Would you go to a memorial service dressed like you are going skiing? Cheney did.

[mhess13]

BTW---I don't care what him or the prez wears on inaguration day. Bush can wear blaze orange gore-tex hunting coveralls while Cheney has on charcoal grey carhart coveralls with moon boots for all i care. These are outdorr events, it's cold, snowy, rainy or whatever. Dress warmly is my theory!

My goodness thiis is much to do about NOTHING

 

[eroica]

by the way, just want to comment on your signature/avatar.

President Saddam never disarmed his people; only the American occupiers tried to disarm the Iraqi people when they tried to fight for their freedom.

Also, I agree that we should kick the US out of the UN for gross violations of international law.

 

[mhess13]

by the way, just want to comment on your signature/avatar.

President Saddam never disarmed his people; only the American occupiers tried to disarm the Iraqi people when they tried to fight for their freedom.

Eat the meat spit out the bones. Hitler and Stalin were gun control advocates

Also, I agree that we should kick the US out of the UN for gross violations of international law.

WOW, darned if this doesn't fit the bleeding heart liberal stereotype

BTW-why are you getting so hostile at me because I think people should wear warm clothes in outdoor events? Did I hit a nerve? relax

 

[KenH]

1. Would you dress like you were going skiing to a memorial service?
2. Would you criticise Cheney for showing up in a parka on inauguration day?

1. Outside in severely cold weather, yep.

2. Outside in severely cold weather, nope.

 

[KenH]

only the American occupiers tried to disarm the Iraqi people when they tried to fight for their freedom.

Just out of curiosity, are you a Saddam Hussein and/or a terrorist sympathizer?

 

[cjonesy22002]

what probably happened was, he thought warm, then when he got there, he probably realized how out of place he looked. i'm not a big fan of thiss administration, but i'm sure he knows the difference between warm and fitting the occasion.

you never learn until you make a mistake....

 

[k]

Oh puh-leeeeeeze. If you want to bash Cheney, fine. But find something with some substance, not criticizing a guy's wardrobe in bitter cold weather

Like the fact he still owns over 400,000 shares of Helliburton? Or that he took on the role of Commander in Chief on 9/11? Or that he is one of the key people of the PNAC who wanted America to be hit w/ a "...new Pearl Harbor."

You're right, there is MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH more we could focus on.

 

[k]

Just out of curiosity, are you a Saddam Hussein and/or a terrorist sympathizer?

That was a completely rude, disrespectful, and uncalled for accusation.

 

[eroica]

Eat the meat spit out the bones. Hitler and Stalin were gun control advocates

okay...so if the American occupation in Iraq tried to impose gun controls on the Iraqi civilians, that must mean that they stand in the same league as Hitler and Stalin, no?

WOW, darned if this doesn't fit the bleeding heart liberal stereotype

I'm sorry; I'm not American. You concept of "bleeding heart liberal" doesn't exist outside America, which is to the far-right of everyone else.

 

[mhess13]

Krakow, Poland right now is only 6 degrees. We are having extra cold weather in the DC area and it is right now around 20 degrees. Our average daytime high here in January is around 45. The point is that it seems to me the weather is a lot colder over there. So freakin' what if the guy wore a parka???????????????? I would've word coveralls and may have had a wool army blanket draped over my lap too!

 

[mhess13]

Like the fact he still owns over 400,000 shares of Helliburton? Or that he took on the role of Commander in Chief on 9/11? Or that he is one of the key people of the PNAC who wanted America to be hit w/ a "...new Pearl Harbor."

You're right, there is MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH more we could focus on.

Ok! I disagree with your positions, but thats a far better reason to attack cheney! Nice post

 

[mhess13]

okay...so if the American occupation in Iraq tried to impose gun controls on the Iraqi civilians, that must mean that they stand in the same league as Hitler and Stalin, no?

I'm just guessing here, but maybe the people have been disarmed is because we are fighting terrorists there. We cannot tell who the terrorists are so we have to disarm them all. But you already know this, you just want to argue.

When we leave and the Iraqis set up their government, they can put a constitution right to keep and bear arms like we have. In fact, that would be great

 

[k]

Krakow, Poland right now is only 6 degrees. We are having extra cold weather in the DC area and it is right now around 20 degrees. Our average daytime high here in January is around 45. The point is that it seems to me the weather is a lot colder over there. So freakin' what if the guy wore a parka???????????????? I would've word coveralls and may have had a wool army blanket draped over my lap too!

Hey, you're in the DC area! Could you go to Ben's Chili Bowl and send me a gallon?

 

[mhess13]

Hey, you're in the DC area! Could you go to Ben's Chili Bowl and send me a gallon?

Nah, it's too cold out there tonight. bbbbrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr ( I don't have a Cheney issue parka )

 

[KenH]

1)Like the fact he still owns over 400,000 shares of Halliburton?

2) Or that he took on the role of Commander in Chief on 9/11?

3)Or that he...wanted America to be hit w/ a "...new Pearl Harbor."

1) I don't think that is true. Do you have some real documentation from a reliable source to disprove my understanding of the facts?

2) I have never heard that President Bush transferred power to Vice President Cheney on 9/11/01. Do you have some real documentation from a reliable source to prove this?

3) That is not true. Period. Here's the quote in context:

"Any serious effort at transformation must occur within the larger framework of U.S. national security strategy, military missions and defense budgets. The United States cannot simply declare a “strategic pause” while experimenting with new technologies and operational concepts. Nor can it choose to pursue a transformation strategy that would decouple American and allied interests. A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies.

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions. A decision to suspend or terminate aircraft carrier production, as recommended by this report and as justified by the clear direction of military technology, will cause great upheaval. Likewise, systems entering production today – the F-22 fighter, for example – will be in service inventories for decades to come. Wise management of this process will consist in large measure of figuring out the right moments to halt production of current-paradigm weapons and shift to radically new designs. The expense associated with some programs can make them roadblocks to the larger process of transformation – the Joint Strike Fighter program, at a total of approximately $200 billion, seems an unwise investment. Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change – transition and transformation – over the coming decades." (www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf)​

Hmmm...this report says the transformation will take place over decades. Saying that a "Pearl Harbor" would speed up the transformation - a simple statement of fact - does not equate to wishing for a "Pearl Harbor" to actually happen.

 

[KenH]

That was a completely rude, disrespectful, and uncalled for accusation.

Not at all. I don't know eroica and he said, "only the American occupiers tried to disarm the Iraqi people when they tried to fight for their freedom" which sounds very much like he is siding with those that are killing our brave fellow Americans.

I am simply giving the person a chance to clarify what he means.

Besides, you have no business accusing anyone considering the junk you are spreading about Vice President Cheney.

 

[eroica]

Just out of curiosity, are you a Saddam Hussein and/or a terrorist sympathizer?

Just out of curiosity, are you a Bush-Cheney sympathizer?

 

[k]

1) I don't think that is true. Do you have some real documentation from a reliable source to disprove my understanding of the facts?

Halliburton - Stock Options for 100,000 shares at $54.5000 (vested) expire 12-03-072004$0$200Halliburton - Stock Options for 33,333 shares at $28.1250 (vested) expire 12-02-082004$0$200Halliburton - Stock Options for 300,000 shares at $39.5000 (vested) expire 12-02-092004$0$200
http://www.public-i.org/bop2004/candidate.aspx?cid=2&act=details

2) I have never heard that President Bush transferred power to Vice President Cheney on 9/11/01. Do you have some real documentation from a reliable source to prove this?

1. Means - Dick Cheney and the Secret Service: Dick Cheney was running a completely separate chain of Command & Control via the Secret Service, assuring the paralysis of Air Force response on 9/11. The Secret Service has the technology to see the same radar screens the FAA sees in real time. They also have the legal authority and technological capability to take supreme command in cases of national emergency. Dick Cheney was the acting Commander in Chief on 9/11. (Click here for a summary of these points)

3) That is not true. Period. Here's the quote in context:

Hmmm...this report says the transformation will take place over decades. Saying that a "Pearl Harbor" would speed up the transformation - a simple statement of fact - does not equate to wishing for a "Pearl Harbor" to actually happen.

The quote posted from the manifesto is not in context because is leaves out MUCH of what the PNAC has stated its goals are:

"Among other suggestions, this report calls for the United States to:

Take military control of the Persian Gulf region through the establishment of permanent bases.

Take control of cyberspace, otherwise "[America] will find it difficult to exert global political leadership."

Keep all peacekeeping and rebuilding missions within the power of American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations.

Withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, stop the reduction of nuclear missiles, develop new nuclear weapons, and deploy a national missile defense system."

In a letter to President George W. Bush only nine days later, [after 9/11] PNAC urged the removal of Saddam Hussein "even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the [9-11] attack."

The same day, September 20, 2001, the White House released the "National Security Strategy of the United States of America." Nearly identical to PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" report issued a year earlier, it contains similar and sometimes verbatim language to describe the United States' new defense policy. Among these similarities is the increase of defense spending to 3.8% of the GDP, the exact recommendation of PNAC.

"For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue - weapons of mass destruction - because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."
Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz
Interview with Vanity Fair, June 2003
http://www.bushpresident2004.com/pnac.htm

That should be enough to prove my point for now. Of course, there is a LOT more info, so if anyone is still a little hazy, let me know.

 

[eroica]

Not at all. I don't know eroica and he said, "only the American occupiers tried to disarm the Iraqi people when they tried to fight for their freedom" which sounds very much like he is siding with those that are killing our brave fellow Americans.

In terms of bravery, I think that the Iraqis have demonstrated far more bravery in this war. It takes guts to try to charge a tank with a gun, trying to defend a city bombarded by tanks and aircraft.

In spite of the overwhelming military might against them, they have managed to evolve as a formidable resistance movement and fight on to the point where America appears to be losing the strategic war in Iraq.

 

[KenH]

In terms of bravery, I think that the Iraqis have demonstrated far more bravery in this war. It takes guts to try to charge a tank with a gun, trying to defend a city bombarded by tanks and aircraft.

In spite of the overwhelming military might against them, they have managed to evolve as a formidable resistance movement and fight on to the point where America appears to be losing the strategic war in Iraq.

There's your proof, Neverstop. He lionizes the terrorists who are killing our soldiers in Iraq.

But you are wrong, eroica, it's the terrorists who are losing. You might not like the truth but you may as well learn to face it now, my friend.