection with Dave Nalle’s patronizing tone in regard to this piece.

    Nalle is in no way superior in information nor in articulation of ideas than anyone else on this forum.

    His posturing to try to impose his views is simply unacceptable.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    The Shah was so enamored of and beholden to the west, and the US in particular that his modernization of Iran happened much too fast. It knocked down and stepped on too many sacred cows of the Arab/Muslim cultural and religious traditions. I am hardly an apologist for religion, but it is in the nature of people to take umbrage against those who disrespect traditions. The British learned that the hard way. Now it’s our turn.

    The Shah didn’t go after any of the major central elements of religion, just after the extremists, and the argument could be made that he didn’t go after them hard enough. Most of the same reforms were implemented in Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan and even Syria and there was no fundamentalist religious uprising and takeover in those countries, because their leaders stayed in power or were replaced by other equally effective leaders, except in the case of Lebanon. The people of those countries and the people of Iran liked those reforms and in Iran when the religious extremists took over the intellectual and leadership classes of the country who had been favored by the Shah fled by the hundreds of thousands rather than staying and fighting back.

    In any event, is it really in the best interest of Iraq and other countries in the region to be “Americanized?” Is life really all about cell phones, IPods and Starbucks?

    Of those only Starbucks is uniquely American, and they already have local businesses which do the same job and do it better than Starbucks. And it IS to their benefit to adopt the modern conveniences which the rest of the world enjoys because their culture will benefit and the mullahs will be unable to maintain the walls which separate them from the rest of the world.

    And btw, if I’ve offended MR then I must be on the right track.

    Dave

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    When someone starts to, in all apparent seriousness, suggest that what we should have done is establish a “Shah of Iraq,” and that would have solved everything…well, this is insanity as bad as, if not worse than, that of the Bushies.

    We have no business forcibly removing or establishing governments in any country (unless that country is a direct military threat, and certainly not always even then). With rare exceptions, when we have done so, the results have been calamitous, both for the country involved and for us.

    Just to point out one of the fallacies here, a strongman needs an army. The only one available to a “Shah of Iraq” would be ours. Result: US Army directly supporting a foreign military dictatorship – what a great idea! And certainly there would be resistance and guerrilla war from the Iraqi army we disbanded, just as there is now. There would be an even more outraged Iran than now. Plus the further loss of respect for us among other Western democracies. And further alienation of many Americans from their government’s immoral policies.

    In short, a Bizarro-World version of today’s situation.

    And if we had not disbanded the Iraqi army, and had established a ‘benevolent’ despot to rule them, the unknowns and the potential types of chaos continue to multiply. It would still be a big mess, and possibly even a worse one – and based on gross amorality.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Handy, starting from the assumption that we were going to invade and conquer the country then I don’t see a better solution than the ‘Shah of Iraq’ suggestion. You certainly don’t offer one.

    Not invading in the first place is an entirely different issue, but not an option anymore once invasion has been selected as the course.

    The key thing here is that foreign interventionism and nationbuilding is a foreign policy generally favored by democrats, and the neocons are democrats in republican clothing and guided Bush down a path which is inherently not characteristic of Republicans. Cheney’s original comments should be viewed in that context.

    Dave

  • http://LesPaulisanexcellentguitarplayerwithanadmirablegraspofgoodjazz. bliffle

    And yet, Nalle has supported the neocons and the Iraq invasion relentlessly. Has his loyalty to republican hegemony superceded his loyalty to country?

  • SFC SKI

    Bliffle #25 , I don’t agree. IF saddam was at one time a bulwark against Iran, his usefulness in that role did not outweigh the danger he presented otherwise. During the ’90’s, Iran was fomenting unrest in the Gulf states, and supplying Hizbollah, so short of the Iran Army rolling across the Gulf, Saddam was not that useful.
    As for “successfully containing” Saddam, if it means there wasn’t a large scale conventional war, you are correct. Otherwise, the Oil for Food scandal gives the lie to the idea that the sanctions were effective or well-enforced. Saddam made enough money to continue conventional arms development and procurement, if nothing else, as well as supporting Palestinian terrorists, and conducting cross border operations into neighboring countries. Don’t forget that at least one international terrorist was given shelter in Iraq during the late ’90’s, as well.

    I fully agree that aftermath of the war in Iraq could have been planned better, but I do believe it was necessary.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Bliffle, your comments in #30 are so ridiculous I can’t figure out whether to laugh or cry.

    After all that I’ve written you STILL can’t tell me from the Neocons? Are you just not trying?

    There’s nothing about the neocons that’s Republican as I’ve said many times before.

    Dave

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    So, according to Dave, then, the Iraq war is all on the shoulders of the evil democrats! What does that make Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, etal? Innocent and unknowing puppets of the left? Dave, you MUST be angling for a spin doctor job for the Reps.

    The Reps are just a bunch of good ole boys, god fearin’, porch sittin’ country folk, the life’s blood of our great nation who have been totally bamboozeled by those crafty urbanite Dems. If you look close, you can still see the straw in GW’s hair. What a load of crap!

    Dave, many here have been listening to you. We just don’t believe you.

    Baritone

  • Baronius

    Really interesting discussion. I wish I’d got into this board sooner.

    I’m inclined to discount behind-the-scenes stories about either Gulf War run-up, because they’re usually written solely to make Powell look good. Whatever the advisors were saying, the first Gulf War followed Bush 41’s tendency of failing to exploit opportunities, and the current war has all the brazenness of Bush 43. So maybe the advisors don’t secretly run the show after all.

    In both wars, Cheney’s public statements supported the administrations’ positions. That’s what you’re supposed to do. No one should know what an advisor (least of all the VP) says in closed chambers.

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    Dave,

    Just an add on here. You have so often noted that the so called Neocons are as you say “Democrats in Republican clothing.” That is mis-leading and only a half truth at most, and you know it. Just as with most politicians and most preachers as well, you use the parts of history (or as in the case of preachers, the bible) that suit your argument and ignore the rest.

    It’s true those who first earned the moniker of Neocon emerged largely from the Democratic party. This happened during a period – mainly the 1960s when definitions of just who was who and who believed what was pretty much up in the air.

    The Neocons divorced themselves from the youth movement and the shifting to the left, mainly in response to social issues of the day, by many in the democratic party. The Neocon’s ideals and goals soon found a home in the right shifting Republican party. Today’s Neocons have no afinity for or relationship with the Dems. Pretty much since at least the Reagan years, they have become fully assimilated right wing conservative Reps. They’ve even lost their gills.

    Don’t lay our involvement in Iraq in the laps of the Dems. True, in the name of political survival, a number of Dems stupidly supported Bush and his Iraq agenda, for which many are now paying the price. But it was Bush and company who fathered the whole idea and the Neocons and other Reps, pretty much to a man (and woman) followed suit with gusto.

    Baritone

  • Baronius

    Baritone, sure, when Dave talks about the Republican Party, he means the big tent, gay-friendly, small government, anti-interventionist, pro-immigration party that maybe existed for 1/10 second in Barry Goldwater’s mind while he was sneezing once.

    Historically, America has had trade policy hand-in-hand with its interventionism and immigration policies. We are generally either international (in trade, immigration, and treaties) or not. Neither party recently has been unified on the subject of immigration. On the subject of military intervention, we’re seeing the paleocon/neocon battle being played out with Obama’s positions on Pakistan, Iraq, and Sudan. As for free trade, the R’s have been pretty nearly 100% pro, and the D’s have played the unions and the internationalists.

    And on a side note, “Islam’s sacred cows” is now one of my favorite mixed metaphors. Not even a mixed metaphor, exactly; I don’t know what it is, but it’s amusing.

  • Lumpy

    Ever heard of Teddy Roosevelt or even Bob Dole? They wouldn’t have put up with this cryptostalinist neocon shit either.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    Yes, some neocons are [or mostly were, since a number of the oldest are dead] ex-Democrats. But I doubt you can find many neocons who supported either of the most recent Democratic presidents, or in fact any Democratic presidential candidates later than Henry ‘Scoop’ Jackson [he last ran in 1976 and died in 1983]. Likewise, you won’t find very many [any?] current Democrats who support neoconservatism. Therefore, calling it a Democratic philosophy has little or no meaning. It’s a word game. Why play it?

    Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are not ‘officially’ neoconservatives, but they were allied with the neocons concerning the Soviets during the 70s and 80s [inflating claims of Soviet military might and Soviet backing of terrorism] and concerning Iraq later. [This makes Cheney’s Cassandra cries in the early 90s even more fascinating and twisted, though for him it’s now all about 9/11 and increasing executive-branch powers to imperial/Nixonian levels.]

    Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger were foreign interventionists in Asia, South America and elsewhere, yet they were neither neocons or Democrats, and were in fact largely despised by both. And they are surely not the ‘pure’ libertarian sort of Republican that many [like Dave] hold up as an ideal.

    Why ignore all that, or obfuscate it, when discussing this subject? Serves no good purpose.

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    Baronius,

    “Islamic sacred cows.” Yeah, I liked it, too. Maybe a Hindu will look at that and say, “Say what?”

    Frankly, I hope the paleos and the neos go at each other so avidly that they don’t notice the Dems opening the White House windows and spritzing Febreze all around the Oval Office to get rid of the stuffy, unpleasant odor left by the previous tenant.

    Baritone

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    The excellent new movie “No End in Sight” is a documentary about the Iraq war. While it doesn’t have any earth-shaking revelations for anyone who has been paying attention to the news for the last several years, it’s instructive to have the story laid out clearly and chronologically [and, it seems to me, in a nonpartisan way, thought some on the right won’t like what they see].

    Dave says I offer no alternative scenario to his “Shah of Iraq” fantasy. Possibly I was too flabbergasted by it. Anyway, watching this movie, now on in NY and sure to be in other cities and on TV and DVD soon, I did have other ideas.

    Iraq began to become a disaster before democracy or elections were part of the picture. There was a moment, a period of maybe a month or three in 2003, when there may have been hope.

    The film convincingly lays the blame for what followed on two missed opportunities: the refusal to have US soldiers intervene in the looting that spiraled into countrywide, chaotic theft, kidnapping and murder; and the disbanding and firing of the entire Iraqi army and the civilian Baathist infrastructure. There were smart Americans in Iraq who tried to warn of the dangers of these two catastrophic errors, but no one in the White House or the Pentagon was listening. Many still seemed to think we would be headed home in a few months.

    But the fired military and Baathist bureaucrats inevitably started an insurgency, and the looting of historic art treasures morphed into the wholesale theft of vast unguarded weapons stashes. Chaos ensued.

    So it’s possible that we might have had more success in rebuilding the country, with far less violence, if those in charge at the Pentagon were not such incompetent, pigheaded fools who refused to listen to their best men on the ground. And a “Shah” need never have even been thought about.

    But it’s way too late now.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Handyguy, you’re being naive. If you think one of the vital failures was the disbanding of the Iraqi army, then you are essentially agreeing with me, because if that army had been kept together it would have insisted on strong leadership in the form of a ‘kinder, gentler’ Saddam surrogate, and that is exactly what I was talking about with what you somewhat inaccurately termed the ‘shah of iraq’ plan. And I agree that such an approach would have worked and should have been attempted.

    Dave

  • http://planetjapan.org Doug DeLong

    Dave: The bigger point is that you seem to forget that over a decade situations can change and people can change their minds for perfectly reasonable reasons. In the case of Iraq, between the time of Cheney’s surprising statement and his support for the later invasion, more than a decade had passed…

    Here’s Cheney from Meet the Press – August 2000 – expressing virtually identical views as those in 1994. That kind of narrows your window of a “decade” to more like a couple of years. I’m still going with the “deliberately deceptive” thesis.

    From MTP…Cheney was asked if he regreted not taking out Saddam in 1991…

    CHENEY: I don’t, Tim. It was–and it’s been talked about since then. But the fact of the matter is, the only way you could have done that would be to go to Baghdad and occupy Iraq. If we’d done that, the U.S. would have been all alone. We would not have had the support of the coalition, especially of the Arab nations that fought alongside us in Kuwait. None of them ever set foot inside Iraq. Conversations I had with leaders in the region afterwards–they all supported the decision that was made not to go to Baghdad.

    They were concerned that we not get into a position where we shifted instead of being the leader of an international coalition to roll back Iraqi aggression to one in which we were an imperialist power, willy-nilly moving into capitals in that part of the world taking down governments. So I think we got it right, so suppose it’s one of those things that’ll be debated for some time. But I thought the decision was sound at the time, and I do today. [Meet the Press, 8/27/00]

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Doug, having a decade is nice, but people can change their minds on something in a matter of minutes. For example, while sitting in front of a TV watching planes fly into the WTC.

    Dave

  • moonraven

    Changing one’s mind as a result of a smoke and mirrors national tragedy is being a lemming.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    Calling someone who’s trying to have a discussion naive is unwarranted and destructive, and I resent it. I also think it’s utterly untrue.

    My mode here is mostly to deflate bogus or incomplete arguments and to explore multiple aspects of an issue. I don’t claim to have a monopoly on facts or ‘truth.’ Sometimes Dave sounds like he does believe that about his own opinions. We’re naive, he knows all. It’s a condescending attitude and gets us nowhere.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Handy, I wasn’t suggesting that you are as a whole a naif who’s wandering around in wonder completely untainted by wisdom. I didn’t say ‘you are naive’ in general, I said that what you were saying in this particular context was naive. Not the same thing. You usually make some pretty good points on a lot of subjects.

    Calling one position naive is just a way of expressing why I don’t agree with that position. Don’t’ call my suggestion that a benevolent dictator would have worked in Iraq if implemented immediately after the invasion a ‘shah of iran fantasy’ if you don’t want me to call you ‘naive’. Especially if after blowing off the suggestion you then essentially restate it in your own words when you talk about the need to have kept the army intact, which only would have been possible under a scenario like the one I proposed.

    Dave

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    Dave has some “Cheney” like qualities, don’t you think?

    B-tone

  • http://LesPaulisanexcellentguitarplayerwithanadmirablegraspofgoodjazz. bliffle

    “…people can change their minds on something in a matter of minutes. For example, while sitting in front of a TV watching planes fly into the WTC.”

    Oh wait a minute. Are we back to saying Saddam was involved in 9/11?

    Dave, please make up your mind.

  • Lumpy

    Bliffster, don’t u think that just maybe 9/11 heightened awareness of all terrorist threats?

    The consistent mistake of the cryptoreds here and elsewhere is to think of each terrorist or act of terrorism as isolated from each other when they really are not.

  • troll

    Baronius – *As for free trade, the R’s have been pretty nearly 100% pro, and the D’s have played the unions and the internationalists.*

    saying this is like saying that R’s are almost 100% pro keeping government small…words are cheap in politics – check their votes on tariffs – quotas – and subsidies

    what you will find is that few R’s or D’s are free traders

    on the issue of Iran/Iraq – US policy concerning Iranians has been irrational since their Islamic revolution – we backed the wrong horse when we chose to support the Sunnis in order to ‘punish’ Iran imagining that the Sunnis were somehow more secular and moderate

    remember – the US initially supported the Taliban’s ‘law and order’ approach…(until it became clear that we weren’t going to get security for those damned pipelines in any case)…the Iranians have good cause to think that we in the US are nut cases

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    “Cryptoreds?” Puleeeease. Name calling bullshit!

    Sure, 9/11 made us all look up from our little lives and wonder, What the fuck? It was obvious to anyone even casually aware of the world that the 9/11 attacks were not the work of some store front terrorist group. But well before the Iraq invasion, it had been made clear that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. The REAL terrorist threat, mainly that from Al Qaida, remained in and around Afghanistan. This is all old news, but it apparently hasn’t sunk in with some.

    Cheney is all about political expediency. He told us what supported administration decisions in ’92. It supported administration decisions to their advantage in ’02 & ’03 to ignore what had been said in the past.

    The single mindedness of the Bush administration obviated the possibility of any other course. An invasion of Iraq had been on the table well before 9/11. The Bush spinsters knew after the September attacks that they could sell bringing down Saddam simply through innuendo, broad, empty accusations and stonewalling bullshit. Once the invasion was underway, they knew that there could be no turning back. It just took those intervening ten years to alter the acceptable number of dead.

    Baritone

  • REMF

    “Dave has some “Cheney” like qualities, don’t you think?”
    – B-tone

    Yes, definitely. Although Dave claims to be a better shot.
    (MCH)

  • http://www.libertyrepublican.com Dave Nalle

    Damn those bushies for bringing down Saddam. He was such a nice fellow. Next in line for a nobel peace prize, I’m sure.

    Dave

  • http://planetjapan.org Doug DeLong

    Dave: Doug, having a decade is nice, but people can change their minds on something in a matter of minutes. For example, while sitting in front of a TV watching planes fly into the WTC.

    So let me see if I’ve got it straight. Cheney witnessed what happened on 9/11, and then suddenly thought…”hmm, maybe if we invaded Iraq, everything would be fine, after all. I’m sure it’ll be flowers, chocolates, parades in the street to welcome us. What the heck was I thinking when I predicted such a gloomy scenario on September 10th? Let’s roll, baby!!”

    Is that about right?

  • http://www.libertyrepublican.com Dave Nalle

    Sure, Doug. Whatever fantasy scenario you want to spin out is fine with me.

    Personally my guess would be a bit different and we can wait for the memoirs to see who was right.

    My thinking is that they looked at Iran and realized they couldn’t invade it and they wanted to make clear that they were fighting a war on terror, not just a war on the Taliban, so they went after a target which was weak, convenient and strategically positioned to give them two-front leverage on Iran. On that basis going after Iraq was really too obvious not to do.

    Dave

  • Dr Dreadful

    I hear that Dubya’s memoirs are going to be entitled “Dick and Jane Go to Iraq”.

  • http://planetjapan.org Doug DeLong

    Dave: Sure, Doug. Whatever fantasy scenario you want to spin out is fine with me.

    Dave, my friend, it’s not MY fantasy, it’s the fantasy you’re wanting people to believe when you imply that 9/11 caused Cheney, overnight, to change his thinking on the consequenses of invading Iraq. One minute…death and doom, the next minute…flowers and chocolate.

    Dave: My thinking is that they looked at Iran and realized they couldn’t invade it and they wanted to make clear that they were fighting a war on terror, not just a war on the Taliban, so they went after a target which was weak, convenient and strategically positioned to give them two-front leverage on Iran. On that basis going after Iraq was really too obvious not to do.

    This is the kind of statement that just leaves me slack-jawed in disbelief. Are you really saying that we invaded Iraq, not because they were any kind of direct threat to us, but because we wanted to show our muscle on the War on Terror, and they were “weak?” That sounds like the very definition of a bully to me, which of course is exactly how much (most?) of the world perceives the US these days.

    Here’s my bottom line on Cheney…He didn’t believe all the bullshit he was feeding the world when he talked about a cakewalk. He knew that there were likely going to be huge problems, but he just didn’t give a flying fuck. 9/11 gave him and his warmonger buddies the chance of a lifetime to attack Iraq and they weren’t about to pass it up. They knew, of course, if they told the truth about the consequences of such an attack, they’d never get the support of the American public. But they also knew that Americans, after the vicious attack on 9/11, were just itching for revenge against somebody, anybody, and were likely to support the war if they were fed some fairy tale version of how things would unfold. Throw in some more bullshit about WMD’s and phantom connections between Iraq and 9/11 and you’ve got the perfect recipe for war.

  • http://planetjapan.org Doug DeLong

    To clarify my statement…

    This is the kind of statement that just leaves me slack-jawed in disbelief.

    I think Dave my be right that we attacked Iraq because we wanted to show our muscle and they were “weak.” I just find it reprehensible that this kind of bullying on the world stage is what passes for American foreign policy.

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    The Bush administration still lives in a fantasy world – like what they used to say about General Motors: “If it’s good for GM, it’s good for the US.” The Bushies still believe that if it’s good for the US, it’s good for the world. They still believe, or perhaps more accurately they want the patriotic American citizenry to believe that the US of A remains the be all and end all of goody goodness. And of course that gawd is on OUR side.

    That Saddam was a maniacal, murderous asshole is not in question. Few, if any mourn his demise. But the US has and still supports regimes ruled by equally despotic murderers. Hell, we supported both Saddam and Osama when it appeared to serve our purposes. So, Dave, don’t give us the “Saddam was a bad guy” excuse. And I certainly agree with Doug regarding the justification you lay out for the Iraq invasion. It’s sad to think that you may be correct, but if you are, then the US certainly IS an unconscionable bully. Might makes right! Right?

    Baritone

  • troll

    until you look at Iraq as a war for re$ource$ you’ll be stuck with your speculative geopolitical war-on-terrorism WMD ‘bully-on-the-playground’ gobbledygook

    for winners and losers keep you eye on who gets the PSA’s in the coming months – that’s one factor that changed in the 90’s which fact must have caught the attention of Cheney’s handlers – hence the ‘flip flop’

    circle the wagons – !

    it’s free market capitalism versus national socialism represented by government (and government subsidized) companies

  • moonraven

    Doug,

    Cheney coordinated 9/11 from his bunker. He was not a passive spectator in front of a tv set.

    And THAT was and is the problem.

    Dave continues to condescend to other posters as if he were some frontier schoolmarm trying to teach the boobs and rubes the 3 Rs. The problem with THAT is that he can barely find his way out of the trailer to salute the West Texas sun in the morning…after having spent several very slow hours trying to find his butt with both hands.

    So glad to be leaving the US (Dogpatch) on Wednesday….

  • bliffle

    I think it’s very simple: these men are rich and powerful and are afraid of losing their powers, privileges and riches and they find it easier to fight a war on foreign lands to assuage their fear. It helps that they become even richer while doing it.

  • troll

    moonraven – you repeat your claim that 9-11 was an inside job…other than your native good sense what evidence do you have that leads you to accept the ‘conspiracy theories’ re: 9-11 – ?

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    I continually find such theories as Moon’s ludicrous. Just as with supposed UFO landings and all the JFK assassination theories, no hard evidence is ever presented. I’m no fan of Cheney or the rest of the White House goons, but I am a long way from believing that they were involved in the 9/11 attacks. That is the stuff of conspiracy loonyism.

    That the Bushies made hay from 9/11 is obvious. But to accuse them of actual involvement is nuts.

    Baritone

  • http://planetjapan.org Doug DeLong

    Baritone,

    I’m not really very big on conspiracy theories either, but when you read about stuff like Operation Northwoods, in which the US government had drawn up plans to commit terrorist acts on US soil against Americans, and then blame them on Cuba, in order to gain support for military action against Cuba…you have to wonder…

    The plan, which was proposed by senior U.S. Department of Defense leaders and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was never implemented, and was reportedly rejected by JFK.

  • http://planetjapan.org Doug DeLong

    If you’re looking for an interesting article about 9/11 conspiracy theories, check out this Salon piece.

    It’s an overview of some of the various theories, and debunks some of the more outrageous claims that have been made. But it also makes the point that there are some questions about that day that have never been answered.

    It also says that people should remember that the official government version of events is a pretty wild “conspiracy theory,” in that it says that 19 terrorists conspired to bring about some pretty unbelievable events. So-called “conspiracy theorists” are just offering up alternative conspiracy theories.

    Having said all that, I still think that it’s highly unlikely that 9/11 was an “inside job.”

  • Dr Dreadful

    Of course there are unanswered questions about 9/11 and there always will be.

    The overall impression I get is that bin Laden and his team devised this audacious crackpot plan, and by a combination of boldness, skulduggery and sheer blind luck actually managed to pull it off. Incredible, but not impossible.

    It would explain why there hasn’t been another terrorist attack on that scale by anybody else ever.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Dave, my friend, it’s not MY fantasy, it’s the fantasy you’re wanting people to believe when you imply that 9/11 caused Cheney, overnight, to change his thinking on the consequenses of invading Iraq. One minute…death and doom, the next minute…flowers and chocolate.

    I don’t say that it is what DID happen, merely that it COULD have happened that way. It is certainly true that a worldshaking even could change a person’s way of looking at the world. Why should Cheney be exempt? To suggest that he is, is to dehumanize him and operate on the assumption that he is motivated by pure evil rather than more human emotions.

    This is the kind of statement that just leaves me slack-jawed in disbelief.

    You should have a doctor take a look at that.

    Are you really saying that we invaded Iraq, not because they were any kind of direct threat to us, but because we wanted to show our muscle on the War on Terror, and they were “weak?”

    Yes, though you oversimplify. They also were positioned so that being there would help us pressure Iran – the real enemy.

    That sounds like the very definition of a bully to me, which of course is exactly how much (most?) of the world perceives the US these days.

    The world views us as a bully because the world is run by a bunch of spineless fools. As for being a bully by going into Iraq, you forget that Saddam himself was an exceptional bully and entirely deserving of being removed from power. It was a situation where there were lots of positive reasons for invading, making it hard for some people to resist.

    Here’s my bottom line on Cheney…He didn’t believe all the bullshit he was feeding the world when he talked about a cakewalk. He knew that there were likely going to be huge problems, but he just didn’t give a flying fuck.

    Or he could just not have though the whole situation through logically or been idealistic enough to actually believe that the Iraqi people would be so happy to be free that it would be possible to establish a new government relatively easily. It’s an easy illusion to fall for and I see no evidence that self-deception didn’t play a much larger role than any desire to lie to the people.

    9/11 gave him and his warmonger buddies the chance of a lifetime to attack Iraq and they weren’t about to pass it up. They knew, of course, if they told the truth about the consequences of such an attack, they’d never get the support of the American public.

    Of course this is all supposition based on irrational prejudice with zero evidence to support it.

    But they also knew that Americans, after the vicious attack on 9/11, were just itching for revenge against somebody, anybody, and were likely to support the war if they were fed some fairy tale version of how things would unfold. Throw in some more bullshit about WMD’s and phantom connections between Iraq and 9/11 and you’ve got the perfect recipe for war.

    As I’ve said before, read the AUMF for Iraq. There was more than sufficient justification to invade without the WMDs.

    Dave

  • Baronius

    Dave – Exactly. Prejudice, the act of pre-judging. Dick Cheney has the world’s worst face for politics, fixed in what looks like a condescending smirk. (It’s a tribute to his brilliance that he made it so far in elected government.) People judge him based on their perceptions.

    This comment will probably trigger a few replies like “what about Halliburton”. Again, prejudging. Halliburton is the name of a company, not a scandal. At least in the case of The Watergate Hotel, some crime happened there. People hear the phrase “big oil” and assume there’s something crooked. No one asks questions about the environmental hazards at Gore’s tin mine, because he’s a nice environmentalist with a (previously) normally-shaped face.

  • moonraven

    Let’s screw our heads on straight here, folks. To wit: WHY is it “nuts” to think Cheney was involved in 9/11?

    He has benefited enormously in the financial sector from both 9/11 and its aftermath.

    It’s a simple matter of following the money.

    What evidence do YOU have to show that Cheney did NOT do 9/11 is a much more rational question.

    Most situational enigmas can be solved by logical analysis–and 9/11 is no exception.

    I would go so far as to say that anyone who DOESN’T think Cheney did it is either nuts, on Cheney’s payroll or logically challenged.

    Take your pick. Tie the shoe that fits and get on with it.

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    Moon, you’ve made the crossover. Now you embrace the “guilty until proven innocent” stance. So often you make broad, outlandish charges, but when challenged, you immediately throw the ball into the other court. YOU claim that Cheney “did” 9/11. Show one ounce of proof. Not opinion. Not innuendo. Proof! It’s not up to me or anyone else to prove he wasn’t involved. It is up to you to offer proof that he was.

    Personally, I hate the son of a bitch. But your shrill accusations don’t for a second move me to believe he was involved in 9/11.

    Baritone

  • Clavos

    Dead on, B-Tone.

  • http://www.futonreport.net/ Matthew T. Sussman

    “What evidence do YOU have to show that Cheney did NOT do 9/11″

    He wasn’t on the planes.

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    Yep, there’s that.

    B-tone

  • http://www.libertyrepublican.com Dave Nalle

    But Cheney has magic penguin powers. He could be on the planes and then teleport out after aiming them at their targets, right?

    Dave

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    How about this for an image? Cheney’s “Penguin” to Obama’s “Batman.” Having trouble with Hillary’s “Catwoman,” though.

    B-tone.

  • moonraven

    You people are such incredible losers–what the hell do you THINK Cheney was coordinating from his bunker on 9/11–a fire drill?

    You claim to hate the bastard yet you refuse to admit the obvious?

    I think I should go back to teaching Logic. It’s obviously one of the top needs in the US.

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    Just as I said Moon, all you have are empty accusations. For all you know Cheney may have been abusing himself in that bunker. As they say on the Daily Show, you don’t know Dick.

    Do you have video? Audio? Transcripts? A confession? Epithelials?

    You say, “Follow the money.” Well, why don’t you just take us down that road? Show us the cash in Cheney’s freezer, the off shore accounts, the deposits. Show us something.

    You know what? You got nothin’.

    B-tone

  • moonraven

    Al contrario: I have everything. Including the common sense to know when something is a crock. And 9/11 was a BIG one.

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    For a while with Moon I thought it was a feminist thing. With some of the comments made against her, I felt she had some legitimate beefs about BC being a right wing boys club.

    Then I thought it was perhaps a feminist thing coupled with an anti-American thing. I could buy that. Americans have a lot to answer for in this world.

    But if Moon uses what she claims to be “common sense” regarding Dick Cheney being involved in the 9/11 attacks, then the jig is up. It’s not a feminist thing. It’s not an anti-American thing. It’s a wacko thing.

    Moon, I’ve really tried to understand where you’re coming from. But from what I can tell, where you’re coming from is just too scary a place to spend any time.

    B-tone

  • moonraven

    Yep, it’s way too scary for a guy like you to face the possibility–and especially the reality–that the folks YOU voted for and have kept in power comitted one crime against humanity in order to “justify” committing MORE crimes against humanity.

    And in YOUR name.

    It’s way too scary because it would mean that YOU should be doing something about it.

    And YOU are way too cowardly to do anything about anything.

    I really do not give a shit whether YOU understand where I am coming from or not.

    It’s no skin off ME.

    But if I were in YOUR shoes I would feel like a damn fool defending folks who consider me–and just about everyone else–to be kleenex.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Baritone, you’re being unreasonable…

    moonraven does not have to show us any evidence for her assertions. She is moonraven. She speaks, and it is so.

    Ha.

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    So I’ve noticed.

    Moon doesn’t read – or at least she fails to comprehend what she’s reading. I DIDN’T vote for Bush/Cheney.

    Moon, I tell you what. If it is eventually proven that Cheney, or anyone in the Bush administration, for that matter, were in any way involved in the 9/11 attacks, I will hold you in awe, and grovel at your virtual feet.

    Again, I despise Bush & company and hate our involvement in Iraq. I hate the involvement of right wing christian wackos in government and their quest to dissolve the division between church and state. I hate the right wing war on science and especially its stance against gays, abortion, stem cell research, etc. But the only so called “proof” of Cheney’s 9/11 involvement I’ve found is on web sites which are no less wacko than Moon. Talk about smoke and mirrors.

    B-tone

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Moonraven and William of Occam are clearly not acquainted.

    Dave

  • moonraven

    Since when is PROOF an issue if you know who did it?

    One example: There is no proof that Bin Laden did 9/11, yet you idiots believe he did it from a bunker in a cave in Afghanistan–thousands of miles from NYC and without access to the Air Force Command and other elements which allowed Cheney to pull of a seamless caper.

    You don’t see anything wrong with your thinking about that, huh?

    Moreover, a good percentage of you believed and still believe that Saddam Hussein was also involved–despite the HISTORICAL DATA indicating that they despised each other–both politically and personally.

    Nothing wrong with that leap of faith either, apparently?

    There was no proof–and still isn’t any–that Saddam Hussein had WMDs–yet many of you believed and still believe that he did, and you cheered on the invasion of Iraq on that presumption.

    (Ah, the prescience of the non-thinker.)

    Yet Cheney–who had everything to gain from 9/11 (not to mention the killing George Senior made on the airline stock, among other things)–and who has proven himself to be absolutely without scruples in slaughtering a big part of the population of Iraq and who still calls, bloodthirsty coward that he is, for the slaughter of millions if Iranis–could not possibly have done it?

    Such an example of stupendous inanity is only comparable to the belief in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

    I think a lot of you gullible gringos will really LOVE the deal I can offer you on a bridge from Manhattan to Brooklyn.

  • Nancy

    I seem to remember Condi Rice accidently mentioning that previous to & during the events of 9/11, Cheney – in his bunker or wherever – was fully privy to what was going down, & gave orders NOT to react; i.e. he knew what was coming, & deliberately stymied any kind of preventive action, just sat there in the bunker (or war room, or whatever) & watched it play out. No doubt to his (& Wolfowitz’, & Rumsfields’, et al. etc.) satisfaction.

    For once I agree w/MR. Given Cheney’s prediliction for cold-blooded, sociopathic indifference to danger or loss of lives by the hoi polloi, which he has consistently & constantly demonstrated amply throughout his public life, I can readily believe that even if he didn’t actually have a hand in plotting 9/11, he most certainly did know in advance what was about to happen, and when, and where – and he sat back & let it happen to further his own plans & aggrandize his own ego & fortunes, & those of his buddies. Whether the Shit-For-Brains-In-Chief was in the know or not I don’t speculate. I suspect, from his 7-minute paralysis while reading “My Pet Goat” that he did not. But Cheney? Absolutely I can & do believe he did.

    Of course, as Dave says, proving it in a court of law will be improbable, if not impossible. I’m sure the NSA & SS have seen to that. But I’m also quite sure that in the long run, altho none of us may live to see it, somewhere, somehow the evidence will surface – as it always does – that will finger incontrovertably BushCo’s involvement in this piece of saurian, murderous infamy. Whatever the political or otherwise justifications, however good the intentions. It boils down to cold-blooded, deliberate, premeditated mass murder & high treason in excelsis. I don’t think on this one MR is out of line at all. There’s too much to support it, and one can never underestimate the extent of evil, selfishness, ambition, greed, or – as B. says – just plain ego.

  • moonraven

    Moreover, what does a blogcritics poster receive in exchange for NOT believing Cheney did it?

    The Rube of the Day autographed roll of Tootsie Rolls…?

  • moonraven

    From Scott Ritter’s piece reprinted today on Common Dreams:

    “The vice president is the single greatest threat to American and international security in the world today. Not Osama Bin Laden. Not the ghost of Saddam Hussein. Not Ahmadinejad or Kim Jung Il. Not al-Qaida, the Taliban, or Jose Padilla himself. Not even George W. Bush can lay claim to this title. It is Dick Cheney’s alone.

    Operating in a never-never land of constitutional ambiguity which exists between the office of the president and the Congress of the United States, Cheney’s office has made its impact felt on the policies of the United States of America as had no vice president’s office before him. Granted unprecedented oversight over national security and foreign policy by executive order in early 2001, many months prior to the terror attacks of 9/11, Cheney has single-handedly steered America away from being a nation among nations (albeit superior), operating (roughly) in accordance with the rule of law, and toward its present manifestation as the new Rome, a decadent imperial power bent on global domination whatever the cost.

    The absolute worst of the rot that has infected America because of the policies and actions of the Bush administration has originated from the office of the vice president. The nonsensical response to the terror attacks of 9/11, seeking a “global war” versus defending the rule of law at home and abroad, taking the lead in spreading the lies that got us involved in Iraq, legitimizing torture as a tool of American jurisprudence, advocating for warrantless wiretappings of U.S.-based communications (regardless of what the Fourth Amendment says against illegal search and seizure), and pushing for an expansion of America’s global conflict into Iran-all can be traced back to the person of Cheney as the point of origin.

    America today is very much engaged in a life-or-death struggle against the forces of evil. The enemy resides not abroad, however, but at home, vested in the highest offices of the land. Neither Osama Bin Laden nor Saddam Hussein threatened the life blood of the United States-the Constitution-to the extent that Cheney has. Not Hitler, Stalin, Mao or Ho Chi Minh. Not since the American Civil War has there been a constitutional crisis of the magnitude that exists today, threatening to rip the very fabric of American society apart at the seams, courtesy of Dick Cheney…

    It is high time all of America put Dick Cheney fully in the spotlight of collective accountability, purging our nation of this scourge which has harmed us in so many ways. If there is any case for impeachment to be made against any member of the Bush administration today, it can be made against a vice president who has shamed our nation, destroyed our moral standing and broken our laws.”

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Moreover, what does a blogcritics poster receive in exchange for NOT believing Cheney did it?

    The warm feeling of knowing that we’re not fucking insane?

    And thanks for posting that Ritter article. I had always suspected it, but now he’s confirmed my suspicions. He’s a partisan shill and was never to be trusted on WMDs or anything else.

    Dave

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    Nancy,

    Really! You seem to remember Condi Rice accidentally…?” It seems to me that that would be headline news then and still. Or are you extending the conspiracy to all the media as well? By extension, perhaps the question should be: Who wasn’t involved? Conspiracy theorists give far too much credit to supposed conspirators in their ability to keep a secret even though dozens, perhaps hundreds or even thousands would necessarily be in on the joke. You forget the often irresistible temptation for people to get their fifteen minutes of fame. Even if it means putting oneself in danger of ridicule or even of physical harm or death. Just watch 5 minutes of Jerry Springer.

    As I stated above Moon, you don’t comprehend much. The manner in which Al Qaida cells are organized does not depend upon someone actively coordinating their actions. Anyhow, how the hell do you know where Bin Laden was at the time of the attacks? Were you mushroom hunting in the Afghan hills? Osama may have been sucking down a no fat latte’ and chewing on a kosher almond biscotti at a Tel Aviv Starbucks for all you know.

    You are just like fundie christians. They “know” their god exists. They have absolutely NO proof, yet they “know” it.

    You have NO proof of Cheney’s involvement. You just “know” it. Are you prescient? Are you… Oh, my god! Are YOU god? I should have realized…!

    I am kind of embarrassed by two things here. First, that I find myself defending Cheney. That’s just wrong on so many levels. Second, that I’ve engaged in this stupid debate with Moon. It would seem that most of you BC veterans have learned to step back and let her vent. I should do so as well.

    Goodnight, Gracie.

    B-tone

  • moonraven

    Right, Dave–Everyone who doesn’t agree with YOU is an insane partisan shill.

    Despite the fact that he or she is respected and you are the laughing stock of this forum

    and of your life….

    Nalle, if there was ever a certifiable lunatic posting on this forum, it is YOU.

  • bliffle

    SFC: “…so short of the Iran Army rolling across the Gulf, Saddam was not that useful. ”

    Gee. It’s such a small thing.

  • moonraven

    B-tone: it was the US government who said Bin Laden was in a bunker in Afghanistan on 9/11, NOT this poster.

    In fact, it was their pretext for invading Afghanistan.

    You choose to be skeptical of them in that instance, yet you believe that Cheney had no involvement in 9/11?

    That’s WAAAAY past goofy, fella.

    Since Bin Laden has never left the CIA payroll (unless he has died since his last “sighting”), it really doesn’t matter where he was on 9/11.

    He was only the patsy–in the words of the memorable assassin Lee Harvey Oswald.

    And you are only another patsy.

    Insulting me does not make Cheney innocent–nor you an aware world citizen.

    [Personal attack deleted]

  • Nancy

    Actually, Baritone, it WAS in the news. In fact it was quite hashed over for several days before some celebrity or other did something notable – perhaps this was around the period when Tom Cruise was jumping on the sofa on TV over his love for Katie Holmes – & it got knocked off & forgotten, as has become typical the past decade or so.

    I remember something concerning a slip of sorts Rice made about Cheney in the War Room, and when testifying what was ordered in defense, she said, “nothing,” having earlier pinned Cheney as being there with the others.

    *sigh* I have a memory like a sieve, but it was extensively hashed over in one of the articles (and comments) here on BC about 2 years ago. I’ll try to find it, but don’t hold your breath meanwhile. I’m not good at online research.

    Does anybody else remember this? My memory for time gets telescoped, so perhaps it was even earlier – around the time of the 9/11 commission interviews – but I do remember an article about 9/11 being a conspiracy – a real, real long one with hundreds of comments – and that point was repeatedly brought out by several persons; and that reflected what had been reported in the MSM. She never repeated it, & when asked about it gave the usual BushCo classic these days: I can’t remember. Thereafter the WH denied she’d ever said it at all. But she did….

  • moonraven

    It doersn’t matter whether you remember or not.

    Or whether Rice remembered it or not, for that matter.

    The issue here is the following:

    1. The OP wrote a piece about Cheney changing his mind, pointing out the inconsistencies from a position a number of years earlier.

    2. Since changing his position Cheney has been 100% consistent in his behavior, which has been unremittingly destructive.

    3. For him NOT to have done 9/11 would be an inconsistency with NO reasonable explanation.

    4. He did it.

    If it walks, quacks and shits–it is Cheney.

  • bliffle

    Actually, MR makes two good points:

    (1) 9/11 was a big payday for Cheney. It allowed him to throw those big juicy no-bid contracts to Halliburton to payoff the many lawsuits filed against him personally over the $20billion dresser Industries acquisition liability loss when he was at Halliburton (he seems to have collected the big bonus and stock appreciation from the acquisition then ducked out leaving the shareholders holding the bag).

    (2) we all believed that OBL was responsible for 9/11 because that was back in those halcyon days when we believed what the government said. Boy, were we naive! Maybe that whole issue should be revisited, especially in view of GWBs reluctance to chase OBL, perhaps in fear of what might be revealed if he were captured or otherwise went public.

    But probably Bush/Cheney were just too incompetent to carry off something like 9/11 (Leaving aside any moral demurers), witness the Iraq Invasion, Katrina, etc.

    On the other hand (and here comes the meta-conspiracy theory) maybe Bush/Cheney intentionally staged the Iraq and Katrina fiascos to create the appearance of incompetence as a cover for 9/11!

    The plot thickens.

  • moonraven

    Actually, that is faulty logic.

    Cheney was the ONLY person who had access to and control over ALL the elements needed to do 9/11.

    Since it happened, he obviously did it.

    The cases of Iraq and Katrina are completely unrelated.

    Cheney had no control whatsoever over the behavior of a) Iraqui resisters and b) the hurricane.

    Both of those quickly became major disasters because they were of no importance to him–the victims were almost entirely Iraquis, hispanics, whites who just happened to be in the wrong National Guard unit, and African-Americans–none of which was in a position to contribute significantly to Cheney’s personal balance sheet.

    In fact, if anything, Cheney has benfited MORE from the disaster in Iraq than he would have done from a well-orchestrated invasion; we have a Spanish saying that translates to something like In a chaotic situation there are more opportunities.

    All roads, in this case, lead to Cheney.

    And–more to the point–NOT TO ANYONE ELSE.

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    Get a rope! Let’s string the sombitch up!

    Moon, you must feel all warm and runny inside. People are actually agreeing with you. Flies to honey, I guess.

    I still haven’t seen anyone show any PROOF! It’s all “he said, she said” coupled with wild assumptions. A lot of people profited in the aftermath of 9/11, and certainly with our incursions into Afghanistan and Iraq. It’s a given.

    And by the way, Moon, you show the same inconsistency. You assume the govt is lying about everything, but accept what they said about Osama’s whereabouts on 9/11. I’m still leaning toward Starbucks.

    And you KNOW what you can do with your “chicken shit.” Bon Appetit.

    B-tone

  • moonraven

    Not the brightest bulb in the box, are you?

    1. I did NOT, at any point on this thread, or on any other thread, indicate that I believed the US government’s contention that Bin Laden was in a bunker in Afghanistan.

    2. I DID indicate that THEY said he was. And that it was their PRETEXT for invading the country.

    3. Considering that he SUPPOSEDLY suffers from kidney failure, IT IS NOT LOGICAL TO CONCLUDE that dialysis is a service of caves in remote areas of Afghanistan, which in turn means that your Israel positioning of him is considerably less improbable.

    4. In fact, I only said that he was still on the CIA payroll–it’s really unimportant where his body was–since if he in fact WAS involved in 9/11, he was paid by the US government for his part in the operation.

    Are you starting to see the obvious yet?

  • Freddy

    If he was so very wise at one point, whatever convinced him the war was worth taking on despite the potential for disaster, must have been enormously powerful and persuasive.

    Are you kidding!! Have we forgotten that he took over as head of Haliburton the very next year! Haliburton as profited profanely from this fiasco and this is funding that can be used for all types of political steering right here on our hill. if I’m worng I’ll gladly take that corner seat!!

  • moonraven

    Of course you are NOT wrong.

    The question that has NOT been answered is WHY there are folks on this site who STILL contend that Cheney is innocent.

    And that question needs to be answered now.

    Logical analysis of it leaves only two possibly explanations:

    1. There are some folks who are too scared (the chickenshits) to say that Cheney is obviously guilty.

    2. There are some folks who are being paid to defend him (the Dave Nalles of the site who are so quick off the blocks to accuse other folks of being paid partisan shills).

    At this point I believe we can take our pick.

    I know I have.

  • http://www.futonreport.net/ Matthew T. Sussman

    Ya know, The Internet is so goddamn fun.

  • moonraven

    Hmmm. Don’t get out much, huh?

    This bird is flying south to Mexico City this afternoon.

    So long, suckers.

  • troll

    no matter how you try to bully folks and distort arguments moonraven – a case based solely on motive and opportunity but without any direct evidence is pretty weak

    ‘logic’ without some reality check will take you down any number of garden paths

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    You have some pay stubs? Maybe his 401K account?
    Maybe records of Osama’s donation to the CIA day care for his 24 kids. It’s so hard to look after the little ones in those caves.

    My bulb may not be the brightest, but at least its attached to a power source.

    You continue to draw conclusions from innuendo and circumstances about which you have no first hand knowledge, colored by your obstinance and apparent hatred for just about everything and everyone.

    You have taken conspiratorial bullshit to new heights.

    B-tone

  • moonraven

    No, I have simply shown that by logical analysis–a process which entered the popular benue with a character called Sherlock Holmes–that certain supposed “enigmas” can be quickly sorted out.

    A case based solely on motive and opportunity–AND obvious juicy financial results from doing it–PLUS the lack of anyone else with a similar combination of motive and opportunity EQUALS Cheney did it.

    If you choose to support the conspiracy theory of a possibly still-alive CIA operative in a cave in Afghanistan pulling off the operation while attached to a medical hookup that would make Houston’s medical complex look like a country clinic, that is your choice.

    And your funeral.

    As I said before, I really do not give a shit what you believe.

  • moonraven

    venue. Sorry.

  • troll

    the fiddler always based his musings on observed ‘material fact’

  • moonraven

    You guys just do not want to look like the gullible folks that you have been, are–and, apparently–will continue to be.

    So NOT my problem, patriots.

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    Let’s look at this for a minute.

    Supposing Cheney orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. Why do you suppose he and whoever his cohorts may have been – maybe among them the guy who fired from the “grassy knoll,” why did they choose to use a predominance of Saudis for the attacks? Were they just the guys who showed up at the DC day labor office one day? Why wasn’t even one of them Iraqi, or from the Taliban at least?

    What does Osama gain from being the “patsy” for 9/11, a Labor Day bonus? While his family supposedly cut him off, I doubt that he has any difficulty in getting whatever money he wants from any number of sources, probably including his family. In any event, decorating a cave is generally a rather low budget affair.

    The kind of conspiracy Moon is claiming took place would require that more than just a few people would have to have been in the know, and would have to continue to keep their mouths shut. Has even one person from the government or the military stepped forward with a guilty conscience and blabbed all? None that I’ve heard of.

    Do you really think Cheney would have done this simply for money? Is it possible that he’s that greedy? Maybe.

    You speak of probabilities. All of the above renders the probability of your charges less so, even without regard to its outlandish nature. Cheney would have to be both brilliant and supremely evil. As I’ve said many times, I think Cheney is an asshole. But would he knowingly and purposely commit mass murder of his own people? That’s a pretty big leap.

    As to bin Laden’s kidney problem – that is something that remains debatable. Some say he has serious kidney failure, probably owing to his injuries from the failed assassination attempt on his life several years ago. Others say no. He has no such problem. In any event, there are such things as portable dialysis machines, and it’s not too difficult to obtain portable generators the last time I looked. It certainly would be cumbersome, but, nevertheless, doable.

    As to Moon’s earlier stab regarding her doubts that these terrorists could manage to fly those planes into the WTC and Pentagon? Once in the air, even a large passenger jet is relatively easy to fly assuming all systems are functioning, and most of them are redundant. Take offs and landings are the critical, and difficult aspects of flying any craft. Obviously, they were concerned with neither. It’s not hard to keep a plane aloft. Those guys trained and presumably studied how to do what they had to do and also presumably acquired at least nominal navigation skills. The men who piloted those planes were not uneducated rubes.

    While I won’t say Cheney’s involvement is not possible, I continue to say that it is highly unlikely.

    Conspiracy mavens love this shit. I guess it gives some kind of meaning to their little lives. It gives them a target. Someone to accuse, to hate. Someone to feel superior to, to inflate their self righteous egos.

    Again, if Moon and any others who support the notion of Cheney’s involvement with 9/11 are proven right, I’ll bow down in subjugation to them. But until such a happinstance occurs, I’ll remain highly skeptical.

    B-tone

  • Dan

    There’s no inconsistency in Cheney’s positions.

    Detractors always dance around the actual mission of the ’91 military action.

    When Cheney said “There wouldn’t have been anybody else with us. There would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq.” That was exactly what the situation was.

    Liberals would have squealed like stuck pigs if Bush 1 would have thrown off international sanction and captured Sadam, and forced regime change.

    But that’s not the reason it wasn’t done. It simply wasn’t the mission. It took 9-11, and 10 years or so of a festering, hostile, dictatorship, and unwillingness to comply with internationally agreed civil dictates.

    Surely, no one is really sucked in by this embarassingly elementry sophistry.

    Not even a nice try really. Although, I suppose, 16 years hence, there might be a lot of youth who’ve only since come of age, and maybe wouldn’t understand the context of the time.

    The trickery that liberals employ to exploit the most mentally vulnerable among us is disgraceful.

    Not to impugn the character of the author. It would be easy to get caught up in the intensely propagated “get Cheney” campaign. But the weakness of the smear is testament to the impeccable character of the man.

    If there were any real “dirt” on him, detractors wouldn’t need to resort to this type of silliness.

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    Oh, please! Impeccable character? The man is a liar. An arrogant bastard who condescends to all who oppose him. Your comment ignores a great deal of what has been said here. What Cheney said in ’92 about the situation in Iraq had not changed significantly in ’03. It just didn’t serve his administration’s purpose in ’03. It served their intent to ignore the earlier position. We should not have taken down Saddam in ’92, nor should we have done so in ’03.

    B-tone

  • http://planetjapan.org Doug DeLong

    Not even a nice try really. Although, I suppose, 16 years hence, there might be a lot of youth who’ve only since come of age, and maybe wouldn’t understand the context of the time.

    Actually, I’m not all that young, but it’s nice of you to think so. I’m a 57-year-old man who fully understand the “context of the time.”

    Not to impugn the character of the author.

    Well, thanks, but I’m perfectly content with my character. You, on the other hand, being the rare bird that you are, i.e. a genuine hard-core Cheney apologist, have some ‘splainin’ to do. Only someone who lives a very sheltered life, with no access to information, would say Cheney is a man of “impecabble character.”

  • moonraven

    I suppose one could be impeccably evil?

    Won’t be the first oxymoron –or moron we have seen on this site….

  • bliffle

    Dan sez: “…It took 9-11, and 10 years or so of a festering, hostile, dictatorship, and unwillingness to comply with internationally agreed civil dictates.”

    But Dan, are we to go back to holding Saddam responsible for 911? I thought we’d gone past that.

    Or, is it your contention, as seems popular, that the insult of 911 entitles us to lash out in vengeance at any target we choose?

  • Nancy

    Some of you are forgetting – or don’t know to begin with – that in crime investigation, motive & opportunity are MAJOR factors in determining where to start looking for hard evidence, such as 401k bank accounts. Also, you deliberately ignore the fact that Cheney, in the position he is, is more than able to have law-enforcement specialists & professionals cover his tracks so there will be no “legal” evidence to bring against him. That in no way means he isn’t guilty. Every day people who are guilty as sin are free because there’s no evidence against them. It doesn’t mean they aren’t guilty; it just means the government can’t get hold of any evidence that would prove it in a court of LAW … which means pretty much they’d have to have a video of the crime being committed, and even THAT isn’t enough, sometimes.

    So you can argue til the cows come home that there are no proofs Cheney did it. No – nothing that will hold up under a phalanx of slick lawyers, of course not. Cheney is crazy, evil, & callous; he isn’t stupid. Nothing ever will be found that his lawyers can’t deep-six. But that doesn’t make him innocent. Au contraire, his hands are bloodstained up to the shoulder. An excellent case can & has been made against him on the basis of opportunity, motive, and M.O.; alas, it isn’t admissable as evidence – mainly because he’s the VP, rich, powerful, & pulls the strings on Junior, among others. Had he been poor, brown or black, & without connections … well, I’d bet he’d have been cooling his heels without benefit of trial or lawyers just like Padilla for the past several years now, as an “enemy combatant”. Justice in the US obviously is for sale, & depends entirely on who you know & how much you have in your bank accounts.

  • Nancy

    BTW – anybody else out there in law enforcement/investigations or forensics? Just curious.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    No – nothing that will hold up under a phalanx of slick lawyers, of course not.

    No, nothing that even his most outspoken opponents can dig up to smear him and back with even a tiny shred of evidence. It wouldn’t take slick lawyers to defend him. No sane prosecutor would go after him because there isn’t any evidence of any of the crazy shit you folks accuse him of.

    Dave

  • Nancy

    That’s because he has a legion of NSA/CIA/FBI/SS/god knows what else operatives out there willing to cover & destroy evidence for him. If the evidence has been destroyed, even the most determined adversary, critic, or cop can’t finger you, no matter what they “know” you’ve done.

    Case in point: the Green River Killer. The Seattle/county cops KNEW for 18+ years who it was. Problem was, until DNA procedures were developed enough to allow for proof based on the tiniest bits of deteriorated DNA – and furthermore (& most importantly) accepted as proof in a court of law – they couldn’t do anything except watch & wait. Ditto for the CIA mole/double agent – altho they were remarkably slow catching on to that guy. But again, without proof that would hold up in a court of law…? The point is, that LEGAL proof does not exist doesn’t mean the suspect isn’t utterly guilty. It just means he covers his tracks (or is incredibly lucky) too well. That does NOT equate to innocence. Except by a pack of fucking lawyers & politicians.

  • Lumpy

    It also equates to innocence under the constitution, nancy.

    Btw did your haldol prescription run out or something?

  • Clavos

    “That’s because he has a legion of NSA/CIA/FBI/SS/god knows what else operatives out there willing to cover & destroy evidence for him. If the evidence has been destroyed, even the most determined adversary, critic, or cop can’t finger you, no matter what they “know” you’ve done”

    True, but where’s your evidence of the cover up?

    If you’re assuming there was one because you consider Cheney to be tricky enough to be capable of it, but don’t have direct (as opposed to anecdotal) evidence, that’s not good enough; not even for the court of Public Opinion, much less a legal court.

    The thing is, Nancy; as Dave mentioned above, the “legion” you speak of is unlikely to be able to keep such a conspiracy secret for any length of time. With that many people involved someone would have spilled the beans by now, and it hasn’t happened.

    I’m no fan of Cheney, but you can’t hang a man without evidence.

  • Nancy

    No. But if the evidence has been thoroughly destroyed by competent professionals (& it only takes a few, or even one) it never sees the light of day, & therefore justice is perverted & denied. However, while guilt can’t be ruled on the basis of indirect evidence, probable guilt certainly can be assigned and is, every day: that’s what Grand Juries do, after all.

  • Clavos

    Not without evidence for same, they don’t.

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    You know, as I’ve said, unlike some of those commenting here, I despise our current VP and all his communion wine drinking buddies. With that, it cuts me to the quick to be coming to his defence.

    But what’s being said about Cheney and 9/11 is, in my opinion, bunk. It is a case of people attempting to parlay their hate and suspicion into an accusation of what would be an incredibly despicable act. I certainly believe that Cheney is a patronizing, condescending bastard. But for him, or anyone to have committed such an act goes into the stratosphere of heinous crimes. The ability to rationalize such an act into something justifiable, even in Cheney’s cynical mind, would be a Herculean feat. Such callousness in the name of whatever – profit, power, oil, religion – is beyond most. Someone who is given a public trust has a great responsibility to his constituents – in this case all Americans, whether they voted for him or not. Orchestrating a deadly attack against his own people would be a monumental betrayal.

    I dislike the man immensely. But I’d have to see a lot more – hell, ANY – real evidence pointing to his being in any way responsible for the 9/11 attacks before I jumped on that band wagon.

    B-tone

  • Nancy

    Baronius, are you aware that one of – well, MY former icons – Franklin D. Roosevelt, has been fingered on solid evidence of knowing Pearl Harbor was imminent & doing nothing, so that Americans (who had been mostly isolationist until then) would be galvinized into joining WWII? If he was capable of doing it, in an age when it was even more unthinkable than today, how much easier for someone like Cheney, who openly regards all non-plutocrats as impersonal toilet paper & cannon fodder for himself & his buddies, to rationalize 9/11? After all, consider the way people world over have been desensitized to violence & crime: these days kids commit crimes that would have been unthinkable to even hardened adult criminals 50 years ago. To someone like Cheney, who openly regards himself as above & beyond the law & has stated as much – ? It’s not only not surprising, it would surprise me if he DIDN’T.

  • Clavos

    Waitaminnit, Nancy.

    That old chestnut about FDR and Pearl has been around since WW II days. It’s never been proven. Do you have a source for the “solid evidence” to which you refer?

    Here’s one of many sources on the net which credibly debunk that myth.

  • Baronius

    Nancy, I’m not sure but I think your comment #125 was being addressed to Baritone. I’m the guy who considers Cheney to be a national hero.

    B-tone, to spare us from confusion, from now on your name is Slagathor. (It’s a joke from Scrubs.)

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    Slagathor, huh?

    Baronius,

    Perhaps we were separated at birth – you somewhere to the right, me to the left.

    Maybe you could get the job of designing and funding a Cheney memorial, maybe call it “America’s #1 Dick.” Works for me.

  • moonraven

    Clavos’ comment that you can’thang someone without evidence HAS to be the most foolish statement of belief yet posited on this site.

    Folks are hanged all the time without evidence–whether they are lynched or sentenced.

    The best that can be said for the system of justice in the US is that it is markedly UNJUST.

  • Clavos

    Good point, mr.

    Amended:

    “I’m no fan of Cheney, but you can’t legally hang a man without evidence (except in Venezuela).”

  • moonraven

    Wrong again, nailnose.

    You cannot hang anyone in Venezuela–with or without evidence.

    It, unlike the environs of Swampland, is a civilized country.

    With a humane AND humanistic leader.

  • Clavos

    “Venezuela…is a civilized country…With a humane AND humanistic leader.”

    No kidding!

    The oppo finally deposed El Chango Chavez!

    Hallelujah!

  • Dan

    Doug #113: ” being the rare bird that you are, i.e. a genuine hard-core Cheney apologist,”[you] “have some ‘splainin’ to do.”

    It’s hard to be an apologist when there’s nothing to apologize for.

    “Splainin” things would require a good faith effort on the part of the one being “splained” to.

    If your 57, know the context of the time, and still contend that the ’91 statement by Cheney is some sort of double speak, then you probably can’t be helped.

    Or at least I don’t have the clinical expertise to help you.

    Baritone #112″ “Your comment ignores a great deal of what has been said here.”

    That’s on purpose. Commenting on outlandish absurdities can lend a sense of undeserved legitimacy.

    I don’t know the mental inner-workings of the profoundly delusional. Who am I to upset the delicate balance of functional irrationality?

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    Dan apparently embraces a man and an administration that lies to everyone, that serves big oil, big corporations, and covets big money over the lives of the citizens it was elected to represent. Bush and company are mass murderers. I do not believe they conspired regarding 9/11, but they have overseen the death of thousands of Americans and thousands more Iraqis, Afghanis among others. They are stupidly in league with theocrats and almost to a man (and woman) truly believe in the coming rapture. That is the “American hero” you align yourself with. Happy days to you when you are “raptured” up with Dick and his good fundie friends.

    B-tone

  • http://planetjapan.org Doug DeLong

    Dan: It’s hard to be an apologist when there’s nothing to apologize for.

    Really? You think Cheney has nothing to apologize for? I just don’t know where to start with that comment, but the more appropriate thing to say would be to point out that the word “apologist” has no relation to the word “apologize.”

    According to Mirriam-Webster, an “apologist” is “one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something.” So I guess you’ll just have to live with the fact that you’re a Cheney apologist.

    Dan: If your 57, know the context of the time, and still contend that the ’91 statement by Cheney is some sort of double speak, then you probably can’t be helped.

    If you read my piece carefully, you’ll know that I was saying that he was right in his ’94 statement (and was saying the exact same thing as late as 2000). The double-speak emerged when he wanted to crank up support for his bogus war. Now the man can’t stop with the double-speak. Maybe by the time you’re 57, you’ll have matured enough to know bullshit when you hear it.

  • Baronius

    Baritone and Doug, you’re making sweeping accusations. They’re only going to sound right to people who already agree with you. Like being “stupidly in league with theocrats”. I can only guess what you’re referring to (maybe abortion and embryonic stem cells), and it’s possible to agree with the administration without supporting theocracy. But to you, the accusation fits in with an image you’ve created.

    It’s like a few years back, when people on my side of the aisle (including me, in bad moods) would say that Clinton cared more about oral sex than about the rule of law. I doubt that that’s really, literally true, but it fit the caricature. In your caricature of Cheney, everything he does is driven by cynicism. Try seeing things through a different paradigm, and you might be surprised. He’s not necessarily the locus of evil.

    Or, you know what, don’t try to understand the other side. Don’t polish your arguments. These things can turn on a dime, and when they do, you’ll be left holding a Bush=Hitler sign, unable to explain to the American public why they should still agree with you.

  • http://planetjapan.org Doug DeLong

    Baronius: These things can turn on a dime, and when they do, you’ll be left holding a Bush=Hitler sign, unable to explain to the American public why they should still agree with you.

    I guess this is what you and your fellow conservatives have been reduced to…a fantasy that things will “turn on a dime,” and you’ll be able to say “I told you so.”

    I know it’s hard for you to watch the wreckage of this administration. You probably had a lot of faith in this man, and to watch him fuck things up so badly must be very difficult for you.

    But the people have spoken. In overwhelming numbers, they have turned against this administration and turned against their sorry war. Nothing will be “turning on a dime.” The dream is over. Accept it and move on.

    And by the way, I don’t have a “Bush=Hitler” sign. I mean, Hitler was really bad, but to compare him to Bush is just beyond the pale.

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    Baronius,

    “But to you, the accusation fits in with an image you’ve created.”

    I didn’t “create” the image out of whole cloth. Since the great Mr. Rove invited all the fundies into the fold, in order to get GW elected, they have found comfort and a great deal of “faith based” money to further their goal of an American theocracy. There is a plethora of material that supports this assertion. Our president is a Raptile as are many within the administration. (I actually doubt that Cheney is amongst those. He’s too cynical to get a ticket for the Paradise Express.)

    I can’t imagine how anyone, especially at this juncture, could embrace Cheney and the rest. The last 6+ years has been a train wreck for the U.S. from which it may take decades to recover, if in fact we ever do.

    It’s not just a question of public opinion. Our credibility and trustworthyness (if that’s a word) have suffered immeasurably. Counter to what many believe, the world does not revolve around the U.S. While we remain the 500 pound Gorilla, we are precariously close to plunging in free fall from our elevated state into the abyss peopled by dozens of other failed empires. Our arrogance, our hubris, our condescension, our brutality are all now demanding payment.

    The above may qualify as purple prose, but it is, I believe, nevertheless, apt given our current status in the world at large. It’s not all on the shoulders of the Bush administration. A good deal of this goes back probably as far as FDR, but certainly to Ike and our early meddling in southeast Asia among other places. But Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, etal have taken us to a new and unprecidented low. It’s just hard for some to consider that America is not so great after all.

    B-tone

  • http://planetjapan.org Doug DeLong

    Baritone…excellent post! How come you’re not blogging on BC?

  • Clavos

    I agree with B-tone that American hubris goes back at least all the way to WW II. It is manifested in the ways, ever since then, that we have talked about “our” victory in that war, as if we were the only nation fighting on our side; completely ignoring the participation of our Allies, most especially the British, who sacrificed far more and suffered more as a people than Americans did.

    And the hubris has continued ever since then; most Americans sincerely believe that we are the greatest nation in the history of mankind, and never hesitate to say so to all and sundry.

    Unfortunately, many other societies consider themselves to occupy that exalted spot, and resent our constant bragging about the USA; hence the stereotype of the Ugly American so prevalent abroad, especially in Europe and Asia.

    Humility has never been the USA’s strong suit.

  • Baronius

    Doug, you’ve persuaded me. I realize now that… wait… no, you didn’t persuade me of anything. Again, sweeping generalizations. But let me dial back the rhetoric and explain what I mean. (I was pretty testy last night.)

    The Iraq War was very popular. Those of us who supported it didn’t worry about public opinion, and didn’t put up a fight about the “Bush lied” lie. Months went by, and although we weren’t happy about the number of casualties, we didn’t realize how badly public confidence was eroding. You remember the endless reports, each one ending with “x number of Americans killed since the President declared ‘Mission Accomplished'”.

    The polls eventually turned, and the accepted paradigm went from War on Terror to Neocon Failure. Now, as I see things, the Democrats have been overplaying their hand. They risk a backlash. If the surge is successful, and the Dems keep criticizing the war, they’re going to look like partisan fools. The paradigm may shift right out from under you.

    Heated ideologues like us are the last people to know when a shift in opinion is going to occur. Will the narrative be Housing Bubble or Record Dow? Will it be Loyal Cheney or Evil Cheney? Keep your powder dry, because the debate isn’t over.

  • moonraven

    This thread just gets sillier and sillier!

    Why do you folks slather on the doublespeak every time I leave to do something PRODUCTIVE?

    And then there is Clavos–who dates US hubris since the end of WW II–yet has never heard of:

    1) the Monroe Doctrine, which claimed exclusive rights to running the show in this hemisphere and justified the invasion of Mexico in 1847 and the robbery of half its territory–or

    2) Manifest Destiny–which sent white settlers and the army marauding, killing, raping and pillaging in the lands of Native Americans which make up the biggest part of the US today.

    What does he–or any other swamprat redneck created by Carl Hiassen–care about History, anyway?

  • Clavos

    “…at least…”

  • moonraven

    Don’t try to tell me that US arrogance and bullying was only cast in bronze after WW II–which is the implication of your comment.

    English is, after all, my first language.

  • Lumpy

    Your so-called ‘arrogance and bullying’ also known as defending US interests and trying to establish mutually beneficial trading relations. Wherever the US goes it makes life better everyone except those who want to enslave the world. Oh dear. That’s your team, isn’t it, Moonraven.

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    Doug,

    Thanks for the kudo. I do blog on BC. Not a lot of posts – a dozen or so. I come and go as it were.

    B-tone

  • http://planetjapan.org Doug DeLong

    Baronius: If the surge is successful, and the Dems keep criticizing the war, they’re going to look like partisan fools. The paradigm may shift right out from under you.

    Sorry, I don’t see the surge as some sort of magical turning point in the war. The most it can do is make things a little better in certain places. But as you’ve seen, the bad guys just move somewhere else…the ‘ol whack-a-mole.

    With an Iraqi government unable or unwilling to get its act together and no political solution in sight, we’re just spinning our wheels, and the bodies just keep piling up.

    It was wrong to start the war. It’s wrong to continue the war. It’s time to stop.

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    From what Moon says about the U.S., you’d think that nothing bad is ever perpetrated by other countries. As I noted, I am not all together proud of our doings in the world. And, yes, she is correct about our checkered past long before WWII.

    But, I also pose this question: What countries with any kind of political and/or military clout throughout history have NOT abused that power both at home and abroad? Such goings on are not simply an American phenomenon, but are, rather a human phenomenon. It has to do with that evil word I used above – power, and the human tendancy to abuse it.

    B-tone

  • bliffle

    Dan: “It’s hard to be an apologist when there’s nothing to apologize for.”

    Then how do you account for your own linking of 9/11 to Iraq?

    Ready to apologize?

    Or are you, like your hero Cheney, going to stubbornly insist that saddam was responsible for 9/11?

    What’s your stand?

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Iraq paid suicide bombers in Palestine. That was an act of terror. The 9/11 attack was an act of terror too. There, I connected Iraq to 9/11. Not terribly difficult. Care to disagree?

    Dave

  • troll

    there are state linked ‘charities’ in Saudi Arabia and Qatar whose function is to distribute money to the families of martyrs and freedom fighters in Gaza and the West Bank…

    following the reasoning in #150 these US allies openly engage in ‘acts of terror’ with impunity

    …it’s a bizarre world requiring fresh leadership –

    A E Newman for president – !

  • bliffle

    The logic error of Excluded Middle is often committed by dumb people thus displaying their ignorance, but when it’s committed by the educated it’s purposeful, and that purpose is to deceive.

    That’s why I’ve concluded that Dave is untrustworthy.

  • moonraven

    [Personal attack deleted]

    As for the argument couched by lumpy and baritone that the US cannot and should not be held accountable for bullying and destroying other countries because throughout history powerful countries have always done that: what cyncical sonsofbitches you guys are.

    Especially lumpy, who insists that the US destruction has made the world a better place!

    I would like him to present a few Iraquis and Afghanis to tel us how much better THEIR parts of the world are.

    Speedy Gonzales has resigned.

    Cheney is the ONLY big rat left on bard.

    And I believe I have made it perfectly clear WHY that is the case.

  • Nancy

    Uh…I’m just getting here, sort of. Did Gonzales resign? When? The news around here is singularly silent on that score, if it’s true.

  • http://culturesalad.blogspot.com Ray Ellis

    He did “resign,” Nancy. Predictably, Bush called it sad. . .

  • Nancy

    When? Where? This past weekend? Why aren’t the radio shows full of it? Well, I mean, they ARE [full of it, that is], but not full of the news about Gonzales, I mean….

    Holy cow! I spend one weekend out of circulation & Stuff Happens. Huccome no one’s written a valedictory article on BC about it?

  • Clavos

    Stand by, Nancy….(4 of ‘em!)

  • Nancy

    Awriiiiiiight-!

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    It was just this morning, and the radio shows and the news were indeed filled with their tributes to good ole ‘berto.

    Dave

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    Moon likes to read shit into what is written. I did in no way excuse the U.S. for its actions. What I DID say was that such abuses are nothing new. People have abused power at least since some knuckle dragger realized that he could bust somebody’s head open with a rock.

    Apparently, what Moon likes even less than someone who disagrees with her, is someone who DOES agree with her. She believes that she and she alone has the correct take on any damn thing that comes along. And there is nothing she won’t render an opinion on always with the caveat that her’s is the ONE AND ONLY truth. It’s all or nothing. No dissent tolerated.

    Speaking of knuckle draggers…

    B-tone

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    Yes, Nancy. There IS a Santa Claus. (He is apparently a demented old fart, though.)

    B-tone

  • moonraven

    Baritone:

    In the old days Freud would have diagnosed your behavior as HYSTERICAL.

    The “nothing new” defense, when followed to its LOGICAL conclusion, would have this planet in even worse shape than it already is–it would mean that everybody would be searching for the bigger rock to open someone’s skull with.

    Come to think of it, that pretty well describes the current US-fostered world situation.

    I would like you to quote on this thread where I have said that my truth is the only truth and that I tolerate no dissent.

    You make me sound a hell of a lot more powerful than I am.

    And you make yourself sound more chickenshit and whiney every time you post one of your hissy fits against me.

    I am right more frequently than most folks on this site because I actually study issues–actually LEARNED how to do so as part of my academic training–and because I had the good luck to have a professor in 1965 for Modern European History who gave us the process by which to recognize PROPAGANDA.

    I will be forever grateful to that man, and since then I have taught Recognizing and Combatting Propaganda (including that of university administrations) in almost every course I have taught.

    It’s not my fault you were never my student.

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    Moon,

    There is nothing “hysterical” or “chickenshit” about me or my opinions. It’s not a question of your having specifically stated your intolerance. Rather, it comes oozing out of virtually every word you write, filling the spaces between your vitriolic lines with arrogant crap. Just because YOU say something hardly makes it so.

    Again, you set yourself above everyone in your assumption that ONLY you have had superior experience and education; that all the rest of us are in your opinion blathering, idiot know-nothings.

    My statement regarding “nothing new” was hardly a defense. It is simply a fact. You are of the mindset that the U.S. is and has been the one and only source of pain and misery in this world for the past 200+ years, that no other countries or individuals carry responsibility for any of it other than the U.S.

    The Soviets were princes, great and loving stewards of their “Union” of countries. The KGB and German Stasi were just like a stern, but kind uncle with the sole purpose of making sure everybody was well and happy. Surely, the reports of their having stuffed people live into crematory ovens are nonsense.

    Communist China has always treated their people fairly and gently as lambs.

    Going back a ways, the Spanish were just really great with people in your part of the world, weren’t they?

    Oh, but of course, what am I thinking? No doubt you have the inside poop on just how all of that was actually perpetrated by the U.S. – even the fucking conquistadors.

    B-tone

  • Clavos

    …And the crowd goes wild…

    Gimme a B

    Gimme an A…

  • moonraven

    [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

    Baritone: Moral relativism is not an argument that cuts any ice with me.

    There have been many serial killers over the past 35 years, too. But if you take off on a killing spree I will absolutely hold you accountable.

    And don’t come back with The Devil Made Me Do IT defense, either.

    [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

  • Dr Dreadful

    Can we say “non sequitur”?

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    Yes, I believe we can.

  • moonraven

    No you cannot:

    1. You would have to take your thumb out of your mouth first.

    2. You don’t have an idea, obviously, what it means.

    While you’re at it, look up moral relativism.

    The defenders of the US using the specious argument that anything is okay if someone else has already done it is an example.

    It doesn’t hold water–which is why the US is bullying all its victims to agree not to take them to the World Court for crimes against humanity.

    [Gratuitous vulgarity deleted by Comments Editor.]

  • Dr Dreadful

    Moral relativism is the notion that there are no absolute moral truths, but that the morality of something is determined relative to the standards of the particular group or individual.

    For example, cutting off a thief’s hand is cruel and unusual punishment by American standards. The moral relativist would say that we have no right to interfere with states like Saudi Arabia which practice that punishment, because under Islamic law it is a perfectly reasonable sentence.

    By no stretch of the imagination does it describe “but they just did it so now it’s OK for us to do it”.

    Hence, non sequitur: “does not follow”.

  • moonraven

    Sorry, doc, but I am not a moral relativist. I am a moral absolutist.

    Which is why I said that moral relativism cuts no ice with me.

    Wikipedia says: “In philosophy, moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances”.

    Your saying that something is okay because others have done it is an historical application of moral relativism. Not the least stretch of the imagination is needed.

    It is very much akin to your not-to-be-missed by-this-poster hero, Alberto (Speedy) Gonzales dismissing the Geneva Conventions, other international laws and the US constitution as being out of date–using the other side of the sword of historically applied moral relativism by saying that something has been done in the past and considered wrong but that historical time has changed and therefore it is no longer wrong.

    A logical analysis of one situation you presented is shown in the following:

    Stalin committed crimes against humanity and because he was not held accountable by any body of international law, it was okay.

    The US government has committed (and is still committing) crimes against humanity, and because it refuses to be held accountable by any body of internal law, it is okay.

    Conclusion based on historical application of moral relativism:

    So long as a government is not, or refuses to be held accountable by law for crimes against humanity, it will continue to be okay to commit them.

    That’s just one application of your specious thinking.

    You can try to justify the crimes against humanity committed daily by the US government till hell freezes over, and I will not allow you to abrogate my right to say that you are just WRONG.

  • Dr Dreadful

    MR, I think you are protesting to the wrong person. Show me where on this or any other thread I said that it is OK to do something because others have done it.

    I took no position on moral relativism. I simply defined it for your elucidation, since it did not seem to apply to anything you were talking about.

    Alberto Gonzales is not my hero. I think he’s a slobbering moron and if you like, will direct you to the BC thread where I said so.

    Your argument as it pertains to Stalin and current US foreign policy is sound, but that is not what Baritone was saying. He was charging you with being of the opinion that US policy is to blame for every global ill and that all others are fresh-faced innocents. Just to clarify, I don’t necessarily agree with him.

    Far be it from me to defend US actions abroad, some of which have been reprehensible.

    You have my political position so wrong it’s almost tragic.

    And please don’t accuse me of being another one of Dave’s aliases. There’s only so much laughing I can do in one day.

  • moonraven

    Clearly you are not one of Dave’s aliases–as none of them can even write a complete sentence.

    Your support of moral relativism is enough for me to assume that Gonzales is one of your heroes, however.

    You are protesting TOO MUCH.

    I find the man to have the ethical fibre of a jackal, but he is NOT a slobbering moron. The slobbering moron is the man in the Oval Office who hired him.

    Gonzales was astute enough to convince a good number–in the many millions–of US voters that torture is just fine, that the Geneva Conventions, the Magna Carta, the US constitution, all other inconvenient bits of international law are obsolete and that a host of legal doublespeak lies are true–and he did so using the same kind of specious arguments that have been presented by SEVERAL posters on this site.

    YOU and the others who have presented the argument that it’s okay to do something if it’s already been done are the ones who needs to show ME the proof that I wrote that US foreign policy is to blame for all the planet’s ills, and that all others are innocent.

    I have never said any such thing.

    In fact, I believe I indicated in my previous post that I am a moral ABSOLUTIST.

    The US government, however–as well as the folks like the vast majority of bellicose buttheads on this site who SUPPORT it–is responsible for the biggest part of the serious problems that the planet is facing at this time: 1) global warming, 2) globalization of poverty, greed and violence and 3) terrorism.

  • moonraven

    And at no time have I indicated that crimes against humanity by other countries’ governments were NOT wrong.

  • Baronius

    Doc, Baritone,

    Have you ever hit your thumb with a hammer? The pain is awful in the first moment, then seems to decrease. A quarter second later, the pain hits you like a runaway truck. The thing is, in that quarter second before the pain overwhelms you, there’s nothing you can do. It’s just brutal, senseless pain, and nothing you can say or do will deter it.

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    Baronius,

    Are you suggesting that arguing with MR is tantamount to smashing your thumb with a hammer with the same inescapable results?

    B-tone

  • Dr Dreadful

    YOU and the others who have presented the argument that it’s okay to do something if it’s already been done are the ones who needs to show ME the proof that I wrote that US foreign policy is to blame for all the planet’s ills, and that all others are innocent.

    I have never said any such thing.

    Once again, I didn’t say that you had – I was reporting what Baritone had said.

    Also, once again, I have never presented that argument.

    And predictably, because you can’t show that I did, you try yet again to twist round the burden of proof.

    Right back at ya.

    I think I’m done arguing the toss with a fictional character. I’m starting to feel like those preteens who act as if their idols are actually going to read their comments in the BC Music and TV sections.

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    Moon,

    Tell me exactly where it is that I say “that it’s okay to do something if it’s already been done.” Show me the quote.

    If there is anything “specious” here it’s your argument. You put words in people’s mouths. It is YOU who are bordering on “hysteria.” You are flailing at everyone indiscrimantly. You are so far out there in the wilderness of your radicalism that it pisses you off that you find yourself alone. Most of the people you are attacking here are in many respects in agreement with you, including me. But we just aren’t radical enough, or “absolute” enough for you. Again, it’s all or nothing. You are a nation of 1.

    B-tone

  • Dr Dreadful

    Baronius #174:

    Indeed I have, and I know the sensation you describe. But I think the experience of arguing with moonraven is more akin to trying to nail a rubber board to a rubber wall with rubber nails – frustrating and irresistibly surreal.

    On the subject of pain, this may, possibly, be the last coherent comment I post on here tonight. I had a gum graft done an hour ago and the following facts are becoming clear: 1) The Novacain’s starting to wear off; 2) One Vicodin clearly is not enough.

    Ouchy.

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    Gum graft?!! Oh, man. I don’t even want to think about that one. By all means, pop a couple more. Pain sucks!

    B-tone

  • Clavos

    Yep, you betcha.

  • Clavos

    Why a graft?

    Why don’t you just open a new stick from the package? :>)

    (I’m in the last stages of getting a couple of implants, which started last November with bone grafts–good luck, Doc)

  • Nancy

    Ack-! BOTH of you, best wishes for speedy & painless recoveries! I think my leg hurt less than your oral surgeries, probably.

    Doc, Baritone, Baronius – Clavos & I discovered long ago you can’t argue with MR because no matter WHAT you say, she’ll take the opposite stance, OR she’ll claim YOU did, OR she’ll claim the ability to read your mind & inflict on you her interpretation of your intents. Basically, she’s nuts. A pity, because she’s so erudite & well-travelled, she could be a jewel, if only she were less personally obnoxious & apparently determined to be so. In any case, trying to get a coherent & realistic argument out of MR is like trying to get a decent comment out of JOM, or getting Arch or BD or Red to admit to admiring Leftist Moonbats. You dig?

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    I do understand the futility of doing battle with MR. It is a challenge, though. And she must love it. Look at this thread. Just as with a number of others in which I have taken part or read, the original article gets lost in the spiteful banter between Moon and everyone else. We wind up arguing with her and writing about her more than discussing, in this case, Cheney’s flip flop.

    Some day, though, we’ll find out that MR is really a 58 year old, 340 pound beer drinking red neck Cheesehead living in Milwaukee.

    B-tone

  • troll

    think positive dude – look at it as comic relief

    once again I’m reminded of the rude tarbaby – answering the question: how are moonraven and the Iraq occupation alike

    …and hadn’t the original article been pretty well worked over anyway – ?

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    Oh, I’m not really lamenting the direction many of these discussions take. In this case, Cheney’s flip flop was pretty well hashed over.

    I have seen, though, a few articles for which the commentary has taken off in any number of directions, almost from the get go, probably to the chagrin of the original poster. I suppose that may be an indication that there just isn’t that much to say about a particular post or its subject matter.

    But, it’s all in good fun in any case. When we go to the post – post parties, we bury the hatchet and drown our sorrows with cheap wine and aerosol cheese sprayed on stale store brand crackers, and just laugh and laugh. Life is good.

    B-tone

  • troll

    I’ll bring the bullshit stew…with green chili

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    Now there’s an image.

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    I have noticed that when Moon is not blogging here the world just seems to, I don’t know, run smoother and softer, not unlike Northern Tissue. It must be owing to her tireless efforts, doing the real work to make this world a truly better place in which to live.

    When she turns her attention back to BC the world just seems to turn to shit. Moon, we desparately need you to go back to the larger world and take the wheel. Without you at the helm we are all bound to wander unknowing and aimlessly into the netherworld and into Satan’s flaming embrace.

    Leave us to our drooling drivel oh ye valiant Valkyrie! Wipe away our fears. We’ll muddle forth to the land of the mind numbing blogger’s doldrums where we will remain uninspired and uninformed, but safe from the sulfurous evils of this unforgiving world.

    B-tone

  • moonraven

    [Edited]

    Meanwhile, back to the topic of Dick Cheney–sort of. There is a very good piece on conspiracy theories on Common Dreams (omygod a PROGRESSIVE site) today.

    One of the comments posters offered this very apt definition:

    “The term “conspiracy theory” is a rhetorical device deployed by power interests to marginalize viewpoints that are not in alignment with the version of reality that is preferred.”

    [Edited]

  • Dr Dreadful

    Clavos quipped: Why a graft? Why don’t you just open a new stick from the package? :>)

    Ha ha.

    Actually I had another one done a few months ago, and while it did take, it actually does feel like a wad of chewing gum stuck to the side of my jaw.

    I fortunately haven’t got to the point where I need bone grafts. But my dentist thought I’d better go see a periodontist before I start looking like this guy.

  • moonraven

    Oh brother, I guess it’s time for me to talk about my lung infection now….

    [Edited]

  • http://www.futonreport.net/ Matthew T. Sussman

    What’s Spanish for “banhammer”?

  • moonraven

    Go for it!

    It will be the ultimate proof of how chickenshit you folks are.

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    No rejection slips here. I have a life beyond BC which doesn’t involve writing. This and my blog are the only writing I do. I have been “published” here a few times. Doesn’t seem to be much listed under your name, though. Or are you REALLY Dave writing under yet another moniker?

    B-tone

  • http://www.futonreport.net/ Matthew T. Sussman

    “What’s Spanish for “banhammer”?

    Go for it!”

    That doesn’t sound right. Those are English words.