Author Topic: Rush Interviews Cheney  (Read 4838 times)

Mr. Intenseone

  • Guest
Rush Interviews Cheney
« on: April 05, 2007, 06:13:30 PM »
RUSH: As mentioned and as promised, we welcome back to the EIB Microphone -- it's always a great privilege to have the vice president, Dick Cheney, with us. Mr. Vice President, welcome once again to our program.
 
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you, Rush. It's good to be back on.
 
RUSH: I can imagine. Now, let's start talking about the supplemental funding bill for Iraq. I have to tell you something that I heard last night as I'm watching some of the cable news network shows. Some of the Democrats and Democrat commentators, are saying publicly now they expect that the president is eventually going to back off the veto threat because he will he will eventually realize that he cannot be seen as de-funding the troops.
 
THE VICE PRESIDENT: No, he has been very, very firm in his insistence, Rush, that if they send him a bill with limitations on his ability to function as commander-in-chief or restrictions on the troops or with a withdrawal date that in effect would tell our enemies we're going to quit, he will veto it. He's also said the same thing if the bills are loaded up with pork on non-essential spending. So he's been very, very clear. No one should be mistaken about that.
 
RUSH: Where do you think this is going to go? The Democrats don't seem to be in any hurry to have this go to conference, have a final bill voted upon, and then sent up to the White House for the veto. How long is this going to take, do you suspect?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I hope it only takes a couple of weeks. You know, they all took off for vacation as soon as they passed the bills, but so far the House hasn't even appointed conferees, and they're gonna be out next week as well, too. The Senate is coming back next week.
 
RUSH: You and the president both, have derided the theatrics of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and a number of the Democrats, and I don't know if you're being politic with the statement because I, frankly, need to ask you if you really think it's "theatrics" or is this who they really are? Is this what they really intend: to lose this war, to make sure we come home defeated?
 
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that the policies that they are recommending would in fact produce that result. I've got some friends on the other side of the aisle, and I don't want question everybody's motives. I do believe that a significant portion of the Democrats -- including, I think, Nancy Pelosi -- are adamantly opposed to the war and prepared to pack it in and come home in defeat, rather than put in place or support a policy that will lead to victory.
 
RUSH: Do you understand that?
 
THE VICE PRESIDENT: That's the fundamental difference.
 
RUSH: Can you share with us whether or not you understand their devotion, or their seeming allegiance, to the concept of US defeat?
 
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I can't. It seems to me so abundantly clear, Rush, that we really need to prevail in this conflict, that there's an awful lot riding on it. It's not just about Iraq. It's about our efforts in the global war on terror, and that entire part of the world, affects what's going on in Iran where we're trying to make sure they don't develop a nuclear weapon. You can imagine the extent to which the Iranians would be heartened in that effort, if they see us withdraw from Iraq next door. We got Musharraf and Pakistan and Karzai in Afghanistan, who put their lives on the line every day, in effect, supporting our efforts to deal with the extremists and the terrorists in part of the world. If they say us bail out in Iraq they clearly would lose confidence in our capacity to carry through and get the job done. So, it's absolutely essential we do it. I don't know what the motive is. They seem to think that we can withdraw from Iraq and walk away from it. They ignore the lessons of the past. Remember what happened in Afghanistan. We'd been involved in Afghanistan in the eighties, supporting the Mujahideen against the Soviets and prevailed. We won. Everybody walked away, and in the nineties, Afghanistan became a safe haven for terrorists, an area for training camps where Al-Qaeda trained 20,000 terrorists in the late nineties, and the base from which they launched attacks on the United States on 9/11. So those are very real problems, and to advocate withdrawal from Iraq at this point, it seems to me, simply would play right into the hands of Al-Qaeda.
 
RUSH: It may not just be Iraq. Yesterday I read that Ike Skelton, who chairs -- I forget the name of the committee -- in the next defense appropriations bill for fiscal '08, is going to actually remove the phrase "global war on terror," because they don't think it's applicable. They want to refer to conflicts as individual skirmishes, but they're going to try to rid the defense appropriation bill, and thus official government language, of that term. Does that give any indication of their motivation, or what they think of the current plight in which the country finds itself?
 
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Sure. Well, it's just flawed thinking. I like Ike Skelton. I worked closely with Ike when I was secretary of defense. He's chairman of the Armed Services Committee now. Ike's a good man. He's just dead wrong about this, though. Think about it. Just to give you one example, Rush. Remember Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist, an Al-Qaeda affiliate. He ran a training camp in Afghanistan for Al-Qaeda, then migrated after we went into Afghanistan and shut 'em down there, he went to Baghdad. He took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organized the Al-Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene and then of course led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June. He's the guy who arranged the booming of the Samarra mosque that precipitated the sectarian violence between Shi'a and Sunni. This is Al-Qaeda operating in Iraq, and as I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq. There's no way you can segment out and say, "Well, we'll fight the war on terror in Pakistan or Afghanistan but we can separate Iraq. That's not really, in any way, shape, or form related." It's just dead wrong. Bin Laden has said this is the central battle in the war on terror.
 
RUSH: I have to think the Democrats know all of this, too, which puzzles people even more as to why they seem devoted to pulling out of there with defeat securely in hand. Not only would what you detail happen, but the next conflict, the next battle that we find ourselves in -- there will be one -- how tough is it going to be to assemble allies if they think we might just pull out in the middle of the whole thing before it's complete?
 
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, it would be very tough. Remember what Al-Qaeda is betting on here. They cannot beat us in a stand-up fight. They never have. What they're betting is that they can break our well, that they can in fact force the American people to retreat, that we'll finally get tired of the battle and go home, and then they win. The only way they can win is if we quit, and to adopt a policy that says, "We're going to withdraw from Iraq," would do precisely that. It in effect hand the victory to the terrorists. It validates the whole Al-Qaeda strategy. The other thing you can be sure of is, once they figure out if they attack America often enough we'll change our policies, they'll keep attacking America.
 
RUSH: You have a lot of supporters in this audience, obviously, and they're chomping at the bit to help. What could people in this audience do to assist the effort to get the supplemental passed as the president wants it?
 
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I think they ought to make it clear to their member of Congress that this is a question of supporting the troops. These are young men and women who put their lives on the line every day for this country. They deserve the absolute, unequivocal support of the United States, the Congress, the funding that's in that bill, the resources that they need to do the job we ask them to do for us. This is a real test. You cannot pursue this fiction that some of them like to pursue that they quote, "support the troops" but they're opposed everything the troops are doing. That's just a nonsensical statement. It's very, very important that this legislation go forward and that members of Congress be judged based on whether or not they really do support the troops when they're put to the test.
 
RUSH: A couple of quick more things before you have to go. What's the administration's view today, what's the emotion, what are you thinking about Speaker Pelosi's trip to the Middle East, specifically the conveyance of the incorrect message to Bashar Assad in Syria about peace talks with Israel?
 
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, it's not helpful. I made it clear earlier that I thought this created difficulties, if I can put it in a gentle form. Obviously, she's the speaker of the House and ought to travel to foreign nations and ought to conduct visits.
 
RUSH: She's not entitled to make her own foreign policy, is she?
 
THE VICE PRESIDENT: She's not entitled to make policy. She, in this particular case, by going to Damascus at this stage it serves to reinforce, if you will, and reward Bashar Assad for his bad behavior. He's done all kinds of things that are not in the interests of the United States, including allowing Syria to be an area from which attacks are launched against our people inside Iraq. He obviously was heavily involved, right now, in supporting an effort by Hezbollah to try to topple the government in Lebanon. This is a bad actor, and until he changes his behavior he should not be rewarded about visits by the speaker of the House of Representatives.
 
RUSH: Well, how much damage has she done by conveying to Assad that Israel is ready for peace talks when Israel is not ready for peace talks as Syria is currently constituted?
 
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I think, clearly, she stimulated a reaction out of the Israeli. Prime Minister Olmert immediately made it clear that she was not authorized to make any such offer to Bashir Assad. Among other things, of course, the Syrians have not renounced their support for terror. The major terrorist organizations that are dedicated to the destruction of Israel, such as Hamas, are headquartered in Damascus, Syria. It was a non-statement, a nonsensical statement. It didn't make any sense at all that she would suggest that those talks could go forward as long as the Syrians conducted themselves as a prime state sponsor of terror.
 
RUSH: You are a reserved individual --
 
THE VICE PRESIDENT: (chuckles)
 
RUSH: -- and very professional, and you've been doing this a long time, but I'm asking this for people in my audience as well as me. How do you feel when this...? Don't you get enraged when this kind of thing happens?
 
THE VICE PRESIDENT: (chuckles) Well, I've been around a long time. I'm obviously disappointed. I think it is, in fact, bad behavior on her part.  I wish she hadn't done it, but she is the speaker of the House, and fortunately I think the various parties involved recognize she doesn't speak for the United States in those circumstances. She doesn't represent the administration. The president is the one that conducts foreign policy, not the speaker of the House.
 
RUSH: One more, and that's the recess appointment of Sam Fox. Sam Fox is from my home state, and I know of Sam Fox. He's an immigrant, a Ukrainian-Jewish immigrant whose parents had nothing. When they died, they had nothing. He is a totally self-made man, a great American, and he was treated horribly by Senator Kerry and others on that committee, simply because he had made a political donation. They essentially told him he did not have free speech in this country, and until he would apologize, 'til he would go up to Kerry and apologize for supporting the swift boats... Now the president has recess appointed him, and of course the Democrats say they're going to investigate this and going to look into this. This is the kind of move that garners a lot of support from the people in the country. This shows the administration willing to engage these people, and not allow them to get away with this kind of -- well, my term, you don't have to accept it -- "Stalinist behavior" by those people on that committee.
 
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, you're dead on, Rush. I know Sam well. He's a good friend of mine and has been for many years, I think he's a great appointment and he'll do a superb job as our ambassador to Belgium. I was delighted when the president made the recess appointment. He clearly has that authority under the Constitution --
 
RUSH: You go on vacation, this is what happens.
 
THE VICE PRESIDENT -- and you're right. John Kerry basically shot it down.
 
RUSH: Well, you go on vacation, this is what happens to you, if you're the Democrats.
 
THE VICE PRESIDENT: (laughs) All right.
 
RUSH: Mr. Vice President, thanks for your time. It really is always a pleasure to talk to you, and we appreciate your candor when you come on the program, very much so. All the best, and have a great Easter weekend, you and your family.
 
THE VICE PRESIDENT: All right. Thanks, Rush. I enjoy the show.
 
RUSH: Thank you. That is Vice President Cheney.
 
 
 
 
END TRANSCRIPT
 
 
*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.
 
 
 
       
 
 
   
 
 
 
Google Ads are provided by Google and are not selected or endorsed by The EIB Network.


Ads by Google

Make your Own Wristbands
Use our Easy Wristband Creator
Great Selection & Fast Delivery
www.WristbandConnection. com

Support our Troops
Foster-A-Soldier - Boost morale
Troops need baby wipes, lemonade
www.TreatsForTroops.com

Support Your Troops
Wide Variety & Selection of Quality
Magnets and Military Items
militarysearch.usptgear. com

Support Troops
Top 6 Websites
For Support Troops
www.Top6picks.com

Fallen Soldiers Children
Help children of soldiers killed in
Iraq recover & "be kids again".
opchristmas.org
 
 
 OBSCENE PROFIT CENTER
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quicken Loans
Get Mortgage Rates Online 
 
 
Lifelock
Protect Your Identity 
 
 
Insure.com
Save on Life Insurance 
 
 
 

youandme

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 10957
Re: Rush Interviews Cheney
« Reply #1 on: April 05, 2007, 08:33:07 PM »
Still waiting for Rush's maid interviewing transcripts

The Enigma

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1486
  • Porsche 911 Turbo Carerra. My reality, your dream.
Re: Rush Interviews Cheney
« Reply #2 on: April 06, 2007, 05:33:19 AM »
RUSH: As mentioned and as promised, we welcome back to the EIB Microphone -- it's always a great privilege to have the vice president, Dick Cheney, with us. Mr. Vice President, welcome once again to our program.



Mr I.......Great "credible" interview with 2 substance abusers and Vietnam draft dodgers.

Lets review, Dickless Cheney has TWO DWI's on record, he also shot a friend in the face while hunting under the influence of alcohol.

Dickless Cheney also avoided the Vietnam War with 5 DEFERMENTS. He's quoted saying " I had better thing's to do at the time than go to Vietnam"

Next review......Drug addict Rush Limbaugh. Hooked on Opium (Oxycotin) as well as pleading NO CONTEST to Doctor shopping, all the while screaming from the rooftops that junkie's should be jailed for life. Hummmmmmm

Drug addict Limbaugh also AVOIDED the Vietnam War because of a Pilonidal cyst on his ass. A harmless PIMPLE on his ass and he avoids the war. Hummmmmm

How the FVCK do these two substance abusers and Chickenhawk bastards, even entitled to an OPINION?

Mr I.......please explain......if you can.  ::)

Old_Rooster

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2380
  • SquadFathers mom gave me a BJ
Re: Rush Interviews Cheney
« Reply #3 on: April 06, 2007, 05:38:35 AM »
Bill Clinton:  pot head, draft dodger, sex addict-just not with his wife.
Benjamin Pearson-Pedo

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5782
Re: Rush Interviews Cheney
« Reply #4 on: April 06, 2007, 07:31:41 AM »
Mr. Cheney is a disgrace.  He is a key architect manufacturing this illegal invasion and ongoing war with Iraq.  And he still claims this:

Cheney reasserts al-Qaida-Saddam connection
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17975678/

Even though the evidence is to the contrary.

Saddam, documents indicate no Iraq-Qaeda cooperation http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070406/wl_mideast_afp/usiraqqaedaintelligence

It would appear that his credibility is greatly diminished.

This man acts counter to US interests at home and abroad. 

The Enigma

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1486
  • Porsche 911 Turbo Carerra. My reality, your dream.
Re: Rush Interviews Cheney
« Reply #5 on: April 06, 2007, 07:59:21 AM »
Mr. Cheney is a disgrace.  He is a key architect manufacturing this illegal invasion and ongoing war with Iraq.  And he still claims this:

Cheney reasserts al-Qaida-Saddam connection

Even though the evidence is to the contrary.

Saddam, documents indicate no Iraq-Qaeda cooperation http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070406/wl_mideast_afp/usiraqqaedaintelligence

It would appear that his credibility is greatly diminished.

This man acts counter to US interests at home and abroad. 


Cheney continues to refuse the facts, and is quite delusional with ZERO credibility.


headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
Re: Rush Interviews Cheney
« Reply #6 on: April 06, 2007, 08:02:47 AM »
Yep gotta agree he sucks.
L

militarymuscle69

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2655
  • You can't be a citizen unless you serve
Re: Rush Interviews Cheney
« Reply #7 on: April 06, 2007, 08:56:05 AM »
Mr. Cheney is a disgrace.  He is a key architect manufacturing this illegal invasion and ongoing war with Iraq.  And he still claims this:

Cheney reasserts al-Qaida-Saddam connection
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17975678/

Even though the evidence is to the contrary.

Saddam, documents indicate no Iraq-Qaeda cooperation http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070406/wl_mideast_afp/usiraqqaedaintelligence

It would appear that his credibility is greatly diminished.

This man acts counter to US interests at home and abroad. 


Decker explain why the invasion was illegal?
gotta love life

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5782
Re: Rush Interviews Cheney
« Reply #8 on: April 06, 2007, 09:19:27 AM »
Decker explain why the invasion was illegal?
For whatever reason Pres. Bush wanted to invade Iraq.
However, generally one country cannot attack another country unless: it is done in self defense, in defense of an ally, or to avert an imminent attack.

Bush claimed that Iraq was reconstituting its arsenal of WMDs and going to use them on the US or hand them over to Al Qaeda with whom Iraq allegedly had a working relationship.
Congress granted the president authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Iraq and the threat it presented to the US.

Since Iraq did not attack the US or an ally, Bush went to the UN and asked for permission to use force to compel Iraq to disarm.  Do you remember the Powell Presentation?

At that time, Resolution 1441 (the latest in a string of resolutions dating back to the surrender of the first Gulf War) mandated that WMD inspectors must be allowed into Iraq to do their jobs.  Hussein was not compliant but did cave in to inspections in 2002.

As the inspections wore on (ridiculed by the war party in this country "Blix is Inspector Clouseau...") into 2003, no WMDs were found.

Bush's legal recourse for invasion was crumbling.

The president ordered a military strike before the WMD inspectors could finish their jobs and before any WMDs were in fact found.

That is a clear violation of Res. 1441 which required a showing of WMDs in Iraq and for the Security Council to convene to authorize the use of force for disarmament.  So even if WMDs had been found, there was no authority for Bush to order the attack prior to having the UN Security Council convene to authorize the use of force.  It can't be authorized by one country (the US).

The invasion was illegal.  Even Richard Perle admitted that.  As did the vast majority of legal scholars in this country. 

I have yet to see one legal authority make a single argument as to why the invasion was legal.


Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5782
Re: Rush Interviews Cheney
« Reply #9 on: April 06, 2007, 09:22:34 AM »
It was a war of aggression.

Under the holdings from the Nuremberg Trials, that's a war crime.

militarymuscle69

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2655
  • You can't be a citizen unless you serve
Re: Rush Interviews Cheney
« Reply #10 on: April 06, 2007, 09:27:14 AM »
It was a war of aggression.

Under the holdings from the Nuremberg Trials, that's a war crime.

Good info, there has to be something more to it though, if ti were that cut and dry the Dems would be trumpetting it alot more.
gotta love life

Old_Rooster

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2380
  • SquadFathers mom gave me a BJ
Re: Rush Interviews Cheney
« Reply #11 on: April 06, 2007, 09:29:04 AM »
For whatever reason Pres. Bush wanted to invade Iraq.
However, generally one country cannot attack another country unless: it is done in self defense, in defense of an ally, or to avert an imminent attack.

Bush claimed that Iraq was reconstituting its arsenal of WMDs and going to use them on the US or hand them over to Al Qaeda with whom Iraq allegedly had a working relationship.
Congress granted the president authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Iraq and the threat it presented to the US.

Since Iraq did not attack the US or an ally, Bush went to the UN and asked for permission to use force to compel Iraq to disarm.  Do you remember the Powell Presentation?

At that time, Resolution 1441 (the latest in a string of resolutions dating back to the surrender of the first Gulf War) mandated that WMD inspectors must be allowed into Iraq to do their jobs.  Hussein was not compliant but did cave in to inspections in 2002.

As the inspections wore on (ridiculed by the war party in this country "Blix is Inspector Clouseau...") into 2003, no WMDs were found.

Bush's legal recourse for invasion was crumbling.

The president ordered a military strike before the WMD inspectors could finish their jobs and before any WMDs were in fact found.

That is a clear violation of Res. 1441 which required a showing of WMDs in Iraq and for the Security Council to convene to authorize the use of force for disarmament.  So even if WMDs had been found, there was no authority for Bush to order the attack prior to having the UN Security Council convene to authorize the use of force.  It can't be authorized by one country (the US).

The invasion was illegal.  Even Richard Perle admitted that.  As did the vast majority of legal scholars in this country. 

I have yet to see one legal authority make a single argument as to why the invasion was legal.



Because the USA is the big bad boodie daddy of the world and the rest of the planet best figure out that this is OUR planet. Do what we say or watch your nation go up in flames.  This is our last warning.  This 3rd rock from the sun is our planet, the rest of you are here on VISA's.
Benjamin Pearson-Pedo

The Enigma

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1486
  • Porsche 911 Turbo Carerra. My reality, your dream.
Re: Rush Interviews Cheney
« Reply #12 on: April 06, 2007, 09:34:57 AM »
For whatever reason Pres. Bush wanted to invade Iraq.
However, generally one country cannot attack another country unless: it is done in self defense, in defense of an ally, or to avert an imminent attack.

Bush claimed that Iraq was reconstituting its arsenal of WMDs and going to use them on the US or hand them over to Al Qaeda with whom Iraq allegedly had a working relationship.
Congress granted the president authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Iraq and the threat it presented to the US.

Since Iraq did not attack the US or an ally, Bush went to the UN and asked for permission to use force to compel Iraq to disarm.  Do you remember the Powell Presentation?

At that time, Resolution 1441 (the latest in a string of resolutions dating back to the surrender of the first Gulf War) mandated that WMD inspectors must be allowed into Iraq to do their jobs.  Hussein was not compliant but did cave in to inspections in 2002.

As the inspections wore on (ridiculed by the war party in this country "Blix is Inspector Clouseau...") into 2003, no WMDs were found.

Bush's legal recourse for invasion was crumbling.

The president ordered a military strike before the WMD inspectors could finish their jobs and before any WMDs were in fact found.

That is a clear violation of Res. 1441 which required a showing of WMDs in Iraq and for the Security Council to convene to authorize the use of force for disarmament.  So even if WMDs had been found, there was no authority for Bush to order the attack prior to having the UN Security Council convene to authorize the use of force.  It can't be authorized by one country (the US).

The invasion was illegal.  Even Richard Perle admitted that.  As did the vast majority of legal scholars in this country. 

I have yet to see one legal authority make a single argument as to why the invasion was legal.



Great factual Post.

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5782
Re: Rush Interviews Cheney
« Reply #13 on: April 06, 2007, 09:35:14 AM »
Good info, there has to be something more to it though, if ti were that cut and dry the Dems would be trumpetting it alot more.
It is close to being a slam dunk legally.  The president used the UN to get his foot in the door in Iraq under legal pretense but when the process started to work against his desire to use force/regime change in Iraq, the president went his own way counter to the law.

The president argued that since Iraq was rearming itself in violation of the terms of the cease fire from the first Gulf War, he had the authority to use any means necessary to stop that rearmament.

I honestly cannot find a single credible legal authority that agrees with the president's rationale.

Hedgehog

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19466
  • It Rubs The Lotion On Its Skin.
Re: Rush Interviews Cheney
« Reply #14 on: April 06, 2007, 09:37:52 AM »
Because the USA is the big bad boodie daddy of the world and the rest of the planet best figure out that this is OUR planet. Do what we say or watch your nation go up in flames.  This is our last warning.  This 3rd rock from the sun is our planet, the rest of you are here on VISA's.

I believe that this kind of confrontational policy has been tried the last 5 years during Bush.

What has happened? There is an increased tension in the world, more countries are talking about getting nuclear power, more countries than in a long time are hostile towards the USA, the global disarming has totally stopped.

USA is the world leader.

And the president is the most powerful man in the world.

For a safer world, and a place where USA won't be a target for terrorists, I believe USA needs a competent leader who is, much like Roosevelt and Nixon, is able to reach out to other countries.

-Hedge
As empty as paradise

militarymuscle69

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2655
  • You can't be a citizen unless you serve
Re: Rush Interviews Cheney
« Reply #15 on: April 06, 2007, 09:40:13 AM »
It is close to being a slam dunk legally.  The president used the UN to get his foot in the door in Iraq under legal pretense but when the process started to work against his desire to use force/regime change in Iraq, the president went his own way counter to the law.

The president argued that since Iraq was rearming itself in violation of the terms of the cease fire from the first Gulf War, he had the authority to use any means necessary to stop that rearmament.

I honestly cannot find a single credible legal authority that agrees with the president's rationale.

I am guessing he had some legal beagle in the White House staff that said this is they way to do it legally
gotta love life

Hedgehog

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19466
  • It Rubs The Lotion On Its Skin.
Re: Rush Interviews Cheney
« Reply #16 on: April 06, 2007, 09:40:49 AM »
Good info, there has to be something more to it though, if ti were that cut and dry the Dems would be trumpetting it alot more.

The Democrats are almost as guilty in this.

They gave the Bush Admin the go-ahead.

One could actually argue that the Republicans are less to blame, since they are more or less required to vote for a Republican President. But the Democrats are supposed to be the opponents of the Republicans.

Which they obviously failed to do.

-Hedge
As empty as paradise

The Enigma

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1486
  • Porsche 911 Turbo Carerra. My reality, your dream.
Re: Rush Interviews Cheney
« Reply #17 on: April 06, 2007, 09:45:07 AM »
I believe that this kind of confrontational policy has been tried the last 5 years during Bush.

What has happened? There is an increased tension in the world, more countries are talking about getting nuclear power, more countries than in a long time are hostile towards the USA, the global disarming has totally stopped.

USA is the world leader.

And the president is the most powerful man in the world.

For a safer world, and a place where USA won't be a target for terrorists, I believe USA needs a competent leader who is, much like Roosevelt and Nixon, is able to reach out to other countries.

-Hedge

I agree 100%

militarymuscle69

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2655
  • You can't be a citizen unless you serve
Re: Rush Interviews Cheney
« Reply #18 on: April 06, 2007, 09:49:35 AM »
The Democrats are almost as guilty in this.

They gave the Bush Admin the go-ahead.

One could actually argue that the Republicans are less to blame, since they are more or less required to vote for a Republican President. But the Democrats are supposed to be the opponents of the Republicans.

Which they obviously failed to do.

-Hedge


Does anyone still believe that the (radical) Muslim hatred for Americans will ever cease? It doens't matter who is in charge
gotta love life

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5782
Re: Rush Interviews Cheney
« Reply #19 on: April 06, 2007, 09:49:41 AM »
The Democrats are almost as guilty in this.

They gave the Bush Admin the go-ahead.

One could actually argue that the Republicans are less to blame, since they are more or less required to vote for a Republican President. But the Democrats are supposed to be the opponents of the Republicans.

Which they obviously failed to do.

-Hedge
No, not at all.  The evidence proferred by the Office Of Special Plans (in the Pentagon) showed that Iraq had tons of Sarin, mustard gases, mobile drones capable of delivering a WMD payload, nuclear designs etc.  That office was created by Cheney & Rumsfeld.  It provided Congress with evidence of Iraq's WMD stockpile so that all Congressmen could be on the same page.

Anyways, Congress gave the President the authority to use force.  The president misused that force.

How is it the fault of the minority party (at the time) that Bush misused his grant of authority?

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5782
Re: Rush Interviews Cheney
« Reply #20 on: April 06, 2007, 09:53:59 AM »
I am guessing he had some legal beagle in the White House staff that said this is they way to do it legally
I think it goes hand-in-hand with the theory of Pre-emptive war.  But even that requires a showing of proof that attack was imminent.  Without that proof, pre-emptive war is preventive war and a war of aggression--that's theory that put away the Nazis at Nuremberg.

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5782
Re: Rush Interviews Cheney
« Reply #21 on: April 06, 2007, 01:06:51 PM »
Good info, there has to be something more to it though, if ti were that cut and dry the Dems would be trumpetting it alot more.
You really make a great point here.  It seems to me that political perception is what governs the behavior of almost all our Congressmen.

If we have to go to great lengths to point out the nuances of the legality of the invasion in this thread. . .well, that just doesn't translate well to sound bites, jingoism and slogans, i.e., the political capital of our day.

If the democrats voted to give the president authority to use force which was largely at the president's discretion--he is the commander and chief--then they are tied to this war politically whether that is an accurate assessment or not.

When Kerry voted for authorization the first time then saw the results and voted "no" the second time, he was labeled a "flip-flopper."  The truth of the matter was that he did what any reasonable person would have done in light of the facts.  Unfortunately, "flip-flopper" stuck like flypaper and any countervailing explanations washed away under the waves of propagandistic slogans.

The Enigma

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1486
  • Porsche 911 Turbo Carerra. My reality, your dream.
Re: Rush Interviews Cheney
« Reply #22 on: April 06, 2007, 03:04:12 PM »
You really make a great point here.  It seems to me that political perception is what governs the behavior of almost all our Congressmen.

If we have to go to great lengths to point out the nuances of the legality of the invasion in this thread. . .well, that just doesn't translate well to sound bites, jingoism and slogans, i.e., the political capital of our day.

If the democrats voted to give the president authority to use force which was largely at the president's discretion--he is the commander and chief--then they are tied to this war politically whether that is an accurate assessment or not.

When Kerry voted for authorization the first time then saw the results and voted "no" the second time, he was labeled a "flip-flopper."  The truth of the matter was that he did what any reasonable person would have done in light of the facts.  Unfortunately, "flip-flopper" stuck like flypaper and any countervailing explanations washed away under the waves of propagandistic slogans.

Decker......well said.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Rush Interviews Cheney
« Reply #23 on: April 06, 2007, 03:38:12 PM »
1) Every time Bush is criticized, anyone who says "but the muslims.." or "but the dems..." is a dumb shit.

2) Cheney's statement on Rush's show was just debunked by the Pentagon.  Our white house has no credibility with the world - we only have power, which they have to respect.  For now.  Before you grab your cockpiece and tell us that's fine, you should realize that these other countries are doing thing to lessen our power, slowly but surely.  Dropping the dollar, creating treaties and alliances, and above all, educating their populations about what we're doing and what we've done.  Globalization will slowly involve the US less and less - as years pass, people from these nations will trade with others at a loss, rather than make any American richer.  You short term thinkers are foolish.

youandme

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 10957
Re: Rush Interviews Cheney
« Reply #24 on: April 06, 2007, 03:59:06 PM »
LMAO this is the funniest Rush parody I've ever seen or heard.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeBhBdP18QE