Search This Blog

Tuesday, November 22

Insane Parts of Cheney’s Speech

When Cheney spoke yesterday he said, "What is not legitimate--and I will again say is dishonest and reprehensible--is the suggestion by some U.S. senators that the president of the United States or any member of his administration purposely misled the American people on prewar intelligence."

No, it’s not. What is reprehensible is that neither he nor bush can deny they purposely misled the American people on prewar intelligence. Prove you were right; don’t just spit on anyone who says you are wrong. Show us where you messed up. Show us everything you did. Stop slapping us and come clean with us. We are fairly intelligent people, in spite of the sad fact that over half of us voted last year to keep george bush in the oval office. Explain it to us, maybe we’ll understand.

Why shouldn’t anyone question what the hell went wrong? Bottom line is what they told us was flat out wrong and they knew it when they said it. Now they have all this new bullshit they are saying and frankly, it doesn’t even make sense. For example, yesterday Cheney also stated, "Those who advocate a sudden withdrawal from Iraq should answer a few simple questions," Cheney said, such as whether the United States would be "better off or worse off" with terror leaders such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Osama bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahiri in control of Iraq."

What? Was Saddam the kind of fellow to allow this to happen? I think not. He sounds to me like a guy who would have mowed this stuff down in a heart beat.

So rather than tell us the truth, Cheney makes up this scary picture to plant into the empty heads that believe everything they hear coming from this contemptible administration.

Also yesterday Cheney said it was Saddam’s responsibility to prove he didn’t have weapons of mass destruction. Say what? So how do you go about proving a negative?

This past Sunday Rumsfeld was a guest on Chris Wallace’s program. Here’s a snippet from their conversation:

WALLACE: Well, so it's not just Washington. But let me ask you one last thing. And I have to say, a lot of people wanted me to ask you about this. Able Danger, an intelligence unit in the Pentagon — did they or did they not identify Mohammed Atta and some of the other 9/11 hijackers in the year 2000?

RUMSFELD: There are people that said they did. The year 2000 or earlier? I don't remember when it was.

WALLACE: No, the year 2000.

RUMSFELD: Was it? I wasn't in government at the time, obviously.


RUMSFELD: But there are some people who say that that's the case. There are other people involved who say it isn't. And the people in the Pentagon, I'm told, have spent just enormous numbers of hours digging into everything they can find and giving it to the appropriate committees of the Congress, and they have not been able to validate it.

WALLACE: I don't understand why it's so complicated. I mean, people are — I mean, it's a fact. Why wouldn't you, as the secretary of defense, your people underneath you, be able to find out?

RUMSFELD: They've looked and they — you can't prove a negative. They've looked and looked and looked and looked and found everything they could find. Cannot find validation of that, which doesn't mean it didn't happen.

See? Even Mr. Rumsfeld knows you can’t prove a negative, maybe he should share his knowledge with Mr. Cheney.

No comments: