Cheyney: Liar, or Moron?

[Upchurch]

No, it isn't. The question at hand is whether or not Cheney was being a liar in this particular instance. That's what the original post was about, in case you forgot. YOU moved the goalpost on that, not me.

Read it again. From the OP, my ephasis:

WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney repeated his assertions of al-Qaida links to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq on Thursday as the Defense Department released a report citing more evidence that the prewar government did not cooperate with the terrorist group.

{snip}

However, a declassified Pentagon report released Thursday said that interrogations of the deposed Iraqi leader and two of his former aides as well as seized Iraqi documents confirmed that the terrorist organization and the Saddam government were not working together before the invasion.


The Sept. 11 Commission’s 2004 report also found no evidence of a collaborative relationship between Saddam and Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida network during that period.

The article was about Chaney's ongoing repetition of this meme that Saddam and Osama worked together despite evidence to the contrary. Yes, it was about this specific instance in addition to the many other times he drew the connection. Re-read the entire article, if you must.

Which is just another way of saying that the statement is true.

Only if the English language followed strict logical rules. It doesn't, of course, which is what allows for this kind of implication and spin.

In other words, Cheney is a liar because he didn't stop you from thinking something more than he actually said.

Well, yes. That is what imply means. He is a liar (or a moron) because he structured his statement to lead his audience to a conclusion that was not true.

Which amounts to him being guilty because you can't think straight.

I'm not his audience, but otherwise correct.

 

[Upchurch]

PS- UPCHURCH- Are you spelling "Cheney" "Chaney" on porpoise?

No, my spill chick is.

I've added the correct spelling to it's dictionary. Hopefully it will stop.

 

[fishbob]

Cheney: Liar, or Moron?

Liar

 

[Ziggurat]

Read it again. From the OP, my ephasis:

In other words, you're basing your argument on how the AP characterized what Cheney said, rather than on his actual words. Can you honestly not think about his words without the AP holding your hand to tell you what they mean?

The article was about Chaney's ongoing repetition of this meme that Saddam and Osama worked together despite evidence to the contrary.

And Cheney meant it that way because that's the way the AP said he meant it? Is that really the best you've got?

Well, yes. That is what imply means. He is a liar (or a moron) because he structured his statement to lead his audience to a conclusion that was not true.

Speak for yourself. I was led to no such conclusion.

Which amounts to him being guilty because you can't think straight.

I'm not his audience, but otherwise correct.

That's just... weak, really.

 

[Upchurch]

Except that Cheney wasn't even talking about the justification for invasion in this case. He was talking about whether it's appropriate to frame the current conflict in Iraq as part of a broader war on terror, as Upchurch's link shows. You really are blinkered.

No? Then why did Cheney bring up al-Zarqawi and events prior to the invasion?

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.

You're telling me that the above isn't a justification for the invasion?

 

[Upchurch]

In other words, you're basing your argument on how the AP characterized what Cheney said, rather than on his actual words.

I've been using Cheney's actual words, both from this interview and previous statements. I only referred back to the AP article because you did (and incorrectly, at that).

Can you honestly not think about his words without the AP holding your hand to tell you what they mean?

I've been doing that this whole time. I've pointed you to exact quotes within context. I've given you a site that outlines past statements that mirror this one. I don't know what more I can give you.

And Cheney meant it that way because that's the way the AP said he meant it? Is that really the best you've got?

No. Look at my last post. He's re-iterating the Iraq/Al-Qaeda connection just as he has for years, in spite of evidence to the contrary.

Speak for yourself. I was led to no such conclusion.

I think, rather, you won't allow yourself to arrive at such a conclusion.

That's just... weak, really.

Dude, at least I'm presenting an argument. You just keep re-asserting the same claim over and over.

 

[Ziggurat]

You're telling me that the above isn't a justification for the invasion?

I'm telling you the part you quote is correct, and the question he was answering wasn't about the justification for the invasion. So why do you read it that way? As far as I can tell, the reason is because the AP framed it that way.

 

[Ziggurat]

I've been doing that this whole time. I've pointed you to exact quotes within context. I've given you a site that outlines past statements that mirror this one. I don't know what more I can give you.

No, I don't suppose you do.

No. Look at my last post. He's re-iterating the Iraq/Al-Qaeda connection just as he has for years, in spite of evidence to the contrary.

Uh, NO. There's no evidence which is contrary to what Cheney actually said. It's not his problem that you keep thinking he said more than he actually did. That is, quite frankly, your own cognitive problem.

I think, rather, you won't allow yourself to arrive at such a conclusion.

Yeah, I admit I have a funny thing about not letting myself arrive at conclusions which don't have supporting evidence.

Dude, at least I'm presenting an argument. You just keep re-asserting the same claim over and over.

That's because you've consistently failed to address my argument. What Cheney said is factually correct. The context in which he said it was not about the decision to invade. Your position relies upon the idea that listeners will automatically be led to believe a rather specific extrapolation BEYOND what he actually said. And you've got no evidence for that other than that the AP jumped to that conclusion and so did you. 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.

 

[corplinx]

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.

You got me. I even shaved my head, developed a heart condition, and had a gay daughter to emulate my hero. Its hardcore Cheney country here.

I put my best friends picture on a dart board and "accidentally" threw a dart at it as well.

 

[corplinx]

The funny thing is here, theres two memes. One meme is the one Cheney is attempting to spread which is that Iraq is part of the war on terror.

The other meme is the dissenter's meme that Cheney is spreading the falsehood that Saddam was linked to 911. Sadly, you can take a look at this thread and see how many marks here ate it.

 

[SezMe]

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?

Zig, I think you've made Upchurch's point. You have displayed the ability to parse the nuances of Cheney's statements. Whether your parsing is correct or not is not at issue. The fact is that such parsing is NOT done by the media nor the average Joe on the street. All that nuance is lost and the end result of Cheney's statement is that the public perceives that Iraq and AQ/911 are closely linked. Which then justified the invasion of Iraq.

In fact, we have evidence for this. Bush (to his credit) said, "We have no evidence of a link between AQ and Saddam" But polls indicated that a large majority of Republicans think there is such a link to this very day.

Cheney is taking advantage of our media-driven, 30-second-sound-bite, headline-news world. He makes a link and that is what gets noticed. Nuance is on the cutting-room floor. And Cheney is no fool. He knows he can get away with it.

 

[Darth Rotor]

And Cheney is no fool. He knows he can get away with it.

Can I mark you down for a "no" on the second question?

Liar, or Moron?

Politician is the correct answer, of course, which the OP failed to add to the choices. That encompasses a great many low quality traits.

His marksmanship could use some work, while he's at it.

DR

 

[SezMe]

Funny. Cheney-haters used to repeat and repeat and repeat that he was dead, missing, or hiding in a cave in Colorado from the media and public. Now they are saying he has a long, robust, track record of making false statements. So which is it?

People who disagree with Cheney are not necessarily "Cheney-haters". This crap of claiming people who disagee with Cheney hate him or people who disagree with Bush hate him or people who disagee with Administration policy hate America is getting really old. Political discussions are contentious enough without the silly labeling.

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".

And can you demonstrate how such an assertion is contradicted by people who assert that "he has a long, robust, track record of making false statements."? Dead, etc. does not conflict with falsification.

 

[Upchurch]

No, I don't suppose you do.

{snip}

Uh, NO. There's no evidence which is contrary to what Cheney actually said. It's not his problem that you keep thinking he said more than he actually did. That is, quite frankly, your own cognitive problem.

Attacking the person rather than the argument? Nice.

That's because you've consistently failed to address my argument. What Cheney said is factually correct.

Yes, I did. You aren't paying attention. I agreed that the components of what Cheney said is factually correct. It is the way the information is presented that is misleading.

And honestly, you've never addressed this argument except to say "nuh-uh".

The context in which he said it was not about the decision to invade.

And, yet, he injected the connection anyway.

Your position relies upon the idea that listeners will automatically be led to believe a rather specific extrapolation BEYOND what he actually said. And you've got no evidence for that other than that the AP jumped to that conclusion and so did you.

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:

-- Forty-one percent (41%) of U.S. adults believe that Saddam Hussein had
"strong links to Al Qaeda."
-- Twenty-two percent (22%) of adults believe that Saddam Hussein "helped
plan and support the hijackers who attacked the United States on
September 11."
-- Twenty-six percent (26%) of adults believe that Iraq "had weapons of
mass destruction when the U.S. invaded."
-- Twenty-four percent (24%) of all adults believe that "several of the
hijackers who attacked the United States on September 11 were Iraqis."

Which, given that context, Cheney in 2006 proceeds to tell us that:

He [al-Zarqawi] took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organized the Al-Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene

I'm not taking that argument seriously because it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

If you aren't going to defend your position, why do you keep posting?

Don't get me wrong, I welcome your continued participation in this discussion, but you aren't participating by posting "I'm not interested"

 

[a_unique_person]

Haven't we been over this every time Cheney has said this?

A. There were links between some operatives and the Saddam goverment.
B. There was no working relationship between Bin Laden and Saddam
C. Iraq was not involved with 911

So the answer is, the moron is you. However, why Cheney keeps repeating this baffles me since the media spins it as "Cheney says Saddam was behind 911" every time he says it.

Because every time he says it, he's hoping the guilt by association will stick. "Al Qaeda was operating in Iraq before we invaded, Al Qaeda was behind 9/11, therefore we invaded Iraq."

 

[slyjoe]

From the article.



Corplinx: Liar, Moron, or Illiterate?

From a BBC profile of Zarqawi:

He first appeared in Iraq as the leader of the Tawhid and Jihad insurgent group, merging it in late 2004 with Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda network. After the US was there.

Doesn't this indicate that the quote from Cheney is incorrect? Not sure this will show up correctly as I'm not sure I grabbed the previous quote right.

 

[SezMe]

Can I mark you down for a "no" on the second question?

I don't know what the second question is.

But far more importantly, in Post #92 DR has this

Liar, or Moron?

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.

 

[Daylight]

Quote:
Cheney said al Quieda was operating within Iraq.

Which is true.

Ziggurat

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

Hightlights

Captured Iraqi documents and intelligence interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two former aides "all confirmed" that Hussein's regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a declassified Defense Department report released yesterday.

....the report said, the CIA had concluded in June 2002 that there were few substantiated contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and Iraqi officials, and said that it lacked evidence of a long-term relationship like the one Iraq had forged with other terrorist groups.

The CIA had separately concluded that reports of Iraqi training on weapons of mass destruction were "episodic, sketchy, or not corroborated in other channels," the inspector general's report said. It quoted an August 2002 CIA report describing the relationship as more closely resembling "two organizations trying to feel out or exploit each other" rather than cooperating operationally.

From these sources, the report added, "the terms the Intelligence Community used to describe the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida were validated, [namely] 'no conclusive signs,' and 'direct cooperation . . . has not been established.' "

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.

 

[davefoc]

Actually, daylight I think the information that you referred to is only mildly probative with respect to the Ziggurat/Upchurch disagreement.

Mostly it is not relevant because the fact that Hussein was not working with Al-Qaida is generally assumed to be true by, I think, all of the people that have posted in this thread.

Ziggurat's position is that Cheney didn't make the claim that Hussein was supporting or cooperating with Hussein. Upchurch's and others view is that this is a trivial distinction since Cheney's word's clearly suggest that Hussein was involved with Al-Qaida and that since that is widely believed to be false, Cheney made an intentionally misleading statement (lied).

It is interesting that no major news source that I am aware of, has made the parsing argument that Ziggurat seems to be making here. Your link does add one more news outlet that has taken Cheney's words to mean what Upchurch and others have claimed they meant. That seems like at least some evidence that Ziggurat's interpretation is not an obvious one.

I noticed that slyjoe provided some evidence to suggest that what Cheney said wasn't factually correct. That's interesting.

 

[Upchurch]

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.

It never occurred to me to verify that.

I, as a educational programmer in the mid-west, had very little reason or occasion to run across this fact. The Vice-President of an administration using al-Zarqawi as a selling point for the war must surely have.

So, what we have is not only Chaney habitually misconstruing the truth or outright lying in the past, but he also overtly lied in this specific case. My questions to Zig and anyone else who cares to answer is this:

1. Are you now interested in discussing the possibility that Chaney has been and continues to be dishonest about the nature of the Al-Qaeda/Iraq link prior our invasion?
2. Given that the the hypothesis that Chaney has and will continue to be dishonest concerning that link has shown to be predictive in this specific case, do you still feel that I must give Chaney the benefit of the doubt the next time he asserts this link or may I safely assume that he is being dishonest yet again?

In other words, at what point do past results indicate future performance?