• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cheney Uncloaks His Frustration With Bush

the source for the plame leak was revealed to be richard armitage who told it to his friend bob novak (who has disappeared completely from public view, i pray he is well)

the plame/joe wilson story died determinately, decisively, when armitage was outed precisely because both he and novak are the exact opposites of neo cons

they are genghis cons, traditional isolationist conservatives

both outward and ardent opponents of w's war

the entire motivation underlying wilson was blown apart

novak was curious---who the heck is this guy who wrote the ny times op ed making all these grandiose claims concerning his proximity to the veep?

it was what it was

empahsis---was

cliff
 
Honestly, I would think that this article has more than likely slanted every piece of evidence is has used for the claims it makes. Did Cheney feel that Bush moved away from him in the second term? I can see that possibility, as Cheney was not as visible in the second term, however I greatly doubt that he would bash Bush for such a strategy, as much of the country was beginning to criticize Cheney's seemingly powerful sway over the president. I was not a fan of many of Bush's policies, but I do not knock him for them. He and his side have their convictions and intentions for what they feel is best for the country, and Democrats have theirs. So, I would not call Bush a flunky or weak to Cheney. I would however, say that surely Bush trusted Cheney's opinions and had to keep Cheney more in the background during the second term to avoid more PR damage.
 
As I look back on the Bush Presidency, I have begun to see Bush as a victim (for lack of a better word) of really bad advice. IMO, he was mislead and manipulated by early advisors thrust upon him by political cronies. From day one, he appeared to lack the intellect and critical thinking ability to really evaluate information and opinions and then make the kind of decisions that President needs to make. He relied heavily on his advisors to tell him what to do--often, in the first term, relying on Cheney to make the call.

However, in the beginning of his second term, he declared himself the 'decider' and decided he was really going to have a go at being President. To co-president Cheney, this must have been infuriating.

I'm more interested in the tell-all book from Bush than I am from Cheney. Of course, if Cheney's book comes out first, this might inspire Bush to get more honest.

Every time something new is revealed about what really went on behind-the-scenes at the Bush White House, I'm never surprised.

Cheney comes off in some ways as the Jack Nicholson character in A Few Good Men -- he wants so bad to tell people what he did and why he did it. I'm hoping his editor and advisors don't hold him back. Let the chips fall where they may.

I think the problem with George W. Bush was that he was, to quote Bob Woodward, "Intellectually lazy" and lacking in any curiosity. This article is not really anything new, but rather an extenuation of what appears to be a battle between the two camps over their legacy. Cheney was definitely marginalized in the second half, and certainly ignored post 2006. I think we would have seen a whole different world had there been a VP with more intelligent pragmatism instead of rigid ideology.

Cheney was much more swept up with the Neo-Con movement than anything, and I did not see Bush as having that great of a world outlook, he was always much more focused in regards to his domestic agenda. As it plays out now, I think Cheney will go down in history as the villain, which may explain why he is still in the D.C. area fighting mad about his reputation. Funny thing is, it is Cheney fighting Bush, or aides of each camp. I think as Cheney continues to ratchet up more former Bush aides are going to go on or off the record with even more tantalizing tales painting Cheney in a much more negative light. Last spring we had the faux headline that there was Cheney vs. Obama debate about national security. I say faux, because it was really Cheney vs. Bush post 2006.
 
i think this is just advance pr.......he wants to sell a book, but that book won't have anything ground breaking in it.
 
You mean, he'll admit that his office intentionally outed Valerie Plame?

Geez... Here we are five years after the fact, and there are people who either still clueless, or incapable of being honest.

Richard Armitage was the one who leaked Plame's name to Robert Novak, which wasn't even a crime in the first place.




That he knew there were no WMDs when he alleged they existed?

Nobody knew that there weren't stockpiles of WMD in Iraq. Every credible intelligence agency in the world believed he had them.

I guess lying is just part of being a far left liberal.

.
 
Geez... Here we are five years after the fact, and there are people who either still clueless, or incapable of being honest.

Richard Armitage was the one who leaked Plame's name to Robert Novak, which wasn't even a crime in the first place.

Richard Armitage made an innocent off hand remark to Novak that at the time he thought nothing off, same for Novak. Since you are so knowledgeable, I guess you simply forget the ethics that journalists are suppose to always find a second source? It was that second source that is at the heart of the controversy. Go read Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War.

Nobody knew that there weren't stockpiles of WMD in Iraq. Every credible intelligence agency in the world believed he had them.

I guess lying is just part of being a far left liberal.

.
Wrong again. Funny you should use the word clueless, as I suspect you have read no accounting as to how intelligence was gathered prior to the war. Not every credible intelligence agency had this conclusion. In fact some were quite aware that we were making asses of ourselves with some of the claims.
 
Geez... Here we are five years after the fact, and there are people who either still clueless, or incapable of being honest.

Richard Armitage was the one who leaked Plame's name to Robert Novak, which wasn't even a crime in the first place.






Nobody knew that there weren't stockpiles of WMD in Iraq. Every credible intelligence agency in the world believed he had them.

I guess lying is just part of being a far left liberal.

.

Then why is Scooter Libby still serving a sentence of supervised release for two years and paying a $250,000 fine? If he is innocent and it was Armitage, Libby should be off the hook, right?
 
the source for the plame leak was revealed to be richard armitage who told it to his friend bob novak (who has disappeared completely from public view, i pray he is well)

the plame/joe wilson story died determinately, decisively, when armitage was outed precisely because both he and novak are the exact opposites of neo cons

they are genghis cons, traditional isolationist conservatives

both outward and ardent opponents of w's war

the entire motivation underlying wilson was blown apart

novak was curious---who the heck is this guy who wrote the ny times op ed making all these grandiose claims concerning his proximity to the veep?

it was what it was

empahsis---was

cliff

Bravo, hear hear. :applaud
 
Geez... Here we are five years after the fact, and there are people who either still clueless, or incapable of being honest.

Richard Armitage was the one who leaked Plame's name to Robert Novak, which wasn't even a crime in the first place.

Nobody knew that there weren't stockpiles of WMD in Iraq. Every credible intelligence agency in the world believed he had them.

I guess lying is just part of being a far left liberal.

.

Some just have a very difficult time letting go of parroting false Democrat talking points. After all, if they were to stick to facts, who could they smear and demagogue? :cool:
 
Then why is Scooter Libby still serving a sentence of supervised release for two years and paying a $250,000 fine? If he is innocent and it was Armitage, Libby should be off the hook, right?

It sure as hell had NOTHING to do with the outting of Plame; unless of course you desperately want to spin this some more? :spin:
 
Are you implying that Cheney is going to tell the truth in his book? :shock: You mean, he'll admit that his office intentionally outed Valerie Plame? That he knew there were no WMDs when he alleged they existed? That he had no remorse when he shot his friend?

Well, if he was going to tell the truth, he clearly wouldn't be confessing to outing Plame, since he didn't do it.

I do wish you people would read the news at least some of the time.

A low level flack in the State Department, Richard Armitage did the irrelevant deed.
 
I think the problem with George W. Bush was that he was, to quote Bob Woodward, "Intellectually lazy" and lacking in any curiosity. This article is not really anything new, but rather an extenuation of what appears to be a battle between the two camps over their legacy. Cheney was definitely marginalized in the second half, and certainly ignored post 2006. I think we would have seen a whole different world had there been a VP with more intelligent pragmatism instead of rigid ideology.

Cheney was much more swept up with the Neo-Con movement than anything, and I did not see Bush as having that great of a world outlook, he was always much more focused in regards to his domestic agenda. As it plays out now, I think Cheney will go down in history as the villain, which may explain why he is still in the D.C. area fighting mad about his reputation. Funny thing is, it is Cheney fighting Bush, or aides of each camp. I think as Cheney continues to ratchet up more former Bush aides are going to go on or off the record with even more tantalizing tales painting Cheney in a much more negative light. Last spring we had the faux headline that there was Cheney vs. Obama debate about national security. I say faux, because it was really Cheney vs. Bush post 2006.


The problem with Bush is that he's a liberal.

That's an terminal illness.
 
Richard Armitage made an innocent off hand remark to Novak that at the time he thought nothing off, same for Novak. Since you are so knowledgeable, I guess you simply forget the ethics that journalists are suppose to always find a second source? It was that second source that is at the heart of the controversy. Go read Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War.

Wrong again. Funny you should use the word clueless, as I suspect you have read no accounting as to how intelligence was gathered prior to the war. Not every credible intelligence agency had this conclusion. In fact some were quite aware that we were making asses of ourselves with some of the claims.

Sam, Sam, Sam; there you go again Sam. Shame on you again. Here's a reminder of what Democrats said about WMDs lest we continue to desperately attempt to re-write history:

Here they are on video:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yn3tDudHDPY"]YouTube - Democrats Used to Say There Were WMD[/ame]

Here are their statements, note the dates too Sam....I guess they were all lying too weren't they Sam? :rofl

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source
 
It sure as hell had NOTHING to do with the outting of Plame; unless of course you desperately want to spin this some more? :spin:

What was it for then? It seems lying to the FBI, and what, four other criminal charges?
 
Yes, and why did all these Dems (who were wrong) say this? Can you answer me that?

Could it be that they were told of fake yellowcake purchase that was instigated by a known Italian fraudster? Could it be they were not told the truth, what actual scientists had to say about aluminum tubes? Could it be they were not told the truth about Curveball's allegations?
 
Yes, and why did all these Dems (who were wrong) say this? Can you answer me that?

Could it be that they were told of fake yellowcake purchase that was instigated by a known Italian fraudster? Could it be they were not told the truth, what actual scientists had to say about aluminum tubes? Could it be they were not told the truth about Curveball's allegations?

No!!!! GOPer's are Jesus loving, truth telling, good ol' boys! No, wait, they aren't any of those, so you have a point!:lol:
 
What was it for then? It seems lying to the FBI, and what, four other criminal charges?

Your having to ask me a question that you already know the answer too seems rather desperate don't you think?

Libby's prosecution for lying under oath had NOTHING to do with the case. What is profound here is spending $40 million in an investigation for a perceived crime where the culprit, Armitrage, was already known to be the source for the story.

Now what level of mental degradation does it take to NOT ask why we even had an investigation and then prosecute the person who was NOT the source for lying under oath?

Again, in my logical opinion, this is more evidence of the Alice-in-Wonderland mentality the world is heading where wrong is right, right is wrong, up is down and down is up.

Carry on.
 
Yes, and why did all these Dems (who were wrong) say this? Can you answer me that?

Could it be that they were told of fake yellowcake purchase that was instigated by a known Italian fraudster? Could it be they were not told the truth, what actual scientists had to say about aluminum tubes? Could it be they were not told the truth about Curveball's allegations?

Good lord Sam, your spinning is making me dizzy here. :spin:

I asked you to look at the dates; the one's attributed to the previous President and Secretary of Defense was before Bush was even a candidate.

Denial is strong in this Liberal. :rofl
 
Then why is Scooter Libby still serving a sentence of supervised release for two years and paying a $250,000 fine? If he is innocent and it was Armitage, Libby should be off the hook, right?

He was convicted of perjury, because he made contradictory statements to investigators. Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald made it clear, that he was not guilty of outing a covert CIA agent.

.
 
It sure as hell had NOTHING to do with the outting of Plame; unless of course you desperately want to spin this some more?

Truth Detector -- the most ironic user name ever.

Libby resigned all three government positions immediately after he was indicted on federal charges of obstruction and perjury resulting from the grand jury investigation into the leak of the covert identity of Central Intelligence Agency officer Valerie Plame. In his trial for his role in the Plame affair, United States v. Libby, the jury convicted Libby on four of the five counts in the indictment: one count of obstruction of justice; two counts of perjury; and one count of making false statements to federal investigators.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Libby"]LINK[/ame].

TD: Did you really not know this or were you just bull****ting for the hell of it?

The facts be stubborn things, my unintentionally humorous friend.
 
Truth Detector -- the most ironic user name ever.

LINK.

TD: Did you really not know this or were you just bull****ting for the hell of it?

The facts be stubborn things, my unintentionally humorous friend.

You're kidding me right? What part of the charges brought against Libby has to do with this case? I will wait for the FACTS from you to suggest that anything I have stated is untrue.

Have you been drinking, or are you just THAT incoherent when it comes to reading comprehension?

FACT: This was an investigation of the "outing" of a CIA agent where the source of the presumed “outing”, Armitage, was known before the investigation even began.

FACT: No crime of "outing" a CIA agent was ever discovered in this case and NO prosecutions for that crime were brought forth.

You were desperately attempting to suggest otherwise? Read Grim's response; at least he is coherent and comprehends what it is he is talking about, something that cannot be said for your ramblings. :rofl
 
Last edited:
He was convicted of perjury, because he made contradictory statements to investigators. Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald made it clear, that he was not guilty of outing a covert CIA agent.

.

Sometimes even the OBVIOUS is too much for some to grasp or comprehend. :cool:
 
Richard Armitage made an innocent off hand remark to Novak that at the time he thought nothing off, same for Novak. Since you are so knowledgeable, I guess you simply forget the ethics that journalists are suppose to always find a second source?

Sorry, the last thing the Left is allowed to question is anyone's ethics.

That rule will change when they demonstrate possession of any.
 
he was convicted by a DC jury of testifying falsely in an investigation that turned out to be over nothing

certainly not the first time

why have plame/wilson/vanity fair/armitage/libby/novak/yellowcake/etc been totally written OUT of history?

the entire scandal completely scotched?

decisively dropped?

because the white house never did, never tried, never intended to out an agent who wasn't even an agent in the first place

the white house tried to set straight exactly who this bigmouth op ed writer wilson was

cheney had NEVER HEARD OF HIM

and wilson's claiming in his puffed up op ed they're closer PALS than obama and wm ayers

wilson said the WHITE HOUSE SENT HIM

he came back and mumbled varying versions of his "findings" to agents

his wife is the one who got him the job

that's how her name got brought up

either way, mom and pop america couldn't give a darn

they care greatly, however, about all this health care business

perhaps you've seen it on tv

mom and dad have been showing up in record numbers---in the middle of the SUMMER, yet---at town halls, expressing their umbrage

no way ms mccaskill or mr harkin or mr ross or mr specter or literally 100 others...

no way they're gonna cross mom

health care is DEAD

everyone in america is scared of mom

MOM DETERMINES

and she has DECIDED---she wants her HIP

pedro and paloma, bless their corazones pequenos, are just gonna have to get by somehow

did you hear what GRASSLEY said yesterday?

mr grassley is probably the MOST IMPORTANT person in america right now

because when dick durbin on sunday signaled that the white house was "open" to "cutting" the "public option," it essentially handed off the football (for the first time) to the REPUBLICANS in the SENATE

when durbin did what he did, he rendered all the doings in pelosi's place DECEASED

it's up to the SENATE, now

maybe you've heard about GATEKEEPER baucus' UBIQUITOUS SIX

the 3 repubs and the 3 dems who've been tearing their hair trying to cobble a compromise to save the suffering sick man, obamacare

well, GRASSLEY is the red LEADER of the TRIO

and---did you HEAR what he SAID yesterday

LOLOLOL!

he doesn't want the plug pulled on gramma, either

DEAD---health care

even the CO OP, now

apparently, all signs indicate

moment of silence?

so sorry
 
Richard Armitage made an innocent off hand remark to Novak that at the time he thought nothing off, same for Novak. Since you are so knowledgeable, I guess you simply forget the ethics that journalists are suppose to always find a second source?[/I].

If my memory serves me, Novak mentioned that Wilson's wife over at the CIA recommended Wilson for the Niger mission to Karl Rove, to which Rove replied (paraphrasing) "oh, you heard that too". Novak then proceeded to look up her name in "Who's who" magazine.

Of course, this has nothing to do with anything. I made my comments because a liberal falsely claimed that Cheney orchestrated the leak of Valerie Plame.

Wrong again. Funny you should use the word clueless, as I suspect you have read no accounting as to how intelligence was gathered prior to the war. Not every credible intelligence agency had this conclusion.

A key point there is "Intelligence gathering". My post again, was in response to a liberal that lied and falsely claimed that Cheney knew there were not WMD in Iraq prior to the war. It was determined by the CIA and Intelligence Community that Iraq did have wmd, and they are the ones responsible for intelligence gathering... not anyone in the administration.

You can knit-pick my words all you want, but it doesn't change my point... Which is... The post I responded to was a complete and total liberal fabrication.
 
Back
Top Bottom