Dick Cheney Caught Lying

Jamuhm look at how much your posting has improved in just three short tries

The reason I said this was 27 year old stuff was because thats when BCCI straw bought their first US bank, combine both your post and mine on the BCCI subject and we can see that yes indeed money does buy influence of politicians of both parties and their lackeys.

Now that we have that established, where in all of this interesting data is G.W. Bush or Cheney condemed as liars that can't be believed when they say Al Qaeda had ties with Iraq? or is this guilt by association because daddy was discussed in the BCCI scandel although no charges or proof of wrongdoing have ever been filed against Bush Senior?

Actually I don't understand what BCCI has to do with this at all.

Yeah after four years of listening to people trying pin Bush and Cheney to the wall for every last thing that can be dreamed up - you can say I'm polarized, thats a fair assessment.

However that does not in any way mean I don't have an open mind for conspiracy, I just don't see it at every pronouncement or news item released on this government or administration.

To me the wheeling and dealing with both house's of congress to get passage of bills and the resulting high spending is a conspiracy more worthy of the publics attention than whether or not Putin did a favor or hanging on Cheneys every word.

Some say we have not been attacked since 9/11 because we attacked ourselves, or that we will attack ourselves in order to re-elect Bush.

Nonsense

Maybe the reason we have not been attacked is simply because the battle is on their home territory not ours.

Maybe Al Qaeda will get in an attack prior to the election, but no matter what, others here (USA) have laid the ground work to give it the appearence of conspiracy or ineptness because of political viewpoint rather than any fact.

They sorely want it both ways just to claim political gain, this is what I am against.

For years (4) the media and liberals have covered up the ties to Al Qaeda and Iraq at every turn, links galore exist where Clinton, Gore, Kerry and other prominant democrats have made the same claim as Bush/Cheney, whats different now? a Republican is President.

I agree with you, the entire time CLinton was in office I thought he was a good president. Until the whole Kosovo thing, I had family members around Yugoslavia who never supported Milosevic or what he was doing yet they had to endure the bombing that ensued. Then I started actually looking at Clinton and saw what was going on behind the scenes of the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

I mean honestly though, you can't really expect one of the biggest families in politics today to get involved in a scandal such as ties to al Qaeda. But what I am most concerned with is the anomalies that exist with his previous oil businesses, the 9/11 attack (I've seen a lot here), and the complaining done about the Taliban and Iraq concerning building an oil pipeline. I do though, see attacking Iraq as the right thing despite the fact we helped them in a large part. But I do not agree in the way in which we fought the war in Iraq. Many innocents were killed, too many, most of the ones killed were innocents. Its just a sad state of affairs for the power hungry...

Jamuhn, I agree and went through much of the same opinions as you about Clinton. Reguarding the Iraqi war, where do you get this information about this.

Many innocents were killed, too many, most of the ones killed were innocents.

I'm not argueing the fact that some innocents killed is to many, 1 is to many, but it's war, and many times innocents are killed. My consern is the last third of your sentance "most of the ones killed were innocents". Most of who? Most of all the deaths in the war were innocents?

If that is what you mean, where do you get this information from? I'ld like to see that number.

Source:
www.infoshout.com...

Iraq military, average, 5,633
Iraq civilian, average, 10,000

www.csmonitor.com...

Iraqbodycount.net, a website that draws on media accounts and eyewitness reports, estimates that between 4,065 and 5,223 Iraqi civilians have been killed as a result of coalition military action, both during and after the war.

A May 15 Associated Press report gives an estimate of 2,100 to 2,600 civilian deaths, without citing sources.

The US Department of Defense has refused to give any sort of estimate on deaths

Baghdad

Two news organizations have produced estimates of civilian casualties in just the Baghdad area by canvassing hospitals and tallying their records. The Los Angeles Times reported on May 18 that probably between 1,700 and 2,700 civilians were killed in and around Baghdad. The Knight Ridder agency published an estimate of between 1,100 and 2,355 on May 4.

icasualties.org...

US military deaths - 848
US wounded returned to action in 3 days - 2,120
US wounded didn't return to action within 3 days - 3,018

www.guardian.co.uk...

June 12, 2003

At least 5,000 civilians may have been killed during the invasion of Iraq, an independent research group has claimed. As more evidence is collated, it says, the figure could reach 10,000.

Iraq Body Count (IBC), a volunteer group of British and US academics and researchers, compiled statistics on civilian casualties from media reports and estimated that between 5,000 and 7,000 civilians died in the conflict.

antiwar.com...

Well a few of your links are talking about the same group that is doing the civilian body count. Which I have to say I have a problem with. If you look at this link, which is the IBC's database of so called civilian deaths.

www.iraqbodycount.net...

If you look at Incident code: k206, you'll see 42 civilian deaths of a wedding part at 3am. This is false, the "wedding party" was a terrorist safe house, and they found a stock pile of weapons there. Yes there were women and children there, but it was a house used by terrorists that where traveling between Iraq and I believe Syria. This was a rumor started, and a rumor debuffed. Yet they still count it as civilian deaths, it is unfair to count malitia and terrorists in a civilian death toll, and very misleading. Although, that was one incident that I know of, I can't state which if any of the rest are false, but when you find one, and a big one at that, you can only guess how many others are false. It also doesn't say how killed who, and if you go down the list there is a lot of car bombs, suicide bombing, which we don't do.

First of all, even the body count website says that those are estimates....and such a wide varaition in the #'s??


Secondly....even if the #'s were accurate, this ASSUMES that all of the civilians were innocent. How do we know that the mom and 3 kids killed (example) were not harboring daddy the terorist in their house?
How do you determine innocence, when you cant even determine the actual # killed?

Both of these scraps of "INFO" are very questionable and should NOT be taken as gosple, even tho those blinded by hippy peace dreams WANT to believe....

Deny Ignorance....

Phoenix says

There is to much "smoking gun" information out and available to make the leap that Cheny is lying when he says there was a meeting between Atta and Iraqi intelligence in Prague.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no. You completely missed the point of my post. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you didn't read my post carefully. Please go back and read my original post and the links, then come back and tell me that Dick Cheney most definitely lied, and that there is no possible way to spin or parse what he said to avoid the conclusion that he did lie.

The way I'm reading the evidence is that the jury is still out on 100% positive proof but the preponderence of the evidence supports the meeting as having happened more so than not.

Why would you come to this conclusion? Cheney himself is saying the case has not been proved or disproved. Read the transcript of the CNBC interview with Gloria Borger. More importantly, the 9/11 Commission has looked at all the intelligence you cited, plus a great deal more. Their staff report concluded

We have examined the allegation that Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague on April 9. Based on the evidence available�including investigation by Czech and U.S. authorities plus detainee reporting�we do not believe that such a meeting occurred.

9/11 commission staff statement No. 16

The reality is that the intelligence you cited has been repeatedly discredited. Three of the five sources you quote are the Weekly Standard, and two of the Weekly Standard articles are by Stephen Hayes. The Weekly Standard and Stephen Hayes both have zero credibility, as far as I am concerned.

Oh, and thanks for hijacking my thread. The subject was supposed to be that Dick Cheney was caught lying. But you don't want to talk about that, do you?

Although, that was one incident that I know of, I can't state which if any of the rest are false, but when you find one, and a big one at that, you can only guess how many others are false.

So says the US government about the wedding party. Yet, the Iraqis claim a different story. Most of the civilians were killed by so-called "precision" bombs. I am not going to argue with you about this, the fact is the US government didn't even want to see how many Iraqi civilians died and left it up to independent researches to do the job. Most of the Iraqi population are children, thus, mostly children were killed.

If you want to keep believing that all Muslims are terrorists, or at least all people in Arab countries are terrorists, I feel sorry for how misguided you are. What are you even on this discussion board for, you just here to spread praise for King Bush? Rebute all the bad things he did, and then blame everything else on bad sources or whatever, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

I get FOX news too, but I came here to get a more well-balanced view of the world and when I go out of my way to present one, people pass it off to the side as #. Go back to your hole and keep watching your news.

Iraqis claimed a different story? Who? It was started by the media. They didn't investigate it, they simply made that statement. In fact the statement about it was a wedding part was out only hours after the attack, way before the US closed the case(so to speak). Funny how fast the news can move on covert operations. LOL So fast that they know what the inside of a bombed house looks like before the US does.

Who ever said anything about all Muslims being terrorists? Did I even say the word Muslim? I'll help ya out. No I didn't. But when you can't use facts to discredit me, use the bigit card. Barking up the wrong tree there buddy.

What am I on this discussion board for? For the same reason you claim to be. Denying ignorance doesn't mean to come up with stuff that supports your ignorance, it means coming up with the truth. The main differance between us is, I'm willing to listen to your "facts" I research them, and come to a educated conclusion. You here my conclusion, and facts, and take it as a personel assualt. Fine, but you really need to get over yourself, if you ever wish to learn.

Rebute all the bad things he did? Don't know of any bad things he did, I know you THINK he has, but you really show that you have no clue what it takes to be a leader. It takes hard decisions, and sometimes it gets people killed, and most the time its the lesser of two evils. It sucks yes, but its the way things are. And yes those are bad sources because they have their own agenda, and I know people in the military community that only deal with the truth, not who's in office.

Your a bit narcisistic aren't you, well thank you for going out of your way and presenting us with a more well-balanced view. Balance is people of oppisite opinions hashing out the lies and misinformation to come to the truth. I think if you were given a chance to host a talk show you'd go for the Larry King spot where you could be the king of your world, where I would go with Hannity & Colmes and debate, teach, and learn from others. Well-balanced that list is "total" civilian deaths, not civilian deaths killed by US forces. Yet you, and that site contribute them all the Coilitions insertion.

You want to sit here and preach to me about knowledge and your well-balanced view? How many times you been to Iraq? How many Iraqis you talked to? How many times have you been the one collecting this information? How many of your friends have died, been hurt, or changed for life?

I've been there, talked to them, I've collected the information, I have friends that are dead, and friends that are hurt. So you keep taking what other people push to you, where you don't know crap about them or how they actually work, other then what they tell you they do, but as long as it fits your views its well-balanced. So if you don't want someone saying your posibly wrong or misguided, or pointing facts to you that aren't correct, YOUR on the wrong site. This isn't about who's right who's wrong, its about the facts, and the lack of facts.

Your assertion was that the wedding party in which Iraqi civilians were killed was a terrorist hangout, therefore the civilians were affiliated with terrorism. I could understand that assuming the story is true.

But then, you proceeded to extend that to the rest of the Iraqi civilian casualities. WRONG

That right there tells me a lot about you, and thats where I got most of my assertions. The wedding party cannot be used as a fact to discredit the deaths of the Iraqi citizens. That's where I get my assessment of your bias.

If I don't have what it takes to be a leader because I think Bush has done some evil things excluding the Iraqi war. Then, thank God, cause this world is a lot more #ed up than I thought.

I'm glad to see you know personally the entire government of the US because that is the only way you can assess the truth of their statements. Its well founded you would be skeptical of my source, but the fact is, that no one else wants to do that job!

Narcisistic, I wish, not sure how you deduced that, but I could use a little more self-love.

As for the fact that you've been there, obviously I was wrong about my deduction that you haven't. But in what fashion, what exactly what were you exposed to. Were you in the military? Do you speak Arabic and speak to many Iraqis? I'm very curious as to your experiences because I for one have never been there, nor do I have such resources as present.

I wonder your motives, and your bias, I for one am not biased. I understand the need for war in certain cases. I do not think though that Saddam was an immediate threat, nor that we handled the Iraq situation in the best manner as far as exhausting diplomatic relations. Nor, do I let information be pushed onto me, which is a reason I am so critical about everthing.

I do still, in fact, watch CNN and FOX, recognizing that they and the Internet are the only sources for information. I understand that the civilian death count is widely varied, even the sources claim so.

BUT, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT BY THE SIMPLE FACT YOU HAVE BEEN THERE, THAT YOU WERE EXPOSED TO THE TRUTH UNLESS YOU PROVE ME OTHERWISE. Once again, my questions about your experience stands...

[edit on 24-6-2004 by Jamuhn]

How is this lying? I think this thread should be closed with the infallible truth written in giant letters for all to see.

"Not a lie but a mistake of bad memory".

How many of us really remember what we say 3 years ago?

Hell when I'm in debates sometimes I don't even remember what I said a few minutes ago, and then I'll be proven wrong and have to restate myself because what I said was not what I was thinking.

Your accusation of lying is disgusting...I think some form of punishment is in order.

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Your assertion was that the wedding party in which Iraqi civilians were killed was a terrorist hangout, therefore the civilians were affiliated with terrorism. I could understand that assuming the story is true.

And a weapons stock pile, trust me thats not the normal wedding gift in Iraq.

But then, you proceeded to extend that to the rest of the Iraqi civilian casualities. WRONG

Quote me where I did that. I said and I quote

Yet they still count it as civilian deaths, it is unfair to count malitia and terrorists in a civilian death toll, and very misleading.

I said nothing to extend anything to the rest of the civilian casualities, I said they are doing a bias and unfair calculation, and THEY are extending all deaths as civilian even terrorist/militia deaths, and those they kill. Then dumping them on the laps of the Coalition.

That right there tells me a lot about you, and thats where I got most of my assertions. The wedding party cannot be used as a fact to discredit the deaths of the Iraqi citizens. That's where I get my assessment of your bias.

Never did anything of the such, I said that this group has posted bias and misleading information in that instance, and if they have done it once, I question how many times they have done it through out their findings. It IS a fact that can be used to discredit the orginization(and I use that term losely) that is doing the "Iraq Body Count". Which again I question anyone that uses such a degrading name, to do something "noble".

If I don't have what it takes to be a leader because I think Bush has done some evil things excluding the Iraqi war. Then, thank God, cause this world is a lot more #ed up than I thought.

One you'd have to say what those evil things are, prove that 1. HE did them, 2. that they were evil, and 3. not nessassery.

I'm glad to see you know personally the entire government of the US because that is the only way you can assess the truth of their statements. Its well founded you would be skeptical of my source, but the fact is, that no one else wants to do that job!

No you don't have to know all the people, you have to know how it works. I was very involved in the intel and special forces community, guess what, we don't care who the f'ing president is, it doesn't change what we find.

Narcisistic, I wish, not sure how you deduced that, but I could use a little more self-love.

I think I stated how I came to that. But since you must of missed it, I'll recap.

From you I get FOX news too, but I came here to get a more well-balanced view of the world and when I go out of my way to present one...

Well again thank you for bring to us the well-balanced view. We should all bow before you generosity(sp?)

As for the fact that you've been there, obviously I was wrong about my deduction that you are like a lot of other on here. Had I had the resources to travel the world, I would, but I'm not going to join the military. Good for you, not sure what that accomplishes accept for proving me wrong about your assessment, so....

My assessment? or your assessment of me?

Your in over your head, so you sling insults and assessments of my persona, at me, with no proof or ability to back your statements up. I kept the conversation professional and curtious towards you, and you went on the personel attack. Again, get over yourself.

Sorry Jamuhn, quoted your intier post before you changed it keep on trucking.

Originally posted by FreeMason
How is this lying? I think this thread should be closed with the infallible truth written in giant letters for all to see.

"Not a lie but a mistake of bad memory".

How many of us really remember what we say 3 years ago?

Hell when I'm in debates sometimes I don't even remember what I said a few minutes ago, and then I'll be proven wrong and have to restate myself because what I said was not what I was thinking.

Your accusation of lying is disgusting...I think some form of punishment is in order.

Read the transcript of the Cheney interview with Gloria Borger on CNBC. Not once, but twice, Cheney says "I never said that." Now Dick Cheney has been around for a long time. He could have easily said that he didn't recall saying that, or the he didn't believe that he said that. But he knew that Borger was sitting there with the Meet the Press transcript ready to read it to him. So he emphatically denied saying what he knew he had said, and gambled that Borger would not call him on it.

You excuse Cheney's dishonesty as a mistake of bad memory. I suggest that you yourself are guilty of bad faith by making such a silly suggestion.

You think that my accusation of lying is disgusting, and that I should be punished. Go ahead and file a complaint. That is your prerogative.

I suggest you're in the wrong place because you are using child-logic, something Michael Moore is pretty good at.

Until you are older...say 20s...I suggest www.teenspot.com/boards because that is where they are more tolerating of child-logic.

In case you don't know what child-logic is, it is when you have no evidence but declare your opinion as a fact.

I have given a perfectly viable counter-opininon to show that your opinion is not the only possibility, and you seem to think I was stating a fact, which supports my theory you are 16ish.

So either you learn how to post information without your slanted views as gospel, or you check out that above forum.

I suggested the closing of this thread because all you can do is make assumptions about this, maybe he was lying, but you have no evidence of that. More likely he just plumb forgot and was sure he never said something like that. After all it was 3 years ago almost.