Cheyney: Liar, or Moron?

[Michael Redman]

There is no reason to think Saddam tolerated Zarqawi's presence in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq, where Saddam was prevented, by us, from maintaining internal security. As al Queida clearly opposed Saddam's secular rule, it is rather nonsensical to think of Saddam as anything but an enemy of al Queida. Cheney is clearly trying to mislead the public, and make himself look better in the process.

 

[LawnOven]

Umm... there's no contradiction in the story between what it reports Cheney said and what it reports this new Pentagon report said. Zarqawi was in Iraq, and he was an Al Qaeda leader. That does not require that Saddam was actively helping Al Qaeda. Tolerating their presence is not the same thing as helping them, and the report gives no indication that Saddam did not tolerate their presence, or that Zarqawi and other Al Qaeda elements were not in Iraq. Geeze, this is REALLY basic logic, guys. Why is it slipping through your grasp?

Conclusion 5:… Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi. (p. 109)

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/10/phase-ii-report-conclusion/


Yes, no?

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes, no?

Let's take that as true for the moment. Now, does that contradict this statement from the report quoted in the original post:
"Cheney contended that al-Qaida was operating in Iraq before the March 2003 invasion led by U.S. forces and that terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was leading the Iraqi branch of al-Qaida."

No, it doesn't. Now, you may think that this report you link to suggests the best solution wasn't an invasion, but the factual point made by Cheney (namely, Al Qaeda was operating within Iraq with Zarqawi as its local leader) is supported by this report.

 

[LawnOven]

Let's take that as true for the moment. Now, does that contradict this statement from the report quoted in the original post:
"Cheney contended that al-Qaida was operating in Iraq before the March 2003 invasion led by U.S. forces and that terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was leading the Iraqi branch of al-Qaida."

No, it doesn't. Now, you may think that this report you link to suggests the best solution wasn't an invasion, but the factual point made by Cheney (namely, Al Qaeda was operating within Iraq with Zarqawi as its local leader) is supported by this report.

Ok so 'Yes'.

Then what about this statement?

As for Zarqawi, before our invasion, he wasn’t a member of al Qaeda; was a rival to bin Laden. And at the time, Zarqawi wasn’t in Iraq with Saddam’s blessing; he was operating in a part of Iraq that wasn’t under Saddam’s control. (The Senate Intelligence Committee found that Saddam “attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi.”

Granted a very biased "source":

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/06/poor-dick-just-can%e2%80%99t-help-himself/

but that is why I'm asking. Someone perhaps knows better.

 

[Ziggurat]

Cheney is clearly trying to mislead the public, and make himself look better in the process.

This contention is only supportable if there was an implication in Cheney's statement that goes beyond the actual facts laid out in his claim. Was there such an implication? I don't see it. I see suggestions of such an implication in the AP's characterization of what Cheney said, but they can easily mischaracterize what Cheney said (and I think they've done precisely that by framing the story as if there's a factual contradiction between versions when there isn't). The only actual quote by Cheney in that story,

He [Zarqawi] took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organized the al-Qaida 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,” Cheney told radio host Rush Limbaugh during an interview. “As I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq.

is pretty much a straight-forward claim which is factually correct. What's misleading about it, exactly?

 

[thinkingaboutit]

Let's take that as true for the moment. Now, does that contradict this statement from the report quoted in the original post:
"Cheney contended that al-Qaida was operating in Iraq before the March 2003 invasion led by U.S. forces and that terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was leading the Iraqi branch of al-Qaida."

No, it doesn't. Now, you may think that this report you link to suggests the best solution wasn't an invasion, but the factual point made by Cheney (namely, Al Qaeda was operating within Iraq with Zarqawi as its local leader) is supported by this report.

Can you see how a vague fact was used to back an untrue assertion?

 

[hgc]

Why should Cheney stop? He cares about his core constituency: Rush, corplinx, Ziggurat and the like. They'll back him no matter what, even if the most stupendous gymnastics are required.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ok so 'Yes'.

Then what about this statement?

What about it? He makes the same mistake in that post that I pointed out in this thread: there's no contradiction between Al Qaeda being in Iraq and Saddam not aiding Al Qaeda. He's not exactly analyzing the situation in any depth. As for his claim that Zarqawi wasn't a member of Al Qaeda, I don't believe I've seen that claim before, and he didn't provide any source for that conclusion. So I'm not going to take Steve's word for it on this one.

 

[Ziggurat]

Can you see how a vague fact was used to back an untrue assertion?

You'll have to be a lot more specific than that, because frankly I have no idea what you mean.

 

[LawnOven]

As for his claim that Zarqawi wasn't a member of Al Qaeda, I don't believe I've seen that claim before, and he didn't provide any source for that conclusion.

That's what I was curious about. I was hoping some one knew either way.

 

[steverino]

“See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in...”

Meph- This cuts both ways. Those friggin' annoying Geico commercials repeat and repeat and repeat. The fact that these commercials repeat doesn't mean they can, or cannot for that matter, save me money on my car insurance. Repetition of a truth does not make it a lie, and repetition of a lie does not make it true.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Meph- This cuts both ways. Those friggin' annoying Geico commercials repeat and repeat and repeat. The fact that these commercials repeat doesn't mean they can, or cannot for that matter, save me money on my car insurance. Repetition of a truth does not make it a lie, and repetition of a lie does not make it true.

Bush: Dick, dick! I have great news.

Cheney: Did you find links between Bin Ladin and Saddam?

Bush: No, I just saved a bunch of money on car insurance by switching to Geico!

 

[Ziggurat]

It irritates me to no end when my opponents get so tangled up in their opinion they can't even tell that they've lost the thread of logic in their arguments. There is NO contradiction between Al Qaeda being in Iraq and Saddam not supporting Al Qaeda. I know people are wrapped up in the idea that Saddam not supporting Al Qaeda means something important, but since not everyone can figure out that it doesn't mean Cheney's a liar because he said Al Qaeda was in Iraq, let me help out with how one can form a real argument using that fact:

Al Qaeda is located in a lot of countries. We cannot invade them all even if we want to, so we have to be discriminating. Afghanistan met the threshold, because 1) they were centered there, and 2) they had significant state support from the Taliban, making their presence there far more dangerous. Since they were not actively supported by Saddam, their presence there did not pose nearly the same risk as Afghanistan, and so was not sufficiently important to justify the cost and risk of an invasion.

See how easy that was? Granted, this argument doesn't get to call Cheney a liar, and I know how emotionally satisfying that can be, but at least there's no actual logical disconnect.

 

[Michael Redman]

The only actual quote by Cheney in that story,
...
is pretty much a straight-forward claim which is factually correct. What's misleading about it, exactly?

You must be joking. What's misleading? How about intentionally omitting the rest of the facts? His statement is not straightforward, it's a half-truth.

Why did Cheney say this? To imply that we could have gotten rid of the terrorists in Iraq by lifting the sanctions and letting Saddam regain control of the North (probably true), or to imply that terrorists were in Iraq with Saddam's blessing (clearly false)?

Seems pretty clear to me that he's going for the lie. The fact that anyone would, today, claim that Saddam tolerated the presence of Islamic terrorists in his country is proof that the lie works.

 

[Upchurch]

It irritates me to no end when my opponents get so tangled up in their opinion they can't even tell that they've lost the thread of logic in their arguments.

You're missing the point. The facts of the matter are not the issue. It's how Chaney presents them in order to mislead people that is the issue. It is entirely possible (and entirely too common) to not say anything that is technically false but still say it in such a way that leads the listener to a false conclusion.

 

[LawnOven]

You must be joking. What's misleading? How about intentionally omitting the rest of the facts? His statement is not straightforward, it's a half-truth.

When defending the bush administration most apologists seem to ascribe to a "if he didn't say it, it's not a lie" philosophy, even when it's obvious that something was said in a way to obscure the truth and create an alternate neocon reality.

It irritates me to no end when my opponents get so tangled up in their opinion they can't even tell that they've lost the thread of logic in their arguments.

So alternative points of view are your "opponents"? It's nice that you think of a discussion forum in such adversarial terms. Good for you.

 

[Ziggurat]

You must be joking. What's misleading? How about intentionally omitting the rest of the facts? His statement is not straightforward, it's a half-truth.

Do you have a transcript of the entire show? Do you actually know the full context in which this statement was made? If all you're going by is the story linked in this thread, then no, you DON'T. If you've got additional information, then provide links to support your argument. How the hell do you know what Cheney ommitted? How the hell do you know that it isn't the AP which ommitted something? I don't think you do. I think you've jumped to a conclusion without supporting evidence because it fits your preconceptions.

 

[Upchurch]

So alternative points of view are your "opponents"? It's nice that you think of a discussion forum in such adversarial terms. Good for you.

Don't nit pick. That is the nature of debate. He doesn't necessarily mean it as personal animosity. I certainly don't, but in this thread I consider that I have taken an opposing position from Zig and am, thus, his opponent. We may very well be on the same position in the next thread.

 

[Ziggurat]

You're missing the point. The facts of the matter are not the issue. It's how Chaney presents them in order to mislead people that is the issue.

You're starting from an assumption that you don't have enough evidence for. We have a two sentence quote from Cheney. How on earth can you conclude that from two sentences, you have a full grasp of the nuances of Cheney's presentation? How can you possibly think that you've got a full understanding of the context in which the statement was made? You don't. And yet, that doesn't stop you from jumping to a conclusion, and then thinking that the only thing left to discuss is the consequences of a conclusion that you never had much evidence for in the first place. Why exactly am I obliged to play that game?

 

[steverino]

When defending the bush administration most apologists seem to ascribe to a "if he didn't say it, it's not a lie" philosophy,

Really? And are those who defended the Clinton administration "apologists" too?

So alternative points of view are your "opponents"? It's nice that you think of a discussion forum in such adversarial terms. Good for you.

Well, again, Lawn, you used the term "apologists" for your opponents.