"In My Time," more lies from Dick Cheney

1. 65

   Ralph Deedsposted 12 years ago

   "Whatever readers think of Mr. Cheney’s politics, their heads are more likely to explode from frustration than from any sense of revelation. Indeed, the memoir — delivered in dry, often truculent prose — turns out to be mostly a predictable mix of spin, stonewalling, score settling and highly selective reminiscences...
   
   "Cheney writes that 'the liberation of Iraq' was 'one of the most significant accomplishments of George Bush’s presidency' — never mind the failure to find the weapons of mass destruction that were cited as a chief reason for the invasion, or a botched occupation that allowed an insurgency to metastasize for years. He describes Guantánamo as 'a model facility — safe, secure, and humane' and writes that the C.I.A.’s program of 'enhanced interrogation techniques' was 'safe, legal, and effective.' As for Hurricane Katrina, Mr. Cheney praises President Bush for 'personally' dedicating 'hundreds of hours not only to ensuring an effective federal response but to reaching out to people who needed to know that their government cared about them.'
   
   "On substantive matters of policy, however, this volume tends to rehash well-known debates even as it circumvents important questions. Mr. Cheney offers no real explanation for why the Bush administration did not do more to try to prevent the 9/11 attacks, given the warnings from the counterterrorism czar, Richard A. Clarke, and an Aug. 6, 2001, intelligence brief titled 'bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.'" 
   
   http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/26/books … ?ref=books

   replyreport
   1. 60

      uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      It amazes me that people use the New York Times for anything but wrapping fish. Considering its falling sales, New Yorkers must be eating less fish.
      
      In the Presidential Daily Briefing from August 6, 2001 there is no mention of using airplanes as weapons.  The sole reference to airplanes was an uncorroborated and unsubstantiated idea that Bin Laden would use the time honored terrorist method - highjacking.
      
      http://agonist.org/annex/pdb.htm
      
      Bin Laden had been a known quantity since 1992.  His preferred method for large attacks was truck bombing.  The preferred terrorist method had been truck bombings in the Beirut barracks, first WTC attack, the Khobar Towers attack and the African Embassy bombings.  The millennium plot was also a planned bombing attack on LAX.  When a truck couldn't do the job he used a boat.  There was no history of using airliners as bombs.
      
      http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2008/fe … bom_022608
      http://americanhistory.about.com/librar … orism6.htm
      http://www.infoplease.com/spot/newsfact … rikes.html
      http://www.adl.org/terrorism_america/bin_l.asp
      
      As for the often repeated to the point of acceptance lie that there were no WMDs in Iraq.
      
      Valerie Plame's liar husband said Saddam was not after uranium in Niger.  He succeeded in piling up a substantial amount and refined enough to make several nuclear weapons.
      
      http://articles.cnn.com/2008-07-07/us/i … o?_s=PM:US
      
      though not part of an effort to restart a weapons program it existed and was in Saddam's possession.  Not constrained by international law or inconvenient notions of morality, nothing would have prevented its further refinement.
      
      http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/yellowcake.asp
      
      He was in possession of enough refined uranium to make dirty bombs and nuclear weapons.
      
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3872201.stm
      
      Polish troops found chemical weapons
      
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3861197.stm
      
      American troops discovered a weapons laboratory and a substantial stash of chemical weapons hinting at a program that was never fully ended.
      
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 00530.html
      
      American military reports show that WMDs were being discovered through out the war according to that hero of Bush haters everywhere, Julian Assange.
      
      http://www.nypost.com/p/news/internatio … 7AZ3RO9qnM
      http://www.factcheck.org/article358.html
      
      How does such a rag retain any credibility?  If they have a complaint about Cheney than make the case - don't repeat the lies of the past.  Liberals don't like Cheney because he is an evil Republican, he told Harry Ried to pleasure himself and he talks like a man.
      
      The enhanced interrogation techniques employed by the CIA led to Obama's murder squad catching up to Bin Laden with a shoot don't capture order.  They are also credited with preventing multiple attacks around the world.  One can make the argument that Gitmo is in violation of the Geneva War Conventions with a couple of key exceptions - those captured were unlawful enemy combatants and therefore, themselves, war criminals and they were subject to summary battlefield executions.
      
      Perhaps, it might have been better to have shot all the Gitmo prisoners on the battle field in Afghanistan.  That would have been in keeping with the Geneva accords, prevented terrorists from returning to combat after their release and deprived liberals of one more thing to whine about.
      
      On Katrina, New Orleans and Louisiana's Democrat governments dropped the ball.  Fema cannot storm in and force themselves on the state and local authorities. It is okay, I know rules are really mean but they exist.  Once the Federal effort was underway it was MASSIVE - have you intentionally forgotten the Coast Guard, Navy and National Guard assests focused on New Orleans.  The people of New Orleans were better served by GWB than by Ray Nagin or Kathleen Blanco.
      
      The real problem with the New Orleans flooding disaster is how some people refuse to prepare for disaster despite decades of warning that their city will have a catastrophic flood.  This is a direct consequence of placing people in a Federal government preserve and treating them like cattle. A time honored practice supported to this day by liberals.  Make people dependent upon the government as if government is a more reliable protector of life and property than oneself.  No wonder people who life in liberal run cities and states are always in rough shape.

      replyreport
      1. 65

         Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         "How does such a rag retain any credibility? "
         
         Whether you like it or not, the NY Times is the newspaper of record for the United States. Do you know a better one? It's far from perfect as in supporting the invasion of Iraq with lies by Judy Miller about WMD week after week on its front page.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            "The newspaper of record?"  From where does this status come?  The NYT is wallowing in its history like the "bacon of record."  If getting it wrong makes you a great newspaper then NYT is a great paper.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this

               The NYT is one of only two US newspapers that most people outside of the US have ever heard of - the rest are just mouthpieces for whichever political tribe owns them.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  That may sound like an correct statement but it is the opposite.  The leadership at the NYT has been New York liberal Democrats for decades unabashedly supporting, regardless of required what ever ethical compromise is necessary to propel that ideology.  Nothing illustrates that better than the stories posted from Stalinist Russia at the time of the Ukrainian famine, the love heaped on Fidel Castro and the less than honest treatment of Yasir Arafat.
                  
                  Less self important newspapers tend to be less ideological than the NYT probably because NYC is more parochial than smaller cities.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     TMMasonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Nothing but the facts there, UV.
                     
                     The Left doesn't talk about the love they had for Stalin, and hitler before he had an out with ole Uncle joe Stalin, they have forever propagated BS for the enemies of our nation.
                     
                     That rag should be shut down and burnt to the ground.

                     replyreport
         2. 60

            Repairguy47posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            After he tore your entire argument apart the only thing you say is the NYT is a wondeful newspaper? Come on Ralph at least put up a little fight.

            replyreport
      2. 60

         TMMasonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         There are two things in this post the Left cannot accept... facts and truth.
         
         I love they way they ignore the chemical weapons found, and all the yellow cake Uranium they found- 5 metric tons-. None of that matters. Just hating on America, Bush and the Right is all they are interested in.
         
         I am no fan of Bush... but find some facts to use and leave the BS at home where it belongs.

         replyreport
         1. 77

            lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Just like you ignore Hans Blix, and the millions of trained professionals who do not buy the "official" story.
            
            The fact that Bush and Cheney testified, but not under oath, and after they had tried everything possible to avoid investigations in the first place.
            
            Does his book mention why he told those F-16's NOT to go after the hi-jacked planes?
            
            Does it explain how he met with an operative in Prague to fabricate the idea that Bin-Laden was working with Saddam Hussein?
            Which they sold to the American people as justification for going there?
            
            Oh wait!.....that was the first lie. Then it was to spread Democracy, then it was WMD's...was that it? I might be forgetting one or two.
            
            But I do remember Shock and Awe......the horror. Not to be repeated until Operation Cast Lead.
            And I remember those pictures from the prisons, and the torture, and the renditions, and the lousy attitude that you better shut up and like it.
            
            Patriot Act, Total Information Awarenes Network
            "You are our base, and we will support you".....
            8 years of unrelenting awful.
            
            Funny, in a sad and unforgivable way; We were called traitors for not liking Bush, and now are called anti-Americans for liking Obama....
            
            That just takes the cake.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               TMMasonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               The Patriot Act was authored by Joe Biden.
               
               He even admits to it.
               
               And I don't ignore Hans blix, I simply do not believe him.
               
               And there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which the Left likes to ignore, and unranium -5 metric tons-.
               
               So....
               
               Also. I was not a fan of going into Iraq either, Chris. But once we are there we should be focused on winning, period! Nothing else.
               
               I mean the lies told about Iraq by the Left are as humorous as claiming bush and libby outed plame. When everyone knows that the year before her own husband had outed her to the Rolling Stone rag.
               
               lol yeah real funny.

               replyreport
            2. 60

               Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Just a reminder that Obama re-signed the Patriot Act.
               
               Vote him out.

               replyreport
               1. 77

                  lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  He's the only candidate that is pro-choice.
                  Keep him in.

                  replyreport
               2. 60

                  uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Not only did he re-sign the Patriot Act, his Justice Department sought an expansion of the powers it authorizes.

                  replyreport
                  1. 77

                     lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Which ones?

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/2 … 95194.html
                        
                        http://www.rawstory.com/news/2008/Obama … _0407.html
                        
                        http://www.aclu.org/national-security/c … provisions
                        
                        http://www.aclu.org/national-security/o … ies-says-a
                        
                        http://www.alternet.org/tags/patriot%20act/
                        
                        http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/sep20 … -s17.shtml
                        
                        http://www.washingtonpoliticsnews.com/?p=108
                        
                        http://my.firedoglake.com/kgosztola/201 … triot-act/
                        
                        http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2010/07/ … urt-order/
                        
                        http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/

                        replyreport
                        1. 77

                           lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           Before I even try...are those all different powers, or the same one in different articles?
                           
                           and funny how so many of those are "leftist" sites....do you give them credibility now?

                           replyreport
                           1. 60

                              uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              No, you do.  They cover some of the same things, but are different articles. 
                              
                              If one considers the source, there is always information available, even from a source one might consider incredible.

                              replyreport
      3. 60

         Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         A horse trainer appointed as head of Fema.  Close to being able to take care of the "cattle"  but with a difference.
         
         Ya doin' a great job Brownie"!
                                        Dubya to the Fema head during Katrina
         
         
         Now how many thousands of Fema trailers were built at exorbitant prices from Bush cronies?  They were never used because they weren't certified for use in such low areas?  Don't get me started on the $12.00 peanut butter sandwiches another Bush crony provided. 

         replyreport
         1. 60

            uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I can see that the brilliant Obama has been helping restore N.O. and Louisiana's economies after the hate filled ravages of GWB's Navy and Coast Guard by ignoring the requests of Governor Jindal to protect the fishing industry and by driving the oil industry out of the Gulf.  Big thumbs up for the espoir et de changement.

            replyreport
2. 60

   lady_love158posted 12 years ago

   Uh yeah right... and we should take as gospel the opinions of the leftist Obama mouthpiece propaganda rag the NYT and the assessment of their book critic MICHIKO KAKUTANI, who obviously knows more about what went on behind the scenes than the Vice President who was in on all of it?

   replyreport
   1. 65

      Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      As somebody said "Know how to tell when Cheney is lying? Answer:  When his lips are moving."

      replyreport
      1. 56

         Sourpussposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Do his lips move?
         I though he was pulled like a ventriloquist.
         
         Most memorable moments:
         
         "Go F yourself"
         
         "Mr. VP, 95% of the American people disagree with you"
         "So?"
         
         ****
         Ah, the 40 some years in politics suits him well.
         He has a big family, no?
         Imagine how much tax money is being spent on that clan! Whooooooo!

         replyreport
   2. 60

      Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Cheney deserves to be murdered for the horrors he's unleashed on mankind.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Paul Wingertposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Murder? No. Too much stess and pressure on the murderer. I think that Bush and Cheney should go out in a respectable way like commiting a televised ritual suicide.

         replyreport
3. 74

   Reality Bytesposted 12 years ago

   Ehhh? I will read it if I can buy it for a dollar.  I will wait until then to form an opinion.   

   replyreport
4. 61

   Ron Montgomeryposted 12 years ago

   You've really hit a nerve Ralph.  Kudos.

   replyreport