Asked about Two-Thirds of Americans Opposition to War, Cheney says 'So?'

.....Further benefits of preferred Stock Options

#2 Halliburton Charged with Selling Nuclear Technologies to Iran
Source:

Global Research.ca, August 5, 2005
Title: “Halliburton Secretly Doing Business With Key Member of Iran’s Nuclear Team”
Author: Jason Leopold

According to journalist Jason Leopold, sources at former Cheney company Halliburton allege that, as recently as January of 2005, Halliburton sold key components for a nuclear reactor to an Iranian oil development company. Leopold says his Halliburton sources have intimate knowledge of the business dealings of both Halliburton and Oriental Oil Kish, one of Iran’s largest private oil companies.

UPDATE BY JASON LEOPOLD
During a trip to the Middle East in March 1996, Vice President Dick Cheney told a group of mostly U.S. businessmen that Congress should ease sanctions in Iran and Libya to foster better relationships, a statement that, in hindsight, is completely hypocritical considering the Bush administration’s foreign policy.

“Let me make a generalized statement about a trend I see in the U.S. Congress that I find disturbing, that applies not only with respect to the Iranian situation but a number of others as well,” Cheney said. “I think we Americans sometimes make mistakes . . . There seems to be an assumption that somehow we know what’s best for everybody else and that we are going to use our economic clout to get everybody else to live the way we would like.”

Cheney was the chief executive of Halliburton Corporation at the time he uttered those words. It was Cheney who directed Halliburton toward aggressive business dealings with Iran—in violation of U.S. law—in the mid-1990s, which continued through 2005 and is the reason Iran has the capability to enrich weapons-grade uranium.
It was Halliburton’s secret sale of centrifuges to Iran that helped get the uranium enrichment program off the ground, according to a three-year investigation that includes interviews conducted with more than a dozen current and former Halliburton employees
www.projectcensored.org...

[edit on 20-3-2008 by scrapple]

I think this is what was left out of the interview right after he said, "So?"

Dick...shake shake...Dick...wake up...yes, yes, you were dreaming about being back in your office at Halliburton, where you could hire and fire at will, no pun intended, Dick, and ignore your employees' opinions... hahaha...but, Dick, you're leader of a country, not a corporation...oh, no difference to you? Well, most Americans would disagree with you...No, Dick, I wouldn't call it an opinion, or fluctuation...
We'll be right back after this...Dick, Dick...No! You cant' say "Go **** yourselves!" to the American people on air!... No, you weren't dreaming of your encounter with Senator Leahy. You're wide awake...For the love of God, Dick, no more excuses!...

reply to post by DimensionalDetective
Of course they don't care,they answer to the higher powers and I don't mean god,as long as thier masters are happy they don't care.

Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by NorthWolfe CND

 

Let me ask.

Since you say that we didn't look into the political base.

Was going to Iraq for war part of their political base when running?

I highly doubt it....at least not openly.

Not directly, no. But the Bush Administration was supported, and included the so called neo conservitives, which defended the use of military power in various places, including Iraq. You can visit the Project For The New American Century website to see what their plans were, since 1994, and still are. There you can also see the members of this think-tank, most of whom where in the original Bush Administration. They are not hiding in the dark, nor are their political views. Various Democrats alerted to this agenda during both elections but it was considered irrelevant by the voters who preferred to vote based on looks, religious beliefs or on "The candidate that seemed more presidential on TV".

For further enlightenment please visit www.newamericancentury.org...

Besides that Bush was elected twice. If you can cast some doubts over the first election, although unfounded, the second election, against Kerry, was won by a landslide. The second election, I remind you, was in 2004. So, where were the 2/3 then?

The "So" comment is taken out of context. She didn't even ask a question, she made a statement. In this context, and for those who know the language, the "So?" is meant as "So? What is your point?"; or "So? What is your question?"
He wasn't referring to the pole but to the ABC's reporter agenda, was it a question? Was it an affirmation? What in the hell did she want?
When she later made the question he answered it in an honest manner.

Originally posted by jsobecky
The administrative doesn't pass bills. The legislative does.

The President chooses to pass or veto. The Vice President does what, again?

They are all responsible for their decisions, words, and actions. Don't mitigate that, and don't deflect.

This board is overwhelmingly liberal. Sorry if you can't accept that fact.

If you're going to be divisive and make this about us v. them, please leave. Door is to your left. If you want to actually discuss the responsibilities that public figures have, stop making this a partisan affair.

You're dancing around here. If you cannot admit that a common theme here is that the US is arrogant and selfish and does not care what the rest of the world thinks, then you are naive. I suggest you do some reading before you make such statements.

The US? Okay, again. We're discussing those in our representative government. We aren't making this about the people, because the people aren't the ones abusing their power and position. I'm addressing the real topic, and calling you on your deflections. This isn't about parties or the United States, this is about Mr. Dick.

Personal responsibility for your behavior falls squarely upon you, a CONSERVATIVE principal.

Do YOU not get that?

You danced around the question again and failed to answer it, again. I realize that if you answered it you would have to be honest and acknowledge that what I said was true. Instead you babble about some philosophical goal and avoid the real truth completely.

Your question was meaningless distraction. It doesn't matter what we expect of Politicians, personal responsibility matters. We can expect the hell out of politicians being scumbags and deceivers, and we can expect the hell out of them to be unmoving, stubborn egotists. That doesn't even matter.

By making any argument "Well, they all do it, so why do you care about him?" you mitigate the reality and attempt to deflect the subject by saying it ISN'T a subject to complain about.

So your question isn't worth answering, since it was a rhetorical attempt at doing this.

This is about Dick. Not about other politicians, not about what everyone else does. This isn't about Republican V. Democrat. This isn't about THE BIAS OF THE BOARD. This isn't about YOU. This is about Dick.

And Dick demonstrates by his actions, words, and deeds that he is undeserving of public office, respect, or power.

First off 'So' long pause, was indeed the first thing out of his mouth, saw interview today.

So, I guess I shouldn't care when he gets strung up by his big toes like an overstuffed pinatta. Government by the the people for the people. Not no more.

Originally posted by [color=33FFFF]TheColdDragon
This is about Dick. Not about other politicians, not about what everyone else does. This isn't about Republican V. Democrat. This isn't about THE BIAS OF THE BOARD. This isn't about YOU. This is about Dick.

And Dick demonstrates by his actions, words, and deeds that he is undeserving of public office, respect, or power.

QFT!!

FTW!!

Originally posted by [color=FF66FF]SaviorComplex
...if one were to watch the nightly news, one could make the determination that the Iraq War isn't important; a recent study found a staggering drop in how often Iraq is covered..

Now that's a fallacious argument!

It's well known the "news" distributed by the MSM is first and foremost, entertainment, calculated to appeal to the target demographic of their advertisers.

Anyone who relies exclusively on the MSM for their information is being manipulated and deceived.

It's an established fact that those who control the media, control what's disseminated, according to their agenda.

Whatever the PTB behind the MSM want foremost on the minds of the masses will be featured, not according to what's most vital to the masses, but what's important to the PTB.

The question should be; why is a useless war that's bleeding dry the faltering American economy and enriching the self-appointed few, less important than the daily political circus of the extended U.S. "elections?"

Is it because the boring old war sells less happy meds and Big Macs?

Originally posted by [color=FF66FF]SaviorComplex
...if we should leave Iraq based on public opinion, we should have also invaded due to public opinion. ABC News found that 62% of Americans supported the war at the on set; by April that number increased to 78%. If the war had been adverted, would you then say that Bush/Cheney should be impeached for not following the whim of public opinion then?

Again, fallacy.

We all know, now, that the "evidence" for war was cooked, based upon deception, to further the greed of the self-appointed few, and the MSM were complicit.

Bush/Cheney should be impeached for their tangible manipulation of public opinion by the use of documented and voluminous deceptions in the support of their greedy self-interests and those of their handlers.

To compare opinions based upon lies with opinions predicated upon the true will of the people, is disingenuous at best. :shk:

Originally posted by [color=CC9900]jsobecky

Originally posted by [color=66CC00]goosdawg

For shame, jsobecky, for shame! :shk:

Thanks for the laugh goosdawg! That hasn't worked since the old hens tried it when I was a kid! Wearing their shawls and babushkas and clucking their tongues.

Which serves to underscore my point about Bush/Cheney; when it comes to dishonorable acts, some people are simply shameless. :shk:

Thank you!

And, you're welcome.




[edit on 21-3-2008 by goosdawg]

We can always count on goosdawg to cut to the bone on most any matters with a satirical style that always makes me smile. Well done my friend. Kudos

Originally posted by goosdawg
Now that's a fallacious argument!

Anyone who relies exclusively on the MSM for their information is being manipulated and deceived.

How is this a fallacious argument? The only thing you've done is make an argument that the majority of the American people are idiots (but like rest of the arrogant fools on ATS -- you're better than them, right?).

Originally posted by goosdawg
It's an established fact that those who control the media, control what's disseminated, according to their agenda.

Actually, this is a fallacious argument; it doesn't make one bit of sense. If this shadowy-cabal is controlling the media to fit their agenda, why was the news over the past five years from Iraq overwhelmingly negative? If they were controlling the dissemination to fit a certain agenda, it would have been nothing but flowers and perfume from Baghdad.

Originally posted by goosdawg
The question should be; why is a useless war that's bleeding dry the faltering American economy and enriching the self-appointed few, less important than the daily political circus of the extended U.S. "elections?"

If your argument held any weight, whatsoever, this would have been the case for the past five years; it wouldn't be a current phenomena. The 1% coverage would have been the norm then, not now.

Originally posted by goosdawg
Is it because the boring old war sells less happy meds and Big Macs?

You're getting closer to the truth. But not quite.

Originally posted by goosdawg
We all know, now, that the "evidence" for war was cooked, based upon deception, to further the greed of the self-appointed few, and the MSM were complicit.

To compare opinions based upon lies with opinions predicated upon the true will of the people, is disingenuous at best.

Who is to determine what is the "true" public opinion and what is not? Is it predicated just on the public opinion you agree with?

If you look at the links I provided, the CNN/Gallup poll of May 30 - June 1 03, 56% of the American believed the war was justified, whether or not WMD were found. One can only determine that these Americans did not care about the truth of WMDs, they thought the war was right. What changed their opinion?

It's because public opinion is fair-weather. No one can argue the news from Iraq over the proceeding months and years was overwhelming negative. Had the situation not bordered on anarchy, had there not been thousands of American deaths, public opinion on the Iraq War would be far, far different.

Even if there is such thing as "true public opinion," who is to say, at the time of the opinion, what is "true" or not. Only history could tell us.

reply to post by TheColdDragon

Originally posted by TheColdDragon

Originally posted by jsobecky
The administrative doesn't pass bills. The legislative does.

The President chooses to pass or veto. The Vice President does what, again?

They are all responsible for their decisions, words, and actions. Don't mitigate that, and don't deflect.

You call it deflection, I call it correcting your mistakes.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
If you're going to be divisive and make this about us v. them, please leave. Door is to your left.

You're the one who is making this divisive. You want a unanimous "Hate Bushco" party. Anyone who disagrees with you becomes your enemy.

There's the door. Don't let it hit ya where the Good Lord split ya!

Originally posted by TheColdDragon

The US? Okay, again. We're discussing those in our representative government. We aren't making this about the people, because the people aren't the ones abusing their power and position.

You need to work on your reading comprehension. Seriously. You're unable to follow a discussion.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
This isn't about parties or the United States, this is about Mr. Dick.

See, that's where you're wrong. You're accusing him of high crimes and misdemeanors when there isn't a shred of evidence, just because you don't like him. And anyone that disagrees with you is "divisive" and not part of your "Hate Bushco" cabal.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
Personal responsibility for your behavior falls squarely upon you, a CONSERVATIVE principal.

Tsk, tsk, now who's being divisive? Pot/kettle etc. Shame. For shame!:shk:

You danced around the question again and failed to answer it, again. I realize that if you answered it you would have to be honest and acknowledge that what I said was true. Instead you babble about some philosophical goal and avoid the real truth completely.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
Your question was meaningless distraction. It doesn't matter what we expect of Politicians, personal responsibility matters. We can expect the hell out of politicians being scumbags and deceivers, and we can expect the hell out of them to be unmoving, stubborn egotists. That doesn't even matter.

Your answer makes no sense at all. You're blocking!

Either it matters what Cheney said or it it doesn't. Make up your mind.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
This is about Dick. Not about other politicians, not about what everyone else does. This isn't about Republican V. Democrat. This isn't about THE BIAS OF THE BOARD. This isn't about YOU. This is about Dick.

And Dick demonstrates by his actions, words, and deeds that he is undeserving of public office, respect, or power.

The problem is he has everything you want: power, money, high office, respect. Jealousy will eat away at your core if you let it. You should calm down and accept that.

Here. I dug this out just for you.

reply to post by goosdawg


I think Savior Complex is right, goosedawg. The polls said what they said. It doesn't matter if the data was cooked or not (it wasn't, imo).

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Actually, this is a fallacious argument; it doesn't make one bit of sense. If this shadowy-cabal is controlling the media to fit their agenda, why was the news over the past five years from Iraq overwhelmingly negative?

Because bad news is good business, bad news means good money. Because people watch things that give them something to complain about and the MSM know that they can sell more advertising to people if they are critical of the War.

Back during Vietnam, a few broadcasts of the graphic violence were viewed on television... showing the REAL horrors of wars and such. The backlash of such imagery was palpable, and to this day, Media people know to drum up bad news without giving any real visual representation for it. Reality shocks the mind, and doesn't help turn a profit.

That being said, the owners of the MSM recognized quite astutely that broadcasting Ron Paul's opinions were bad for business in the long term. Giving any sort of fuel to that sort of fire may have secured an actual nomination, and even if it was a remote threat, it was one that would have dire consequences for the owners and Profiteers of the MSM as well as their advertisers.

So, Paul was blacklisted. The easiest way to understand "THE CONSPIRACY" when it concerns the MSM is to understand greed at it's core.


If they were controlling the dissemination to fit a certain agenda, it would have been nothing but flowers and perfume from Baghdad.


When I rarely tune into television news, I tend to get the impression that they believe things are going well, and improvements are being made. I don't recall, in several years, them being overly critical about the war. I think the criticality often comes from non-standard sources such as the Internet.

Much hullabaloo was made about the quick American Victory over Saddam's forces in Iraq, I clearly recall.

If your argument held any weight, whatsoever, this would have been the case for the past five years; it wouldn't be a current phenomena. The 1% coverage would have been the norm then, not now.

--

"There was a time not long ago when each and every day at 6 O'clock each evening we knew news was on it's way; With anchors of integrity and three channels to choose, it's what we called the News"

"Then along came cable and the ratings race ensued; Great Legends found themselves replaced by blonde's with big fake boobs. Debate replaced with punditry, politically skewed; It's what we call the news."

"We interrupt this story which is coming from Iraq; Cuz Rosie's suing Donald, Donald's Suing Rosie Back. We're Cutting from Darfur, we're in Des Moines with Urgent news; There's a finger in my food!"

"Guitar strings, titles, sound effects with Graphics everywhere! Breaking news each minute in the rush to get on air! With scandals, dramas, tragedies and Mindless Ballyhoo that's turned our brains to goo!"

--

The Media is a joke. It really does cater to the lowest common denominator. It exists to sell ideas and products, nothing more... it certainly doesn't exist to convey the truth of anything.

Who is to determine what is the "true" public opinion and what is not? Is it predicated just on the public opinion you agree with?

If you look at the links I provided, the CNN/Gallup poll of May 30 - June 1 03, 56% of the American believed the war was justified, whether or not WMD were found. One can only determine that these Americans did not care about the truth of WMDs, they thought the war was right. What changed their opinion?
[/quite]

I think he was trying to convey that the opinion was fabricated through lies. As I stated before, any Representative must consider all factors, including public opinion, and make decisions as to what is best for the US citizens... even if that includes disagreeing with them.

That being said, the other 44% of people were going, "Wait, what? Why are we going to war with Iraq, are you stupid?" And that's very close to 1/2 the country.

It's because public opinion is fair-weather. No one can argue the news from Iraq over the proceeding months and years was overwhelming negative. Had the situation not bordered on anarchy, had there not been thousands of American deaths, public opinion on the Iraq War would be far, far different.

From my recollection, the news coming from Iraq was anything but Negative a majority of the time. Occasionally you'd get news about a bomb going off, or something else terrible happening. Mostly, the news focused on mindless Ballyhoo.

Even if there is such thing as "true public opinion," who is to say, at the time of the opinion, what is "true" or not. Only history could tell us.

Having responded thus far to your comments, I feel the power of Christ Compelling me (Though he needs more Cowbell) that your argument, like JSObecky's, is a scattershot effort to obfuscate the ACTUAL TOPIC at hand; The Dick's uncaring callousness and personal gluttony for power and wealth.

Iraq is not benefiting the United States. Nobody has refuted the three times I have said that.

God Bless Dick "Haliburton" Cheney.

Leaders "LEAD"........cowards follow polls. Polling of the mass of sheep in the counrty is the dumbest thing ever. It is not democractic to govern by polls. It is cowardice. The masses are easily swayed by media morons. The only poll that counts is the electoral college.

Originally posted by jsobecky
You call it deflection, I call it correcting your mistakes.

Arguing semantics isn't contributory. ALL people are responsible for their decisions, even Politicians. You were deflecting this sentiment.

Originally posted by jsobecky
You're the one who is making this divisive. You want a unanimous "Hate Bushco" party. Anyone who disagrees with you becomes your enemy.

I don't care if you disagree with me or not, make a compelling argument. Don't divert the argument into meaningless distractions meant to subvert it into an entirely different topic.

I'm not for hating anyone, but I am for accountability in our democratic system. On both sides of the aisle. It is frustrating to have people come into a topic and make a bunch of inane arguments which have nothing to do with the actual matter at hand, attacking public opinion OR people's biases OR the nebulous "OTHER" for being of a different political bent than the speaker.

Unless you mean to tell me that Dick Cheney has not demonstrated on countless occasions that he is a callous, selfish individual who's only interests extend to his pocketbook and what power he has.

Originally posted by jsobecky
You need to work on your reading comprehension. Seriously. You're unable to follow a discussion.

You were insinuating the Nebulous "THE USA IS TERRIBLE" meme, which this conversation has nothing to do with, which I did not say, and which I have not seen said by anyone except you. You are distracting from the topic by trying to attack anything but the arguments presented; whether it's the people commenting for being "LIBERAL" (As you were insinuating that the entire board swings Left, which also proposes that you do not and are somehow in the minority), or that we shouldn't complain over Dick's misbehavior because politicians are know for ignoring popular opinion and sticking with the way they've behaved previously, however corrupt.

Originally posted by jsobecky
See, that's where you're wrong. You're accusing him of high crimes and misdemeanors when there isn't a shred of evidence, just because you don't like him. And anyone that disagrees with you is "divisive" and not part of your "Hate Bushco" cabal.

No... evidence? Profiteering, Deception and Power games? Seriously, are we talking about the SAME Dick Cheney or have you not been paying attention for the past Eight Years?

I must confess Credulity as to your assertion. As for you again trying to use an Ad Hominem to deflect the conversation to ME and MY views, as well as insinuate that I'm some sort of Hatemonger who can't view objective reality... how about you actually address the sins of Richard "DICK" Cheney, rather than the people in the forum?

Originally posted by jsobecky
Tsk, tsk, now who's being divisive? Pot/kettle etc. Shame. For shame!:shk:

I don't believe pointing out that all people are responsible for their decisions is divisive in the least. It baffles me as to how you can say it is.

Your answer makes no sense at all. You're blocking!

Either it matters what Cheney said or it it doesn't. Make up your mind.

You were arguing it didn't matter, citing other politicians as your case in the form of a question.

It's an inane question, you meant it rhetorically, and it doesn't matter what other politicians do or don't do.

The problem is he has everything you want: power, money, high office, respect. Jealousy will eat away at your core if you let it. You should calm down and accept that.

Here. I dug this out just for you.

Aaah, so I'm JEALOUS now. Stop making this about me, you, or some intangible enemy here on the board which doesn't exist. Stop focusing on your uninformed opinion of who I am, insinuating things about me, and address the comments rather than inferring you know the first damn thing about anyone and their biases.

It is your kind of arguing that purposely divides people into categorical minutiae and disregards the topic at hand in favor of addressing the people in the topic. That is a distraction.

Dick's word's portray a lack of concern for the American Public Opinion. The Public Opinion DOES Matter, but it is NOT the only thing to consider when making tough decisions. This isn't a tough Decision for Dick, when it should be. Iraq is not benefiting the United States, aside from whatever oil it is bringing to our shores... which does NOT offset the costs of the War itself.


[edit on 21-3-2008 by TheColdDragon]

Originally posted by jsobecky
Here. I dug this out just for you.

It's my turn to thank you for the laugh!

Now that's funny right there!

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by goosdawg

 

I think Savior Complex is right, goosedawg. The polls said what they said. It doesn't matter if the data was cooked or not (it wasn't, imo).

Savior Complex can't compose a response without resorting to fallacies and digressive ad hominem attacks, but we can tell he's right; right wing, that is.



And kids believe in the Easter bunny, until they discover the truth.

Even after the truth is revealed, some of them will continue to act like they believe, just to get the candy.

It wasn't the polls data that was falsified - so far as we know - but it was the manipulation of the data fed to the public through the SCLM that cooked the opinions recorded by the polls.

Here's the proof:

President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.

On at least 532 separate occasions (in speeches, briefings, interviews, testimony, and the like), Bush and these three key officials, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan, stated unequivocally that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them), links to Al Qaeda, or both. This concerted effort was the underpinning of the Bush administration's case for war.

It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to Al Qaeda. This was the conclusion of numerous bipartisan government investigations, including those by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (2004 and 2006), the 9/11 Commission, and the multinational Iraq Survey Group, whose "Duelfer Report" established that Saddam Hussein had terminated Iraq's nuclear program in 1991 and made little effort to restart it.

In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003. Not surprisingly, the officials with the most opportunities to make speeches, grant media interviews, and otherwise frame the public debate also made the most false statements, according to this first-ever analysis of the entire body of prewar rhetoric.

The Center For Public Integrity | The War Card | Orchestrated Decption on the Path to War

Here's a chart from the above report that's easy to digest:



Notice how the lies peak just prior to the beginning of the war and how, with the subjugation of Iraq's forces going smoothly early on, they taper off as the approval ratings soar.

Guess you don't need to lie as much when you've got everybody snowed and things are going your way, right?

But we all know what happened after "Mission Accomplished," don't we. :shk:

Just to underscore a point:

That's 935 documented falsehoods in three years.

And these clowns don't deserve to be sanctioned and impeached?

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by goosdawg

 

I think Savior Complex is right, goosedawg. The polls said what they said. It doesn't matter if the data was cooked or not (it wasn't, imo).

A high-ranking military officer reveals how Defense Department extremists suppressed information and twisted the truth to drive the country to war.

By Karen Kwiatkowski

dir.salon.com...

(My edit) As goosdawg has pointed out the above article was written in 2004. Thank you.

[edit on 21-3-2008 by scrapple]

Originally posted by scrapple

A high-ranking military officer reveals how Defense Department extremists suppressed information and twisted the truth to drive the country to war.

ERR which war? less than 10% of the colonies wanted the revolutionary war.

How about the civil war.

Heck, pick a war, such a statement can be made on any war..........

Its like saying "watch out water might be wet"

It seems a little tense in here. I would ask everyone to give a second thought to civility when posting, to make sure that things don't get carried away to the detriment of the topic. It really makes me cringe when somebody has to label the entire ATS membership (presumably himself included, because consistency is important) as morons, as if that were a valid rhetorical device.

In short, let's disagree without being disagreeable. Thanks.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
When I rarely tune into television news, I tend to get the impression that they believe things are going well, and improvements are being made. I don't recall, in several years, them being overly critical about the war...

I worked in a media-based company, and have since the start of the war. In my day-to-day duties, I watch hours upon hours of news broadcasts. I can tell you from experience it was vastly negative. However, I know this is ancedotal evidence at best, so I don't expect you to take my word for it.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
a your argument, a scattershot effort to obfuscate the ACTUAL TOPIC at hand; The Dick's uncaring callousness and personal gluttony for power and wealth.

On the contrary, I was responding to the idea that a politician who does not follow the whim of public opinion should be impeached. That is all, I was not saying I agreed or disagreed with what Cheney did, or the Iraq War.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
Iraq is not benefiting the United States. Nobody has refuted the three times I have said that.

That is because I am not arguing whether the Iraq War was justified or not, or whether it was benefiting the United States.

Originally posted by goosdawg
Savior Complex can't compose a response without resorting to fallacies and digressive ad hominem attacks, but we can tell he's right; right wing, that is.

Would you care to tell us how you came to that determination? What demonstratable evidence is there that I am any wing?