The question is, what kind of technical novices do they have in the Democratic party? This stuff is readily available and easily locate-able, but us working stiffs have jobs to do. Why aren’t there some really savvy people in the Democratic party unearthing this stuff?

Bush and Cheney (and its enablers) provide mounds of self-contradictory statements that question their present sanity, never mind their waffling.

One point where he seems to be consistent today is in his opinion that you need to maintain forces to keep the government propped up. That is obvious, given the fortress embassy being built.

Yes, Dick knew then, and knows now, that US forces will be there for a long, long time.

http://politics50.com

Cheney was hired by Halliburton because of his political ties. He then selected himself to be VP for someone who would let him carry out his plan for huge personal wealth. He (and the other war profiteers) saw the opportunity to get rich by running an immoral military operation- (for themselves and their friends,) and he grabbed it. It used to be a crime. I don’t understand why it isn’t anymore.

This is either Jake or Mighty Hermapodite Meagan.

Sad, but the guy who talked about the whitehaus weenie roasts is correct.
This story has gotten almost zero play in the media. Anyone who can look at how little traction a quote like this has gotten and claim the media has a liberal bias is totally detached from reality. 94 percent of the media in this country is bought and paid for.

funny experiment.. quote the cheney 94 statment to the next redneck you debate, but dont say who said it, and ask him what he thinks of the statement.. watch them say something like.. “that guys an idiot”!

Bigfoot, where are you on this one? thoughts?

let me guess… “9-11 changed everything” (including the laws of physics and basic human psychology)….

argue that all you want, if you look back, post 2000, these guys were not only saying invading iraq was necessary, but that it would be “a cakewalk”..”over in less than 6 months”…we’d be “greeted as liberators”..

how quickly their tune changes, once thier on the other side of the argument..

once again, the quintessitial right winger… totally internally inconsistent..

Comment by Bad Eye — September 27, 2007 @ 10:26 pm

Good catch, however keep in mind that we now live in a world where Big Pharma Corporations make rules, and the drugs, that keep Bush happy.

.

Dick Cheney… FLIP FLOPPER!

before he was for it!

.

I ran across this while researching a response to Squeegeboo in discussing the failed rescue attempt of the American hostages in Iran.

In testimony to Congress, where he spoke of his global obligations in relation to the hostages, Carter said the following:

It is a constantly — it is constantly a burden on my mind, no matter what I am thinking about. If I am worrying about an announcement that I am going to be a candidate for president or if I am worrying about the windfall profits tax or if I am worrying about anything else, I am always concerned about the hostages.

It is just as though my wife was in the hospital on the point of death and I had my duties to carry out and I didn’t know whether she was going to live or die. I worry just as much about those hostages, and I feel like they are all my own family.

Now, compare this to comments Bush said regarding the Iraq “war”:

“People would be surprised at how well I sleep at night.”

Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in “mission creep,” and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs…We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.’s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different–and perhaps barren–outcome.

— “Why We Didn’t Remove Saddam” by George H.W. Bush

You know he is the wrong father to appeal to in terms of strength. There is a higher father that I appeal to.

— George W. Bush

-GSD

Now he’s making millions.

-GSD

-GSD

Comment by Xisithrus — September 27, 2007 @ 6:32 pm

*cough* Prescott Bush *cough*

-GSD

And, you can blame the era of republican unregulated capitalism and isolationism in the 20’s on that.