Cheyney: Liar, or Moron?

[Azure]

Fixed!

Wow, way to stereotype.

Are you saying 20% of the people who voted for Bush/Cheney, but do not approve of them now are still idiots?

Or whatever percentage that is?

 

[Upchurch]

No surprise there.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data082303.htm

These polls show that on September 13, 2001, just two days after the attacks and well before Bush started talking publicly about Iraq, 78% of the public thought it was somewhat or very likely that Saddam was personally involved in the attacks. These numbers went down, not up, over time.

Hey, thanks for finally joining the conversation. It's amazing how you can use a news poll when it agrees with what you already believe and then turn around and within 15 minutes berate the press for being misleading when it doesn't agree with what you already believe.

That aside, it isn't true that the Bush administration started talking about Iraq sometime after September 13, 2001. The Bush administration was focused on Saddam since the campaign. Apparently (if you can trust that dang biased press), the Bush administration was planning on drawing the connection the same day as the attack. Of course, they would need to have some sort of mechanism for perpetuating that sort of meme, whatever form that may take.

Also, you've fallen into the same trap that you accused me of. You've shown a public opinion, but you have not identified what that opinion was based on.


You still have a long way to go to back up the list of claims you've racked up in this thread, but I am glad to see that you've started to participate.

 

[Ziggurat]

Hey, thanks for finally joining the conversation.

Your attention is not particularly high on my list of priorities. I will participate whenever I choose. I demand no more of anyone else, and you will get no more from me.

It's amazing how you can use a news poll when it agrees with what you already believe and then turn around and within 15 minutes berate the press for being misleading.

Your statement implies that there's a contradiction in my position. There isn't. The poll results are what they are. I've accused the press of being misleading. With only rare exceptions, however, I do not accuse them of lying. I have no reason to think the poll results are actually false. But considering the exposure that the 2003 results got, along with the lack of exposure the 2001 results had which might place the 2003 results in some context, I'd say the press was misleading about the poll results. Doesn't mean the results aren't correct.

That aside, it isn't true that the Bush administration started talking about Iraq sometime after September 13, 2001.

It sure as hell is in connection to 9/11 and Al Qaeda, which is rather the relevant issue here, isn't it? If you want to try to argue that people thought Saddam was behind 9/11 because Bush talked about Saddam before 9/11, well, you might as well start blaming Clinton for that opinion too, because he sure as hell talked about Saddam quite a bit (and rightfully so). And if you want to talk about a pattern to deceive regarding the connection of Saddam to Al Qaeda and 9/11, well, how exactly did that pattern start before 9/11 even happened? I suppose if you thought Bush had a hand in 9/11, that sort of thinking might make sense, but I don't think you believe that. So this is basically irrelevant, and you know it. You just brought it up because you thought you could trip me up with it.

Apparently (if you can trust that dang biased press), the Bush administration was planning on drawing the connection the same day as the attack.

You really haven't spent much time thinking about the logic of that bit of info, have you? We're talking about public opinion here. Whatever the administration might have considered doing along those lines, they didn't actually do it. How on earth could those discussions, which were NOT public until very recently, have affected public opinion on a broad scale? Are you positing time travel? Or maybe mind control? Really, what's the logic here?

Also, you've fallen into the same trap that you accused me of. You've shown a public opinion, but you have not identified what that opinion was based on.

Uh, no. You are correct that I did not identify what the opinion is based upon. But my argument and your argument are not equivalent. Your argument depends upon a specific cause being identified for that opinion, my argument does not.

 

[Upchurch]

And if you want to talk about a pattern to deceive regarding the connection of Saddam to Al Qaeda and 9/11, well, how exactly did that pattern start before 9/11 even happened?

Very excellent straw man. I never said they started linking Al Qaeda to Saddam before 9/11.

I suppose if you thought Bush had a hand in 9/11, that sort of thinking might make sense, but I don't think you believe that.

Good thing, that would be another rather ugly straw man and a argumentative fallacy by trying to paint me as a conspiracy nut job. That would have been just dishonest.

So this is basically irrelevant, and you know it. You just brought it up because you thought you could trip me up with it.

Actually, I was presenting a counter hypothesis and then backing it up. (hint, hint)

You really haven't spent much time thinking about the logic of that bit of info, have you?

Yes, there have been a lot of painting those who don't trust Cheney as irrational, reactionary, dishonest, lazy, and even mentally defective. Is that really necessary?

Do you really feel that those of us who do not agree with you on Cheney and the Bush administration simply cannot be reasonable people with valid reasons for thinking they way we do? (same question to steve and corp)

We're talking about public opinion here.

Which is why people have pointed out that various members of the press have interpreted Cheney's statements the same way that many participants in this thread have, because we are all members of public. And, at least in this forum, the press and members of this board have a very visible voice.

Whatever the administration might have considered doing along those lines, they didn't actually do it.

...until September 2002 to present, of course.

How on earth could those discussions, which were NOT public until very recently, have affected public opinion on a broad scale? Are you positing time travel? Or maybe mind control? Really, what's the logic here?

You know that biased media who spins things? They don't just spin left, ya know. Maybe you noticed that link I gave where one of those media figures related having an hour and a half meeting with the President in 2006 with several other high profile conservative media figures?

Uh, no. You are correct that I did not identify what the opinion is based upon. But my argument and your argument are not equivalent. Your argument depends upon a specific cause being identified for that opinion, my argument does not.

But you did claim you could demonstrate that they reached the conclusion that there was a link between Al-Qaeda and Saddam with no input from the Bush administration. That would require identifying the source and determining that it was not prompted by the Bush administration.

Seems pretty equivalent to me.

 

[corplinx]

Do you really feel that those of us who do not agree with you on Cheney and the Bush administration simply cannot be reasonable people with valid reasons for thinking they way we do? (same question to steve and corp)

I think its just mostly excuse making to slam cheney. The VP role is one of the most un-important in goverment unless the pres dies.

Going after the Veep through such hoops seems obsessive, unproductive, and a waste of your brain cycles.

My answer is "get a life".

There are a lot of these "get a life" issues where people just sit around flapping their gums about a lot of nothing. The Hillary "Bad Men" comment, the Howard Dean scream, Trent Lott's thurmond birthday remark, tar baby comments, etc, etc, etc.

Going after Cheney for mentioning links between Iraq and Al Q seems like hair splitting for the point of just feeling better about having something to slam a guy who does nothing and is nothing but a fillin in case Dubya gets another pretzel stuck.

Jeez. When Senator Hillary is prez are we going to have a bunch of people splitting hairs about the latest comments from VP Edwards they don't agree with ?

Edited to add: This is the kind of crap people on those crappy debate shows crappily debate about (Hannity/Colmes, etc).

 

[Upchurch]

So that would be a "yes"?

 

[Dorian Gray]

What source are you using which indicates that this claim is false? The AP report certainly doesn't indicate it's false.

Tell me what else the quote can mean? And what source? The 9/11 commission report ring a bell?

 

[Dorian Gray]

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.



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!"?



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.



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.

Okay, news outlets don't determine the meanings of things, and groups of people just follow each other. Well, last time I checked, the Executive Branch was a group of people, so doesn't this logic apply to them?

And if quoting directly from Cheney's very own mouth doesn't do it for you, then I have no choice but to conclude the following:

You consider YOURSELF the arbiter of what something means.

So, arbiter, tell me: Cheney has mislead or attempted to mislead Americans into believing that there is a clear and unmistakeable link between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein/Iraq in an attempt to convince Americans that an invasion will prevent future attacks against Americans and a war was/is justified and right.

Yes, or no?

And many sources from the entire political spectrum, including George W. Bush himself, have stated repeatedly that there was no link between Iraq/Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

Yes, or no?

 

[steverino]

Jeez. When Senator Hillary is prez are we going to have a bunch of people splitting hairs about the latest comments from VP Edwards they don't agree with ?

So you think Obama's not gunna be in the picture? Just curious.

 

[Upchurch]

Jeez. When Senator Hillary is prez are we going to have a bunch of people splitting hairs about the latest comments from VP Edwards they don't agree with ?

Most likely. People are still splitting hairs on Kerry's comments, past and present, and he didn't even win.

 

[Ziggurat]

Tell me what else the quote can mean? And what source? The 9/11 commission report ring a bell?

I didn't say the quote meant something else. But you can't keep your claims straight. The 9/11 commission stated that there was no known collaboration between Saddam and Al Qaeda. It does not make the claim that there were no Al Qaeda elements in Iraq. Those are two different claims, and your conflation of the two leads you to a conclusion which you cannot actually support.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

And you're staying the course with the misspelling, I see. Your thread title, right or wrong. We're either with you or against you.

Are you aware that ordinary users cannot edit thread titles?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Politics forum.

Cleon was right.

CNN reporting on poll in september 06

If a significant percentage of the country, 43% in that poll, believes that Saddam was connected to 9/11. All you need to to assume a strong correlation between this and voting republican to get that to be a pretty supportable statement. As long as you think that continueing to think that Saddam was connected to 9/11 is a good indicator of being a moron.

 

[Ziggurat]

Okay, news outlets don't determine the meanings of things, and groups of people just follow each other. Well, last time I checked, the Executive Branch was a group of people, so doesn't this logic apply to them?

The word determine has multiple meanings, and you seem unable to figure out the difference, or when to apply which meaning. So here are the transitive verb definitions:

1 a : to fix conclusively or authoritatively <determine national policy> b : to decide by judicial sentence <determine a plea> c : to settle or decide by choice of alternatives or possibilities <trying to determine the best time to go> d : RESOLVE <she determined to do better>
2 a : to fix the form, position, or character of beforehand : ORDAIN <two points determine a straight line> b : to bring about as a result : REGULATE <demand determines the price>
3 a : to fix the boundaries of b : to limit in extent or scope c : to put or set an end to : TERMINATE <determine an estate>
4 : to find out or come to a decision about by investigation, reasoning, or calculation <determine the answer to the problem> <determine a position at sea>
5 : to bring about the determination of <determine the fate of a cell>

When I say the press does not determine the meaning of something, it should be obvious that I am using definition 1a. It is within everyone's power to "determine" meaning in the sense of definition 4 above. I have no idea where you're trying to go with your statement about "applying" this logic to the executive branch. When it comes to the meaning of words that were actually spoken, the speaker is quite obviously NOT in the same role as the listener.

And if quoting directly from Cheney's very own mouth doesn't do it for you,

It does. Your inability to understand the facts (in particular, your unfounded belief that the 9/11 commission claimed there were no Al Qaeda elements in Iraq prior to our invasion) has nothing to do with what I will or won't accept.

You consider YOURSELF the arbiter of what something means.

Uh, no. I consider myself capable of determining (in the sense of definition 4 above) the meaning of things. I do not, and have never, considered myself solely capable of doing so. You can too. But the fact that you can doesn't mean you did.

So, arbiter, tell me: Cheney has mislead or attempted to mislead Americans into believing that there is a clear and unmistakeable link between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein/Iraqin an attempt to convince Americans that an invasion will prevent future attacks against Americans and a war was/is justified and right.

I know no one who believe in a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq because of anything Cheney said. Furthermore, nobody has produced any evidence that anyone believes this because of what Cheney said. What Upchurch thought was evidence of that (public opinion polls) is in fact nothing of the sort, as I've already detailed. As for what he was attempting to do, well, I'm not interested in trying to dig through years worth of statements, account for their context as well as how they were represented by the press, to try to prove a particular position on his internal motivations. What I am willing to do is consider the what Cheney actually said in a particular instance presented in the original post of this thread. And in this particular instance, Cheney wasn't even talking about the justification for invasion.

And many sources from the entire political spectrum, including George W. Bush himself, have stated repeatedly that there was no link between Iraq/Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

It's true that Bush has said repeatedly that Saddam had no role in 9/11. And isn't it kind of strange? I mean, wouldn't that sort of undercut this supposed attempt to decieve Americans about the connection, if Bush keeps publicly saying it didn't exist? And in terms of the opinion polls, the trend is in the direction of people being convinced by these EXPLICIT statements of a lack of a connection, rather than by implications that there was one.

 

[Ziggurat]

But you did claim you could demonstrate that they reached the conclusion that there was a link between Al-Qaeda and Saddam with no input from the Bush administration. That would require identifying the source and determining that it was not prompted by the Bush administration.

No, it doesn't. It requires demonstrating that the supposed cause was not present at the time of the effect - it does not require identifying an alternate cause. You're right that Bush talked about Saddam prior to 9/11. But did he talk about Saddam in relation to Al Qaeda prior to 9/11? I don't think so. In fact, I don't think most people were even aware of the existence of Al Qaeda prior to 9/11. I know I wasn't. So how could Bush have possibly convinced 78% of the public that there was a connection if he never even talked about the two of them together? I do not know what made 78% of people think, on 9/13/2001, that Saddam might have been involved with 9/11. I do know what did NOT cause them to think that: namely, something the Bush administration started doing AFTER that date. And I know that because I am deeply convinced time travel is not possible.

 

[Upchurch]

No, it doesn't. It requires demonstrating that the supposed cause was not present at the time of the effect

Which you have not done.

- it does not require identifying an alternate cause.

How do you propose to determine that the Bush administration had no influence on public opinion if you have not determined what did influence public opinion?

You're right that Bush talked about Saddam prior to 9/11. But did he talk about Saddam in relation to Al Qaeda prior to 9/11? I don't think so. In fact, I don't think most people were even aware of the existence of Al Qaeda prior to 9/11. I know I wasn't. So how could Bush have possibly convinced 78% of the public that there was a connection if he never even talked about the two of them together?

Prior to 9/11, the Bush administration had set up Saddam and Iraq as the number one enemy of the US, did they not? When 9/11 hit and before those responsible were identified, I suppose it shouldn't be surprising that a majority of Americans jumped to the conclusion that Saddam had something to do with it.

I'm not saying that it was intentional, at that early stage, that the Bush administration influenced public opinion in this way, but it was a lucky break for them. And they certainly ran with it. Once Al-Qaeda was identified as the guilty party, the Bush administration often mentioned Al-Qaeda and Iraq in the same breath.

I do not know what made 78% of people think, on 9/13/2001, that Saddam might have been involved with 9/11. I do know what did NOT cause them to think that: namely, something the Bush administration started doing AFTER that date. And I know that because I am deeply convinced time travel is not possible.

I actually do believe that time travel is possible, especially going forward. Going backwards might still be possible, but would be very, very expensive and would probably hurt a lot.

 

[Ziggurat]

How do you propose to determine that the Bush administration had no influence on public opinion if you have not determined what did influence public opinion?

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

The charge is that the Bush administration tricked people into believing that there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11 because they would supposedly imply that such a connection existed. But people believed in the connection before anyone in the administration engaged in ANY of the activity which has been labeled as deceptive.

Prior to 9/11, the Bush administration had set up Saddam and Iraq as the number one enemy of the US, did they not?

Saddam was considered a major enemy by pretty much EVERYONE who paid attention. Because he was. "Number one" is a qualifier I don't think you've established, nor is it particularly relevant when discussing whether or not there was a deliberate campaign to deceive.

When 9/11 hit and before those responsible were identified, I suppose it shouldn't be surprising that a majority of Americans jumped to the conclusion that Saddam had something to do with it.

Quite true. So why blame Bush for people having that opinion? Why attribute it to a supposed campaign of misdirection, when they were perfectly capable of forming that opinion on their own? Where's the actual evidence that anyone was actually decieved? Oh, that's right: you don't HAVE any.

I'm not saying that it was intentional, at that early stage, that the Bush administration influenced public opinion in this way, but it was a lucky break for them. And they certainly ran with it. Once Al-Qaeda was identified as the guilty party, the Bush administration often mentioned Al-Qaeda and Iraq in the same breath.

Once again, you rely on the inability of the public to consider anything more complex than the proximity of two words. Argument from stupidity: the sheeple were to dumb not to jump to incorrect conclusions even when the statements themselves are factually correct. That's a condescending argument, and I don't know why you expect a broader public (who was apparently too stupid not to be tricked by the rhetorical equivalent of a shiny object) to buy into it.

 

[Upchurch]

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

The charge is that the Bush administration tricked people into believing that there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11 because they would supposedly imply that such a connection existed. But people believed in the connection before anyone in the administration engaged in ANY of the activity which has been labeled as deceptive.

Well, there have been several claims. But here is the one that I've been asking you to back up:

But no causal connection has been established, most people demonstrably concluded that in the first place without any input from the administration,

That is what I asked you to "Then, please, demonstrate."

Quite true. So why blame Bush for people having that opinion? Why attribute it to a supposed campaign of misdirection, when they were perfectly capable of forming that opinion on their own? Where's the actual evidence that anyone was actually decieved? Oh, that's right: you don't HAVE any.

Hold on. People jumped to the conclusion that Saddam might have been involved with 9/11, but once it became clear that Al-Qaeda was responsible and not Saddam, where did the idea come that there was a link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq?

Once again, you rely on the inability of the public to consider anything more complex than the proximity of two words. Argument from stupidity: the sheeple were to dumb not to jump to incorrect conclusions even when the statements themselves are factually correct.

Have you not been to the General Skepticism section of this forum? Why do you think there is a need for debunkers and skeptics in this world? Very smart people are fooled by simple tricks all the time because most people don't pay close attention.

 

[Ziggurat]

Well, there have been several claims. But here is the one that I've been asking you to back up:

That is what I asked you to "Then, please, demonstrate."

I did. Perhaps you misunderstand me. I was talking about the perception of a connection between Saddam and 9/11. The Bush administration made no such connection, and implied no such connection, prior to September 13, 2001. Yet people concluded there was such a connection. Therefore, they did so without input (about the connection) from the Bush administration. Is that really so hard for you to comprehend?

Hold on. People jumped to the conclusion that Saddam might have been involved with 9/11, but once it became clear that Al-Qaeda was responsible and not Saddam, where did the idea come that there was a link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq?

What, people can't come to conclusions on their own? Isn't it kind of obvious that if people thought (on their own) it was likely that Saddam had a role in 9/11 and then they're told (correctly) that Al Qaeda had a role in 9/11, they'll put two and two together and conclude that if Saddam did have a role (as they already suspected on their own), it would be in helping Al Qaeda?

 

[Upchurch]

I did. Perhaps you misunderstand me. I was talking about the perception of a connection between Saddam and 9/11. The Bush administration made no such connection, and implied no such connection, prior to September 13, 2001. Yet people concluded there was such a connection. Therefore, they did so without input (about the connection) from the Bush administration. Is that really so hard for you to comprehend?

I'll be damned.

You changed the subject from "Saddam and Al-Qaeda" to "Saddam and 9/11" and not only didn't I catch it, but I also helped divert the conversation from the main topic to this tangent, thinking we were still talking about the same thing. You are good.

What, people can't come to conclusions on their own?

Well, that was my question to you when you insisted that I only thought Cheney was attempting to mislead the public because AP told me he was.