• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cheyney: Liar, or Moron?

I don't know what the second question is.
But far more importantly, in Post #92 DR has this
in a quote box which implies that I wrote this based on the previous quote box. I DID NOT. I deplore such false dichotomies and don't like that those words were put in my mouth (keyboard?). Please correct the record, DR.
I think the term you seek is false attribution. I did not make such an attribution. You inferred incorrectly, but my prose was hardly crystal clear. I did not identify that quote as yours.

The quote I used was words directly from the OP. I used quote, and did NOT add your name thusly
SezMe said:
something from SezMe's post

The intent was to ask, jokingly, if first question/choice
Liar
or second question/choice
Moron

as characterizations of Cheney was your choice. The idea was to point to your "no fool" observation as a response to the OP's original question/choice.

Does that clear it up? I suspect I should have used
OP said:
Liar or Moron
to clearly define the source of those words, but since it was taken directly from the thread's title, I figured it would be easily understood. Perhaps I should also have used "choice" instead of "question" for clarity.

Apparently, brevity was a source of confusion, rather than the intended wit. :(

DR
 
Last edited:
Not automatically, but based on a series of information from the Bush administration and from Cheney himself. It isn't a stretch to believe that listeners will be lead to that conclusion since, as late as 2005:

I've seen this argument thrown around quite often, and I was wondering when you'd make it. Problem is, you haven't actually demonstrated what caused those beliefs. Consider, for example, the 22% of people who responded that Saddam helped the attackers. Around the time of the invasion, people were using another statistic about how many people believed Saddam was likely involved in 9/11 to try to show that Bush was misleading people. Problem was, though, that that opinion actually started out very high in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, well before the administration even started talking about Saddam. People arrives at that conclusion on their own, and that opinion came down over time in the leadup to the invasion. And if it was at 22% in 2005, then it continued to go down after the invasion as well. From the polling numbers, is it inconcievable that people have been misled into this opinion by the Bush administration? No, it isn't. But no causal connection has been established, most people demonstrably concluded that in the first place without any input from the administration, and the trend of opinion over time better coincides with the theory that people's opinions were clarified by what Bush administration officials said, not misled. I'm not trying to argue that's the case, merely demonstrate how little the polling numbers actually support the position you're trying to take.
 
Ziggurat

This Washington Post Article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17970427/) says Cheney did lie.

...

Zarqawi, whom Cheney depicted yesterday as an agent of al-Qaeda in Iraq before the war, was not then an al-Qaeda member but was the leader of an unaffiliated terrorist group who occasionally associated with al-Qaeda adherents, according to several intelligence analysts. He publicly allied himself with al-Qaeda after the U.S. invasion, in early 2004.

This article engages in the same sloppy inuendo that the AP story did: namely, implying that a lack of cooperation between Saddam and Al Qaeda contradicts something in Cheney's recent statement when he didn't claim such cooperation. There's only one new bit of information compared to the AP story, this last paragraph. I'm still looking into the details, but it seems to me so far that while Zarqawi hadn't pledged loyalty to Bin Laden until 2004, his organization took money from and fought on the same side as Al Qaeda prior to the Iraq invasion. So while Cheney's characterization of Zarqawi's connection is debatable, so is the Washington Post's. I may have more thoughts on this later.
 
bagdad_bob_large.gif
 
I've seen this argument thrown around quite often, and I was wondering when you'd make it. Problem is, you haven't actually demonstrated what caused those beliefs.
Who else was advocating the link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda aside from the Bush administration rather continuously over the last 6ish years?


Consider, for example, the 22% of people who responded that Saddam helped the attackers. Around the time of the invasion, people were using another statistic about how many people believed Saddam was likely involved in 9/11 to try to show that Bush was misleading people.
What statistic was that?


Problem was, though, that that opinion actually started out very high in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, well before the administration even started talking about Saddam.
That's news to me. I was never of that opinion and was rather appauled when I first heard Bush attempt to tie 9/11 back to Saddam. (it cued the Empire Strikes Back theme in my head for the first time.)


People arrives at that conclusion on their own, and that opinion came down over time in the leadup to the invasion.
So, wait a minute. You're willing to believe that a vast number of people came to the conclusion that Saddam had something to do with 9/11 but you insist that I am only of the opinion that Chaney has mislead the public because AP tells me it is so?

That aside, I would love to see your evidence for this rather fantastic claim.


And if it was at 22% in 2005, then it continued to go down after the invasion as well. From the polling numbers, is it inconcievable that people have been misled into this opinion by the Bush administration? No, it isn't. But no causal connection has been established, most people demonstrably concluded that in the first place without any input from the administration,
Then, please, demonstrate.


and the trend of opinion over time better coincides with the theory that people's opinions were clarified by what Bush administration officials said, not misled.
Did you not read the material I provided of what Chaney has said over time on the subject? The trend of opinion over time is more likely due to the vast number of reports that have contradicted what Bush Administration officials have said.

For example, this latest bit of information provided that shows that al-Zarqawi in Iraq wasn't even Al-Qaeda when Chaney said he was. That is fatly contradicted by the evidence he must have surely been aware of. How is this not misleading and an attempt to make people believe something that wasn't true?


I'm not trying to argue that's the case, merely demonstrate how little the polling numbers actually support the position you're trying to take.
Unfortunately, in order for those numbers to not support my conclusion, you've had to set up a rather improbable counter hypothesis that you, yourself, are a long way from actually supporting.
 
This article engages in the same sloppy inuendo that the AP story did: namely, implying that a lack of cooperation between Saddam and Al Qaeda contradicts something in Cheney's recent statement when he didn't claim such cooperation.
As long as you ignore the context of it coming from Cheney, who has been cheerleading the idea for years, sure.


I'm still looking into the details, but it seems to me so far that while Zarqawi hadn't pledged loyalty to Bin Laden until 2004, his organization took money from and fought on the same side as Al Qaeda prior to the Iraq invasion.
Only for the broadest since of the term "same side" and it appears he took the money with one hand while holding his nose with the other. From the sounds of it, Zarqawi himself would have objected to having been called an Al Qaeda operative before the invasion.

source:
Pre U.S. Invasion of Iraq

Before the invasion of Afghanistan, Zarqawi was the leader of an Islamic militant group loosely affiliated with al-Qaeda. When Zarqawi first met bin Laden it was loathing at the first sight as bin Laden distrusted and disliked Zarqawi immediately. In an interview on Al-Majd TV, former al-Qaeda member Walid Khan, who was in Afghanistan fighting alongside Zarqawi's group explained that from the day al-Zarqawi's group arrived, there were disagreements, differences of opinion with bin Laden on a number of issues and positions. Bin Laden also suspected that many of Zarqawi's group members were Jordanian intelligence, disliked Zarqawi's swagger and the green tattoos on his left hand, which he reportedly considered un-Islamic and found Zarqawi hatred of Shiites divisive ). Saif al-Adel, now bin Laden's military chief, was an Egyptian who attempted to overthrow the Egyptian government saw merit in Zarqawi's overall objective of overthrowing the Jordanian monarchy. He intervened and smoothed the relations between Zarqawi and Al Qaeda leadership. It was agreed that Zarqawi will be given $5,000 U.S. dollars to start up his training camp outside the Afghan city of Herat, near the Iranian border. Zarqawi's camp would be as far away as he could be from bin Laden as Saif al-Adel was appointed as the middle man.

Zarqawi's group continued to received funding from Osama bin Laden but pursued "a largely distinct, if occasionally overlapping agenda," according to The Washington Post. Counterterrorism experts told the Washington Post that while Zarqawi accepted al-Qaeda's financial help to set up a training camp in Afghanistan he ran it independently and while bin Laden was planning September 11, Zarqawi was busy developing a plot to topple the Jordanian monarchy and attack Israel.

Nixon Center terrorism experts Robert S. Leiken and Steven Brooke explained that Zarqawi never meant to join al Qaeda. Militants have explained that Tawhid was especially for Jordanians who did not want to join al Qaeda. Even a confessed Tawhid member told his interrogators that Zarqawi was against al Qaeda. Zarqawi's men "refused to march under the banner of another individual or group" recalls Nu'man bin-Uthman, a Libyan Islamist leader now living in London who was in contact with Zarqawi at the time. Shortly after 9/11, a fleeing Ramzi bin al-Shibh, one of the main plotters of the attacks, appealed to Tawhid operatives for a forged visa. He could not come up with ready cash. Told that he did not belong to Tawhid, he was sent packing and eventually into the arms of the Americans.

The Washington Post also reported that German Intelligence wiretaps found that in the fall of 2001 that Zarqawi grew angry when his members were raising money in Germany for al-Qaeda's local leadership. "If something should come from their side, simply do not accept it," Zarqawi told one of his followers, according to a recorded conversation that was played at a trial of four alleged Zarqawi operatives in Duesseldorf.

At least five times, in 2000 and 2001, bin Laden called al-Zarqawi to come to Kandahar and pay bayat — take an oath of allegiance—to him. Each time, al-Zarqawi refused. Under no circumstances did he want to become involved in the battle between the Northern Alliance and the Taliban. He also did not believe that either bin Laden or the Taliban was serious enough about jihad. When the United States launched its air war inside Afghanistan, on October 7, 2001, al-Zarqawi joined forces with al-Qaeda and the Taliban for the first time. He and his Jund al-Sham fought in and around Herat and Kandahar. When Zarqawi finally did take the oath in October 2004, it was only after eight months of often stormy negotiations.



Kind of warms your heart that we've been able to make friends out of enemies, huh?

[/sarcasm]
 
Last edited:
I took a look at each statement by Cheney in a paragraph quoted above from the Limbaugh interview and evaluated it as to whether I saw it as misleading or not. I have bolded Cheney's words.

Remember Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist, an Al-Qaeda affiliate. He ran a training camp in Afghanistan for Al-Qaeda,
uncontested, believed to be absolutely true

he went to Baghdad.
apparently true, but a little misleading. He went to Baghdad for medical treatment and it appears that Hussein was not aware of this and had previously tried to capture Zarqawi.

He took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq,
Very misleading. the "there" appears to refer to Baghdad. He was in Baghdad for medical treatment. When he took up residence in Iraq it was in Northern Iraq in an area not closely controlled by Hussein.

organized the Al-Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene and then of course led the charge for Iraq,
Slightly misleading. There was a relationship between Zarqawi and Al-Qaida but Zarqawi was not exactly a member of Al-Qaida. He got some resources from them and recruited under their name, but he was his own guy and was not directly controlled by Al-Qaida. In fact Al-Qaida was opposed to some of his tactics. In particular the mass murders of the Iraqi Shiites and the bombing in Jordan.

until we [the US] killed him last June
Uncontested, believed to be absolutely true. Zarqawi and several others including his second wife and their child were killed in an American bombing attack.

He's the guy who arranged the bombing of the Samarra mosque that precipitated the sectarian violence between Shi'a and Sunni.
Reasonable statement although calling the bombing of the Samarra mosque a precipitating event might be overstating the situation. The Sunnis seemed to have formed an insurgency independent of any Al-Qaida links.

This is Al-Qaeda operating in Iraq, and as I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq.
Highly misleading. There is an obvious implication here that Hussein was in some way cooperating with Al-Qaida and that war was the only way that Al-Qaida in Iraq could have been dealt with. This, by all reports that I am aware of, is absolutely false. The statement also assumes that Zarqawi was part of Al-Qaida. This is not exactly the case but is close enough to being the case that this part of the statement, while not being exactly true is not misleading.

This statement seems to be at the heart of the dispute between Upchurch (et al) and Ziggurat. Ziggurat, assuming I understand him correctly, is making the claim that since this statement is factually correct that no intent to mislead by Cheney should be inferred.

I think Ziggurat is wrong here because:
1. The statement has been universally interpreted by the major news outlets to mean what Upchurch is claiming that Cheney meant it to mean. Not one news source reporting on the statement has resorted to careful interpretation that Ziggurat has chosen to give it.

2. Put in the context of the numerous misleading statements that preceded it, It is difficult to see how Cheney meant to do anything other than mislead by the statement.

3. It is just impossible that an accurate description of this situation could leave out the fact that the location of Zarqawi's base affiliated with Al-Qaida was in an area not closely controlled by Hussein.

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.
Not misleading but just Cheney's opinion that many people would disagree with. My guess is that the US is more subject to terror attacks as a result of the Iraq war and not less. So, IMHO, there was a way to fight the war on terror in Afghanistan without attacking Iraq.

Summary (IMHO of course)
Did Cheney make any factually incorrect statements?
I couldn't identify one.

Did Cheney make any misleading statements?
Yes

Did Cheney lie?
I don't know. I think Cheney intentionally
made misleading statements. By some definitions of "lie" I think it is reasonable to conclude that Cheney lied.

ETA: I should have added that there doesn't seem to be a clear cut difference between what Cheney did and the routine spinning that goes on all the time by spokesman for various points of view. If Cheney is judged to have lied here then a lot of partisan speech in the media could be seen as lies also. Clearly Cheney's statement was in a gray area between truthful and untruthful speech. I tend to agree with Upchurch's view that the nature of the speech was misleading enough to be considered untruthful. But, given that Cheney didn't intentionally make an unequivocal misstatement of fact it seems that it can not be determined unequivocally that he lied..

It is interesting that there probably won't be a public defense of Cheney's statement similar to the one Ziggurat has made here. Cheney supporters are unlikely to want to attribute such calculated parsing to Cheney and Cheney's supporter probably believe to some degree that Cheney's apparent inference was true and Ziggurat's defense of Cheney requires and acknowledgment that it wasn't true.
 
Last edited:
To your point, steveerino, you have created a false dichotomy and a strawman in your first paragraph. Can you show three instances of "Cheney-haters" who "repeat and repeat" that he is "dead, missing, or hiding in a cave".

1) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1001663,00.html

2) http://waltondammerung.prwdot.org/archives/001952.html

3) http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20011012/ai_n10731973

The term "Cheney-Hater" is simply a tag I place on people who, um, hate Cheney.-Steve
 
Basically Cheney lied because you say he meant something other than what his words actually mean. I'm not taking that argument seriously because it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.
Okay, then will you explain what Cheney actually meant when he said "This is Al-Qaeda operating in Iraq, and as I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq." What did he mean? It's a direct quote, not from the AP, a quote right out of Cheney's mouth.

Tell me what else that quote can mean BESIDES that al-Qaeda was operating in Iraq before we invaded Iraq - which has been shown to be false?
 
ETA: I should have added that there doesn't seem to be a clear cut difference between what Cheney did and the routine spinning that goes on all the time by spokesman for various points of view.
You don't? How unbelieveably myopic of you. The difference between Cheney and other spokesmen is that when Cheney made misleading statements, they led to a war resulting in thousands of deaths and/or are used in an attempt to justify that same war.

Did Al Gore's movie cause any deaths? How about Michael Moore's movies, or Ann Coulter's books? Because I'm just not sure - all I can see is this transparent knife.
 
You don't? How unbelieveably myopic of you.
I imagine that davefoc was speaking in terms of structure or technique, however:
The difference between Cheney and other spokesmen is that when Cheney made misleading statements, they led to a war resulting in thousands of deaths and/or are used in an attempt to justify that same war.

Did Al Gore's movie cause any deaths? How about Michael Moore's movies, or Ann Coulter's books? Because I'm just not sure - all I can see is this transparent knife.
This is a very good point.

We're not talking about a city alderman pimping a zoning bill. We're talking about a sitting Vice President using deceit in order to convince the US people to enter into a voluntary war. A voluntary war that was, at best, misguided or, at worst, designed further some wingnut PNAC political agenda.
 
I imagine that davefoc was speaking in terms of structure or technique, however:

I think that is right. Partisans often make statements that, while factually correct, leave out relevant information that conflicts with the point they are making. I thought Cheney's statement used a similar technique. Meaning that it fell in the gray region between a complete and truthful representation and a representation that was factually incorrect.

From my perspective, the implications of the statement were wrong enough and the information left out was so important to a complete and truthful representation of the situation that I thought the statement was dishonest. But since the statement didn't contain misstatements of fact, it was arguable that the statement was not dishonest, rather it was just putting forth the facts that support one's view as is very commonly done by partisans of a particular view.
 
Tell me what else that quote can mean BESIDES that al-Qaeda was operating in Iraq before we invaded Iraq - which has been shown to be false?

What source are you using which indicates that this claim is false? The AP report certainly doesn't indicate it's false.
 
I think Ziggurat is wrong here because:
1. The statement has been universally interpreted by the major news outlets to mean what Upchurch is claiming that Cheney meant it to mean.

News outlets don't determine the actual meaning of things. This is a mixture argument ad populum and appeal to authority, and it's a logical fallacy.

Not one news source reporting on the statement has resorted to careful interpretation that Ziggurat has chosen to give it.

That's because the press sucks and group-think is rampant. When's the last time you read a news story in a major media outlet and thought, "Wow, that's a detailed and insightful analysis!"?

2. Put in the context of the numerous misleading statements that preceded it, It is difficult to see how Cheney meant to do anything other than mislead by the statement.

And all those misleading statements are misleading because the press keeps telling you they're all misleading, and reporting them in a context in which they appear misleading.

3. It is just impossible that an accurate description of this situation could leave out the fact that the location of Zarqawi's base affiliated with Al-Qaida was in an area not closely controlled by Hussein.

Accurate for what purpose? Context matters. The context of this question was about whether the current conflict in Iraq is properly considered part of a broader "war on terror", not whether or not we were justified in invading. It is just impossible that an accurate description of Cheney's comments could leave out the question he was responding to. And yet, it did.
 

Back
Top Bottom