Not satisfied with how little blood on his hands these days, Cheney speaks

[AntonToo]

Cheney was a major architect of neo-con foreign policy that by now has been throughly rejected in bi-partisan fashion.

His place in history is one of failure, which for guys like him is probably worse fate than just dying sooner or later.

Actually, Democrats are not repudiating the policy. They are saying they did the right thing. It just turned out that W was wrong about "stockpiles." They were mislead on the facts. They are not saying they did the wrong thing with the neocon policies they followed. They are specifically saying they did nothing wrong when they authorized the war, W did.

That's my fundamental argument. If you supported the war for WMDs, you should still support the war. Obviously Hussein was a threat since he USED them, which you can't do if you don't HAVE them. That means he could build them. Stockpiles are irrelevant.

I want us to learn from the mistake that we should not have gone to war if he did have stockpiles. It wasn't our war, we need to stop being policeman to the world. We should have let his neighbors and Europe take the lead and at most only provided them support.

Democrats can't have it both ways. They can't say like the ridiculous crap that you did that they are repudiating neocon policies while still saying they did nothing but be "lied to" by W since the justification for the war was pure neocon

Nonsense, democrats were against country building projects based of pre-emptive rationales before and they are against it now

 

[kaz]

Cheney was a major architect of neo-con foreign policy that by now has been throughly rejected in bi-partisan fashion.

His place in history is one of failure, which for guys like him is probably worse fate than just dying sooner or later.

Actually, Democrats are not repudiating the policy. They are saying they did the right thing. It just turned out that W was wrong about "stockpiles." They were mislead on the facts. They are not saying they did the wrong thing with the neocon policies they followed. They are specifically saying they did nothing wrong when they authorized the war, W did.

That's my fundamental argument. If you supported the war for WMDs, you should still support the war. Obviously Hussein was a threat since he USED them, which you can't do if you don't HAVE them. That means he could build them. Stockpiles are irrelevant.

I want us to learn from the mistake that we should not have gone to war if he did have stockpiles. It wasn't our war, we need to stop being policeman to the world. We should have let his neighbors and Europe take the lead and at most only provided them support.

Democrats can't have it both ways. They can't say like the ridiculous crap that you did that they are repudiating neocon policies while still saying they did nothing but be "lied to" by W since the justification for the war was pure neocon

Nonsense, democrats were against country building projects based of pre-emptive rationales before and they are against it now

Then why did they authorize the war? That's the whole point, the war as presented no matter what you think of the evidence was "preemptive"

 

[nat4900]

Barry would call those air rage, road rage, and workplace violents. Haven't you been paying attention to him - Muslims don't commit acts of terror. Claiming they do is 'offensive'.

lame...very very LAME....Even your fellow morons must think its a lame.retort.....

So, ready to APOLOGIZE ??.
...or will you echo our beloved Trump in stating, "I don't want to talk about it anymore"?

 

[nat4900]

That's the whole point, the war as presented no matter what you think of the evidence was "preemptive"

What a moron !!!!
Preemptive OF WHAT????? you can answer a lie that Cheney and Wolfowitz and the sleazy Chalabi made up, nut "preemptive" of a mushroom cloud over Cheney's house??

 

[easyt65]

Unlike Cheney, Barry financed, supplied, armed, protected, and even dragged the US into unsanctioned wars to aid ISIS, Al Qaeida, & The Muslim Brotherhood...armed Mexican Drug Cartels...FACILITATED the murder, slaughter, bombing, & beheading of tens of thousands of innocents world-wide.

 

[nat4900]

Unlike Cheney, Barry financed, supplied, armed, protected, and even dragged the US into unsanctioned wars to aid ISIS, Al Qaeida, & The Muslim Brotherhood...armed Mexican Drug Cartels...FACILITATED the murder, slaughter, bombing, & beheading of tens of thousands of innocents world-wide.

.......and Obama's dog, Bo, ALSO pooped on my lawn........Its a disgrace !!!!

 

[Auld Phart]

Shoulda done what I did.

shot it in the ass with a bb gun.

He won't be back

 

[kaz]

That's the whole point, the war as presented no matter what you think of the evidence was "preemptive"

What a moron !!!!
Preemptive OF WHAT????? you can answer a lie that Cheney and Wolfowitz and the sleazy Chalabi made up, nut "preemptive" of a mushroom cloud over Cheney's house??

Hussein has "stockpiles" of WMDs, that makes him a threat, let's invade.

You ask what's "preemptive" about that? Seriously?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

.......and Obama's dog, Bo, ALSO pooped on my lawn........Its a disgrace !!!!

Maybe he should do what Clinton did, kill the damn thing.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

.......and Obama's dog, Bo, ALSO pooped on my lawn........Its a disgrace !!!!

Maybe he should do what Clinton did, kill the damn thing.

Or in Obungle's case....eat it

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Sorry, Ray....you're not the only right wing moron I have to respond to on this forum.
(still playing with your guns???)

Nothing to be sorry about. Leftists hate proof that goes against their beliefs so they ignore it. You're quite normal for a leftist.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You mean Hillary Clinton and Obama neglected to act to this???? Now I'm pissed at those two....

Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US MEMO....

What Bush Knew Before Sept. 11

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

APOLOGIZE Queasy...here are; just a few.....

July 4, 2002: Hesham Mohamed Hadayet kills 2 at the El Al ticket counter at LAX.

Oct 2002: Beltway Snipers John Allen Muhammed and Boyd Lee Malvo kill 10; Malvo later testifies attacks motivated by "jihad."

March 3, 2005: Mohammed Reza Taheri-azana drives an SUV onto a crowded part of campus at UNC at Chapel Hill, injuring 9.

July 28, 2006: Naveed Haq kills 1 and hospitalizes 5 in a shooting at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle.

Aug 30, 2006: Omeed Aziz Popal kills 1 and injures 17 in SUV rampage that began in Fremont, CA, and ended at the Jewish Community Center of SF.

Dec 22, 2006: Derrick Shareef’s "violent jihad" attack on an Illinois shopping mall disrupted by feds.

Feb 12, 2007: Sulejman Talović opens fire at the Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City, killing 5, injuring 4, while shouting "Allahu Akbar!"

Okay, one at a time:

Your first link took me to a front page where the headline was Hillary leaving the 911 event because she was ill. Good work.

The Beltway Snipers had nothing to do with Islam or terrorism. It was some kook that was a sniper in our military that went haywire.

Mohammed Reza drove his SUV into a crowd. Nobody was killed, just injured people, and he was an Iranian-American.

Naveed Haq. Page not found.

Omeed Azia Popal. Ran into several people, no serious injuries, nobody killed.

Derrick Shareef. Planned on a terrorist attack, but was stopped by BUSH's authorities. He too was an American.

Sulejman Talovic. The FBI stated they didn't know the motive of the attack, but they determined it definitely was not terrorism.

 

[AntonToo]

Cheney was a major architect of neo-con foreign policy that by now has been throughly rejected in bi-partisan fashion.

His place in history is one of failure, which for guys like him is probably worse fate than just dying sooner or later.

Actually, Democrats are not repudiating the policy. They are saying they did the right thing. It just turned out that W was wrong about "stockpiles." They were mislead on the facts. They are not saying they did the wrong thing with the neocon policies they followed. They are specifically saying they did nothing wrong when they authorized the war, W did.

That's my fundamental argument. If you supported the war for WMDs, you should still support the war. Obviously Hussein was a threat since he USED them, which you can't do if you don't HAVE them. That means he could build them. Stockpiles are irrelevant.

I want us to learn from the mistake that we should not have gone to war if he did have stockpiles. It wasn't our war, we need to stop being policeman to the world. We should have let his neighbors and Europe take the lead and at most only provided them support.

Democrats can't have it both ways. They can't say like the ridiculous crap that you did that they are repudiating neocon policies while still saying they did nothing but be "lied to" by W since the justification for the war was pure neocon

Nonsense, democrats were against country building projects based of pre-emptive rationales before and they are against it now

Then why did they authorize the war? That's the whole point, the war as presented no matter what you think of the evidence was "preemptive"

"They" voted to give Bush blank check to start a war at his discretion in the aftermath of 9/11. Those "they" lost nomination to Democrat that was always against Iraq war - Obama. "They" oppologised for that vote and admited it was a mistake.

 

[kaz]

Cheney was a major architect of neo-con foreign policy that by now has been throughly rejected in bi-partisan fashion.

His place in history is one of failure, which for guys like him is probably worse fate than just dying sooner or later.

Actually, Democrats are not repudiating the policy. They are saying they did the right thing. It just turned out that W was wrong about "stockpiles." They were mislead on the facts. They are not saying they did the wrong thing with the neocon policies they followed. They are specifically saying they did nothing wrong when they authorized the war, W did.

That's my fundamental argument. If you supported the war for WMDs, you should still support the war. Obviously Hussein was a threat since he USED them, which you can't do if you don't HAVE them. That means he could build them. Stockpiles are irrelevant.

I want us to learn from the mistake that we should not have gone to war if he did have stockpiles. It wasn't our war, we need to stop being policeman to the world. We should have let his neighbors and Europe take the lead and at most only provided them support.

Democrats can't have it both ways. They can't say like the ridiculous crap that you did that they are repudiating neocon policies while still saying they did nothing but be "lied to" by W since the justification for the war was pure neocon

Nonsense, democrats were against country building projects based of pre-emptive rationales before and they are against it now

Then why did they authorize the war? That's the whole point, the war as presented no matter what you think of the evidence was "preemptive"

"They" voted to give Bush blank check to start a war at his discretion in the aftermath of 9/11. Those "they" lost nomination to Democrat that was always against Iraq war - Obama. "They" oppologised for that vote and admited it was a mistake.

You said it wasn't "preemptive." Explain how authorizing a war because Hussein has WMDs and may use them is not "preemptive." You may want to google the definition before answering ...

 

[nat4900]

Hussein has "stockpiles" of WMDs, that makes him a threat, let's invade.

You ask what's "preemptive" about that? Seriously?

Moron, North Korea has more serious stock piles..Want to invade that little enclave????
(IDIOTS !!!)

 

[kaz]

Hussein has "stockpiles" of WMDs, that makes him a threat, let's invade.

You ask what's "preemptive" about that? Seriously?

Moron, North Korea has more serious stock piles..Want to invade that little enclave????
(IDIOTS !!!)

How does that contradict the point?

 

[nat4900]

How does that contradict the point?

Well, imbecile, if we had to do a PREEMPTIVE attack on anyone who had so-called WMDs, we'd be at war with half of the planet.

Remember the slow-witted GWB who came out with the label "Axis of Evil"????

Well, we attacked the WEAKEST of that trio....and look at how "well" that turned out.

So, want for this country to try its luck with N. Korea?

 

[kaz]

How does that contradict the point?

Well, imbecile, if we had to do a PREEMPTIVE attack on anyone who had so-called WMDs, we'd be at war with half of the planet.

Remember the slow-witted GWB who came out with the label "Axis of Evil"????

Well, we attacked the WEAKEST of that trio....and look at how "well" that turned out.

So, want for this country to try its luck with N. Korea?

So you think this helps Democrats? Really?

 

[TheOldSchool]

I can't believe there are still sick fucks in this country who stand behind Cheney. I hope some asshole inspired by Cheney sends one of your family members to die for their profit. Maybe you'll learn something.