# Cheney resigning?

• News
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
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.

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.

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.

Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
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 ?

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 thats 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!

Tide
Homework Helper
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.
Oh, I see. Proof by posturing. WTG! :)

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

http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/arc...redding_1.html [Broken]

http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/...0408170825.asp [Broken]
SOS was looking for 'credible' sources, and those three are not credible. Brothersjudd simply reiterates Lowry's commentary at National Review, and it is only commentary. Abdullah said he 'believed' that Saddam had WMD, although he established his belief on 'reliable' intelligence sources.

Neither Jordan nor Egypt had good intelligence units in Iraq, nor did the US, and that was clearly obvious at the time. Instead, we see political leaders speculating, which was also obvious at the time. Bush was ahead of the game, since he was looking for an excuse (justification) to invade Iraq and get Saddam.

However, prior to the invasion of Iraq, Mubarak warned against an invasion.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2002/iraq-020827-1b4d3a86.htm

For a perspecitive on Iraq, read Scott Ritter's latest book - "Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of the Intelligence Conspiracy to Undermine the UN and Overthrow Saddam Hussein".

FROM THE PUBLISHER
Scott Ritter is the straight-talking former marine officer who the CIA wants to silence. After the 1991 Gulf War, Ritter helped lead the UN weapons inspections of Iraq and found himself at the center of a dangerous game between the Iraqi and US regimes.

As Ritter reveals in this explosive book, Washington was only interested in disarmament as a tool for its own agenda. Operating in a fog of espionage and counter-espionage, Ritter and his team were determined to find out the truth about Iraq’s WMD. The CIA were equally determined to stop them. The truth, as we now know, was that Iraq was playing a deadly game of double-bluff, and actually had no WMD. But to have revealed this would have derailed America’s drive for regime change.

Iraq Confidential charts the disillusionment of a staunch patriot who came to realize that his own government sought to undermine effective arms control in the Middle East. Ritter shows us a world of deceit and betrayal in which nothing is as it seems. A host of characters from Mossad, MI6 and the CIA pepper this powerful narrative, which contains revelations that will permanently affect the ongoing debates about Iraq.
Ritter, a conservative Republican, did a great interview on WAMC recently.

Last edited by a moderator:
THanks for the feedback, particularly the sources from Tide and the response from Astronuc.

I was unaware that some of Iraq's neighbors had any concern at all. It looks like some were concerned, and so my prior statement was wrong. It looks also like they didn't have strong evidence ---- and if I were to write my prior post at this point the general thrust might be the same only the word "concern" might be replaced with "good evidence."

Gokul43201 said:
Did you miss post #23 ?
Yes, I did miss that post Thanks, and sorry tide for the outburst about not supplying sources.

I'll now rant about supplying primary sources and not opinion sources.

Tide you do realize that two of your "sources" are opinion not primary sources though don't you?
Also, your Newsmax "article" makes not mention of these other countries chomping at the bit for a US invasion. In fact, the opposite is true. Both countries denounced the invasion:

Jordans king "slams the Iraq invasion"
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/03/1048962835005.html
and
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2158081.stm

Now for Egypt
From Lexis-Nexis:
Code:
Copyright 2003 Times Publishing Company
St. Petersburg Times (Florida)
March 30, 2003 Sunday 0 South Pinellas Edition
SECTION: NATIONAL; Pg. 12A
LENGTH: 905 words
SERIES: WAR WITH IRAQ: Q & A
BODY:Many of the partner countries that were part of the 34-nation coalition that fought Iraq in the 1991 Gulf War are not participating in the U.S.-led attack on Iraq.

1991  2003
Description of 2003 involvement
Yes   Yes      Afghanistan
Use of airspace and bases
No    Yes      Albania
Use of airspace, 70 troops for postwar peacekeeping, signed letter of support
No    Yes      Angola
Political support
Yes   No       Argentina
Yes   Yes      Australia
2,000 troops, 14 fighter jets, ships
No    Yes      Azerbaijan
Use of airspace
Yes   No       Bahrain
No    Yes      Bulgaria
Use of airspace, use of bases for refuelling planes, use of Black Sea port; sending biological warfare specialists to Kuwait; signed letter of support
No     Yes     Colombia
Political support
No     Yes     Costa Rica
Political support
Yes    Yes      Czechoslovakia+
Use of airspace, team of biological and nuclear decontamination experts, signed letter of support
Yes    Yes      Denmark
Submarine, warship, medical team, signed letter of support
No     Yes      Dominican Rep.
Political support
Yes    [b]No[/b]       Egypt
...
If you want, I'll dig through Lexis some more. I know I can find more information about Jordan denouncing the invasion and Mubarak has always been anti-Saddam but even he spoke out against the invasion---he urged UN involvement.

The only thing Egypt did was keep the Suez open.

Last edited:
BobG
Homework Helper
Gokul43201 said:
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.
I think Hussein's logic comes down to the fact that UN inspectors finding evidence would confirm that he had weapons of mass destruction. The absence of evidence is a harder scenario - does he have none or is he just doing a good job of hiding them. In the absence of evidence either way, a few rumors can sometimes be enough to keep people guessing.

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.
The bigger threat was Iran. He attributed his success (or at least the prevention of defeat) against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war to Iran's fear of Iraq using WMD on Iran's major cities.

Regardless, when considering the absence of proof by UN inspectors vs. positive CIA proof that Iraq did have WMD, it's hard to go against the positive proof. No matter the fact that I never really cared for Bush; it would be a far reach to believe any American president would just make up evidence out of thin air. (In other words, he fooled me, too).

I never believed that Saddam had WMD. The inspectors didn't find any. But I did believe that this administration had no compunctions about spinning things any way they liked. It should be obvious that this administration didn't believe he had WMD when they outed an agent who disputed their claims. I think that most of the "intelligence" that indicated there were WMD came from the boys who got into the fight, Saddam and George. Boys who get caught fighting, even the worst bullies come up with outlandish, and usually pathetic yarns as to why. If they are having a big fist fight next to the swimming pool, then you know it is over girls. If they get into a fight over by the pie table, then you know it is over pie. If they get into a fight after church, then you know it is about girls and pie, and the situation is hopeless; both should be sent away to camp.

I think Cheney is resigning, because his wife stated that he definitely won't be running for president in 2008. That was a premature statement, most likely a slip of the tongue, that in my opinion indicated some inside knowledge.

Last edited:
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
As for Saddam's position, he could not let the UN or the US walk all over him. He probably had some delusional idea that his army could put up a fight - as his generals probably lied to him about the military capability - or they would face execution.

Saddam also had to deal with Iran next door. If he showed weakness, he would have essentially invited another war with Iran (to which Gokul and BobG alluded).

I certainly believe for the good of the Iraqi people, the Middle East, and the world, that Saddam and his sons (Uday and Qusay) had to go. I however, strongly disagree with the method or way the Bush administration went about it. It has proved costly in terms of the economic burden, and more importantly for the lost lives of the service people and innocent Iraqis.

I strongly recommend reading Ritter's book in order to get his perspective. One does not have to agree with him, but he has first hand knowledge, and I believe his perspective is pretty much on the mark.

Ritter makes an important point with respect to the current situation in Iraq. The insurgency is NOT originating from outsiders, but rather Baathists in Iraq, i.e. it's homegrown resistance to the US. These people believed (and still do) in a secular and unified Iraq, although and unfortunately, it was dominated by a Sunni minority and an autocratic nut. Minority control of any population is unacceptable.

Last edited:
Tide
Homework Helper
faust9: No problem. I remember at the time reading about the positions of Arab leaders (from credible and reliable sources) but I don't record these things. For my earlier post I just picked the first 3 that showed up on a Google search. At any rate, it's just not a fact that there was no concern in the Arab world over Saddam's WMDs. They certainly expressed that concern but they also publicly objected to "invasion." It seems that's the way it is in that part of the world.

Don't bother digging through Lexis. I don't have a horse in this race! :)

PattyLou, Astronuc: Indeed, there is a lot that gets lost or swept away and complicated issues are reduced to political slogans. I am skeptical of "both sides."

Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Tide said:
I am skeptical of "both sides."
You and me both!

Tide said:
I am skeptical of "both sides."
I believe that you believe that.

BobG said:
it would be a far reach to believe any American president would just make up evidence out of thin air.
After all the lies they've told you, after the dozen or so times they *have* made up evidence out of thin air, you still believe they don't do it...

I don't mean to insult you Bob, but I think that's willfull blindness.

loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dayle Record said:
I think Cheney is resigning, because his wife stated that he definitely won't be running for president in 2008. That was a premature statement, most likely a slip of the tongue, that in my opinion indicated some inside knowledge.
It's funny the way you state that, as if a wife having inside knowledge of her husband's intentions is somehow out of the ordinary.

loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Smurf said:
After all the lies they've told you, after the dozen or so times they *have* made up evidence out of thin air, you still believe they don't do it...
I don't mean to insult you Bob, but I think that's willfull blindness.
How many times before the ultimatum to Saddam was issued had the Bush administration made up evidence out of thin air? He had only been in office scarcely a year at the time, and you were 14 years old! How closely could you possibly have been following world events back then?

loseyourname said:
How many times before the ultimatum to Saddam was issued had the Bush administration made up evidence out of thin air? He had only been in office scarcely a year at the time, and you were 14 years old! How closely could you possibly have been following world events back then?
I started following politics when Bush was elected. But regardless, I wasn't talking about him only, I was talking about the government in general. I doubt (but I havn't researched) that there's a single administration in my lifetime that hasn't made up evidence practically out of thin air.

loseyourname said:
How many times before the ultimatum to Saddam was issued had the Bush administration made up evidence out of thin air? He had only been in office scarcely a year at the time, and you were 14 years old! How closely could you possibly have been following world events back then?
Some event had to be the first. Iraq might have been the first time they fabricated evidence to justify an idea---welcome to the http://www.newamericancentury.org/".

So, if this wasnt their first deceit then what was might I ask? Why does his short time in office somehow make the deciet OK?

Last edited by a moderator:
BobG
Homework Helper
loseyourname said:
He had only been in office scarcely a year at the time, and you were 14 years old! How closely could you possibly have been following world events back then?
He could have had a paper route. It's hard to plop that many newspapers on people's doorsteps without absorbing at least a little of what's going on in the world. I still remember delivering the paper the morning after Haldeman, Erlichman, and Mitchell resigned. That's when I finally realized Nixon wasn't going to complete his term of office.

Smurf said:
I started following politics when Bush was elected. But regardless, I wasn't talking about him only, I was talking about the government in general. I doubt (but I havn't researched) that there's a single administration in my lifetime that hasn't made up evidence practically out of thin air.
That's pretty cynical, but, then, you are an anarchist.

Assuming a person did believe government could and should be beneficial....

Without some good evidence to the contrary, I think you have to give the President the benefit of the doubt. In fact, when pushed to go one way or the other, most in the Senate (77-23) and most in the House (296-133) had to go ahead and trust that Bush and his staff knew what they were talking about. He's starting to find out how people react when they feel they've been made a fool of.

SOS2008
Gold Member
faust9 said:
Some event had to be the first. Iraq might have been the first time they fabricated evidence to justify an idea---welcome to the http://www.newamericancentury.org/".
So, if this wasnt their first deceit then what was might I ask? Why does his short time in office somehow make the deciet OK?
He was deceitful before that--his entire life--including how he became Governor.

Last edited by a moderator:
BobG said:
Without some good evidence to the contrary, I think you have to give the President the benefit of the doubt.
What do you mean? Are you suggesting maybe he didn't lie?

In fact, when pushed to go one way or the other, most in the Senate (77-23) and most in the House (296-133) had to go ahead and trust that Bush and his staff knew what they were talking about. He's starting to find out how people react when they feel they've been made a fool of.
Who said the congress was innocent? Unless you think ignorance is an excuse. Then that might excuse ooh... 1/3 of them.

SOS2008
Gold Member
Who Is Scooter Libby?
The secretive Cheney aide at the heart of the CIA leak case.
By John Dickerson
Posted Friday, Oct. 21, 2005, at 3:57 PM PT
----------
Libby is a neocon's neocon. He studied political science at Yale under former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and began working with his former teacher under Cheney at the Defense Department during the George H.W. Bush administration, thinking about grand national security strategy in the post-Cold War era.
----------
If the State Department under Colin Powell hated Dick Cheney, it hated Scooter almost as much, viewing him accurately as a pre-eminent member of the cabal hellbent for war with Iraq. It was Libby who sat with Powell in the final session before Powell's U.N. speech, eyeing every detail to make sure that the Secretary of State didn't water down the case. When Libby talked privately to friends about his rivals at State during the Powell era, it often sounded like the head of one political party speaking about the other, ascribing the worst motives and rarely giving Powell's team the benefit of the doubt.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2128530/?nav=ais [Broken]

To Richard: You went into Washington University Hospital on Saturday afternoon. It is fall now … In South Dakota where you go pheasant hunting each year; the aspens will already be turning. They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them. If you resign for your health, everyone will understand ...and perhaps Irving will go away too. With deep concern, from American citizens.

Last edited by a moderator: