Join 3,431 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Cheney clarifies Iraq, Afghanistan on Meet the Press
September 10, 2006 2:23 PM   Subscribe

Cheney Clarifies Iraq, Afghanistan on Meet the Press. For the first time in three years, Cheney appears on Meet the Press. Transcript here. "We’ve never been able to confirm any connection between Iraq and 9/11[,]" but Iraq "...was a state sponsor of terror" and "while they found no stockpiles...[the Duelfer report claimed that] Saddam did in fact have the capability and that as soon as the sanctions were ended—and they were badly eroded—he would be back in business again." "[T]his was the place where, probably, there was a greater prospect of a connection between terrorists on the one hand and a terrorist-sponsoring state and weapons of mass destruction than any place else." "...if we had to do it again, we would do exactly the same thing..."
posted by shivohum (71 comments total)

 
Isn't it a sign of insanity when a person engages in repeated acts while somehow thinking that the outcome will be different?..

Or does Dick actually like the outcome that exists now? He and the rest of the administration have apparently killed more Americans through their military action than Osama bin Laden did on 9/11. That hardly seems to be a sane reason to be happy.
posted by clevershark at 2:27 PM on September 10, 2006


What is Cheney's stance on Lego teledildonics?
posted by Rhomboid at 2:30 PM on September 10, 2006


Isn't it a sign of insanity when a person engages in repeated acts while somehow thinking that the outcome will be different?

Actually, in my experience, that's common human behavior.
posted by Astro Zombie at 2:30 PM on September 10, 2006


Astro Zombie writes "Actually, in my experience, that's common human behavior."

As Nietzsche said, insanity in individuals is quite rare, but in nations and peoples it seems to be the norm.
posted by clevershark at 2:33 PM on September 10, 2006


His point was that nobody in the Administration was ever publically connecting Saddam Hussein with the 9/11 attacks, but rather that there was a connection between Iraq and international terrorists, and between Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, if only in aspiration. There was a connection, in other words, between Al Qaeda and Iraq, but that doesn't mean there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11.
posted by swift at 2:36 PM on September 10, 2006


*never
posted by swift at 2:37 PM on September 10, 2006


er, nevermind
posted by swift at 2:38 PM on September 10, 2006


"As Nietzsche said, insanity in individuals is quite rare"--and after getting VD, he became one of the rare ones
posted by Postroad at 2:38 PM on September 10, 2006


MR. RUSSERT: But the president said they were working in concert, giving the strong suggestion to the American people that they were involved in September 11th.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. There are, there are two totally different propositions here, and people have consistently tried to confuse them. And it’s important, I think—there’s a third proposition, as well, too, and that is Iraq’s traditional position as a strong sponsor of terror.

So you’ve got Iraq and 9/11, no evidence that there’s a connection. You’ve got Iraq and al-Qaeda, testimony from the director of CIA that there was indeed a relationship, Zarqawi in Baghdad, etc. Then the third...

MR. RUSSERT: The committee said that there was no relationship. In fact...

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I haven’t seen the report; I haven’t had a chance to read it yet, but the fact is...

MR. RUSSERT: But Mr. Vice President, the bottom line is...

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We know, we know that Zarqawi, running a terrorist camp in Afghanistan prior to 9/11, after we went in to 9/11, then fled and went to Baghdad and set up operations in Baghdad in the spring of ‘02 and was there from then, basically, until basically the time we launched into Iraq.

MR. RUSSERT: The bottom line is, the rationale given the American people was that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and he could give those weapons of mass destruction to al-Qaeda and we could have another September 11. And now we read that there is no evidence, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee, of that relationship. You’ve said there’s no involvement. The president says there’s no involvement.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No, Tim, no involvement in what respect?

MR. RUSSERT: In September 11, OK. The CIA said, leading up to the war, that the possibility of Saddam using weapons of mass destruction was “low.” It appears that there was a deliberate attempt made by the administration to link al-Qaeda in Iraq in the minds of the American people and use it as a rationale to go into Iraq.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Tim, I guess—I don’t—I’m not sure what part you don’t understand here. In September—or in 1990, the State Department designated Iraq as a state sponsor of terror. Abu Nidal, famous terrorist, had sanctuary in, in Baghdad for years. Zarqawi was in Baghdad after we took Afghanistan and before we went into Iraq. You had the facility up at Kermal, poisons facility, ran by Ansar Islam, an affiliate of al-Qaeda. You had the fact that Saddam Hussein, for example, provided payments to the families of suicide bombers of $25,000 on a regular basis. This was a state sponsor of terror. He had a relationship with terror groups. No question about it. Nobody denies that.

The evidence we also had at the time was that he had a relationship with al-Qaeda. And that was George Tenet’s testimony, the director of the CIA, in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee. We also have a—had knowledge of the fact that he had produced and used weapons of mass destruction and we know, as well, that while he did not have any production under way at the time, that he’s clearly retained the capability, and the expectation from the experts was as soon as the sanctions were lifted he’d be back in business again.

Now this was the place where, probably, there was a greater prospect of a connection between terrorists on the one hand and a terrorist-sponsoring state and weapons of mass destruction than any place else. You talk about Iran, North Korea, they’re problems, too, but they hadn’t been through 12 years of sanctions and resolutions by the U.N. Security Council and ignored them with impunity.
Amazing! Cheney is either the guy who sees the clothes on the King every time, or the guy telling you they are there. hmmm?
posted by caddis at 2:47 PM on September 10, 2006


Or does Dick actually like the outcome that exists now?

Yes.

He and the rest of the administration have apparently killed more Americans through their military action than Osama bin Laden did on 9/11. That hardly seems to be a sane reason to be happy.


You're making two unfounded assumptions:

1) That he and the other Bushies give a shit about the lives of Americans they don't know ("know" in the sense of "serve on boards of directors with"). They care about making money for their cronies. Mission accomplished!

2) That he and the other Bushies are sane.
posted by languagehat at 2:48 PM on September 10, 2006


"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda is because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda." -- George W. Bush, June 17th 2004.

"The notion that there is no relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda just simply is not true" -- Dick Cheney June 17th 2004.

If these two have evidence, let them make it public. Clearly if there is no problem in "outing" a currently-covert CIA agent, there ought to be no problem "outing" information about a government that has been overthrown over 3 years ago. If they do not show such evidence they are simply liars.
posted by clevershark at 2:49 PM on September 10, 2006


Oh, and Zarqawi's terror camp was actually located in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq prior to the US invasion. By Dick's logic this means that it is actually the Kurds who had a relationship with Al-Qaeda. But facts have never played much of a role in the decision making of the Administration anyway.
posted by clevershark at 2:52 PM on September 10, 2006


"Or does Dick actually like the outcome that exists now?"

Course he does. Things are going exactly as planned, so long as they can keep the heat up in the ME, and find a way to survive midterm elections - which will be a simple recipe of ratfucking, swiftboating, scaring the shit out of the American public with another "attack," and likely massive electoral fraud.

Meanwhile, they let the ME further dissolve into a level of anarchic chaos and civil war that will enable them to justify expanding military action to Iran, Syria, or both.

This ain't just about Iraq and her oil wealth, and the concomitant contracts for crony contractors, it's about restructuring the entire ME, as a big ol fuel dump for Uncle Sam.

Unfortunately, the worse things get in Iraq, the better the case can be made for exapnded military intervention in the region.
posted by stenseng at 2:58 PM on September 10, 2006


As Cheney has said on more than one occasion, he just doesn't give a flying f**k.

He has said in interviews that he knows that he will never serve in government again after 2008. He feels secure in the knowledge that not worrying about fighting to be re-elected liberates him to do whatever the hell he thinks is right and necessary without paying any attention to public opinion, which is fickle and unreliable anyway.

From yesterday's New York Times article on Cheney:

“I suppose, sometimes, people look at my demeanor and say, well, he’s the Darth Vader of the administration,” Mr. Cheney told CNN in June. “I’m not running for anything. My career will end, politically, with this administration. I have the freedom and the luxury, as does the president, of doing what we think is right for the country.” ...

Mr. Cheney maintains that what matters now is convincing the country that it is really at war and that defeat is not an option. And at 65, he seems willing to wait for his vindication. As Mr. Cheney recently told NBC, “History will decide how I did.”

posted by blucevalo at 3:01 PM on September 10, 2006


There is a connection between Iraq and WMD and Al Qaeda. In that Saddam Hussein was standing on the same planet—planet earth and specifically on the adjacent tectonic plate to the plate that Osama Bin Laden stood—when he first thought of the notion of maybe building nukes.

If one was to draw a line though the crust of the earth between the two men on that instant it would be, more or less, a straight one. A connection.

If one was to believe in energy meridians, and such a meridian is thought to exist on the greater Asian sub-continent , then in that synchronaistic instant Saddam Hussien first conjured his plan to build nukes in 1984, Osama Bin Laden was struck by a psychic wave filling him with a similar urge. The resonance thus rippled through the time continuum between the two men creating a mutual vision of using their shared desires to destroy America.

Seconds after the alignment of these meridians, and the adjoinment of the two evil minds, melded in a dastardly union of hate, Saddam whispered aloud:

"Rosebud" Which was odd.

But even stranger it was followed by the muffled voice of Donald Rumsfeld who said "Whrf Didjyu thaym?" in response. It was hard to hear because he had Saddam Hussiens thick vieny cock in his mouth at the time.

Later, back in the states, when Don was drunk and a bragging on himself as men do, he told Dick Cheney of the odd thing Saddam said.

Cheney, being the astute intuitive guy he is, deduced the rest.
posted by tkchrist at 3:06 PM on September 10, 2006 [1 favorite]


Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.

– Albert Einstein
posted by robbyrobs at 3:07 PM on September 10, 2006


robbyrobs wins. Er, ol' Al wins.
posted by fingers_of_fire at 3:10 PM on September 10, 2006


As Mr. Cheney recently told NBC, “History will decide how I did.”

History, or at least the objective historians, will look back on these actions and deeds and find these psychotic bastards to be war criminals, nothing less. They will also marvel at the massive disconnect of the American population, the complacency and indifference which helped bring down the American Empire.

This will not end well.

Flame away.
posted by dbiedny at 3:22 PM on September 10, 2006


“History will decide how I did.”
I'd like him to be cryogenically frozen then awakened in 20 years to see how history has judged him- as a fucking repugnant and deeply corrupt gangster pig who put profit before humanity at every turn, while pissing on what America was meant to stand for.
posted by Liquidwolf at 3:27 PM on September 10, 2006


What is Cheney's stance on Lego teledildonics?

I would say crouching, but I doubt that those knees could take the stress.
posted by Tullius at 3:27 PM on September 10, 2006


dbiedney? "Flame away."

Us? Me?
Cheney?
The historians?

I think the historians will flame away on this administration -- they certainly deserve it. I agree with you on this, but like so many others that are, just end up typing and talking about it. I wonder why, in this age where we are so interconnected, this administration keeps plodding along, lying, getting so much of they want. Our form of democracy has failed us. It was designed so long ago, tweaked by powers that wanted more power, and it doesn't feel like it belongs to people anymore. Or maybe it does, and just collectively we suck at this.
posted by kingfisher, his musclebound cat at 3:32 PM on September 10, 2006


History will decide how I did.

"History, we don't know. We'll all be dead."
-- President (and Yale History major) George W. Bush

His point was...that there was a connection...between Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, if only in aspiration.

No. Vice President Cheney said, "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." We were told over and over that Iraq actually had weapons. Not aspirations. Not weapons-of-mass-destruction-related program activities.
posted by kirkaracha at 3:41 PM on September 10, 2006 [1 favorite]


Bush: 'History Cannot Judge Me If I End It Soon'
posted by EarBucket at 3:44 PM on September 10, 2006


Has anyone put together a video or audio montage of contradicory staments from these guys? Like footage of Cheney saying Hussein has WMDs then footage of him saying he never said that?
posted by Liquidwolf at 3:46 PM on September 10, 2006


the rerun is on msnbc right now--he's such an evil sack of shit--even when confronted with all his lies he keeps his cool, and propagates new ones as well.
posted by amberglow at 3:50 PM on September 10, 2006


Bush attacked Saddam because he wanted to finish off his dad's work. Everything else is icing. These evil self-deceiving bloodyminded bastards have constituted the worst US administration in history.
posted by riotgrrl69 at 3:50 PM on September 10, 2006


and while Timmy was a little tougher on him, he still was visibly nervous about confronting him.
posted by amberglow at 3:51 PM on September 10, 2006


Liquidwolf--a good start here and here.
posted by EarBucket at 3:52 PM on September 10, 2006


Liquidwolf - try this
posted by riotgrrl69 at 3:52 PM on September 10, 2006


stenseng is right--they want the region destabilized--it makes getting the oil easier and perpetrates forever the massive military-industrial machine buildup and profits for themselves and their friends.

Cheney's still going to leave office before 08 to go back to Halliburton--"health reasons"
posted by amberglow at 3:55 PM on September 10, 2006


Cheney, being the astute intuitive guy he is, deduced the rest. posted by tkchrist

(Clap clap clap!) Yay, good story! Tell it again!
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 3:55 PM on September 10, 2006


... Is the vice-president seriously allowed to express no remorse for the fact that he was so forcefully wrong. In public. So often. On so many matters. As they pertained to pre-emptively invading a sovereign nation?...
posted by amberglow at 4:47 PM on September 10, 2006


I saw this this morning and was all "grr". This was SO not what I wanted to hear while drinking my morning coffee today. My Sunday hasn't gone so well and it's ALL Dick Cheney's fault.
posted by echo0720 at 4:48 PM on September 10, 2006


Hate to be a buzz-kill and throw a wrench into the collective circle jerk/feeding frenzy, but one way to view this mess is that the responsibility for Bush being re-elected rests squarely in the liberals' laps. Had the Dems fronted an electable candidate in '04 -- or even put in a little more work [than posting anyone-but-Bush comments online] into getting the joke they did front elected -- a president with terrible (and worsening by the minute) public opinion numbers wouldn't have been re-elected. Maybe they'll do a better job getting liberal candidates elected in November (doubt it) and in 2008 (likely).

Just imagine: if anyone were truly simple enough to actually believe the campaign rhetoric, had the Left been able to actually coalesce enough to get Kerry elected, we'd be out of Iraq by now. But, alas, they couldn't.
posted by CodeBaloo at 5:31 PM on September 10, 2006


To paraphrase CodeBaloo: Who could be more responsible for Bush's failures than the Democrats? (Certainly not Bush.)
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 5:50 PM on September 10, 2006


Have you ever noticed the trend to blame Democrats for EVERYTHING? Haven't they been out of power for several years?
posted by Balisong at 5:52 PM on September 10, 2006


By CodeBaloo's logic, it is actually the fault of the British.

If they hadn't surrendered to that American upstart Washington, none of this would have happened.

Or perhaps you'd rather blame Christopher Columbus. It holds just as much water as blaming the Democrats.
posted by briank at 6:01 PM on September 10, 2006


Dances With Sneetches, the problem with paraphrasing is points are left out.. or in this case, added. I didn't assert that Bush's failures, and those of his administration, were anybody's but Bush's. A more accurate paraphrase would be: That there remained, after the '04 election, a "Bush administration" to be denounced at all, was much more a gargantuan failure of The Left than a victory by The Right.

Balisong, there's two-edges to that. It'll be interesting/funny/sad to see who gets blamed for every negative thing after the Democrats regain the White House and, possibly, Congress. A wise person would bet there'll "be a trend to blame Republicans for everything".

BrianK, the difference is that those 18th-century British and Christopher Columbus aren't around today to feed off each other's mutual misery about what a terrible job Bush is doing. However, the folks whose failure got Bush re-elected are.
posted by CodeBaloo at 6:18 PM on September 10, 2006


Personally I think Bush is given too much "credit". I don't think he's taken a single decision since he asked Cheney to "head his VP search committee".
posted by clevershark at 6:27 PM on September 10, 2006


Yes, Cheney is Satan personified and yes this administration is pretty terrible.

But those facts don't give the Democrats a free pass. They need to get their act together, have a GOOD plan and tell people what it is. 'Cause remember, Bush won with 51% of the vote. Imagine what would have happened if the Democrats had really worked at it, eh?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:33 PM on September 10, 2006


CodeBaloo:

I was being snarky. It's just I don't like being blamed or even sharing the blame when I personally did what I could and still got stuck with the idiot-in-chief - as though I am responsible for how everyone else votes (or anyone else votes).
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 6:34 PM on September 10, 2006


CodeBaloo: "It's all Bill Clinton's fault!"

Actually, it's all GHWB's fault for contributing the spermatazoa that created the asswipe in the first place.
posted by blucevalo at 6:35 PM on September 10, 2006


Bush's election is the direct responsibility of a lazy electorate who, too damn comfortable with life, didn't give enough of a fuck to get out and vote.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:53 PM on September 10, 2006


Exactly, Brandon. With a large portion of the Republicans against Bush, this could be the perfect opportunity to gain converts. But they need to get their shit together very soon. Even in such a "gimme" election as '08, the Democrats can still lose if they try the same "they're so bad, our candidate has to be able to do a better job" campaigning. [IOW: if MeFi comments are any indication of how the grassroots Left plans to campaign their team.]

If the Democrats can (a) put up an as-close-to-centrist-as-palatable team to attract the formerly right-leaning voter, (b) move away from the negative screech campaigning, which is not only ineffective but tired and associated with the loony fringe, and conversely (c) move toward positive and honest-seeming "we feel our candidate is better for America because" campaigning, they'll likely win it.

Blucevalo: Nope. I thought Clinton was a decent-to-very-good president... voted for him both times and would vote for him again if he could run.

Five Fresh Fish: Nail, head, bingo!
posted by CodeBaloo at 6:59 PM on September 10, 2006


To those who think history will be tough on this president and his administration: Lincoln pulled all the same shit as this guy, and he is looked upon quite favorably. Almost deified, in fact. So who knows what history, also known as the agreed upon myth, will have to say about the current murderer-in-chief and his cronies.
posted by iconjack at 8:04 PM on September 10, 2006


I would like to forcibly insert the previous post into ChenySatan's poop chute.
posted by HyperBlue at 8:06 PM on September 10, 2006


We liberals are just a little discouraged at having beaten Bush the first time around, only to have a Republican-appointed Supreme Court reverse the will of the people. It's hard to get energy enough to mount a campaign against someone so willing to cheat and game the system.
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:26 PM on September 10, 2006


C'mon stenseng, just because offcial polling data was drastically outside the margin of error for exit olls in states with election machines built and designed by a company publically committed to ensuring Bush's reelection and with no way of accounting for the numbers after the fact is no proof of election fraud. Sometimes it just goes down that way.

I'm with Bluevaloo. If the dems had put up someone worthwhile we wouldn't still be in this mess. I'm still waiting for blue to post the talking points on why, exactly, Kerry should be considered such a joke, but I'm sure I'll be convinced.
posted by Navelgazer at 8:48 PM on September 10, 2006


C'mon! Everyone knows Kerry was unelectable! The Republicans have been telling us that for years! Never mind that Kerry got more votes than Gore had. And never mind that at the time of his overturned election, Gore had won the second largest number of votes in the history of the presidency, after Reagan. Kerry was a loser!
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:00 PM on September 10, 2006 [1 favorite]


Let's be realistic, shall we?

They know that it's political suicide to admit a mistake.

Who taught them that lesson? We did.

Like salesmen, they've learned what works from trial and error. Whether the product is actually any good or not is beside the point. You bought it and then you bought it again. Had they admitted that the screwed up (charitable interpretation that that is) they might not be here now.

and iconjack, that's depressing.
posted by dreamsign at 9:35 PM on September 10, 2006


five fresh fish, don't forget the 52% that voted for this administration. They are even more responsible.

Anyway, hubris, narcissim, and arrogance combine in both Bush and Cheney in such a way that they will never admit to being wrong in any significant way. Anyone who expects them to do anything different hasn't been paying attention for the last several years. Only removing this administration from power will fix this problem for the nation.
posted by moonbiter at 10:28 PM on September 10, 2006


So, if Cheney finally removed his mask, do you think he would turn out to be Kang or Kodos?
posted by bshock at 11:07 PM on September 10, 2006


I'm with Bluevaloo. If the dems had put up someone worthwhile we wouldn't still be in this mess.

Christ. You people just don't get it.

Did you participate in the process by which the Democrats elect the party leader, who will then try to attain the position of President? Did you help select the person who represented you at the national convention? Hell, did you even bother to join the party?
posted by five fresh fish at 11:17 PM on September 10, 2006


five fresh fish, don't forget the 52% that voted for this administration. They are even more responsible.

No, don't you forget that Bush was elected by less than a third of the eligible voting population.

The people who must ultimately be blamed are the people who did not bother to vote. Their participation would have made a world of difference.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:20 PM on September 10, 2006


Yeah well, it would help if you bastards would stop with the bribes. As if the GOP needed more advertising money. Yeesh.
posted by homunculus at 11:29 PM on September 10, 2006


No shit. I'm pissed about that, just like you.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:32 AM on September 11, 2006


Their participation would have made a world of difference.

Well, I'd be more upset about that except I'm not so sure that even given 100% voter participation that the outcome would have been much different. I'm not contending that the apathetic populace are blameless in this, because such apathy is a form of passive-agressive support for the status quo. But, that energized minority that actually took the trouble to go out and vote for this administration seems to me the bigger problem, and can lay claim to a great deal of the responsiblity in this.
posted by moonbiter at 1:47 AM on September 11, 2006


Lincoln pulled all the same shit as this guy

If comments had tags, that would deserve the batshitinsane one. I can't think of a single piece of shit they have in common (and may I remind you that Bush has not suspended habeas corpus). Nice bit of crackpot revisionism, though.
posted by languagehat at 5:14 AM on September 11, 2006


Our form of democracy has failed us.

No, we have failed it - repeatedly, starting in 1980, if not earlier.

Corporate interests are not my interests.
Corporate interests are not the interests of the populace.
Corporate interests are not the interests of 90% of the people who voted for Reagan or for either Bush.

Voting for anybody because they have "business experience" is foolish. A government run like a business is a disaster for citizens. Government should not have a profit motive, most especially not for the profit of corporations at the expense of the public. Which is what we have now.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 7:00 AM on September 11, 2006


Voting for anybody because they have "business experience" is foolish. A government run like a business is a disaster for citizens. Government should not have a profit motive, most especially not for the profit of corporations at the expense of the public.

"The business of America is business."
--Calvin Coolridge, 1920s
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 7:27 AM on September 11, 2006


["T]his was the place where, probably, there was a greater prospect of a connection between terrorists on the one hand and a terrorist-sponsoring state and weapons of mass destruction than any place else."

...except for our good friend Pakistan.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 7:30 AM on September 11, 2006


Calvin Coolidge, that is.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 7:33 AM on September 11, 2006


The thing is, you can call any amoral money-making setup a "business."
posted by sonofsamiam at 7:34 AM on September 11, 2006


Like, say, War.

"The Business of America is War."
--Halliburton, Exxon, Lockheed Martin, Carlyle Group, etc, etc.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 7:41 AM on September 11, 2006


War is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.


War Is A Racket by Major General Smedley Butler.

Cheney is lying all the way to the bank.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 7:50 AM on September 11, 2006


languagehat, there are many similarities between Bush and Lincoln.

Lincoln did suspend habeas corpus. Thousands of anti-war northerners were arrested and held, including dozens of newspaper editors who spoke out against the administration.

You say Bush has not suspended habeas corpus. That may be true in the legal sense, but many people consider his secret prisons and his holding "enemy combatants" without trial at Gitmo as tantamount to the same.
posted by iconjack at 1:06 PM on September 11, 2006


languagehat, there are many similarities between Bush and Lincoln.

Then you should be able to name some, shouldn't you?

Lincoln did suspend habeas corpus.


Yes, duh, and to avoid your bringing up that chestnut of Lincoln-haters I reminded you that Bush hasn't done that, so it's pointless dragging it in. But it's your favorite bit of dirt about Lincoln, so you dragged it in anyway.

That may be true in the legal sense

Uh, yeah, that's what we mean by "true" when we're talking about legal things. And "many people consider" all sorts of batshit nonsense to be true. If you want anyone to take seriously a statement like "Lincoln pulled all the same shit as this guy," you should be prepared with facts. And if what you meant was "Lincoln was more authoritarian and less benevolent than most people are aware," that's what you should have said. And I'd have been the first to agree.
posted by languagehat at 1:43 PM on September 11, 2006


Both were authoritarian "war presidents" who started wars on false pretenses, then switched justifications for their wars in the middle, squelched or even imprisoned their detractors, censored the press, ignored the courts (or threatened the judges), nefariously spied on the populace, and in general spit all over the Bill of Rights.

To me these are similarities. Your mileage may vary.

You say Lincoln was more authoritarian than Bush. I don't know. But in any case you back up the point that I was trying to make: Lincoln was perhaps the most authoritarian US president, and history has been more than kind to him. So those who are sure that Bush will get his comeuppance in the history books ought not be so sure.
posted by iconjack at 2:00 PM on September 11, 2006 [1 favorite]


You say Lincoln was more authoritarian than Bush.

I don't want to be unkind, but you need to work on your reading skills. I didn't say anything remotely resembling that, nor do I believe it.
posted by languagehat at 2:11 PM on September 11, 2006


You're right, I misread what you said, sorry.
I stand by my point, however.
posted by iconjack at 2:17 PM on September 11, 2006


Situation Called Dire in West Iraq: Anbar Is Lost Politically, Marine Analyst Says
posted by homunculus at 3:38 PM on September 11, 2006


« Older Lego Dildo...  |  Abu Zubaydah's secret interrog... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments