Liz, Vietnam Vets, like myself, remember how your daddy hid behind a dress to avoid military service.
It's amazing that while Gays WANT to join the military, and women are requesting COMBAT roles, your family is too YELLOW to serve in the military.
When all is said and done I strongly suspect history will find your dad involved in the attacks on 911 far more than Saddam. With you super rich scum bags it's ALWAYS all about money isn't it?
Why dont we ever talk about the fact that Saddam no longer accepted dollars and wanted Euros or gold for his oil. Now that would be a good conversation that will never happen!
There's plenty of change. How many times have you heard the word "Terror" in the last few months...or the words "Executive Privilege"? You can't clean up MASS CORRUPTION in 5 months. Dick Cheney made more MONEY from invading Iraq than you will ever see in your lifetime. THAT'S why he was there..not to keep your silly butt "safe". He could care less about YOU. Look how he helped to BURY 4000 of your sons and daughters....and said "SO?" when told that America was sick of war! HE'$ NOT!!
9/11 would've happened no matter who was in office at the time - no one expected what happened that day. I was actually referring to post 9/11 & yeah, you're right - whomever is in office now, dem or repub will get blamed, but hind-sight is always perfect.
If by that you mean he wants to execute the laws as they are written, including the Constitution and international treaties, then that's a good and moral thing to do.
Please explain to me why you people believe with utter conviction that President Obama has to get everything right? Knowing that even if he did you would all still find some fault to complain over?
Why does President Obama not have the same rights to do the best he can, even if he gets some things wrong? You gave leniency to Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, and Dumbya, yet this president...this particular president has to be 100% perfect and do only the basics...just sit in office and look pretty?
To be honest, I really don't have anything against the guy, but I listened to the same thing for the last 2 years Bush was in office. It gets old, doesn't it? I guess you could sum it up in one sentence: I'll be as gracious to YOUR President as you were to mine!
How many memos saying that bin Laden was primed to attack did he need? How much time would he need to at least close in on Al-Quaida operatives they were watching? The responsibility stops at Bush. If the same thing happened under Obama, he wouldn't bury Panetta or Holder.
It's impossible to tell what Gore would have done, but it's hard to believe he would ignored all the briefings he would've received from the Clinton Adm. and pursued the long derided missile defense systems. And it's doubtful he would take 31 days of vacation by that summer. It's irrelevant what another man would have done. This was a major Bush failure. Not his alone but he was the President and it ends with him.
In the summer of 2001, Richard Clarke (National Security Adviser) was almost frantic in trying to warn the administration about an attack!
"Richard Clarke: Bush IGNORED terrorism!" - ( watch?v=TyAUsWSLIUE )
When the Aug.6th 2001 PDB (Presidential Daily Briefing) titled: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." was presented to Bush, he told the CIA briefer: "All right. You've covered your ass now." (and then George went fishing, while on vacation for a month)).
Can Lizzie or Dirty Dick explain why the ONLY plane allowed in the sky right after 9/11 was the one whisking Ossama Bin Laden's family out of the USA? And who ordered THAT.....Obama??.... Because his middle name is Hussien?? (And how did we know where they WERE to pick them up in the 1st place? Anybody ever wonder about that?
We went to war retaliating for 9/11, which your father APPROVED OF. If he knew there was no connection, why the hell did we attack THEM? You, Liz, are an ass-wipe out of the same box that you father came out of! Another lying Cheney, just what we need. Your father is OUT..and his PARTY is OUT. Learn to live with it.
OK! we are splitting hairs here. the dickless Cheney is worse than Dick Cheney. Could the Cheneys just go away, please? It is nauseating to hear both of them bend the facts to justify panic-induced policies.
It is not the job of the US miltary to "liberate" other countries. The only job of the US military is to defend the United States and perhaps our allies. Iraq was clearly no threat to the United States or any of our allies.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
It is the job of the US military to follow the lawful orders of the President of the US. The liberation of Iraq was such a lawful order as evidenced by the congressional resolution specifically authorized it.
The people we elected, in the executive and legislative branches disagreed with you and determined that Iraq did pose a threat.
Are you claiming possession of better information than they had?
if Iraq would have cooperated with our investigation they would have never had to have their asses whooped, instead saddam decided not to help and well the rest as they say "is history"
its weird to me that the attack on 911 is the same type of attack that "Awoke a sleeping giant" in '41 i guess my question would be "why are the libs trying to lul the giant"?
goes to show the change of the times, im just glad this group wasnt around in the 30s and 40s
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
If you work on Wall Street that explains much of the financial services meltdown. Do you perform your job with the same level of detail you have demonstrated here?
In the real world, Cheney has zero crediblity. He has been wrong on just about everything, and his bloody mistakes have cost the United States and Iraq dearly. By the way, US intelligence agencies have concluded that there was no meeting between Mohammed Atta and Saddams intelligence service.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Liberating a nation of 25 million people from a ruthless dictator has a cost that is for sure. Of course failing to do so has one as well.
I love when leftists point to selected conclusions of intelligence agencies (no Prague meeting) as dispositive then trash leaders (Bush, Cheney) who make decisions based on conclusions made by those same agencies (WMD in Iraq).
Doesn't she know that saddam hussein hated al-qaeda? Bin Laden and that fool were not friends but enemies. Too bad ignorant americans see too middle eastern people and assume they have to be working together
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
From the Iraqi Perspectives Project - Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents, published by the Joint Forces Command:
"Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden' s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives."
Why don't you read the report so you don't sound so ignorant.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Most of the people posting here aren't interested in facts, truth, or reasonable thinking. It's obvious from their comments they are more interested in personal attacks, bashing the Cheney's, and looking for straw men to burn.
Who is the Joint Forces command? Certaintly not saddam. So your point that other people made a relationship only validates my point even more. thanks for making yourself look ignorant
Apparently Liz and Dick Cheney are unaware that when they go on television that everything they are doing is being videotaped and recorded. Perhaps they honestly didn't know that things they said in the past (such as claims that Saddam Hussein had sent his agents to meet with Muhammad Attah in Prague before 9/11) could easily retrieved and played back for the public.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Did you not hear what VP Cheney said? He specifically mentioned that there were reports that linked Atta to Iraqi intelligence but that those reports did not pan out and that was very publicly stated.
FWIW, Czech intelligence still stands by that report.
how so? explain where she's lying or where the falsehood is. going back to words of the former VP, he always claimed a connection between AQ and Saddam, making Iraq an additional threat to the US. (that's the point that's debatable and should be argued here)
Cheney has been saying since they illegally invaded Iraq that Saddam did have a connection with Al-Qaeda which is NOT true! They are trying to revise history now so he doesnt go to jail for his war crimes.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Are you unable to understand the distinction between saying Iraq was connected to 9/11 (which no one claims( and Iraq was connected to al Qaeda (which they were)?
Specifically how was the invasion of Iraq "illegal"?
well, specifically; I can't say that laws were actually broken- Hindsight is 20/20, and I believe that if the operation had been a success, we wouldn't have Obama. This comment comes to you from an Obama Supporter....
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The point of this video post is that Liz is saying her dad never said there was a connection between 9/11 & Saddam. I find nothing that says he did. His suspicion was a connection between Al Qaeda & Saddam. Since we were going after Al Qaeda, the concern was the hidden agenda of the Saddam regime. Google 'mother of all connections' for some interesting points. There's nothing 100% definitive to prove there was or wasn't . In hindsight, I think going into Iraq was imprudent.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Do you really live in such an echo chamber that you are unable to grasp the idea that someone may disagree with you without being paid to think that way?
That is pathetic.
If you really believe what was done was torture, the onus is on you to justify that position. If you had given this issue any serious thought, you would be able to intelligently discuss the questions I posed rather than trying to deflect with your weak ad hominem attacks.
I'm sure the Republicans pay you well, GOPer boy. Defending torturers, obfuscating about historical events. Reagan's sales of missiles to the Iranian ayatollahs in exchange for hostages (Who can forget "We did not, repeat, did not trade arms for hostages") is completely seperate from his sales of chemical weapons to Iraq. Different pimps. Different timeframes. You know that as well as I do.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Back to the ad hominem, I see.
No one denies that we sold TOW missiles to Iran. What does that have to do with selling chemical weapons to Iraq? If you have evidence that we gave Iraq chemical weapons, produce it.
What does any of this have to do with the issue at hand?
Are you going to answer the questions I posed? If not, I will assume you can't and wish you a good day.
1)Obviously a Mid East leader like Saddam consorted with religious groups. That does not change the plainly evident truth he would not have supported a group whose sole purpose was to destroy secularized governments. I understand an obvious truth is not enough for you, thus I refer you to the highly publicized JFC report investigating said ties.
2)If you still think Abu Ghraib was an isolated incident at this point, you must be pretty thick. But it is good u recognize those actions as crimes
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Did you actually read the JFC report or just the news stories about it?
What you may see as obvious truths may not be reflected in reality. The Taliban played host to al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is committed to first and foremost to the fall of the House of Saud. And yet, the Saudis were one of only two gov'ts to recognize the Taliban regime. Weird, huh?
What happened at Abu Ghraib had NOTHING to do with approved enhanced interrogation. In fact, the soldiers involved were not interrogators.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Why don't you try looking at the portions of the report dealing with Iraq's relationships with Egyptian Islamic Jihad and Bahrain's Army of Muhammad.
"Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives." A direct quote.
You must find it astonishingly coincidental US soldiers were caught using blatantly illegal interrogation techniques, at the same time the White House was supporting enhanced interrogation.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Given that the enhanced interrogation authority was given to the CIA and the abuse at Abu Ghraib was committed by soldiers, there is no reason to believe that low ranking military police knew anything about the approved methods or that one had anything to do with the other. If you have information that links them, please provide it.
Low ranking military personnel would obviously be advised on interrogation by interrogators (CIA). Are you really so thick as to not see any connection?
Sorry I don't have unlimited access to secret military records, so irrefutable evidence will be a little difficult. However there have been leaks by ranking military officials on cases of rape in some of these legal interrogations.
Nice debating but I've got a shit ton of work piled on my desk. So I gotta get to it. Have a good one
C'mon, GOPer boy, admit it, you were a staff puke lawyer who never saw combat or underwent SERE training. You're like Cheney and the rest of the Rethugs. You fancy yourself as some kinda Jack Bauer. You get off on the idea of torturing people.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
It is fairly common for someone who has been called on his ignorance to resort to ad hominem attacks.
You know nothing about me, my service, or my training. Pretending you do or pretending any of that matters does not really mask your complete lack of knowledge on this subject.
Here's the fundamental question, GOPer boy. Let's see if you have the balls to answer it forthrightly without hiding behind your code words and legalese:
Do you believe that water boarding is torture?
Not "Is it legal?" Not "Is it effective?" Do YOU, nnjhansen, believe that waterboarding is torture?
You've really drunk the Koolaid, haven't you? We don't "torture our own service members on a regular basis" Where'd you get that one, Faux News? Certain members of the military undergo SERE training which includes the water torture that you GOPers cherish. Have you undergone such training, GOPer boy? There are many statutes which address torture. The 1994 act is but one of them. When president, Reagan was adamant that the mental tortures developed by the CIA after the Korean War be excluded.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
That's right, we do not torture our own service members on a regular basis but we do waterboard them, don't we?
So, thank for for acknowledging your assertion that waterboarding is always torture was incorrect.
The only portion of the US Code that deals specifically with torture is 18 USC § 2340. It was passed in 1994 as the implementing legislature for US ratification of the Conventions Against Torture.
You GOPers never were very good at history. Reagan signed the Conventions Against Torture Act in 1988. It was ratified by the Senate in 1994.
"thank for for acknowledging your assertion that waterboarding is always torture"
I acknowledged no such thing. How 'bout you, GOPer boy, have you ever undergone SERE training? Or are you just another pontificating Republican chickenhawk?
Now you answer a question: Did Reagan ever claim that "trees cause more pollution than automobiles"?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Along with ratification normally comes implementing legislation. The CAT is a not a self-executing treaty. In order for it to have any domestic applicability it must be accompanied by legislation passed by the Congress. That legislation is known as 18 USC § 2340. Read it and learn something.
The training I may or may not have received while on active duty is really not at issue nor are Reagan's views on trees, are they?
Answer the questions or be proven to be ignorant of what you speak.
Silly wingnut, Google is not a source. It is an internet search engine which allows us to locate source documents such as the ones which prove that Reagan traded missiles to the Iranian ayatollahs in exchange for hostages, sold chemical weapons to Saddam, praised murderous thugs like Osam bin Laden and said incredibly stupid things like "Trees cause more pollution than automobiles". He also ran the most corrupt administration in US history.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Grow up. Reagan did approve the transfer of TOW missiles to Iran but that does not mean he sold chemical weapons to Iraq. He did not and there is no credible evidence that he did.
He also never praised Bin Laden, probably had never heard of him. He did praise the Afghan resistance but Bin Laden is not an Afghan, is he?
He's certainly learned to use the code language of the GOPers, hasn't he? At least have the balls to call it what it is: TORTURE. And let's be clear as to exactly why it was used: The Bushees were trying to get their prisoners to confess to a nonexistent connection between Saddam and Al-Qaida so they could justify their idiotic invasion of Iraq.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Torture is a crime with specific elements. If you truly believe what was done was torture, maybe you would be willing to answer some specific questions:
What is the proper standard for "severe physical or mental pain or suffering"? Is torture under US law a general or specific intent crime? What is the difference between the two?
Answer these questions and then maybe you will have credibility when you claim what was done was torture.
Stop with the legalese, you pathetic wingnut shill. No matter how you lawyer it, water boarding is torture. You are defending the indefensible. Oh yeah, and wasn't it yer boy Ronald Reagan who pushed so hard to have "mental anguish" excluded from the definition of torture?
Apparently, either nnjhansen hasn't learned about The Google yet or he's a GOPer shill who's bought into the Myth of Reagan and, therefore, is willing to lie about this stuff. He writes well, though.
Hey, nnhansen, while you're at it, google "Cars cause more pollution than automobiles" or "Facts are stupid things" for an additional sampling of the idiocy of corrupt Hollywood air head, Ronald Reagan.
Actually, there was another connection, Ronald Reagan. Reagan sold Saddam the chemical weapons that he used on the Kurds. Reagan also supported Al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden whom he referred to as "freedom fighters" who were "the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers" .
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Reagan never sold Saddam chemical weapons.
Reagan never supported al Qaeda (that organization was not formed until 1988) nor did the CIA send arms or money to the non-Afghan organizations fighting the Soviets. All CIA supported was routed through Pakistan's ISI which viewed the foreign fighters as a threat to their own influence in the resistance.
ok did Clinton lie? Yes. Who did Clinton get his intelligence from? Bush 41 and Reagan. Were there any WMDs in Iraq? NO. Did Bush 41 bomb Iraq for 4 years and Clinton for 8 years bomb Iraq? Yes. By the time we invaded in 2003 was Iraq a threat after 12 years of bombing? NO.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Clinton got his intelligence from our national intelligence agencies led by people he appointed to lead them, not from Reagan or Bush. Iraq admitted to having WMD after the ceasefire in 1991. Saddam agreed to the terms of that ceasefire then breached them.
The overwhelming majority of the people we elected to decide whether or not Iraq remained a threat disagreed with your assertion that it was not.
That doesn't support the fact that Reagan and Bush 41. (Side note Bush 41 was IN the CIA for years) didn't appoint people in the CIA and FBI and intelligence agencies to fit there NeoCon agendas.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I guess it would be too much to ask for a scintilla of proof to back up that ridiculous accusation?
The worst that can be said is a couple of US companies sold small amounts of thiodiglycol to Iraq. Thiodiglycol is not a chemical weapon agent, it can be used to make mustard gas but can also be used to make dyes and inks.
Hey GOPer Boy, Yesterday you tried to claim that this never happened. Let's face it, you Rethuglicans armed and funded both Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein as well as illegally selling missiles to the Iranian ayatollahs in exchange for hostages.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
What did I claim never happened?
The US never funded or armed Bin Laden.
The US never sold chemical weapons to Iraq.
If you have any credible evidence we did either, produce it. If you don't, you would serve yourself better by staying quiet. You just make yourself look stupid.
the way we play with words to get ahead is incredibly destroying the constitution of every country in the world, to give way to A Corporation Planet Society. All financed by this girls Daddy and their private mercenary army outlets. Business is business, and they are in the business of killing civilians ?
Now she has to defend Daddy's sins ? they committed terrible crimes that are so terrible they cant just stop them, until they finish converting Irak and Afgan to a savage capitalism society
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"2003: Iraq has WMDs. There is irrefutable evidence!"
Were Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore, Madeline Albright, George Tenet and dozens of other democrat members of Congress and the Clinton Admin lying when they said the same thing?
"2005: Iraq has ties with Al-Qaeda"
Again, see Clinton DOJ indictment of Bin Laden and reasons for bombing factory in Sudan in 1998.
2003Congress wasn't allowed to look at the CIA evidence, nor was the UN. Which is why we didn't recieve international support.
2005Bin Laden hated Hussein as well as all secularized islamic countries. There is no way the CIA, thus Bush/Cheney, didn't know of their relationship
We don't torture:Keeping someone awake for 5 days hanging upside down face in a pile of feces, then waterboarding them until they talk, is torture.
Wierd how u didn't defend Cheney, just baimed democrats.
can't call them repugnuts for nothing -- when in doubt just blame a liberal for everything wrong with the universe. its called denial. and its pretty.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Members of the congressional intelligence committees have and had access to all the intelligence that executive branch members had. You are just plain wrong on this.
The idea that secular Ba'athists would not cooperate with militant islamists was disproven by their cooperation in the Iraqi insurgency.
Who did we keep hanging upside down for 5 days in feces? The way waterboarding is done to our own service members in SERE training and the way it was done to the terrorists is NOT torture.
The executive branch has commander & cheif access. If Congress had that why would they need to subpoena Oliver North?
If you don't know Hussein was a major separatist, you simply don't belong in a conversation with me. How about picking up some news from non-cable sources.
So you agree hanging upside down in feces for 5 days would be torture? There are pictures of this from Abu Ghraib of this very practice, which turns out was S.O.P
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
1. Oliver North was NOT a member of an intelligence agency. He was a Marine on the NSC staff, that is a member of the White House staff not subject to congressional oversight.
2. Saddam was a ba'athist and a secularist but that did not prevent him from directly supporting al Qaeda affiliated groups like Bahrain's, the Army of Muhammad and Egyptian Islamic Jihad.
3. What happened at Abu Ghraib were crimes and had NOTHING to do with the approved enhanced interrogation procedures.
Why the hell is this chick always on "news" shows? How is she important or relevant in any way? She is the daughter of a former VP which means she knows approximitely jack shit.
Brace yourself.. but I have heard here and there that she may be considering a run for office in 2012... After the Palin fiasco nothing would surprise me anymore. When will this stupidity ever end?
Anyone can forcefully articulate their beliefs... but when their beliefs are based on lies it really doesn't matter. I don't know where you get off saying that Obama tries to be all things to all people when he has done several things that have been in opposition to many people because he thought it was the right thing to do. I would much rather have someone in office that gives serious matters some thought rather than someone who is simply power hungry and trigger happy.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Really? What are Obama's serious thoughts on renditions, national security wiretaps, military commissions, indefinite confinement of terrorists?
Does he believe torture is a specific or general intent crime?
Seems to me he loudly opposed those things in the campaign or attempted to make people believe he did then just quietly maintained the Bush policies when he got into office.
It isn't over yet... time will tell... but no matter what he does the right will never be satisfied and they are the ones who opposed to any change what so ever in policy and that is why they fight him on every issue every step of the way and have done nothing supportive what so ever. Back to the initial subject.. I personally hope she does run because it will make for a very interesting election to say the least.
His time in office is not over yet... and I have seen him invite the Republicans to be involved numerous times... they simply don't bring anything to the table.
exactly! the gop-hawks whine like babies and are not capable of even providing any solutions. they put the party and themselves ahead of the "will of the people"
i hope they get replaced by a more caring and less self-serving political party, preferably headed by Ron Paul
Maybe you like to point us to an example of when Cheney or anyone in the Bush Administration claimed Iraq or Saddam was involved in 9/11? There is plenty of evidence that there were links between Iraq and al Qaeda including the indictment the Clinton DOJ prepared against Bin Laden. Take a look at the reasons Clinton gave for bombing the factory in the Sudan in Aug 1998.
Well, that's a Cheney for you...Trying to misdirect and change the story line. However, her assertion the Saddam had something to do with Al Quaeda is not and NEVER was true. We are in Iraq because of BIG OIL!!!!
Another example of those morally superior conservatives. Lying through their goddamn teeth as usual. I can't they have the fucking audacity to lie to the American public. "If we don't admit to it, it never happened!" Any self-respecting journalists would call these mother fuckers out in an instant. The media is bullshit.
saddam and al qaeda? or saddam and 911? right! thats like saying fox news has nothing to do with wealthy investors but they might have something to do with rich people IT MAKES SENSE!
Does Liz know that americans actually knows how to use GOOGLE? Theirs tons of evidence on google, and this bitch can lie with a straight face.....like daddy like daughter.
Hey numbnuts, The internet has numerous of information that people can determine whats real and whats not. Not just on the internet, but its been repeatedly said by the bush administration over the past years, where the fuck have you been?....Give me a fuckin break.
the unfortunate aspect of it all is that in time history will blame BUSH for it all when in reality it was others (rumsfeld, cheney, tenet, etc . . .) who shaped our course in history during that period.
Why is anyone listening to Cheney and his brats? He was VICE president. I guess though that they cannot control the babbling Bush to keep anything straight. Funny how Bush does not know what happened in those 8 years.
any dumbass youtuber can see multiple times where cheney DID say there is a connection between saddam and 9-11 -- WTF is she talking about he said those exact words A LOT
on a slightly different note why is Liz Cheney all of a sudden everywhere in the media???
they're not prepping her very well. She's already blatantly lying between every breath and aligning herself with one of the most unpopular figures in the Republican Party.
Well i guess being a lying sack of shit runs in the family
radiofreak56 10 months ago
Liz, Vietnam Vets, like myself, remember how your daddy hid behind a dress to avoid military service.
It's amazing that while Gays WANT to join the military, and women are requesting COMBAT roles, your family is too YELLOW to serve in the military.
When all is said and done I strongly suspect history will find your dad involved in the attacks on 911 far more than Saddam. With you super rich scum bags it's ALWAYS all about money isn't it?
FloridaBiker 1 year ago 3
@FloridaBiker
True story brother..
bigman9099 1 year ago
It's a shame a yellow piece of garbage like Cheney, who hid behind a dress to avoid Vietnam Service, had the power to start the Iraq War.
I think they should DRAFT Liz Cheney, after all she IS the man in her family!
FloridaBiker 1 year ago
Comment removed
D119heavy 1 year ago
Liz your dad should be either in jail or a retard home. And please accompany him. you will not be missed
canindblog 2 years ago 4
R.I.P G.O.P
Mutedvox 2 years ago
Why dont we ever talk about the fact that Saddam no longer accepted dollars and wanted Euros or gold for his oil. Now that would be a good conversation that will never happen!
sticksnstuffguy93 2 years ago
Thank you, Dick Chaney, for helping to keep our country safe!!
BTW, redhead & smmm, did you not know that your party won in the last election? So if you won, why are you so pissed off? Interesting.......ahahahaha
Could it be because there has been no "change?"
dedebiren 2 years ago
There's plenty of change. How many times have you heard the word "Terror" in the last few months...or the words "Executive Privilege"? You can't clean up MASS CORRUPTION in 5 months. Dick Cheney made more MONEY from invading Iraq than you will ever see in your lifetime. THAT'S why he was there..not to keep your silly butt "safe". He could care less about YOU. Look how he helped to BURY 4000 of your sons and daughters....and said "SO?" when told that America was sick of war! HE'$ NOT!!
redhead761 2 years ago
How did he keep us safe? Over 3000 people died on his watch. If we were hit today, you same people would blame Obama.
Davidhgi 2 years ago
9/11 would've happened no matter who was in office at the time - no one expected what happened that day. I was actually referring to post 9/11 & yeah, you're right - whomever is in office now, dem or repub will get blamed, but hind-sight is always perfect.
dedebiren 2 years ago
Only if they were incompetent enough to ignore intelligence briefings saying an attack was imminent, as the Bush Administration did.
You can't give them credit for "keeping us safe" without taking them to task for failing us on Sept 11th.
Davidhgi 2 years ago 2
Sorry, but then you would have to take Clinton to task for not getting Osama when he had the chance, because he did have the chance!
And now Obama wants to give terrorists the same rights as Americans. LMAO
dedebiren 2 years ago
If by that you mean he wants to execute the laws as they are written, including the Constitution and international treaties, then that's a good and moral thing to do.
Davidhgi 2 years ago
Clinton, moral? LOL
dedebiren 2 years ago
Who was talking about Clinton? Obviously I was referring to your misguided, false statement about Obama.
Davidhgi 2 years ago
I (we) were talking about Clinton on the previous post.
Now I see you were trying to refer to Obama wanting to be palsie walsies with the terrorists. Sickening thought, isn't it?
It's been nice........see ya.
dedebiren 2 years ago
Please explain to me why you people believe with utter conviction that President Obama has to get everything right? Knowing that even if he did you would all still find some fault to complain over?
Why does President Obama not have the same rights to do the best he can, even if he gets some things wrong? You gave leniency to Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, and Dumbya, yet this president...this particular president has to be 100% perfect and do only the basics...just sit in office and look pretty?
rannedwards 2 years ago
To be honest, I really don't have anything against the guy, but I listened to the same thing for the last 2 years Bush was in office. It gets old, doesn't it? I guess you could sum it up in one sentence: I'll be as gracious to YOUR President as you were to mine!
dedebiren 2 years ago
It was CIA chief Tenets fault, Bush had just been 9 months in office and CIA left the USA unprotected. They knew but did nothing.
richter75 2 years ago
How many memos saying that bin Laden was primed to attack did he need? How much time would he need to at least close in on Al-Quaida operatives they were watching? The responsibility stops at Bush. If the same thing happened under Obama, he wouldn't bury Panetta or Holder.
Davidhgi 2 years ago
Blame Tenet, he did a lousy job and should have been fired earlier. Bush did alot, you really think Gore or Kerry would have done more? Lol!.
richter75 2 years ago
Blame the boss.
It's impossible to tell what Gore would have done, but it's hard to believe he would ignored all the briefings he would've received from the Clinton Adm. and pursued the long derided missile defense systems. And it's doubtful he would take 31 days of vacation by that summer. It's irrelevant what another man would have done. This was a major Bush failure. Not his alone but he was the President and it ends with him.
Davidhgi 2 years ago
In the summer of 2001, Richard Clarke (National Security Adviser) was almost frantic in trying to warn the administration about an attack!
"Richard Clarke: Bush IGNORED terrorism!" - ( watch?v=TyAUsWSLIUE )
When the Aug.6th 2001 PDB (Presidential Daily Briefing) titled: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." was presented to Bush, he told the CIA briefer: "All right. You've covered your ass now." (and then George went fishing, while on vacation for a month)).
im4wur2 2 years ago
(source: Ron Suskind's book: "The One Percent Doctrine")
im4wur2 2 years ago
Can Lizzie or Dirty Dick explain why the ONLY plane allowed in the sky right after 9/11 was the one whisking Ossama Bin Laden's family out of the USA? And who ordered THAT.....Obama??.... Because his middle name is Hussien?? (And how did we know where they WERE to pick them up in the 1st place? Anybody ever wonder about that?
redhead761 2 years ago 3
We went to war retaliating for 9/11, which your father APPROVED OF. If he knew there was no connection, why the hell did we attack THEM? You, Liz, are an ass-wipe out of the same box that you father came out of! Another lying Cheney, just what we need. Your father is OUT..and his PARTY is OUT. Learn to live with it.
redhead761 2 years ago 2
OK! we are splitting hairs here. the dickless Cheney is worse than Dick Cheney. Could the Cheneys just go away, please? It is nauseating to hear both of them bend the facts to justify panic-induced policies.
smmm1968 2 years ago 4
Comment removed
dickrumsfeld 2 years ago
It is not the job of the US miltary to "liberate" other countries. The only job of the US military is to defend the United States and perhaps our allies. Iraq was clearly no threat to the United States or any of our allies.
Dragonfly6160 2 years ago 15
Amen. And thank you.
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It is the job of the US military to follow the lawful orders of the President of the US. The liberation of Iraq was such a lawful order as evidenced by the congressional resolution specifically authorized it.
The people we elected, in the executive and legislative branches disagreed with you and determined that Iraq did pose a threat.
Are you claiming possession of better information than they had?
nnjhansen 2 years ago
He/She might, but only in hindsight.
But, then again, "Hindsight is an excuse for the weak and feeble to blame the smart and the strong for their own shortcomings" - Will Rogers
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
if Iraq would have cooperated with our investigation they would have never had to have their asses whooped, instead saddam decided not to help and well the rest as they say "is history"
its weird to me that the attack on 911 is the same type of attack that "Awoke a sleeping giant" in '41 i guess my question would be "why are the libs trying to lul the giant"?
goes to show the change of the times, im just glad this group wasnt around in the 30s and 40s
Rainsdad 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
well said man well said
truescorpio14 2 years ago
Saddam was also connected to Tupak murder.
zartosht06 2 years ago
dont forget about jfk lol
beanbag1985 2 years ago
We have an expression on Wall Street: "He's a Cheney" It refers to someone who is consistently wrong about everything. See also "He's a Kudlow"
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If you work on Wall Street that explains much of the financial services meltdown. Do you perform your job with the same level of detail you have demonstrated here?
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Uh, actually, GOPer Boy, my firm did just fine.
We recognized early on that the fraud and speculation which was being fueled by the lack of oversight by you Bushees was unsustainable.
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago 4
In the real world, Cheney has zero crediblity. He has been wrong on just about everything, and his bloody mistakes have cost the United States and Iraq dearly. By the way, US intelligence agencies have concluded that there was no meeting between Mohammed Atta and Saddams intelligence service.
Dragonfly6160 2 years ago 10
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Liberating a nation of 25 million people from a ruthless dictator has a cost that is for sure. Of course failing to do so has one as well.
I love when leftists point to selected conclusions of intelligence agencies (no Prague meeting) as dispositive then trash leaders (Bush, Cheney) who make decisions based on conclusions made by those same agencies (WMD in Iraq).
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Wow Americans are Dumb
TheManSand322 2 years ago
Doesn't she know that saddam hussein hated al-qaeda? Bin Laden and that fool were not friends but enemies. Too bad ignorant americans see too middle eastern people and assume they have to be working together
crtnyevans 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
From the Iraqi Perspectives Project - Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents, published by the Joint Forces Command:
"Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden' s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives."
Why don't you read the report so you don't sound so ignorant.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Most of the people posting here aren't interested in facts, truth, or reasonable thinking. It's obvious from their comments they are more interested in personal attacks, bashing the Cheney's, and looking for straw men to burn.
brothermoon 2 years ago
Who is the Joint Forces command? Certaintly not saddam. So your point that other people made a relationship only validates my point even more. thanks for making yourself look ignorant
crtnyevans 2 years ago
Why don't you read the report? Afraid you might learn something?
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Apparently Liz and Dick Cheney are unaware that when they go on television that everything they are doing is being videotaped and recorded. Perhaps they honestly didn't know that things they said in the past (such as claims that Saddam Hussein had sent his agents to meet with Muhammad Attah in Prague before 9/11) could easily retrieved and played back for the public.
barada01 2 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Did you not hear what VP Cheney said? He specifically mentioned that there were reports that linked Atta to Iraqi intelligence but that those reports did not pan out and that was very publicly stated.
FWIW, Czech intelligence still stands by that report.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
I wish someone would collect all of the clips of Bush and Cheney connecting Saddams Iraq to al qaida and by implication 9-11.
Dragonfly6160 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Oh, so now we have given up claiming they said something. Now the charge is they IMPLIED it.
Maybe you just improperly inferred something.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
What a lying BITCH! You republiscum are lying failures.
RebelThoughts 2 years ago
how so? explain where she's lying or where the falsehood is. going back to words of the former VP, he always claimed a connection between AQ and Saddam, making Iraq an additional threat to the US. (that's the point that's debatable and should be argued here)
brothermoon 2 years ago
Cheney has been saying since they illegally invaded Iraq that Saddam did have a connection with Al-Qaeda which is NOT true! They are trying to revise history now so he doesnt go to jail for his war crimes.
RebelThoughts 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Are you unable to understand the distinction between saying Iraq was connected to 9/11 (which no one claims( and Iraq was connected to al Qaeda (which they were)?
Specifically how was the invasion of Iraq "illegal"?
What law was broken?
nnjhansen 2 years ago
well, specifically; I can't say that laws were actually broken- Hindsight is 20/20, and I believe that if the operation had been a success, we wouldn't have Obama. This comment comes to you from an Obama Supporter....
sighs...
motoian84 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The point of this video post is that Liz is saying her dad never said there was a connection between 9/11 & Saddam. I find nothing that says he did. His suspicion was a connection between Al Qaeda & Saddam. Since we were going after Al Qaeda, the concern was the hidden agenda of the Saddam regime. Google 'mother of all connections' for some interesting points. There's nothing 100% definitive to prove there was or wasn't . In hindsight, I think going into Iraq was imprudent.
brothermoon 2 years ago
Where's the lesbian sister? Does the GOP keep her under wraps to avoid exposing more conservative hypocrisy?
deathbotv1 2 years ago 5
lying comes so easily to these people. they're not normal. the ease with which they lie is indicative of a extreme narcissism.
ar4216 2 years ago 4
Just for the record, guys, nnjhansen is a paid Republican shill.
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago
To correct the record, AtlasShruggery is ignorant on the matters he speaks of. Both about me and about the issues discussed in this thread.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Give it up , GOPer Boy. You're busted. You're being paid by the Rethugs to defend their use of torture.
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Do you really live in such an echo chamber that you are unable to grasp the idea that someone may disagree with you without being paid to think that way?
That is pathetic.
If you really believe what was done was torture, the onus is on you to justify that position. If you had given this issue any serious thought, you would be able to intelligently discuss the questions I posed rather than trying to deflect with your weak ad hominem attacks.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
I'm sure the Republicans pay you well, GOPer boy. Defending torturers, obfuscating about historical events. Reagan's sales of missiles to the Iranian ayatollahs in exchange for hostages (Who can forget "We did not, repeat, did not trade arms for hostages") is completely seperate from his sales of chemical weapons to Iraq. Different pimps. Different timeframes. You know that as well as I do.
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Back to the ad hominem, I see.
No one denies that we sold TOW missiles to Iran. What does that have to do with selling chemical weapons to Iraq? If you have evidence that we gave Iraq chemical weapons, produce it.
What does any of this have to do with the issue at hand?
Are you going to answer the questions I posed? If not, I will assume you can't and wish you a good day.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
It's well documented the Reagan administration dealt chemicals to Saddam used to make chem weapons.
It's also well-documented that Cheney tried to tie Iraq to al Qaeda and 911.
I also watched him try to do it.
Anyone who claims otherwise is a propagandist and a traitor to America.
dickrumsfeld 2 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If it is so well documented, why don't you produce it?
There is no credible evidence that the US provided Iraq with chemical weapons.
Iraq was tied to al Qaeda. Read the Clinton DOJ indictment of Bin Laden and Clinton's justification for the 1998 Sudan bombing.
No one in the Bush Admin claimed Iraq was involved in 9/11.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
1)Obviously a Mid East leader like Saddam consorted with religious groups. That does not change the plainly evident truth he would not have supported a group whose sole purpose was to destroy secularized governments. I understand an obvious truth is not enough for you, thus I refer you to the highly publicized JFC report investigating said ties.
2)If you still think Abu Ghraib was an isolated incident at this point, you must be pretty thick. But it is good u recognize those actions as crimes
BigPurple121 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Did you actually read the JFC report or just the news stories about it?
What you may see as obvious truths may not be reflected in reality. The Taliban played host to al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is committed to first and foremost to the fall of the House of Saud. And yet, the Saudis were one of only two gov'ts to recognize the Taliban regime. Weird, huh?
What happened at Abu Ghraib had NOTHING to do with approved enhanced interrogation. In fact, the soldiers involved were not interrogators.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
After a rigorous investigation we find no evidence to support a claim any Ba'athist official in any way supported actions or operations of Al Qeada
A direct quote.
BigPurple121 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Why don't you try looking at the portions of the report dealing with Iraq's relationships with Egyptian Islamic Jihad and Bahrain's Army of Muhammad.
"Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives." A direct quote.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
What page & line?
BigPurple121 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Chapter IV, Section B, first paragraph (pg 42)
nnjhansen 2 years ago
You must find it astonishingly coincidental US soldiers were caught using blatantly illegal interrogation techniques, at the same time the White House was supporting enhanced interrogation.
BigPurple121 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Given that the enhanced interrogation authority was given to the CIA and the abuse at Abu Ghraib was committed by soldiers, there is no reason to believe that low ranking military police knew anything about the approved methods or that one had anything to do with the other. If you have information that links them, please provide it.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Low ranking military personnel would obviously be advised on interrogation by interrogators (CIA). Are you really so thick as to not see any connection?
Sorry I don't have unlimited access to secret military records, so irrefutable evidence will be a little difficult. However there have been leaks by ranking military officials on cases of rape in some of these legal interrogations.
Nice debating but I've got a shit ton of work piled on my desk. So I gotta get to it. Have a good one
BigPurple121 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The interrogators at Abu Ghraib were Army interrogators, not CIA.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
C'mon, GOPer boy, admit it, you were a staff puke lawyer who never saw combat or underwent SERE training. You're like Cheney and the rest of the Rethugs. You fancy yourself as some kinda Jack Bauer. You get off on the idea of torturing people.
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It is fairly common for someone who has been called on his ignorance to resort to ad hominem attacks.
You know nothing about me, my service, or my training. Pretending you do or pretending any of that matters does not really mask your complete lack of knowledge on this subject.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Here's the fundamental question, GOPer boy. Let's see if you have the balls to answer it forthrightly without hiding behind your code words and legalese:
Do you believe that water boarding is torture?
Not "Is it legal?" Not "Is it effective?" Do YOU, nnjhansen, believe that waterboarding is torture?
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
So you want an answer to a fundamentally legal question in a non-legal manner? Typical
If you are asking if waterboarding in the manner approved by the OLC and conducted by the CIA on terrorist detainees is torture, the answer is no.
If waterboarding were always torture you would have to then say we torture our own service members, which you have already admitted we don't.
So, the questions are back to you.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
You've really drunk the Koolaid, haven't you? We don't "torture our own service members on a regular basis" Where'd you get that one, Faux News? Certain members of the military undergo SERE training which includes the water torture that you GOPers cherish. Have you undergone such training, GOPer boy? There are many statutes which address torture. The 1994 act is but one of them. When president, Reagan was adamant that the mental tortures developed by the CIA after the Korean War be excluded.
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
That's right, we do not torture our own service members on a regular basis but we do waterboard them, don't we?
So, thank for for acknowledging your assertion that waterboarding is always torture was incorrect.
The only portion of the US Code that deals specifically with torture is 18 USC § 2340. It was passed in 1994 as the implementing legislature for US ratification of the Conventions Against Torture.
Why don't you just answer the questions?
nnjhansen 2 years ago
You GOPers never were very good at history. Reagan signed the Conventions Against Torture Act in 1988. It was ratified by the Senate in 1994.
"thank for for acknowledging your assertion that waterboarding is always torture"
I acknowledged no such thing. How 'bout you, GOPer boy, have you ever undergone SERE training? Or are you just another pontificating Republican chickenhawk?
Now you answer a question: Did Reagan ever claim that "trees cause more pollution than automobiles"?
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Along with ratification normally comes implementing legislation. The CAT is a not a self-executing treaty. In order for it to have any domestic applicability it must be accompanied by legislation passed by the Congress. That legislation is known as 18 USC § 2340. Read it and learn something.
The training I may or may not have received while on active duty is really not at issue nor are Reagan's views on trees, are they?
Answer the questions or be proven to be ignorant of what you speak.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Silly wingnut, Google is not a source. It is an internet search engine which allows us to locate source documents such as the ones which prove that Reagan traded missiles to the Iranian ayatollahs in exchange for hostages, sold chemical weapons to Saddam, praised murderous thugs like Osam bin Laden and said incredibly stupid things like "Trees cause more pollution than automobiles". He also ran the most corrupt administration in US history.
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Grow up. Reagan did approve the transfer of TOW missiles to Iran but that does not mean he sold chemical weapons to Iraq. He did not and there is no credible evidence that he did.
He also never praised Bin Laden, probably had never heard of him. He did praise the Afghan resistance but Bin Laden is not an Afghan, is he?
nnjhansen 2 years ago
"enhanced interrogation procedures. "
He's certainly learned to use the code language of the GOPers, hasn't he? At least have the balls to call it what it is: TORTURE. And let's be clear as to exactly why it was used: The Bushees were trying to get their prisoners to confess to a nonexistent connection between Saddam and Al-Qaida so they could justify their idiotic invasion of Iraq.
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Torture is a crime with specific elements. If you truly believe what was done was torture, maybe you would be willing to answer some specific questions:
What is the proper standard for "severe physical or mental pain or suffering"? Is torture under US law a general or specific intent crime? What is the difference between the two?
Answer these questions and then maybe you will have credibility when you claim what was done was torture.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Stop with the legalese, you pathetic wingnut shill. No matter how you lawyer it, water boarding is torture. You are defending the indefensible. Oh yeah, and wasn't it yer boy Ronald Reagan who pushed so hard to have "mental anguish" excluded from the definition of torture?
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Then we torture our own service members on a regular basis. Is that really your argument?
If you are going to accuse someone of breaking the law you should first have a clue of what the law is.
The applicable US statute was passed in 1994, Reagan had nothing to do with it.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Apparently, either nnjhansen hasn't learned about The Google yet or he's a GOPer shill who's bought into the Myth of Reagan and, therefore, is willing to lie about this stuff. He writes well, though.
Hey, nnhansen, while you're at it, google "Cars cause more pollution than automobiles" or "Facts are stupid things" for an additional sampling of the idiocy of corrupt Hollywood air head, Ronald Reagan.
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Apparently you haven't learned that not everything you read on the internet is true.
Google is not necessarily a reliable source.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
You idiots really think you can just rewrite history in the Information Age?!!
F tards!!! wake up already!!!
VetOrDie 2 years ago 2
Actually, there was another connection, Ronald Reagan. Reagan sold Saddam the chemical weapons that he used on the Kurds. Reagan also supported Al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden whom he referred to as "freedom fighters" who were "the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers" .
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Reagan never sold Saddam chemical weapons.
Reagan never supported al Qaeda (that organization was not formed until 1988) nor did the CIA send arms or money to the non-Afghan organizations fighting the Soviets. All CIA supported was routed through Pakistan's ISI which viewed the foreign fighters as a threat to their own influence in the resistance.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Yes he did! it was called Iran Contra and there is plenty of evidence that it transpired.
S1Genocide 2 years ago
The only evidence of a connection between Hussein and Al Qaeda is that Saddam hated them!!!
eckyboyo 2 years ago
Spin Bitch Spin !!!
Rotten fruit of Plague tree.
appatel 2 years ago
her name is really lez cheney
VirtualBilly 2 years ago
More lies,lies,lies and lies. Just fuck off.
quadfunk 2 years ago
ok did Clinton lie? Yes. Who did Clinton get his intelligence from? Bush 41 and Reagan. Were there any WMDs in Iraq? NO. Did Bush 41 bomb Iraq for 4 years and Clinton for 8 years bomb Iraq? Yes. By the time we invaded in 2003 was Iraq a threat after 12 years of bombing? NO.
S1Genocide 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Clinton got his intelligence from our national intelligence agencies led by people he appointed to lead them, not from Reagan or Bush. Iraq admitted to having WMD after the ceasefire in 1991. Saddam agreed to the terms of that ceasefire then breached them.
The overwhelming majority of the people we elected to decide whether or not Iraq remained a threat disagreed with your assertion that it was not.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
That doesn't support the fact that Reagan and Bush 41. (Side note Bush 41 was IN the CIA for years) didn't appoint people in the CIA and FBI and intelligence agencies to fit there NeoCon agendas.
S1Genocide 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
GHW Bush was Director of the CIA for a little less than a year.
Are you aware that Iran and Iraq are different countries? Reagan selling TOW's to Iran has nothing to do with selling chemical weapons to Iraq.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Both was done bud. Rumsfeld went to Iraq under Reagan and sold chemical weapons to Iraq to keep Iran in check.
S1Genocide 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I guess it would be too much to ask for a scintilla of proof to back up that ridiculous accusation?
The worst that can be said is a couple of US companies sold small amounts of thiodiglycol to Iraq. Thiodiglycol is not a chemical weapon agent, it can be used to make mustard gas but can also be used to make dyes and inks.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Hey GOPer Boy, Yesterday you tried to claim that this never happened. Let's face it, you Rethuglicans armed and funded both Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein as well as illegally selling missiles to the Iranian ayatollahs in exchange for hostages.
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What did I claim never happened?
The US never funded or armed Bin Laden.
The US never sold chemical weapons to Iraq.
If you have any credible evidence we did either, produce it. If you don't, you would serve yourself better by staying quiet. You just make yourself look stupid.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Why the FUCK is this bitch even making it onto networks?
Fuck the MSM
Khazule 2 years ago 3
the way we play with words to get ahead is incredibly destroying the constitution of every country in the world, to give way to A Corporation Planet Society. All financed by this girls Daddy and their private mercenary army outlets. Business is business, and they are in the business of killing civilians ?
Now she has to defend Daddy's sins ? they committed terrible crimes that are so terrible they cant just stop them, until they finish converting Irak and Afgan to a savage capitalism society
dddiegopan 2 years ago 2
I would have lied to keep my father from being tried as a war criminal also.
sachaput 2 years ago 2
There is plenty of irrefutable evidence of that
BigPurple121 2 years ago 3
Specifics?
nnjhansen 2 years ago
2003: Iraq has WMDs. There is irrefutable evidence!
2005: Iraq has ties with Al-Qaeda
2007: The United States doesn't torture!
2009: Torture made us safe --- I don't have time to look up exact language here is a progression of his some of his positions.
BigPurple121 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"2003: Iraq has WMDs. There is irrefutable evidence!"
Were Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore, Madeline Albright, George Tenet and dozens of other democrat members of Congress and the Clinton Admin lying when they said the same thing?
"2005: Iraq has ties with Al-Qaeda"
Again, see Clinton DOJ indictment of Bin Laden and reasons for bombing factory in Sudan in 1998.
"2007: The United States doesn't torture!
2009: Torture made us safe"
We did not torture.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
same old straw man argument
did clinton get us into a war with iraq?
you loose....you fucking asshat
brabon1 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I was sent to Kuwait a few times by Clinton to drop bombs on Iraq. So were we at war with Iraq?
Was Clinton lying when he told us why he sent us?
Bush and Clinton agreed on the threat, Bush just finished what Clinton wouldn't.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
did he send in ground troops?
israel bombed the nuke facility in iraq....were they at war?
there is a reason that soldiers are supposed to follow orders and not think....and you just proved it
oh, and didnt the repukes ream clinton for bombing iraq? yes they did
brabon1 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
So war requires ground troops?
Iraq and Israel have been in a state of war since 1948.
Which Republicans criticized Clinton for bombing Iraq? Were they criticizing the scale of the bombing or the rationale for it?
nnjhansen 2 years ago
2003Congress wasn't allowed to look at the CIA evidence, nor was the UN. Which is why we didn't recieve international support.
2005Bin Laden hated Hussein as well as all secularized islamic countries. There is no way the CIA, thus Bush/Cheney, didn't know of their relationship
We don't torture:Keeping someone awake for 5 days hanging upside down face in a pile of feces, then waterboarding them until they talk, is torture.
Wierd how u didn't defend Cheney, just baimed democrats.
BigPurple121 2 years ago 3
can't call them repugnuts for nothing -- when in doubt just blame a liberal for everything wrong with the universe. its called denial. and its pretty.
gisforgary 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Members of the congressional intelligence committees have and had access to all the intelligence that executive branch members had. You are just plain wrong on this.
The idea that secular Ba'athists would not cooperate with militant islamists was disproven by their cooperation in the Iraqi insurgency.
Who did we keep hanging upside down for 5 days in feces? The way waterboarding is done to our own service members in SERE training and the way it was done to the terrorists is NOT torture.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
lol, you're simply detached from reality.
The executive branch has commander & cheif access. If Congress had that why would they need to subpoena Oliver North?
If you don't know Hussein was a major separatist, you simply don't belong in a conversation with me. How about picking up some news from non-cable sources.
So you agree hanging upside down in feces for 5 days would be torture? There are pictures of this from Abu Ghraib of this very practice, which turns out was S.O.P
BigPurple121 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
1. Oliver North was NOT a member of an intelligence agency. He was a Marine on the NSC staff, that is a member of the White House staff not subject to congressional oversight.
2. Saddam was a ba'athist and a secularist but that did not prevent him from directly supporting al Qaeda affiliated groups like Bahrain's, the Army of Muhammad and Egyptian Islamic Jihad.
3. What happened at Abu Ghraib were crimes and had NOTHING to do with the approved enhanced interrogation procedures.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Why the hell is this chick always on "news" shows? How is she important or relevant in any way? She is the daughter of a former VP which means she knows approximitely jack shit.
luchamini 2 years ago
Brace yourself.. but I have heard here and there that she may be considering a run for office in 2012... After the Palin fiasco nothing would surprise me anymore. When will this stupidity ever end?
Smartassawhip 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Maybe she doesn't have any community organizing experience but she did spend may years in the State Department.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
It isn't her lack of experience that makes her a horrible choice.. it is her character.
Smartassawhip 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Right, can't have someone who forcefully articulates her beliefs.
Better to have someone who tries to be all things to all people.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Anyone can forcefully articulate their beliefs... but when their beliefs are based on lies it really doesn't matter. I don't know where you get off saying that Obama tries to be all things to all people when he has done several things that have been in opposition to many people because he thought it was the right thing to do. I would much rather have someone in office that gives serious matters some thought rather than someone who is simply power hungry and trigger happy.
Smartassawhip 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Really? What are Obama's serious thoughts on renditions, national security wiretaps, military commissions, indefinite confinement of terrorists?
Does he believe torture is a specific or general intent crime?
Seems to me he loudly opposed those things in the campaign or attempted to make people believe he did then just quietly maintained the Bush policies when he got into office.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
It isn't over yet... time will tell... but no matter what he does the right will never be satisfied and they are the ones who opposed to any change what so ever in policy and that is why they fight him on every issue every step of the way and have done nothing supportive what so ever. Back to the initial subject.. I personally hope she does run because it will make for a very interesting election to say the least.
Smartassawhip 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What isn't over yet?
Obama has done nothing to try to include Republicans in any policy or legislative decisions so why wouldn't they oppose those decisions?
Obama talks a good "post-partisan" game but he is much more partisan than Bush ever was.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
you are a stupid blind fool. please post elsewhere from now on. have a good day!
gisforgary 2 years ago
His time in office is not over yet... and I have seen him invite the Republicans to be involved numerous times... they simply don't bring anything to the table.
Smartassawhip 2 years ago 5
exactly! the gop-hawks whine like babies and are not capable of even providing any solutions. they put the party and themselves ahead of the "will of the people"
i hope they get replaced by a more caring and less self-serving political party, preferably headed by Ron Paul
stephen732 2 years ago
She's a flat-out liar, just as her asshole father is...
kac56 2 years ago
Maybe you like to point us to an example of when Cheney or anyone in the Bush Administration claimed Iraq or Saddam was involved in 9/11? There is plenty of evidence that there were links between Iraq and al Qaeda including the indictment the Clinton DOJ prepared against Bin Laden. Take a look at the reasons Clinton gave for bombing the factory in the Sudan in Aug 1998.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
hey Liz, your dad is an asshole & a lier
RiotActI 2 years ago 3
talk about trying to re-write history!
FattKidd 2 years ago 2
she is all the evil with none of the mastermind
calgore21 2 years ago 2
why dont news orgs have vid tape ready to roll when these asshats open their mouths to lie
and liz cheney is an evil little cunt
a chip off daddy's shoulder
bet he is proud
let them both share the same jail cell
brabon1 2 years ago 2
yeah, I wish there was an easy way for us to browse news clips of past, kind of like a historic newstub.
allanxxx99 2 years ago
Would someone please tell this lying cow to go mow somewhere else. Liz SHUT UP!!!!
ushadrons 2 years ago
Well, that's a Cheney for you...Trying to misdirect and change the story line. However, her assertion the Saddam had something to do with Al Quaeda is not and NEVER was true. We are in Iraq because of BIG OIL!!!!
SLAVEforLISA 2 years ago
Another example of those morally superior conservatives. Lying through their goddamn teeth as usual. I can't they have the fucking audacity to lie to the American public. "If we don't admit to it, it never happened!" Any self-respecting journalists would call these mother fuckers out in an instant. The media is bullshit.
cholofawkes 2 years ago
Do Republicans think everyone is stupid. Who believes this cunt?
chinacat22 2 years ago
I sure as hell don't believe her
richie19190 2 years ago 2
Someone shoot him in the face, quickly!
carrierexchange 2 years ago
saddam and al qaeda? or saddam and 911? right! thats like saying fox news has nothing to do with wealthy investors but they might have something to do with rich people IT MAKES SENSE!
lordangel5 2 years ago 4
i think im bleeding from slamming my head against the wall too many times after hearing this dumbass speak
FDASARO 2 years ago
Does Liz know that americans actually knows how to use GOOGLE? Theirs tons of evidence on google, and this bitch can lie with a straight face.....like daddy like daughter.
faifaalelei 2 years ago
Yea like google and the internet has no bs info on it give me a break.
C0mm0nS3ns3 2 years ago
Hey numbnuts, The internet has numerous of information that people can determine whats real and whats not. Not just on the internet, but its been repeatedly said by the bush administration over the past years, where the fuck have you been?....Give me a fuckin break.
faifaalelei 2 years ago
It's the insult to our intelligence that really angers me about these people. Does she think we're still living in the days of the printing press?
quinn2469 2 years ago
to Quinn2469
"she think we're still living in the days of the printing press? " Right on !
OMG - you got me laughing so loud and hard, I look crazy :D:D
NekoKurimu 2 years ago
LOL! I agree with you 100%, But dont let it get you all worked up, Truth will always prevail no matter what. ;-).
faifaalelei 2 years ago
doesn't this statement kill any credibility she had?
SgtMcCuddles 2 years ago
Liz Cheney 2012!
WKaliberr 2 years ago
the unfortunate aspect of it all is that in time history will blame BUSH for it all when in reality it was others (rumsfeld, cheney, tenet, etc . . .) who shaped our course in history during that period.
in a weird way; i feel sorry for george bush
jarmtx 2 years ago
Who is on crack? Oh, Liz Cheney!!
ragetony 2 years ago
Why is anyone listening to Cheney and his brats? He was VICE president. I guess though that they cannot control the babbling Bush to keep anything straight. Funny how Bush does not know what happened in those 8 years.
Mychaels 2 years ago
Lying sack of turds..... There is no connection between Saddam and Al-Quada.
ipxzor 2 years ago
any dumbass youtuber can see multiple times where cheney DID say there is a connection between saddam and 9-11 -- WTF is she talking about he said those exact words A LOT
on a slightly different note why is Liz Cheney all of a sudden everywhere in the media???
jarmtx 2 years ago 2
Yes. Why is she in the media again. Maybe they're prepping her to run in 2012.
alltherestaretaken 2 years ago
they're not prepping her very well. She's already blatantly lying between every breath and aligning herself with one of the most unpopular figures in the Republican Party.
tustruman 2 years ago