It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cheney pressed Bush to test Constitutional limits by using military force on US soil

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 




Care to explain why not?


Do you really want me to expose the fallacy of your logic? I'm quite busy this AM...


reply to post by theWCH
 



1. Libertarian-leaning thinkers generally regard Republicans as liberals. From their position on the political spectrum, you are a tax-and-spend liberal if you support the GOP (just like if you support the Democrats). Sorry guys, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.


That may be, dut I do not affiliate with any political party, although Reagan Republicans are most definitely desirable over any lib. At least there is a chance of talking reason to them.




posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 





Do you really want me to expose the fallacy of your logic? I'm quite busy this AM...


It would be conducive to the debate.



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


All power and authority can be abused. That is why we must always be vigilant. That is why I am politically active.

One thing we should bear in mind is that our enemies are becoming more creative, less identifiable, and less conventional.

They live among us and sometimes they are us.

We must adapt to these new kinds of threats.

Sometimes that includes new tactics.

Freedom is neither free nor easy and if we are going to keep it, we need to be quick on our feet, so to speak. Neither is freedom absolute.

The world is an alarming place.

[edit on 2009/7/27 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 


You made a statement.

I agreed that your statement was true.

You then concluded that I supported big gov't, etc.

It is a logical disconnect. Just because I agree that A is true does not mean that I support it.

Because if you conclude that I am in favor of bigger gov't, you must also conclude that you are in favor of bigger gov't, since I agreed with you.

I can't make it any simpler.



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by harvib
 


You made a statement.

I agreed that your statement was true.

You then concluded that I supported big gov't, etc.

It is a logical disconnect. Just because I agree that A is true does not mean that I support it.

Because if you conclude that I am in favor of bigger gov't, you must also conclude that you are in favor of bigger gov't, since I agreed with you.

I can't make it any simpler.


Ok, fair enough. I did make the assumption that you were in support of such legislation. Are you stating that my assumption was wrong? Because if not I believe my statement to be correct.



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 


We haven't talked before here on ATS, so if you don't know my views I can understand. I am also learning about your views; I always thought you were a bleeding heart liberal, but I see I was wrong.

I'm quite conservative fiscally. Socially, not the strictest guy you'll meet. I call myself independent; I vote the man and not the party. Example..I voted for our Democrat governor because he is a very good man and makes very good decisions for the most part.

I am completely disgusted with both of my Senators, one R and one D.

Hope this helps us to continue discussion here and in other threads.



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
reply to post by dodadoom
 

This is a board for serious discussion.
Perhaps you misunderstood.
Levity is fine, but substance is expected.


Any chance for serious discussion went out the window when you typed that , "Cheney is a war hero." You entered the discussion and polarized it to a left / right issue, and I suspect that was intentional.


As a swing voter I am finding it most difficult to accept the Republican Party as anything I can be a part of. If the republicans can't even support the basics like constitutional laws then I have no business in such a party.

Is there any point when true republicans will finally stand up and admit elements of their party have gone rogue?



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Absum!

Any chance for serious discussion went out the window when you typed that , "Cheney is a war hero." You entered the discussion and polarized it to a left / right issue, and I suspect that was intentional.


I said that Dick Cheney is a national hero and I stand by it.

That opinion in no way impedes serious discussion and it is certainly no more polarizing than the opinion that Cheney is a war criminal or that the Republican party is a "rogue" party.



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by Absum!

Any chance for serious discussion went out the window when you typed that , "Cheney is a war hero." You entered the discussion and polarized it to a left / right issue, and I suspect that was intentional.


I said that Dick Cheney is a national hero and I stand by it.

That opinion in no way impedes serious discussion and it is certainly no more polarizing than the opinion that Cheney is a war criminal or that the Republican party is a "rogue" party.


Please don't misquote me.
Not the entire party, I said,
"…elements of their party have gone rogue?"
It makes a big difference in context, no?



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Absum!
 


The error was inadvertent, as I'm sure your misquote of me was.

Nonetheless, the subject of this post is Cheney and Bush and I don't consider either of them to be rogues.

There may be rogues in the Republican party, but Cheney and Bush are not them.

They are both national heroes and national treasures.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 12:25 AM
link   
Treasures? Hero's? OMG

I cant stand it anymore! Quit it please!

This is the best thread on here! My side hurts from laughing!

Oh, my poor duped fellow peeps.......


From the false flag war to the tax cuts for the rich,
this "successful"
administration has done nothing but good. Yap!

Oh geez this is better than the comedy channel, I love it!


To you guys, obama should be proof that we no longer have a voice
regardless of which grass you think is greener.
Doesnt really matter what side of the fence you are on when
we all get screwed, does it?


Its this continuing pattern of naivety and denial that affects both sides
at some point. It is blatantly obvious and totally pointless.
This arrogant thinking that "we" are totally always right is outright
dangerous for ALL of us.
We are only as strong as our weakest link. Nuff said there.

Oh ya, not enough nuff said, for on here. Better go into more detail;
One persons stupidity(for lack of a better word) can cause a pileup
on the freeway.(for instance)
ONE PERSON texting while driving or doing something similarly stupid causes this multi car pileup that kills several people and causes thousands
in damage!
And you know that person would never think its EVER their fault!
Indeed, these irresponsible voters are just as much to blame for our problems, as the "heros"
we put in office!

Absolute power corrupts absolutely!

I guess the bipartisen bailouts,
(started by bush and cheney,btw and continuing on under obama)
are still not enough of a clue.

You say tomatoe, I say tomato,
you say treasure, I say junk. And good riddance!
Oh and seriously thanks for the laughs guys!

Note to God, thank you, when judging us as a nation,
go easy on the torture thing will ya? Purty Please?
Please help us get over this warlike tendancy!
Before we push the button on ourselves
because we think its the "right thing to do"?
Thanks for considering it anyway...

www.costanzo.org...

Cheney's unprecedented power


www.boston.com...
www.tvnewslies.org...
www.truthring.org...



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 12:59 AM
link   




Really, you want to believe this guy?

Oh, I see! After the famous "hunting trip", who can blame you?
Scary dude and his halibustyourass company will come down
hard on us, for shore! My bad!

I see why you support these guys now! Whew.....
Yeeesh... okay....treasure, hero,...yap all that stuff....



[edit on 28-7-2009 by dodadoom]



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 01:42 AM
link   


Few writers are more ambitious than the writers of government policy papers, and few policy papers are more ambitious than Dick Cheney’s masterwork. It has taken several forms over the last decade and is in fact the product of several ghostwriters (notably Paul Wolfowitz and Colin Powell), but Cheney has been consistent in his dedication to the ideas in the documents that bear his name, and he has maintained a close association with the ideologues behind them. Let us, therefore, call Cheney the author, and this series of documents the Plan.

www.informationclearinghouse.info...
www.informationclearinghouse.info...
Oh ya, he's had a plan or two alright....

Don't Misunderestimate Dick Cheney




For Cheney, the Geneva Conventions -- considered among the nation's most important treaties -- are but quaint relics that can be ignored. Thus, he publicly embraced their violation when, on an Idaho talk radio program, he said he was not troubled in the slightest by our forces using "waterboarding" -- the simulated drowning of detainees to force them to talk. There are serious questions as to whether Cheney himself has also conspired to violate the War Crimes Act, which can be a capital crime.
www.alternet.org...
Wow, I heard that. Nice guy huh?

Really want to know why we went to Iraq?
Read this while its still available:


...Cheney had done his homework. As Spannaus reported, Cheney's task force came out with a report specifying that the Persian Gulf region, with 67% of proven world oil reserves, "will remain vital to U.S. interests." The task force secretly developed a map, showing precisely where Iraq's oil fields were, where the refineries and terminals were located, and what projects were already on the agenda for oil and gas, including a .list of "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oil Field Contracts." The existence of the map, Spannaus reported, was made public due to the efforts of Judicial Watch, a watchdog group which got the informaiton pursuant to a court order in July 2003. Interesting is the fact that the charts and maps dated to March 2001--long before the invasion!
There were a number of initiatives launched by the Bush-Cheney administration, to secure control over Iraq's oil. These included a plan by Halliburton and Bechtel, among others, to "mortgage future Iraqi oil revenues to pay for their reconstruction efforts" whereby the Ex-Im Bank would issue bonds covered by future revenues. To protect the oil multis against legal snags, the U.S. drafted U.N. Resolution 1483, which gave legal immunity for revenues from oil deposited in the Development Fund for Iraq, controlled by CPA Administrator Paul Bremer at the time. Bush signed an Executive Order 13303 on the same day as the U.N. resolution (May 22), which granted U.S. oil companies and contractors immunity from any complaints dealing with Iraqi oil. Yet, even such imperial decrees could not guarantee full protection from international law. Thus, the need to put through a law in Iraq itself.
...following news of an oil deal struck between the Hunt Oil Company of the U.S. and the Kurdistan Regional Government. Kucinich called for a Congressional investigation to determine what role the administration might have had in the deal, considering that the privately held oil company is based in Texas, and that its founder, Ray Hunt, is close to Cheney, as well as being a donor to Bush. (Hunt was finance chairman of the Republican National Committee for Bush in 2002, contributed $100,000s to Bush activities, and was a member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board) The Congressman pointed out that the Hunt Oil deal also exposed the intent of Cheney's Iraqi oil law, to privatize the sector.

www.globalresearch.ca...
chun.afterdowningstreet.org...


It is only a slight exaggeration to say that the fate of the country and the world depends on the eccentricities of a few political operatives who, by shrewd maneuvering, have prevailed in a bureaucratic power grab.

www.thenation.com...


" This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes."
Dwight D. Eisenhower (Farewell Address, 1961)


The Bush - Cheney administration gave new meaning to President Dwight D. Eisenhower's fateful words. Manipulated by the fear of terrorism, Americans gave its government, under the imperial control of President George W. Bush, Jr. and Vice President Dick Cheney, unconstitutional authority that enabled this "disastrous rise of misplaced power ... to endanger our liberties."

Since the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, history has repeatedly proven that the will of these profiteers have overpowered the interests of peaceful diplomacy in favor of the use of military force. From the escalation of the Vietnam War in the 60's and 70's to the covert sales of weapons to Iran, and from the secret military operations of Latin America to waging the contrived war in Iraq, a realistic proposal of change today would require President Barack Obama to openly acknowledge the political machinery of the military industrial complex that shapes our foreign policies, exploits our resources, and provides for the livelihoods of millions of Americans. Without the financial support provided by the lobbyists representing the military industrial complex, the majority of our so-called trusted public servants would have to sacrifice their campaigns for reelection. How can change occur when the corporations that profit from military conflict own our representatives?

www.freewebs.com...


[edit on 28-7-2009 by dodadoom]



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Absum!
Is there any point when true republicans will finally stand up and admit elements of their party have gone rogue?


People HAVE done this. This past election saw libertarians come out in droves to vote for a Democrat, because they so despise these elements of the Republican party. Fiscal conservatives are bailing on the Republican party left and right. Of course, you won't hear about this on Fox News.

Ron Paul has not had anything nice to say about his own party (and has pointed out that McCain either doesn't understand earmarks or is simply grandstanding when he throws tantrums about them).

TPTB will continue to pawn us all into voting Democrat/Republican, by telling us that voting for a third party is throwing your vote away, or even voting for "the enemy" (the old "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" ploy).


[edit on 28-7-2009 by theWCH]



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   
United States citizens engaged in assisting enemy forces, be they other nation-states or stateless terrorists should be tried under Title 18, section 2381 of the U.S. Code. This applies to actions both on U. S. soil and foreign soil. Cheney and his minions, such as John Yoo and others, seem to have spent a great deal of time trying to militarize many aspects of domestic criminal law. Like all politicians who over-reach however, they lost sight of the fact that those of their ideological viewpoint would not always be in power. Can you imagine what a truly left-wing administration would have made of Cheney's precedents had he actually succeeded? That's why the Neocons and "national security state" conservatives are so dangerous.




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join