Should Richard Cheney Resign for His Health?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter pattylou
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the health of Richard Cheney and the implications of rumors regarding his potential resignation. Participants also delve into broader topics such as the credibility of news sources, the discussion of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq, and the political context surrounding these issues.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants mention that the rumors about Cheney's resignation are not necessarily strong and are based on various sources.
  • There is a discussion about the potential indictment against Cheney, with references to previous discussions about WMD in Iraq.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the reliability of news sources like Fox News and Newsmax, suggesting that their information may be biased or misleading.
  • One participant argues that the lack of concern from Iraq's neighbors about WMD indicates that Iraq was not a significant threat, while another counters that leaders in the region were indeed concerned.
  • Participants share personal anecdotes and reasoning regarding their beliefs about the existence of WMD in Iraq, with some citing the behavior of Saddam Hussein as indicative of guilt.
  • There is a call for credible sources to support claims about regional leaders' concerns regarding Saddam's WMD, with some participants expressing a willingness to reconsider their positions if presented with evidence.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the credibility of news sources and the implications of the WMD debate. There is no clear consensus on the existence of WMD or the motivations of regional leaders regarding Iraq, indicating ongoing disagreement.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various news articles and personal experiences, but the discussion lacks definitive evidence to support claims made about regional leaders' concerns or the reliability of specific news outlets.

pattylou
Messages
305
Reaction score
0
http://www.nationalledger.com/scribe/article_27261228.shtml


Just a rumor...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Newsmax...

Better delete this before you get scolded like i did when i posted a newsmax article.
 
Thanks Pengwuino.
 
They tried to chop off my beak when i posted from newsmax :cry: :cry: :cry:
 
I feel your pain.

Mike told me the rumor, I news-googled it, and there are several sources to choose from. But, it's a rumor, and not necessarily a very strong one.
 
Cheney was suppose to retire 3 years ago... then 2... then 1... then this summer... now this...
 
Among the talking heads there has been discussion of a potential indictment against Cheney .
 
Ivan Seeking said:
Among the talking heads there has been discussion of a potential indictment against Cheney .
Among the taking heads there was previously discussion of WMD in Iraq.

Go figure...
 
wasteofo2 said:
Among the taking heads there was previously discussion of WMD in Iraq.
Go figure...

Quit watching Fox news.

My sources have been mostly right all along about Bush and Iraq, but no one is certain about this grand jury.

Watch PBS and take the rest with a grain of salt.
 
  • #10
Ivan Seeking said:
Quit watching Fox news.
My sources have been mostly right all along about Bush and Iraq, but no one is certain about this grand jury.

heh, confirmation bias.
 
  • #11
Ivan Seeking said:
Quit watching Fox news.
My sources have been mostly right all along about Bush and Iraq, but no one is certain about this grand jury.
Watch PBS and take the rest with a grain of salt.
Did PBS actually say that "there are no WMD at all in Iraq"?

I watch Fox news, but don't take it seriously. The belief that there were WMD in Iraq prior to invasion was almost universal. Did you actually believe before the war that Saddam had no WMD? If so, what evidence persuaded you to believe that?
 
  • #12
I thought there were no weapons, but I *also* thought that other countries were more of a threat. So -the whole picture was nuts - Syria and NK were greater threats, but bush kept pushing to invade Iraq.

My "evidence" for believing Iraq had no WMD was simple: their neighbors weren't concerned. Their neighbors were completely *unconcerned* about the 'possibility' of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction.

If their neighbors didn't consider Iraq a threat, why should the USA?

That was my main reason. My other reasons were the UN didn't think we should go in, the inspectors never sounded certain that they had weapons (if anything they seemed to generally err on the side of "no good evidence for weapons"), and Bush's demeanor has always seemed hell bent on his personal agenda and he also strikes me as being a cheat. * The arguments for WMD were strained. And the WMD "mantra" was drummed round the clock. (I worry that the case against Iran is going the same way, and that it is nothing much more than *psychology* that is making people think Iran is a threat. How stupid is that?)

In short, the evidence against WMD, was that all of the evidence *for* WMD was so flimsy. And Iraq's neighbors - who would not be subject to US propaganda but who *would* have every reason to be aware of Iraq's true status as a threat - were unconcerned.

Patty

(*Lately, Bush's occasional humbled demeanor has me thinking more charitably towards him as a person.)
 
Last edited:
  • #13
I figured there were WMDs for one reason: when Saddam was given the ultimatum to allow full access to inspectors or be deposed, he balked, and that sure made him look guilty.
 
  • #14
I remember watching some news channel and they're reporting on Bush's 'evidence'. Some black-and-white picture comes up on the screen of supposed WMD sites, except it's all blocky. You can't make out a single thing in this picture, all they did was put a red circle around a black blotch on a grey background, and I'm sitting there thinking "wtf?".

I didn't think there were any weapons.
 
  • #15
Yeah, an African American female President.. this should be interesting

OH NO HE DIDNT MENTION RACE!
 
  • #16
A third party's dream scenario:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Hillary%20Condi%20Laura.htm

Against better republican candidates Hillary loses:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Hillary%20McCain%20Rudy%20Sept%2016.htm
 
  • #17
pattylou said:
If their neighbors didn't consider Iraq a threat, why should the USA? That was my main reason. My other reasons were the UN didn't think we should go in, the inspectors never sounded certain that they had weapons (if anything they seemed to generally err on the side of "no good evidence for weapons"), and Bush's demeanor has always seemed hell bent on his personal agenda...
Right, and my understanding was we obliterated pretty much everything in the Gulf War.
loseyourname said:
I figured there were WMDs for one reason: when Saddam was given the ultimatum to allow full access to inspectors or be deposed, he balked, and that sure made him look guilty.
The only reason for some doubt, but I knew Saddam was as much a liar as Bush.
pattylou said:
(*Lately, Bush's occasional humbled demeanor has me thinking more charitably towards him as a person.)
Look away, quick! Don’t go to the dark side!
 
  • #18
PattyLou,

If their neighbors didn't consider Iraq a threat, why should the USA?

Nice logic but your premise is wrong. The President of Egypt and the King of Jordan (e.g) were practically begging Bush to do something about Saddam's WMD - they were more than a little concerned.
 
  • #19
Tide said:
PattyLou,
Nice logic but your premise is wrong. The President of Egypt and the King of Jordan (e.g) were practically begging Bush to do something about Saddam's WMD - they were more than a little concerned.
Other countries in the Middle East were not fans of Saddam. However, in searching for a credible source regarding Egypt and Jordon begging Bush to invade Iraq, I can't find anything. In fact, Iran would be most concerned seems to me -- But nothing.
 
  • #20
wasteofo2 said:
Did PBS actually say that "there are no WMD at all in Iraq"?

I watch Fox news, but don't take it seriously. The belief that there were WMD in Iraq prior to invasion was almost universal. Did you actually believe before the war that Saddam had no WMD? If so, what evidence persuaded you to believe that?
The belief was almost universal because the administration told us that they had definitive proof that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. If they had mentioned that their "proof" came from an alcoholic with a reputation for making up intelligence, then I guarantee you that most people wouldn't have believed it.
 
  • #21
Tide said:
PattyLou,
Nice logic but your premise is wrong. The President of Egypt and the King of Jordan (e.g) were practically begging Bush to do something about Saddam's WMD - they were more than a little concerned.
I never heard that. I'd love a source ... ? I'm happy to say "I was wrong" but really haven't heard that these countries thought Saddam had WMD.

Thanks in advance.
 
  • #22
loseyourname said:
I figured there were WMDs for one reason: when Saddam was given the ultimatum to allow full access to inspectors or be deposed, he balked, and that sure made him look guilty.
You also were aware that openly denying the possession (of WMD) makes Saddam a sitting duck against both Iran as well as internal rebellion, right ? He needed the threat of WMD to stay in power.
 
  • #23
pattylou said:
I never heard that. I'd love a source ... ? I'm happy to say "I was wrong" but really haven't heard that these countries thought Saddam had WMD.
Thanks in advance.

Do a Google search on the terms 'mubarak warning wmd iraq" or similarly with Abdullah and you'll get a LOT of references. You'll have to filter through the political spin of the news outlets, blogs, journals and so on.

Here's a couple:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/8/4/05219.shtml

http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/2004/08/all_about_the_shredding_1.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200408170825.asp

I've seen Egyptian sites with the same message but those articles have mysteriously disappeared.

It's odd how everyone seems to overlook or ignore that many Arab nations, European intelligence (French, British, German, etc., etc.), Russian intelligence and many many others ALL told the US that Hussein had WMDs and expressed grave concerns about his possession of them.

Whatever you think of Dubya and Tony, they were not alone on the issue of WMDs in Iraq. Whether it was appropriate to invade is another question even if the WMD issue provided part of the rationale. I'm not particularly fond of either of them but I also think it is unfair and a gross oversimplification, as many do, to label them as dishonest thereby ending hope of serious consideration of the matter.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #24
SOS2008 said:
Other countries in the Middle East were not fans of Saddam. However, in searching for a credible source regarding Egypt and Jordon begging Bush to invade Iraq, I can't find anything. In fact, Iran would be most concerned seems to me -- But nothing.

You didn't try hard enough.
 
  • #25
Gokul43201 said:
You also were aware that openly denying the possession (of WMD) makes Saddam a sitting duck against both Iran as well as internal rebellion, right ? He needed the threat of WMD to stay in power.

I guess - I just figured that if I'm Saddam, I'd rather deal with internal rebellion than an invasion from the US. What do you want me to say? He fooled me.
 
  • #26
loseyourname said:
I guess - I just figured that if I'm Saddam, I'd rather deal with internal rebellion than an invasion from the US. What do you want me to say? He fooled me.
It gave me doubts as well. Perhaps he believed that the UN would save his neck at the end of the day...or, he was indeed attempting to get a covert message communicated to the US that he was willing to talk.
 
  • #27
Tide said:
You didn't try hard enough.

If you make a statement then you should back it up. This kind of answer OTOH makes it seem like you cannot find the proof yourself or that the proof itself never existed outside of newsmax and as such you lose all credibility. A lot of people here disagree; however, the adult conversations include proof from many sides of the disagreement and not just hollow statements of "Nanna Nanna you find it yourself!" types of responses.
 
  • #28
loseyourname said:
I figured there were WMDs for one reason: when Saddam was given the ultimatum to allow full access to inspectors or be deposed, he balked, and that sure made him look guilty.

Except there's one minor problem with that theory. Inspectors were given full access to look any where they wanted.
 
  • #29
faust9 said:
If you make a statement then you should back it up. This kind of answer OTOH makes it seem like you cannot find the proof yourself or that the proof itself never existed outside of newsmax and as such you lose all credibility. A lot of people here disagree; however, the adult conversations include proof from many sides of the disagreement and not just hollow statements of "Nanna Nanna you find it yourself!" types of responses.
Did you miss post #23 ?
 
  • #30
The belief that there were WMD in Iraq prior to invasion was almost universal. Did you actually believe before the war that Saddam had no WMD? If so, what evidence persuaded you to believe that?

LOL that's funny! It was a joke right? or did the UN weapons inspectors stating there was no proof there was get into the News in the States!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
11K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 129 ·
5
Replies
129
Views
18K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 100 ·
4
Replies
100
Views
16K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K