How would "the Dick" feel if he was Pvt 1rst Cheney?

Why don't we just make him:

No.197462a-10to25

WONDERFUL Find IN Cognito. WOnderful indeed

Larry

Rawstory is 'teh shit', larry. Check it out.

With this "new" information about Saudis I am quite sure Cheney will change his focus to Saudi Arabia.

Impeach Cheney prevent WWIII.

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the U.S. gave 500 penetration "bunker buster" bombs to Israel.

Impeach Cheney prevent WWIII.

Posted by danni at 2007-07-16 09:16 AM | Reply

There's that 'I' word again, tossed out by one of the usual suspects. Danni, you've been promising impeachment for years, just as soon as the Dems took back Congress.

Give it up and join reality. Your beloved Democrats only care about getting re-elected. Watch them pass the next bill to continue funding of the war.

I never promised it VErnon, your imagination is running overtime again Vernon. I have been criticizing Nancy Pelosi pretty often the past month or so, where have you been??
BTW, I'm especially angry with her removal of the requirement that Bush seek Congressional approval before any action against Iran. If he does attack Iran we can all thank Nancy, I think I will send Cindy Sheehan a few bucks for her campaign.

Cheney is wrong every time he opens his mouth about Iraq. Why would anyone listen to anything he has to say about Iran? People should just humor him the way they do a small child when he speaks. "Oh yes, Dickey, that's a great idea honey. Here's a coloring book, sweetie...."

I dislike Bush and all, but imagine if he were to Croke tomorrow? Lord help us all with Cheney at the helm.

"Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo."

Does this mean Bush isn't leaving office then?

But why not? Bush has left Afghanistan in limbo. Iraq is in limbo. Why not go 3 for 3?
But I think Iran is a lot less in limbo today than it will be after Bush is done fucking it up.
Like Bush can possibly do anything in the next 18 months that would actually make the world a better place...

you guys are all sooooo right... a nuclear iran poses no threat to the region..... bash on.

iran is in nuclear limbo.... if we bomb the hell out of their nuclear facilities... then iran won't be in nuclear limbo anymore, just iran sans nukes. clear enough for ya norm?

sully, thats not how i would respond to the second most powerfull person in the world. i like to take their words seriously. call me crazy.

"you guys are all sooooo right... a nuclear iran poses no threat to the region..... bash on."

The Bush administration is militarily incompetent. They don't know how to objectively look at intelligence. They don't know how to plan. They don't understand the people of the region. They don't care a damn about the people they send to war. And for the most part, they don't care to improve.

So it really doesn't make sense to undertake any new military endeavors under their leadership, your strawman arguement aside.

Like Bush can possibly do anything in the next 18 months that would actually make the world a better place...

Posted by Norm_ at 2007-07-16 10:41 AM

Other than resigning, of course.

OCU

sully, the bush admin has proved to be incompetent in military occupation/nation building. no shit, they didn't plan etc etc. well, we didn't have the military for it either, and it was their dumbass idea yes. iran would not involve troops on the ground, it would involve invisible (to iranians) plans dropping bombs. thats something our military has perfected. point null.

"They don't know how to objectively look at intelligence". i agree in the case with iraq, obviously, but the intelligence regarding iran's nuclear development isnt' coming from the bush admin, its not debated so that point is null.

They don't understand the people of the region"". true, but i one doesn't need to understand the people unless its an occupation. this is a bombing campaign. null point.

They don't care a damn about the people they send to war. And for the most part, they don't care to improve."" again, speculation and null because its a bombing campaign.

come'on sully, you usually have a more encompassing opinion, don't settle for the shallow left talking points...... esp when they don't pertain to the debate.

huge FUNNY FLAG for you OC! damn ur funny.

"sully, thats not how i would respond to the second most powerfull person in the world. i like to take their words seriously. call me crazy."

You can judge him by his title and I'll judge him by his actions and the results of his policies.

what i didn't get is that point in the article as to why we shouldn't let israel do the dirty work... something along the lines of "we'd be blamed for it anyway".... i don't understand that logic, and thats the option (letting israel go for it) that i'd prefer. anyone can elaborate on that?

sure but his actions and policies (in the past) don't pertain to future actions and policies. his title does. the former has been pretty sad, but that doesn't take away the power of the latter.

A well-placed source in Washington said: "Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo."

Unlike say, afghanistan, Iraq and the whole GWOT?

Want to prevent a war with Iran? Reinstitute the draft. With no deferments. And no TANG placements for prominent Republicans.

and sully, i never said "judge him by" i said listen to him... big difference. just because he's f'd up in the past doesn't mean he doesn't have the power to F up some more.... so we should listen right?... instead of acting like its the words of a child like you suggest no?

"iran would not involve troops on the ground, it would involve invisible (to iranians) plans dropping bombs. thats something our military has perfected. point null."

How can you be sure of that? Have they said that? How do we know where to bomb without having the areas scouted? What makes you think the Iranians would be dumb enough to place all the key facilities in easy to bomb, above ground facilities? You don't think they learned anything from Iraq's experience with their nuclear reactor?

The Bushies are famous for "scope creep" in regards to the Iraq War: 1st we are there to find WMDs, then we are there to topple Saddam, now we are nation building. The commitment just gets greater and greater. I don't trust them to be honest about the commitment they are entering us into.

Fool me once.....

alright alright, i'll give you that. i'd like to think that they have learned that occupation doesn't work. yes we would need special forces in there... but they already are. we don't have the troops for a ground campaign so i doubt bush/cheney are even contemplating that. they aren't out to topple mr. imanutjob, just take out his nuclear facilities.

i'd like to believe that sanctions will work, we saw the rioting with the last batch of sanctions, why won't russia china get on bord with them? why aren't you guys bitching about putin and jintao?

"and sully, i never said "judge him by" i said listen to him... big difference. just because he's f'd up in the past doesn't mean he doesn't have the power to F up some more.... so we should listen right?... instead of acting like its the words of a child like you suggest no?"

I was saying that if I were "the decider" in those meetings, I would politely listen to Cheney and then disregard everything he says because he's proven his complete incompetence in both Middle East policy and military policy.

As an ordinary American, of course I need to pay serious attention to what the guy says. He's a very destructive force towards our nation.

plus iran just switched to getting paid in yen instead of the dollar from the japanese, further lessoning the dollar as the reserve currency. they deserve a little pounding just for that! jk!

true true, but bush knows that he's not as smart as cheney.

ie who is really the deciderer here?

" i'd like to think that they have learned that occupation doesn't work."

I'd like to think that too but the policies they are still supporting indicate the opposite.

We can bomb Iran, we MIGHT succeed in crippling their nuclear program but there will be a price in human, American lives that we will pay. Iran is no match for us militarily but they are in a position to cause us huge problems in Iraq whether you right wing nuts want to admit it or not. Other nations will also not be happy if we bomb the nation they depend upon for oil.
We need to get these simple minded idiots out of office. They are fucking dangerous.

sully, what policies regarding iran suggests occupation?

and don't tell me you were referring to staying in iraq.... thats a different situation because we already commited ourselves to it.

we are talking about iran here.

danni, they are already trying to cause us problems in iraq and afghanistan. true they could probably get worse.

and danni, we aren't bombing their oil facilities...

"they deserve a little pounding just for that! jk!"

They were (are?) the largest counterfeiters of American currency in the world. Maybe they'll switch to yen.

and danni wow! you are putting priority of the free flow of oil over a nuclear iran! i don't know whether to congradulate you on putting free flow of oil at the top of a list.... or disaprove of you putting a nuclear iran on the bottom!

lol didn't thin about that point sully. lets hope.

"thats a different situation because we already commited ourselves to it."

To what? Staying there indefinitely until Iraqis decide they aren't bigoted maniacs that want to slaughter their neighbors over tribal/religious differences and natural resource? Staying there until the magically turn into Jr. Americans and start doing things the way we've been telling them?

To me, the plan was fatally flawed from the outset. No matter how long we stay there, Iraqis are never going to behave the way we want them to behave. Whatever is going to happen there is going to happen with or without our presence. We owe them nothing and there is no reason to stay.

"Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo."

What a fatuous position to take.

Bush/Cheney are going to leave Iraq "in limbo" and if they attack Iran it will be more "in limbo" than it is now.

Thes maniacs are going to leave the USA "in limbo" if somebody does not get them out of power.

Oh, but didn't the Pope just say there is no "limbo" anyway.

sully, i slightly disagree with your iraq sentiments.

"Staying there indefinitely until Iraqis decide they aren't bigoted maniacs that want to slaughter their neighbors over tribal/religious differences and natural resource?"

they weren't slaughtering eachother under the iron fist of saddam. we (stupidly) took away that security, now we must make a full attempt at restoring it.

if we pull out of iraq now, it will be in major limbo... it will be up for grabs. currently iraq is somewhat stable because of the US forces on the ground.

Yodar why don't You get Your ass over there if You think it's so God Damned Important. Why do You want to waste More lives for a LOST WAR Hmmmmmmmmmm

Larry

Can't win in Iraq. Attack a larger stronger Iran. It will make oil trade increasingly difficult. There will be enormous profits in that. Brilliant.

First Chertoff says he feels it in his gut that the US is going to have another terror attack, and now Cheney is calling for an attack on Iran.
Get ready for something to happen in the way of another terror attack on US soil so they can launch their invasion of Iran.
They are starting to loose momentum, and the people are starting to wake up to their bullshit.so they will have to act soon.
If they don't have another terror attack in the US then they will probably have some kind of "Gulf of Tonken" type of event.

we (stupidly) took away that security, now we must make a full attempt at restoring it.


Install anothe dictator? This one would have to be shi'ite though. We can't put the genie back into the bottle.

Last summer the Iraqi government unanimously supported hezbollah and denounced Israel. Think what they'll do if we bomb Iran, a nation that supported the shia even after Bush1 had abandoned them to Saddam.

""and danni, we aren't bombing their oil facilities...""

You can't accurately predict what will be bombed until after they respond to our bombing their nuclear program. I have a feeling they would begin a rather large attack on our forces in Iraq, which would then require a response from us.....sooner or later those oil wells would be bombed, not to mention that the straights of Hormuz would probably be blocked. I doubt that we would allow business as usual for Iran if they are actively attacking our troops which they would do if bombed. You are talking potential WWIII by bombing Iran.

NG, isn't al sadr ready to jump into that bottle? once we leave.

and yes it would really hurt our relations with the shia. good point.

danni, ur points are valid. but i would change the end to: iran is talking WWIII by continuing to enrich uranium, and defying the rest of the world.

"if we pull out of iraq now, it will be in major limbo... it will be up for grabs. currently iraq is somewhat stable because of the US forces on the ground."

So what do we do? Pay $12 billion a month indefinitley? Keep ordering the same soldiers to continually redeploy to that hellhole? Institute a draft and make every new generation of young adults spend a few years in Iraq?

The Iraqis are willing to wait us out. They are eventually going to do what they want to do. Let them fight it out now and then deal with the winners. I don't think they want foreign Al Queda types taking over any more than we want them to take over. We just need to make it clear that harboring such people will result in bombings.

sully, that very well may be the most suitable scenario. however, i think if we stay a little while longer, we may be able to provide them with a security infrastructure. then maybe they won't have to fight it out, but could develop into a multi-national democracy.... or at least something closer to that.

lets be honest with ourselves, we are building the worlds biggest embassy, and many perminant military bases. we will be in iraq for decades to come. the difference between that and now is the number of troops.... and 12 billion a month. those two things will decrease but never cease to exist.

now the question is how much benefit do we get from the current troop/spending levels? are the current high levels alleviating years of future involvment? if not then yes we should strip down to our bare minimum now.... however i think it may be making a difference (in regards to the level of our future involvement.)

The only one itching for WW3 is Dubya and Cheney not Iran. I don't blame Iran for wanting and obtaining Nukes, They seen the ass fucking Saddam got and they don't want to be next. Simple really.

Larry

Youdar - We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think we have a military mission left in Iraq and therefore I don't see what good the military can possibly do in Iraq.

And I don't think we can say our long term plans are to be in Iraq forever when it is likely that our next president will have his own, hopefully better informed, opinions on the matter.

Larry, get some professional help. You really need it.

I don't need Professional Help R4E. I know what's going on. I ain't "Blind" unlike You.

Larry

Larry, you do. If you think it's OK for the Hitler of our time (the ruler of Iran) to possess nuclear weapons, then you are insane. He will use them against Israel if and when he ever gets them.

""danni, ur points are valid. but i would change the end to: iran is talking WWIII by continuing to enrich uranium, and defying the rest of the world.""

With Dumbya calling them part of the Axis of Evil even after they assisted us immediately after 9-11 in attempts to find Bin Laden, with his threats of regime change....what do you expect them to do????

iran is in nuclear limbo.... if we bomb the hell out of their nuclear facilities... then iran won't be in nuclear limbo anymore, just iran sans nukes. clear enough for ya norm?

The nuclear Iran talking point has become completely rediculous. It's no longer credible.

If Iran wanted to nuke us, they would have done it already. Pakistan is heavily infiltrated. They could steal of of the Pak nukes. They could buy a Russian one on the black market.

But we haven't been nuked, have we? Iran isn't going to nuke us 5 minutes after they get a nuke, as the Right would have us believe.

But if we preemtively bomb Iran, all that could change.
I don't worry about Iran nuking us with a home grown nuke of their own, unprovoked.
I worry about us bombing them, them being pissed as hell, stealing a Pak nuke, puting it on a freighter, and nuking NYC.

Can you guarantee that dropping a few cluster bombs on Iran will prevent them from doing what I described?
No, you can't.

R4E I don't see the President of Iran invading Foreign Countries now do You. Nah the Hitler of Our time is in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Just for Your Information,

Larry

Hmmmm, to nuke or not to nuke Iran

Now we'll see who really runs the Presidency and to whom Bush really listens

the American people and Congress

OR

VP Dick Cheney, AIPAC, and government of Israel

If Israel thinks its security and welfare are in danger now, just wait until Israel's far right government and Cheney push, taunt, and goad Bush into nuking Iran. Then Israel is really going to know what it's like to have security problems.

Sure there will be a withdrawl of troops from Iraq next year.. into Iran.

Gee didn't see this one coming for the last 2 years, good thing our troops are surging at full strength now...

Since when is the US Saudi's proxy? Since when is the hegemon supposed to be another's proxy ever? Time for W and Dick to start researching their history books.

In the meantime it looks as if this duo can can make things VERY worse for the military. With the US as Saud's proxy we can delight the world by playing "monkey in the middle".

He will use them against Israel if and when he ever gets them.

No, he won't.
The people of Iran aren't suicidal. They all know that if a nuke goes off in Israel that every square inch of Iran turns to glass 5 minutes later. They don't want to die and they aren't stupid.

HOWEVER. If we start bombing them first, unprovoked, their thirst for revenge just might outweigh their rationality.
And if they can make it look like a nationless Osama Bin Laden did it from Pakistan....

""If you think it's OK for the Hitler of our time (the ruler of Iran) to possess nuclear weapons, then you are insane.""

That is a ridiculous statement. What nation has Iran invaded?? About the only complaint I hear is that they are sending arms and assistance to insurgents in Iraq....something we have done numerous times in all parts of the world.
They held our people hostage...what thirty years ago???

Some folks, such as yourself, are so easily led to hate anyone that the media tell you to. You would willing kill Iranian men, women and children without knowing even what the facts are.
No wonder we are in this Iraq disaster.

BTW, were you aware that Iran actually tried to help the US capture Osama after 9-11???
Do you really know anything about Iran???

But you would happily bomb them.

Danni they don't want to Hear the truth. They love being indoctrinated. It is soo much easier and less work actually THINKING. Know what I mean??

Larry

---They could steal the Pak nukes.---



Nonsense. We keep them on a shelf. It is too high for kids to reach.

No more war.

After Iraq is wrapped up, America will not enter into war for a long time. A long era of peace.

A prosperous and peaceful time has begun. Of course, Chertoff's gut feeling may or may not come to pass. Al-Queda will not disappear, occasioning skirmishes here and there, but America will enjoy a long peace.

Rejoice!

That is a ridiculous statement. What nation has Iran invaded?? About the only complaint I hear is that they are sending arms and assistance to insurgents in Iraq....something we have done numerous times in all parts of the world.
They held our people hostage...what thirty years ago???

Posted by danni at 2007-07-16 02:40 PM

Danni, don't forget about Iran's support of Hamas.

R4Ever,

I think you meant Hizbollah, not Hamas.

""Danni, don't forget about Iran's support of Hamas.""

Ok, but that is still hardly a reason for bombing.

Hamas, Hezbollah, I get them mixed up.
I think Jeff is right though.

Cheney needs to be removed for the good of the Human Race.

I don't know why exactly but I do feel like something has changed, I think many people are becoming genuinely frightened of Cheney, and the arguments about Iraq don't even sound like the people making them believe them any more.
I think the country has shifted big time and Bush/Cheney could be surprised about how much.

As so many have said here the vast majority of new Al Qaeda Iraq members are from our 'ally' Saudi Arabia.

We should welcome Iran sending in Shiite fighters to kick their ass.

R4E I don't see the President of Iran invading Foreign Countries now do You. Nah the Hitler of Our time is in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Just for Your Information,

Larry

Posted by LarryMohr at 2007-07-16 02:15 PM

There you have it. Thanks for this jewel of colossal ignorance. Larry's statement is a fine example of the beliefs of many supporters of the modern Democratic party.

There you have it. Thanks for this jewel of colossal ignorance. Larry's statement is a fine example of the beliefs of many supporters of the modern Democratic party.

Posted by Republican4ever at 2007-07-16 07:15 PM

Kinda like the WMD's as a reason for invading Iraq.

Ooops..Saddam had ties to 9/11?

Oh yeah. We're shoving "democracy" down their throats.

Who's ignorant?

Be careful, ItsMe, even Bill Clinton thought Saddam had WMDs.

Kinda like the WMD's as a reason for invading Iraq.

Ooops..Saddam had ties to 9/11?

Oh yeah. We're shoving "democracy" down their throats.

Who's ignorant?

Posted by itsme at 2007-07-16 07:29 PM | Reply


You forgot a few

Like how we will be seen as liberators

They will feed us lots of flowers and chocolates

How This will last 6 months.

Like how Rightious this whole thing is.

ROLLS EYES

Larry

Be careful, ItsMe, even Bill Clinton thought Saddam had WMDs.

Posted by Republican4ever at 2007-07-16 07:36 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Not everybody did this time around like Condi Rice Colin Powell and many others in the CIA but You won't hear much about that cause Dubya had them silenced. In Years to come when Dubya is out of office the shit will come out and You will be looking more of a fool than You already do. Mark My Words. You will be screaming that Larry fucker was right all along. While You sit there wailing and Gnashing Your teeth.

Larry

And, I made a mistake earlier by mixing up Hamas with Hezbollah. My bad. However, the point is Iran is funding this anti-Israeli group. Plus, Iran's leader would not hesitate to wipe out Israel if he could.

Be careful, ItsMe, even Bill Clinton thought Saddam had WMDs.

Posted by Republican4ever

Your point being?

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are born equal, and that they are endowed with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. -- Such has been the patient sufferance of these States and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present President of the United States is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

I don't understand. I thought that Dick Cheney was really running the country all along, and the dupe president is merely his puppet.
So if he wants to attack Iran, why haven't we already?

Sorry for the confusion. But I get all my news from the libs on the DR.

RightisRight-
Yeah, you're one to listen to:

OBL was killed in 2002. So it has to be either a re-release, or a fake.

Says I, anyway.

Posted by rightisright at 2007-07-16 09:44 PM | Reply

I am not saying this is a bad Idea I just wounder Who's going to fight this war. Altering a quote from the movie Jaws.

I think where going to need a bigger army.

I thought Saddam was the "Hitler of our time".

Is it a new "our time" already? (I never get the memos, dammit)

I just want to know how would attacking Iran would "resolve" the threat. We don't have the resources to invade and occupy them, and they're going to a thousand times more defiant afterward. There will be NO moderates left, the Mullahs would run the show unopposed.

Attacking them will be totally ineffective, use up our military resources, and leave us with nothing to counter a challenge from NK, Russia, or China, to say nothing about AQ. What is the matter with these people?

OK, impeach Cheney tomorrow. Let Kucinich and Leahy and Conyer and Bill Maher rejoice for 24 hours. And then let Bush pardon Cheney immediately thereafter. Case closed.

OK, impeach Cheney tomorrow. Let Kucinich and Leahy and Conyer and Bill Maher rejoice for 24 hours. And then let Bush pardon Cheney immediately thereafter. Case closed.

Posted by takitez at 2007-07-17 02:11 AM | Reply

Sorry but Dubya can not Pardon Impeachment convictions. Against the Constitution.

Larry

Our poor soldiers- 5 deferments in Iraq might turn into 8 or 9.

"Sorry but Dubya can not Pardon Impeachment convictions. Against the Constitution."

And "against the Constitution" has stopped Bush when?

The arrival of these outsized U.S. "hunter-killer" drones, in aviation history's first robot attack squadron, will be a watershed moment even in an Iraq that has seen too many innovative ways to hunt and kill.


Why the F won't they send these into Waziristan when they have intel about Al Qaeda and Taliban training camps and bomb the F out of them?

I seem to remember a guy named Osama Bin Laden and his main man Zawahiri who were responsible for 9/11 and are still planning attacks on us.

""OK, impeach Cheney tomorrow. Let Kucinich and Leahy and Conyer and Bill Maher rejoice for 24 hours.""

The rest of America can't join the party??? I think millions would dance in the streets if Cheney were impeached. If he were jailed it would even be better.
FACT: Most of America hates Dick Cheney's guts.

I called it. Look at my previous posts. Not that it is really anything but OBVIOUS.

What a fuckin mess the Dems will inherit in 2008. Then they can spend the next four years cleaning up Georgie's mess.

It really pisses me off when even Bill O'Reilly admits we shouldn't have gone into Iraq, but since we are there we should stand behind Bush and make the most of it? It was a noble thing.

Well, when we leave, which may not even happen fully, EVER, Iraq is going to have to endure secutarian violence and a couple of civil wars. 12 Billion a month.

If we had not gone into Iraq, think of the defenses we could have put into place with 12 billion a month. You are telling me that with 12 billion a month and no Iraq war that we could not prevent attacks?

I support our troops 100%. I want them to come home safely. Their work is done. The rock throwing sand people are always going to be, well, rock throwing sand people. How long can we lie to ourselves?

GEORGE W BUSH AND MR OREILLY- PLEASE DEFINE WINNING IN IRAQ. TWO SENTENCES. what is "WINNING" in Iraq? a peace loving society that has never known peace? OK.

Let's pretend everyone is free and happy in Iraq for twenty minutes... its happening... its happening... (insert bomb noises here) NOW WHAT!?!

18 more months of these idiots, it ain't over yet, I am glad I am going to miss the Iran draft, WHEW!

and the hits just keep on comin'

"I don't understand. I thought that Dick Cheney was really running the country all along, and the dupe president is merely his puppet.
So if he wants to attack Iran, why haven't we already?"


Excellent point. We all know that Cheney is opposed to studying the situation or formulating a plan when sending other men to war. If thousands of men have to die in order to save him a few weeks of work and a few challenging conversations, their sacrifice is well worth it. There would literally be no time between the moment he made the decision to invade Iran and the start of the invasion itself.

RightisRight-
Yeah, you're one to listen to:

OBL was killed in 2002. So it has to be either a re-release, or a fake.

Says I, anyway.

Posted by rightisright at 2007-07-16 09:44 PM | Reply

Posted by Boyd
* * * *

He's hiding under your bed, Boyd.

Boo!

He be dead.

Dick Cheney. Dick is a verb.

Beware of anybody who calls anybody "The Hitler of our time"

It might be the same people who said Saddam could launch a nuclear attack in 45 minutes.

DICK

Now they announce that the State Dept. is going to hold "face to face" meetings with Iran to discuss the situation in Iraq. Doesn't this sort of indicate that Bush is not listening to Cheney???

I seem to remember a guy named Osama Bin Laden and his main man Zawahiri who were responsible for 9/11 and are still planning attacks on us.

Posted by AllAmerican

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI

"...Secondly, he is not escaping us. This is a guy, who, three months ago, was in control of a county [sic]. Now he's maybe in control of a cave. He's on the run. Listen, a while ago I said to the American people, our objective is more than bin Laden. But one of the things for certain is we're going to get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice. And that's what's happening. He's on the run, if he's running at all. So we don't know whether he's in cave with the door shut, or a cave with the door open -- we just don't know...."
- Bush, in remarks in a Press Availablity with the Press Travel Pool,
The Prairie Chapel Ranch, Crawford TX, 12/28/01, as reported on
official White House site

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

Now they announce that the State Dept. is going to hold "face to face" meetings with Iran to discuss the situation in Iraq. Doesn't this sort of indicate that Bush is not listening to Cheney???

Posted by danni at 2007-07-17 02:08 PM | Reply |


I don't think it indicates that. I don't think we are even at a point anymore to be able to tell up from up, and down from down so to speak.

What may look like GW not listening to Cheney, may in fact be GW listening to Cheney.

I mean if we are to believe the whole argument of... we need to invade Iran out of resource/economic concerns... then this may in fact just be a serious attempt to get Iran back in line with the status quo. Or hell even if you believe the whole nuclear iran thing the same could apply.

What is for certain is the generals can't be looking at they're situation in Iraq, and thinking "yeah Iran will be a cakewalk". It wouldn't surprise me if at this point they try a more diplomatic approach. Get Iran trading in dollars, and stop them from supporting anti-israel/US sort of activities.

Hey kids, we've increased the threat of terrorism in the US due to the war in Iraq, so let's attack Iran as-soon-as possible to alleviate the threat there ... Because, it has been so effective in Iraq ...

Let's stir up some more shit with the Muslims because we don't yet have our fill of hate from the Middle East ...

Typical NeoCon logic ...

It's time to find a nice little nursing home for Cheney.

Now they announce that the State Dept. is going to hold "face to face" meetings with Iran to discuss the situation in Iraq. Doesn't this sort of indicate that Bush is not listening to Cheney???

Posted by danni at 2007-07-17 02:08 PM | Reply

I agree with Knighthawk. It doesn't mean W is not listening to Cheney. He always listens to Cheney, or at least asks him what to do all the time. He also listens to Condi and this initiative is from the State department which she jealously guards from Cheney's influence. They are playing the old Vietnam game - play both sides and try to figure which if any has any political value. W is possibly going to part ways with Cheney over Iran. If we do attack Iran, the world as we know it will start falling apart. Tht's probably fine with Cheney, but not with W and his other advisors.

Sitdown-
You have more faith in the brain of Bush than anyone has a right to have at this point.

He's on a mission from God, and the sooner you understand that the better.

Iran is a direct threat to Israel. Iran is not a direct threat to the US. Only through the aiding and funding of proxy terrorist groups does Iran pose any sort of threat to Americans.
If Israel feels it necessary, they certainly have my blessing to deal with Iran as they see fit.
I simply do not believe that the US will directly attack Iran. Conspiracy theories and speculation notwithstanding.