Is Cheney Deliberately Trying To Confuse The Public

[Swaggs]

I'm curious as to folks' thoughts on Dick Cheney. Specifically, that he continues to give speeches claiming that Iraq was tied to Al-Qaida and 9/11. He just recently stated that, despite the 9/11 Commission finding no links, that there was information that the commission "probably" did not find linking Iraq and Al-Qaida (http://apnews.excite.com/article/20040707/D83LLG4G0.html ).

Why, when he met with the commission, would he not provide that information?

Based on the fact that 40% of the population apparently still believe that Saddam Hussein had some ties to 9/11, I am really beginning to think that Cheney continues to do this to put a haze over the truth to confuse the people?

I am continually growing frustrated that a man so high in the administration and so qualified to be vice president and discuss important facts continues to include these unproven facts in his speeches.

I'm not trying to hear stuff like, "Cheney is a tool" or "the democrats would do the same thing," I just wanted to hear some thoughts on this.

[Maple Leafs]

I believe Cheney is walking a line here. The Commision said there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11. He's saying that there was a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and more generally between Iraq and terrorism. I think all those things are true, so in that sense nobody is lying.

I do think there is still confusion over the distinction between Al Qaeda in general and 9/11 in specific. And the cynic in my thinks that Cheney et al are quite happy to have that confusion out there.

[JPhillips]

Cheney and Michael Moore both use the same tactic. They quite carefully stick to the letter of the truth, but they make sure to imply that things are different than what they can prove. It's dificult to find a case where Cheney or Moore said a clear lie, but what they clearly want folks to believe is often very tenuous at best.

[Glengoyne]

I agree with what Maple Leafs and JPhillips said, well to a limited extent.

I do agree that He is relying on the distinction between a connection to 9/11 and a more general relationship. I don't believe he is trying to imply anything other than exactly what he is saying. If someone believes something more than exactly what is being said, that is not the responsibility of Cheney. I think it is ridiculous to say "He didn't say it, but he wants you to believe it". At that point

While I find the Moore Cheney comparison intriguing, the biggest reason I think it breaks down is that Moore uses more smoke and mirrors(a completely different medium than the spoken word) to get his point.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I agree with what Maple Leafs and JPhillips said, well to a limited extent.

I do agree that He is relying on the distinction between a connection to 9/11 and a more general relationship.

Of course he is, he's being quoted.

I don't believe he is trying to imply anything other than exactly what he is saying. If someone believes something more than exactly what is being said, that is not the responsibility of Cheney.

Give me a break man. If he's relying on the distinction then he's making a deliberate choice and that choice is to deliberately imply something. This isn't rocket science, it's propaganda. The key word is rely. RELY. He is relying on what he's saying being technically true but he crafts it in such a way because he's implying something. That's plain out sneaky.

It's done all the time, everywhere. It's not unique to him nor particulary damning to him but for christs sakes recognize it when it happens.

I think it is ridiculous to say "He didn't say it, but he wants you to believe it". At that point

So, he's RELYING on a semantical difference to keep his statements honest but he isn't trying to sell us a bill of goods? OK.

While I find the Moore Cheney comparison intriguing, the biggest reason I think it breaks down is that Moore uses more smoke and mirrors(a completely different medium than the spoken word) to get his point.

No, he relies on the letter of the law with what he says to prove he's "truthful."
There just isn't a difference between this example and a Michael Moore example. No one can call either of them a liar but they spin like a couple of Battling Tops.

At least be honest about that, man.

[miked]

I'm a bit confused as well. From what I heard from the commission, even the link between Iraq and Al Qaeda was very thin, with a forced contact a while ago. And the commission seems to have rules out a meeting between one of the hijackers and high ranking Iraqi officials. I am also confused as to why last night (or the night before) Cheney is talking about links that go back a decade and are conclusive and that the hijackers met with Iraqi officials. I don't know what info he has that the commission doesn't, but it certainly is confusing.

Is it really going to sway a public that now the majority opposes having intervened in Iraq and feels like there is no plan?

Edit: hxxp://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/06/cheney.911/index.html

Another story out this morning where the commission says they have the same info as Cheney and don't support his statements. I think his hijacker reasoning is funny...along the lines of...although there is no evidence that it happened, we haven't been able to disprove a meeting.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Give me a break man. If he's relying on the distinction then he's making a deliberate choice and that choice is to deliberately imply something. This isn't rocket science, it's propaganda. The key word is rely. RELY. He is relying on what he's saying being technically true but he crafts it in such a way because he's implying something. That's plain out sneaky.

And in my opinion, if you can't figure out the difference, then you (in the general sense) are a buffoon for failing to comprehend the difference, or in the alternative, you're a buffoon for failing to see the error, and dismissing his comments for what they are worth.

We all have brains, why don't we try to use them? There is no confusion here - either he's talking about something different from what the Commission reported, in which case he may be right, or he's talking about the same thing, in which case he's wrong (at least based on the Commission's report). Pick one.


Commission - There's no evidence of a link between A and B
Cheney - There's evidence of a link between A and C
Liberals - Hey wait a minute, he's trying to confuse us into believing there's a link between A and B

Huh?

At some point, we are all responsible for sifting through the information we receive and making our own judgments about what is true and what is not true. I refuse to buy into this "we're all confused sheep" theory that places the blame on the people providing the information. Figure it out for yourself.

[Kosta]

Moore = Independant filmmaker
Cheney = Senior Government official in public office

The US government has some great links to unsavoury organisations itself... the fact that they can't link Iraq to Al Qaeda is a bigger surprise than if they were able to.

[Noop]

How much you want to bet people still vote for Bush/Cheney in Nov.

[miked]

I only believe what TV tells me. If Jon Stewart says so, it is.

[Flasch186]

"After examining available transcripts of [Vice President Dick Cheney's] public remarks, the 9/11 commission believes it has access to the same information the vice president has seen regarding contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq prior to the 9/11 attacks," the commission said in a written statement.

That statement comes in the wake of an interview Cheney gave last month on CNBC. During that interview, Cheney said "we don't know" whether Iraq was involved in the attacks. Asked whether he had information the panel did not, the vice president said, "Probably." - from CNN



There is absolutely no doubt that what he is doing is creating the FOG so that when it comes election time the "sheep". those that only go by what the admin. says will continue to believe him. Above the commission says, that they have the same info. the VP does and come to a different conclusion. The ass kicker is that he bolsters his statement by saying that theyn probably dont, ahem.....He was SUPPOSED to give them all their info. would there be some reason that he's lying at that point therefore he wouldnt be lying about the conclusion. regardless it is absolutely planned and to think that almost anything goes down with both moore and cheney that isnt would be naive.


The commission has said it has seen no evidence to suggest that then-Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's government was involved in the attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people.

In a report released last month, the commission concluded that though there were numerous contacts in the 1990s between Iraq and al Qaeda, those contacts did not result in a "collaborative relationship." - from cNN


What the above says is that there isnt a collaborative relationship b/w the two. This means they didnt work together. Could Iraq have been a sponsor for terrorism sure, but so could Ireland, Iran, Georgia, etc. To say that the two are linked, then call Al Qaeda the great evil, would lead any American to draw the conclusion that to fight al Qaeda is to fight Saddam. The reach just goes to show how the lead up to war now was an empty shell (which is a shame because I was and am for the war but based on stopping genocide and I hope we go after the Janjaweed, and quick). With Blair admitting that we may never find the WMD it is about time the admin stopped spinning their web IMO and start dealing in truisms, but it may simply be too late for telling tyhe truth.



Last month, Cheney accused news outlets of distorting the commission's findings to portray them as contradicting statements that administration officials made in the months before the invasion of Iraq.

Alleged ties between Iraq and al Qaeda were a main reason the administration gave for going to war. - from cNN


The old Blame the media trick. Moore uses it too. "Sheep" dont believe what you see. Dont believe what youn hear. Only believe what we tell you. We would nevere lie. That is what they do. Raise the terrorist threat level as soon as some piece of bad news comes out. Keep the public scared and they'll vote foir us again and again and again.


Cheney also said recently that the United States has never been able to "knock down" an uncorroborated Czech report that September 11 plot leader Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague, Czech Republic, before the attacks.

The commission said it doesn't believe such a meeting ever took place. - from CNN


Last I heard it certainly didnt take place whent he admin says it did, Since Atta was here. I believe, cant prove, that they have a receipt and video of him at an ATM here on that day. Was the Concorde still working then?

The fog must be kept full so that peopel will vote them in again. This isnt the first lie certainly wont be the last.

Medicare prescription drug discounts for seniors = ~23% off but since the admin got into office, the pharm. drug co.'s raised their prices ~25%. They also just happen to be HUGE campaign contributors to the RNC. Nice savings to the Seniors, they pay the same....me and you pay the difference. just another lie.

WMD = Lie

there are so many I cant even remember them all, but the above is simply par for the course.

[Shkspr]

This reminds me of a cool story about my father. I can recall back in the days of the liberation of Iraq when the main headlines were the continuing inability of the US to find and WMD. My father worked in the Pentagon during the Reagan years, and has a wall in his den dedicated to his experiences in the Air Force. As I was visiting one day, I teased my folks (who are devotees of conservative talk radio) about the WMD hunt. My father got up, walked over to the wall, and stared long and hard for about fifteen seconds. He absent-mindedly rapped a knuckle against one of the photos on the wall, turned, and said, "Let's not talk about it today."

Much of what my father actually DID was highly classified, but I do know that the photo he rapped his knuckles against was the office memento he was given from his time serving in the DoD office that monitored Iran and Iraq's attempts to acquire WMD technologies in the 1980's. I'll defer to his stony silence on the subject of Iraq quite a bit more than most people's lucid arguments.

Which is relevant, I supppose, in that one thing my father HAS been vocal about is Saddam's terror ties. Politically, my father and I differ in many respects, but hell, my father spent five years dealing with the Iraqi government. If he's with Cheney on this one, then I don't really feel I can let Peter Jennings tell me different.

[Flasch186]

tough to go against dad, i understand but the admin has shelled out a littany of lies and then to say, "they probably dont have the same info. I have" when he was told to give it all to the comission is another statement of how the admin. views it all. They are impervious to consequences.

[Bee]

Cheney is a politician...of course he's trying to deliberately confuse the public.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

And in my opinion, if you can't figure out the difference, then you (in the general sense) are a buffoon for failing to comprehend the difference, or in the alternative, you're a buffoon for failing to see the error, and dismissing his comments for what they are worth.

We all have brains, why don't we try to use them? There is no confusion here - either he's talking about something different from what the Commission reported, in which case he may be right, or he's talking about the same thing, in which case he's wrong (at least based on the Commission's report). Pick one.


Commission - There's no evidence of a link between A and B
Cheney - There's evidence of a link between A and C
Liberals - Hey wait a minute, he's trying to confuse us into believing there's a link between A and B

Huh?

At some point, we are all responsible for sifting through the information we receive and making our own judgments about what is true and what is not true. I refuse to buy into this "we're all confused sheep" theory that places the blame on the people providing the information. Figure it out for yourself.

This is where I, if not disagree, than grow very disappointed and disenfranchised. Cheney isn't Al Sharpton or Pat Robertson, trying to incite crowds, he is the vice president of the United States. And he is continuing to vaguely beat on this point to strike fear into people.

You can call 40% of the population "buffoons" if you like, but keep in mind that you and I (and most of the folks on the FOFC board) are within the age, education, and level of wealth (we can afford computers, internet access, cable TV, different books, papers, magazines) to look at more than one source when something does not sound right or vague. For folks like the elderly, for example, they may not have the technological "know how" or the unemployed, they may not have the financial resources to research something like this. They just trust that Vice President of the United States will tell them the truth and protect their interests.

[Shkspr]

By the same token, you and I may also be of an age and education to realize that what's on the internet and reported in the media ain't worth a pile of crap and that it is NOT in the nation's best interest to make policy decisions a matter of public referendum.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

For folks like the elderly, for example, they may not have the technological "know how" or the unemployed, they may not have the financial resources to research something like this. They just trust that Vice President of the United States will tell them the truth and protect their interests.

And he is telling the truth. If people want to stretch the A=C argument he makes to also cover A=B, or if they are too stupid, oblivious, poor, frail, technologically illiterate, etc., to understand the difference, how can you blame him for that? It seems to me he's responding to the media's claim that the Commission made a finding about A=C when they only made a finding with regard to A=B. He argues that despite the Commission's findings, A=C, and people, for whatever reason they have, misunderstand that, and he is considered a liar? I don't get it.

[Noop]

Al Sharpton should be president.

[Flasch186]

that is sucha slippery slope. there is also no proof that Bush isnt controlled by Saudi Arabian oil interests so how do automatically write off Morre as a liar. There isnt any proof that Bush didnt cheat to win Florida, so how do we know he didnt. You could go on and on all day connecting dots that aren't Proven false yet, talk about them, and then when they are proven false dont publicly retract it so no one will see the retraction therefore continuing to believe the crap. typical radio talk show BS.

[JPhillips]

This is a common tactic for this admin. Remember how they never said "imminent"? They went out of their way to imply the threat was imminent but they carefully avoided saying the word so that they could deny it. Also remember how they kept saying that Saddam was a threat to American interests. They never said Saddam could attack the continental U.S., but they certainly implied it over and over again.

Now you can believe that professional opinion makers don't know what they are doing. You can believe that just because these confusions always seem to help their case means nothing. But the simpler answer is that yes they do know wha they are doing and they keep doing it because it works.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

I believe Cheney is walking a line here. The Commision said there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11. He's saying that there was a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and more generally between Iraq and terrorism. I think all those things are true, so in that sense nobody is lying.

Speaking of connections, if you want to get the old man to launch into a profanity laden tirade, just bring this one up:

[gstelmack]

Let me see here. Bush/Cheney say "Iraq was involved with terrorists." 9/11 commission says "Iraq was not involved with 9/11." People say "See, Bush/Cheney lied, Iraq had no terrorist ties!". Bush/Cheney say "The commission did not say that, we still have evidence of ties to terrorist groups." People say "Why didn't you give that evidence to the commission?"

My logical answer: the commission was not investigating Iraq's ties with terrorism, it was investigating what happened regarding 9/11. Why should Bush/Cheney supply them with more general (likely classified and therefore harmful to release) intelligence regarding general Iraqi ties with terror?

Looks to me like they are trying to clear up the confusion caused by the 9/11 commission's report, not add to it.

[Dutch]

The War on Terror is a nasty episode in American History. So, if people think the Bush Administration is doing wrong, what will Kerry do?

So far as I can tell, the only thing he is going to do is sever ties with our closest allies and try and get in bed with the snakes in Germany and France. Osama Bin Laden couldn't have scripted it better himself.

[IMetTrentGreen]

all y'all need to go fuck yourselves

[Flasch186]

I believ that Rumsfeld alreday got caught in the "imminent" Lie on meet the press. remember? They asked him if anyone in the amdin said that Iraq was an "imminent" threat and he said no. then they showed that in one of his speeches he said that "America had no greater, more imminent, threat than Saddam Hussein and Iraq." The Bush Admin. has always tried to clear up confusion, like when Bush stood on the ship and said the Coalition had won, under the Mission Accomplished banner. Then said that he just meant the one battle, not the whole thing. That was so clear how could anyone have been mistaken, must be the people's fault for drawing such a conclusion.

[Buddy Grant]

Cheney is using Homer logic here: Weaseling out of things is what separates us from the animals...except the weasels.

[Whar]

If someone believes something more than exactly what is being said, that is not the responsibility of Cheney.

Thats positively Clintonian of you Glen!

I did not have sexual relations with that woman

Thats techincally true. It sure as hell is misleading!

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa

Again 100% true and accurate. Bush can not be held responsible if people infer the US government actually believed this peice of intelligence.

Heres Cheney at his best ...

CNBC's Gloria Borger: Well, let's get to Mohamed Atta for a minute because you mentioned him as well. You have said in the past that it was, quote, "pretty well confirmed."

Dick Cheney: No, I never said that.

From the White House web site

[Russert] Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?

CHENEY: Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.

See Bush and Clinton knew how to lie and mislead. I suppose one could argue that Cheney is the most honorable among them since he lies so poorly.

I can not disagree more with Glen's position. The message conveyed by any statement can go well beyond the exact wording. If this act is unintentional it is not a great sin but to intentional decieve like Clinton did is lieing regardless of the 'accuracy' of his words. Bush too lied regarding 'Yellowcakegate' (worst scandel name evah!) while I forgive him somewhat since he might not have had the best vetting on his speech he is still the President and needs to get that stuff right.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I believ that Rumsfeld alreday got caught in the "imminent" Lie on meet the press. remember? They asked him if anyone in the amdin said that Iraq was an "imminent" threat and he said no. then they showed that in one of his speeches he said that "America had no greater, more imminent, threat than Saddam Hussein and Iraq." The Bush Admin. has always tried to clear up confusion, like when Bush stood on the ship and said the Coalition had won, under the Mission Accomplished banner. Then said that he just meant the one battle, not the whole thing. That was so clear how could anyone have been mistaken, must be the people's fault for drawing such a conclusion.

Certainly baffles us all how one statement that can be confused with saying "Iraq is ready to attack now" overrules the hundreds that say Iraq is a "grave and gathering" danger. It's also baffling how our press never once repeated "grave and gathering" but always repeated "...imminent..."

As for "Mission Accomplished", what would the leftists have put on the banner? What would they have told the brave and hard working sailors and airman of the aircraft carrier? "Get back over there and kill some civilians now that the Baath Party, the Republican Guard, and Saddam Hussein have been ousted."?

I didn't think so. Mission Accomplished.

[Flasch186]

It was wrong and instead of saying that it was wrong they pinned it on an intern, saying a press relations intern put it up without the administrations knowledge. What horse pooey, nothing goes on when the pres. shows up for a press op that the admin., and certainly Karl Rove dont know about. They knew it, it was crap, and they spun their way out according to most republican fans.

The Dems. wouldnt have gone and flew onto a carrier, to bolster expectations.....scream how wonderful the troops and military are doing...then cut services to vets, get mired in Iraq without going to the UN much earlier (Like the Dems always wanted), and then have a terrible plan for the immediate post war. The admin. machine misjudged mightily and will lie their way out, just like Cheney and the admin is doing when it comes to saying that Saddam was an imminent threat. Or that there is any connection at all between saddam and 9/11. There isnt, and the connection b/w Saddam and Al Qaeda is that they didnt work together Bin Laden didnt like Saddam.

I guess I have a relationship with everyone in the world then cuz I dont work with them. Slippery slopes are so much fun....except that most people believe the crap that comes out of the white house cuz he's our leader, not supposed to lie to us. The preceent is bad.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

The Dems. wouldnt have gone and flew onto a carrier

Your sure?

get mired in Iraq without going to the UN much earlier (Like the Dems always wanted)

We didn't go to the UN earlier? What was the US doing between October 2002 and March 2003 again?

[Dutch]

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Arles

We didn't go to the UN earlier? What was the US doing between October 2002 and March 2003 again?

Heck, what have we been doing since 1991...

[Whar]

to bolster expectations.....scream how wonderful the troops and military are doing...then cut services to vets, get mired in Iraq without going to the UN much earlier (Like the Dems always wanted), and then have a terrible plan for the immediate post war.

Flasch does state quite a few reasons why the Dems wouldn't go to a carrier. Clinton's protesting of the war in Veitnam was used as a campaign issue. He was attempting to show himself as 'Commander in Chief'. His trip occured in 1993 just a year after his election. Bush's occurs in an election year and was much more highly publicized. If he had travelled to that carrier to thank the troops and only allowed armed forces media coverage or restricted coverage it would have been hard to fault him. But his over the top, at least to me, display was a bit sickening.

*EDIT* Didn't Clinton aids steal mementos from the carrier too? Like towels and such?

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Whar

His trip occured in 1993 just a year after his election. Bush's occurs in an election year and was much more highly publicized.

Bush's occurred in May of 2003, 18 months before the election.

And gee, I wonder why Bush's was more highly publicized...

[jeff061]

Video of Whar's post
hxxp://www.overspun.com/video/DailyShow.cheneylies.rm

The part you want to see is 2:00 min in and ends at 3:19. Oops, he pulled a Rummy. Wonder what George would say if they let him off his leash.

[korme]

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Whar

... But his over the top, at least to me, display was a bit sickening.

I think your use of sickening here is over the top to say the least. I file the "Mission Accomplished" trip to the Carrier complaints right next to the Cheney Halliburton complaints. Right in the Much ado about nothing stack.

I think Ksyrup summed up the characterization of Cheney lying in the most appropriate manner.

Commission - There's no evidence of a link between A and B
Cheney - There's evidence of a link between A and C
Liberals - Hey wait a minute, he's trying to confuse us into believing there's a link between A and B

It is fiction.

As for the Cheney's actions after the commission report. I don't know why he won't change from his stance that there still may have been a meeting between Atta and the Iraqis. Most, if not all, sources I have seen/read have backed away from this assertion. Who knows why Cheney won't? As for his statement that he 'probably' knew things the panel didn't ask him. That means nothing. He was questioned by them, and he says he answered their questions. He is simply saying he likely has information that they didn't ask him about. That is different from withholding information and lying to them.

[Chubby]

Isn't it illegal to quote the vice president now? I thought that was snuck into some recent bill, you're all going to jail

[Flasch186]

Arles I believ that that is what I said :

"The Dems. wouldnt have gone and flew onto a carrier, to bolster expectations.....scream how wonderful the troops and military are doing...then cut services to vets, get mired in Iraq without going to the UN much earlier (Like the Dems always wanted), and then have a terrible plan for the immediate post war."


Clinton's landing on a carrier wasnt to announce the end of the war. The war Clinton fought was about as good a war as you can fight in this day and age, NATO's complete help, UN backing, and an exit strategy. The Dems' wanted to go to the UN before anything happened there, were crying for George not to go it alone, or with a coalition of such helpless countries, but no....The cowboy had to go get a souvenir for daddy. Sorry, his statement on the ship was misleading, Cheney's talk is misleading, the entire admin. is misleading. Just like Senator Edwards said in the campaign...the admin. doesnt realize the other America that exists...the one without health care, the one without a job, the one with a dad overseas, the one in which the middle class gets smaller, the one in which the rich get richer and poor ghet poorer, the one in which our civil liberties are trampled on, etc.

and yes, im biased, I do not like the admin we have now. I think any admin would be more honest and Clinton's lie is a lie that anyone who made the BIGGER mistake months before wouldve told as well. Ill take that any day overf the lies and misleaders that are told now.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

The war Clinton fought was about as good a war as you can fight in this day and age, NATO's complete help, UN backing, and an exit strategy.

Exit strategy?!! Wow, someone needs to tell the American troops we still have over there to get the hell out.

Originally Posted by CNNdotcom

NATO rushes troops to Kosovo
Thursday, May 6, 2004 Posted: 11:31 AM EDT (1531 GMT)

(CNN) -- NATO will send peacekeeping REINFORCEMENTS to the Balkans in hopes of quelling a mass wave of violence that has killed at least 22 people and left 500 wounded.

At least 55 soldiers with the NATO-led peacekeeping mission KFOR and 61 police officers are among the wounded, the U.N. Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) said in a written statement.

A spokeswoman for Kosovo's prime minister said the reinforcements will number about 1,000 and will include 500 British troops, 150 British and U.S. troops from neighboring Bosnia, and up to 300 other troops.

The worst spate of ethnic clashes since the end of the Kosovo war in 1999 broke out early Wednesday after the drowning of three Albanian children.

U.N. officials said the children were being chased by Serbs and drowned in a river that separates the two communities in Mitrovica.

Soon riots started in many parts of the majority-Albanian province. KFOR soldiers and police sprayed tear gas, set up roadblocks, and established a curfew, but were unable to bring the situation under control in many areas.

Also, the progressive.org doesn't agree with your assessment of the marvelous job Clinton did managing the war.

Originally Posted by Progressivedotorg

THE GREAT HISTORIAN Gabriel Kolko, in his book Century of War, writes: "War, in essence, has always been an adventure intrinsically beset with surprises and false expectations, its total outcome unpredictable to all those who have engaged in it."

Bill Clinton is finding this out the hard way. His ill-conceived decision to prod NATO into bombing Yugoslavia in March has wreaked havoc. The hundreds of thousands of refugees, the civilians killed by NATO bombs, the U.S. soldiers captured, the solidification of domestic support for Serbian strongman Slobodan Milosevic, the dangerous chill in U.S.-Russian relations--all these have come to pass since Clinton made his fateful decision.

Granted, the decision was not an easy one. Milosevic is a brutal leader. His troops in Bosnia committed acts of genocide, and, as he has demonstrated since the bombing, his ferocity in Kosovo knows few bounds. The international community must find a way to prevent or resolve human rights crises like this one. The Rwandan example, where more than 500,000 people died in a matter of weeks in 1994, demonstrates the need for some kind of action.

But launching a NATO air war against Milosevic was the triumph of threat over thought. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright had blustered so much about bombing that when Milosevic refused to budge, she and the United States and NATO were left with the option of losing face or carrying out the threat--even though the consequences of carrying out that threat had not yet been calculated.

That was just one in a series of blunders and blusters that led to this fiasco. First, at the Dayton Accords in 1995, the United States kept Kosovo off the table and whisked the problem under the rug. But the problem did not go away.

After the settlement, NATO troops should have arrested the butchers of Bosnia, Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic, and tried them for crimes against humanity. They've been under indictment by the world court at the Hague, but for years have been living in Bosnia, which is under the protection of NATO troops. What signal did this send to Milosevic or other thugs under his command?

For almost ten years, Kosovo had one of the most active nonviolent resistance movements since Gandhi's time. But the United States and NATO did not do enough to support this effort. Only when some Kosovars took up arms did Washington pay serious attention. Albright could barely exert influence over the Kosovo Liberation Army, and she used every bit of leverage to get the KLA to sign the agreement at Rambouillet. She did so not to assure a peace agreement (Milosevic was already on record rejecting Rambouillet), but to justify war. She needed the KLA's signature as the start-your-engines sign for NATO bombers. Within days, NATO ordered its unarmed observers to leave Kosovo. And as soon as they left, the Serbs marched in.

It would have been far better, instead, to have flooded Kosovo with international peacekeepers--from the United Nations, from countries like India, Ireland, Sweden, and Finland, which had no stake in the battle--to buy time and act as a buffer between Milosevic's forces and the Kosovars. It may even have been better to let Russian troops join in the peacekeeping; that way Milosevic would have had to overrun his friends to get to the Kosovars, and the international community would have united against him.

But instead of trying a myriad of peaceful options, Clinton, Albright, and NATO reached for the old, unreliable one: Send in the bombers. They didn't bother themselves with international law. They flouted it. International law clearly states that one country can attack another one only when it is itself under attack, about to be attacked, or when the U.N. Security Council grants permission. Belgrade was not attacking the United States or any of the NATO countries involved in the bombings. And the United States intentionally avoided the Security Council because Russia and China were likely to veto any military action.

Nor, for that matter, was the bombing in accordance with U.S. law: Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the sole power to declare war, and there was no formal declaration of war in this case. Congress shirked its responsibilities by approving a measure that fell short of a war declaration but supported the President's decision to send in the bombers.

And liberals vanished. Only four Democrats in all of Congress bothered to protest. In the House, there was only one, Barbara Lee of California (see Ruth Conniff's profile on page 10). In the Senate, just three: Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Fritz Hollings of South Carolina, and Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico.

You know what the means, of course....Clinton is a Cowboy, Clinton is a Cowboy.

[Sharpieman]

Of course Cheney is trying to confuse the public, and its obviously working. Conservatives like to say, "hey its not his fault if the public is stupid" or "Micheal Moore is worse" or "Dem's aren't doing anything" to try to get the focus off Cheney. The fact is, Cheney is a liar.

[Bee]

It's amazing to me that the defense of Bush and Cheney seem to center around attacking Clinton and the Democrats. I didn't like Clinton when he was in office and I think he mishandled a lot of stuff while in office (I also never voted for him once). The handling of Iraq by this administration has been a disaster IMO. And anyone that says the administration hasn't been trying to spin everything with half-truths and misleading quotes is naive at best (just like those who thought the same of Clinton).

[Flasch186]

Exactly, everyone admits the planning for Iraq has been a disaster.

our troops in the balkans peacekeep under the nato flag.

The blakans are a much better, MUCH better example of how to do this than what we have now. To say that it isnt is a bold faced lie and one in which you will defend the goings on in Iraq regardless of how it is going.

I can find a site equally as anti-Iraq as you have found one on the balkans. Even Rush Limbaugh can pull false facts, or opinions based on partisanship.

Face it. The admin lies to you almost about everything, the war on our jobs, the war in iraq, the war on the elderly, the war on the veterans, the war on the environment.....If you took a step back and instead of onhly worrying about yourself, and saw that your neighbor down the street over the tracks was doing horribly and eventually would be doing so horribly that they would be hopeless and forgotten you might think differently. Remember your freedoms only exist until the guy up the street who has nothing comes down to take from you.

[Dutch]

The administration agrees with you, Flasch.

They practically begged the UN (and later NATO) to make Saddam Hussein comply with 17 UN Resolutions, the 1991 Cease-Fire, to stop playing cat and mouse with the inspectors, to stop the daily anti-aircraft batteries from shooting at UN and Nato planes patrolling the no fly zones, and to realize that in order to be a responsible member of the international community, Iraq had an obligation to adhere to the directives given to them.

The difference between Iraqs' disregard of the UN and the USA's enforcement of the UN's policy is night and day. It's not Cheney confusing this, it's the liberals, trying to get their liberal into office, that is confusing this.

And had it not been for the polarization efforts of France (Chirac's words) and Germany, we would have had UN support in Iraq.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Exactly, everyone admits the planning for Iraq has been a disaster.

our troops in the balkans peacekeep under the nato flag.

The blakans are a much better, MUCH better example of how to do this than what we have now. To say that it isnt is a bold faced lie and one in which you will defend the goings on in Iraq regardless of how it is going.

I can find a site equally as anti-Iraq as you have found one on the balkans. Even Rush Limbaugh can pull false facts, or opinions based on partisanship.

Face it. The admin lies to you almost about everything, the war on our jobs, the war in iraq, the war on the elderly, the war on the veterans, the war on the environment.....If you took a step back and instead of onhly worrying about yourself, and saw that your neighbor down the street over the tracks was doing horribly and eventually would be doing so horribly that they would be hopeless and forgotten you might think differently. Remember your freedoms only exist until the guy up the street who has nothing comes down to take from you.

You know yesterday I skimmed right past most of your posts in this thread because they were the same old useless rhetoric you usually spout. Some how I can't find it in myself to do this.

In no particular order. I agree that the post war handling of Iraq was initially bungled, and that is inexcusable. Why that isn't a campaign isssue for the Dems, I can't even fathom.

I'd say the Balkans and Kosovo were a better example of how this should be done, I don't think you can say much better, because there are still lots of problems there now.

I'm not defending Bush/Cheney, by comparing them to Clinton. I am saying their detractors are construing everything they say as a lie, and THAT is getting old. It is like the old "Republicans are going to take away school lunches" myth the democrats used to perpetuate. If you say something long enough, everyone will consider it a fact. Reading the garbage you spout, I'd say someone could write a dissertation on how your opinions are shaped.

Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot, and honestly, doesn't believe at least a third of what he says. He is an entertainer. You are also right that you can find pro and con sites regarding Kosovo. Some on the right opposed those actions, and still do today. I think it is basically the same bullshit the Dems are doing with Iraq. We disagree with this because the president is a Republican, lets use this against them.

The war on jobs. This is Bullshit. Come on. New jobs are coming left and right. You remember that report from March/April that the media criticized because of the number of jobs the admins economics commission said were going to be created this year? Well guess what, job creation is now, ahead of that projected pace. I wonder where the media is now?

The war on Veterans: This is laughable. Every administration has dropped the ball with regard to our veterans. Everyone thinks it is important, but no one thinks it is important enough to spend the money on. Hard to blame, even a political party on this one.

The war on the environment. This one, you can at least back up with some policy decisions. The right can argue that the environmentalists are blowing every decision that comes down out of proportion, but honestly the air pollution plan that allows "clean" companies to sell their allotted polution production to other companies is pretty ludicrous. I have no problem with the left banging this admin on the environment. Only good can come of it.

The war on our elderly. You know the AARP backed the Medicare prescription drug plan. Do you know why? Because it gave the elderly a break on the skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs. You spout this garbage about a 25% discount, but the drug companies have raised their prices 25%. Those prices are going up without regard to the medicare program. The seniors will still be able to get their drugs cheaper than if there was no program. Savings is savings, and the democrats should give up on this one. The right delivered something to one of the Dem's prized demographics, the left needs to get over it. Could the plan have been better, including reduced negotiated costs...Yes. That doesn't mean it isn't a benefit.

[Bee]

Just a note on the Medicare prescription drug plan...

I don't know how many of you have looked into it in detail. I have helped a quite a few senior citizens with it now (I volunteer at a senior citizen center). The current plan that went into effect in June and goes out in 2006 can be beneficial to some if you pick the right drug card. Previously, most drug companies had cards that were usable for lower income seniors, but most of those cards are now being discontinued in favor of the Medicare approved drug cards. The problem with this is that you can only have 1 medicare approved drug card. Some cards give you a small discount over all drugs, others give you a big discount on specific drugs, etc. It's rather complicated to figure out which drug card is best for each individual. The problem comes in where before some of the lower income seniors were getting discounts from multiple drug companies that exceed the discounts they are getting with the medicare approved drug cards. Of the 30 or so seniors I've helped, I'd say about half a dozen are going to pay more than before, about half a dozen that will pay less and most are right about the same as they were paying now. Thse changes are really not "significant" from what I've seen, either positive or negative. People are saving $15 a month or spending an extra $15 a month. It seems to me that overall it's breaking even with what's out there now.

The scary thing is when the full program goes into effect in 2006. With the monthly $35 fee, the $200 deductible, the copayments and the "donut hole" coverage, all but 3 people I've helped will be paying more than they do today. Those 3 had a lot of perscriptions and their perscriptions were expensive.

Just wanted to put in my experience about this specific issue since it was brought up. In some ways, the plan is a positive in that it helps those that need help the most, but then again from what I've seen it also ends up costing a lot of people more money out of pocket. I think it's a step in the right direction, but it still needs some work and I hope someone starts looking into it before 2006 gets here.

[Flasch186]

Glen:

I appreciate you taking the time to retort and we agree on much just in different volumes. The war on jobs is absolutely fact driven. You can argue that some jobs have been created lately at the samer time that Polaroid announced huge layoffs as well as Sprint. From where we were 4 years ago we are way, WAY behind and this is a major problem if you dont live in a boom state, ie. florida, california, Arizona, etc. The war on the vets is fact driven as well, theyve cut and plan on cutting benefits to many veterans that are needs not wants. The rest of the stuff we pretty much agree on, except that MOST people, maybe not you, hear the things that Cheney and rush say as Facts, and the fact that "even they dont believe it" is wrong and poor leadership (unfortunately rush is viewed as a leader as well - like the pres. of a labor group) and misleading (close to lying if it isnt so). Most seniors pay the same amount as before but the retail prices have gone up, so who pays the difference? Medicare, and who pays the medicare? the taxpayer. I think the companies knew it was coming, since theyre huge campaign contributors and slowly started to tick their prices higher in anticipation so that theyre not the ones taking the hit, you and I are.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Bee

Just a note on the Medicare prescription drug plan...

I don't know how many of you have looked into it in detail. I have helped a quite a few senior citizens with it now (I volunteer at a senior citizen center). The current plan that went into effect in June and goes out in 2006 can be beneficial to some if you pick the right drug card. Previously, most drug companies had cards that were usable for lower income seniors, but most of those cards are now being discontinued in favor of the Medicare approved drug cards. The problem with this is that you can only have 1 medicare approved drug card. Some cards give you a small discount over all drugs, others give you a big discount on specific drugs, etc. It's rather complicated to figure out which drug card is best for each individual. The problem comes in where before some of the lower income seniors were getting discounts from multiple drug companies that exceed the discounts they are getting with the medicare approved drug cards. Of the 30 or so seniors I've helped, I'd say about half a dozen are going to pay more than before, about half a dozen that will pay less and most are right about the same as they were paying now. Thse changes are really not "significant" from what I've seen, either positive or negative. People are saving $15 a month or spending an extra $15 a month. It seems to me that overall it's breaking even with what's out there now.

The scary thing is when the full program goes into effect in 2006. With the monthly $35 fee, the $200 deductible, the copayments and the "donut hole" coverage, all but 3 people I've helped will be paying more than they do today. Those 3 had a lot of perscriptions and their perscriptions were expensive.

Just wanted to put in my experience about this specific issue since it was brought up. In some ways, the plan is a positive in that it helps those that need help the most, but then again from what I've seen it also ends up costing a lot of people more money out of pocket. I think it's a step in the right direction, but it still needs some work and I hope someone starts looking into it before 2006 gets here.

You are correct. I certainly didn't intend to indicate the prescription drug program was a wonderful wonderful success. I agree with you that it is a step in the right direction. Also most folks I know who qualify for the benefit say that after looking into the program, they consider it about a wash. Meaning that if you compare what they are paying in insurance and copays today with the premiums and copays under the Medicare program, including the "doughnut hole" there is next to no difference. People who have no insurace and expensive prescriptions are the ones who will benefit most.

I also agree that the discount card solution that rolled out early is simply a debacle. The concept was sound, but the drug companies have strayed from the principle behind the cards. That principle was to provide an actual cost benefit to the users across all of their prescription drug products. Instead the drug companies are trying to use this as an additional formulary to push their own products.

I don't have a problem with people criticising the Medicare prescription drug program, as long as they do so intelligently. I bristle when I hear the "Corporate Wellfare", "Ripping off the Elderly", and "war on the elderly" rhetoric. It isn't perfect by any means, but it is a step in the right direction, and that is why the AARP backed the plan.

Oh and Kudos to you for volunteering