Cheney: The 29% Man
This is what in politics is known as a “Desperation Move."
The man with the 29% favorability rating has spoken. The point man working behind the scenes to defeat an anti-torture measure. The American Vice-President who – to my recollection—has never held a single press conference in the five years he has been in office, has cleared his throat and mightily beat his chest.
Following the scripted lead of his boss, Dick Cheney last night joined in on the last-ditch defense of his failing administration, calling Democrat critics of the Iraq war “dishonest and reprehensible.”
Well, at least Mr. Cheney speaks of subjects on which he has demonstrated great expertise. Let us remember that – whatever one thinks of the Democrats—it is Cheney’s Chief of Staff who is on trial and his office under suspicion for obstruction of justice. And for matters related directly to the less than honest way in which this administration led the country and its soldiers into Iraq.
Are some Democrats “opportunists,” as Cheney charges, for their change of heart on the war? You bet. But the reasons American soldiers are dying in Iraq derive directly from the rationale that Bush-Cheney offered to fight this war and not from the criticism being raised by Democrats or anyone else for that matter.
I don’t have to go to my left to knock down Cheney’s shameless demagogy. A pivot to my right and I find Republican Senator Chuck Hagel saying it about as clearly and starkly as anyone:
“The Bush administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for disagreeing with them,” Hagel said in the text of the speech he delivered in Washington two nights ago.“Suggesting that to challenge or criticize policy is undermining and hurting our troops is not democracy nor what this country has stood for over 200 years…To question your government is not unpatriotic. To not question your government is unpatriotic…”
Fabulous. Perfect. Precisely. Would Mr. Cheney now like to suggest that war veteran Hagel is also reprehensible, disgusting and unpatriotic? After all, like 29 Senate Democrats did in 2002, Hagel also voted war authorization for Bush.
Cheney and the President are now lashing out, trying to distract our attention from the central issue of how we get out of Iraq. They have no strategy, as we know, and they know no other political response other than to try and polarize and cleave off a governing majority.
But that moment has come and gone. With each demagogic and intellectually dishonest outburst like this most recent one by Cheney, all this administration does is peel off what few traces are left of its centrist support.
Unlike many of my friends on the left, George W. Bush has never evoked much passion in me. I found him an affable mediocrity in person. And while I profoundly disagreed with most of his policies, I’ve never hated Bush. I’ve found him insupportable and aggravating and noisome, but not hateful.
Cheney is a different story. If there is a single official of this administration that suggests a gangster ethos, it’s Cheney. The Vice-President doesn’t even bother to pretend he’s a compassionate conservative, that gives two beans about anyone except his corporate pals and sycophants. For Cheney, it’s all about being the war-time consiglieri. The role he has once again so reprehensibly performed last night.
November 17th, 2005 at 7:32 am
“All dissent is opposition. All opposition is counterrevolutionary.”
-Fidel Castro
The further either left or right goes to the extreme the more alike they become.
November 17th, 2005 at 7:58 am
Hagel said, “The Bush administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for disagreeing with them.â€
It works both ways. Those within the administration and those who support it have a right to disagree with their critics and speak out without being demonized, too. Is the liberty to speak and be obnoxious (to some) solely a right that belongs to Democrats and the left?
(BTW, I like Cheney and Rumsfeld, who don’t mince words. When the left howls at them, I figure that they might be saying something that needs to be heard.)
November 17th, 2005 at 8:24 am
Marc -
Nice to see you refrain from blaming Dems equally.
I think many who hate Bush also see him as an affable mediocrity — but hate the fact that this mediocrity was able to piss away much of his life, propped up by his connections and then through those same connections and a bit of political talent, quickly attain the world’s most powerful office, without (seemingly) questioning his fitness for the role, or the need to seriously exert himself to make himself worthy of it.
I don’t hate Bush the man, or even Bush the brush cutter (though that does push the envelope) .
I do, however, find something hateful about Bush the president. The smug certainty that he’s favored from above, the easy willingness to take us all along on this oedipal roller coaster ride — it’s more than noisome.
November 17th, 2005 at 9:01 am
Well I don’t know how “affable” Shrub is. He’s always reminded me of the prep school frat boys I knew at college. Maybe he was affable to you Marc as long as you knew your place as a grubby public school. state U kind of guy. And those nicknames he loves to bestow seem the mark of a bully who knows the recipient cannot complain. After all would you want to be called “Turdblossum?” And that smirking laugh! Notice Jon Stewart’s parody? Deadly.
But, if various media sources are to be believed, he ain’t that affable these days. He rages at juniors and on his recent Latin American adventure threw a tantrum when a State Dinner kept him up past his 10:00 PM bedtime. And, most damning, INSIGHT - the Moonie Times Sunday Mag - reports that he is now only talking to Mom, Karen, and Condi. Oh, and that he only speakes to poppy at family gatherings. Considering this is the GOP House Organ I’d say something is rotten in the White House. I won’t even go into the father-son bit buy Freud would have a field day. Wouldn’t take much to see Bush Sr once again watching his eldest offspring spectacularly crash and burn again. Only this time Baker and Scowcroft, or any other family friend, can’t bail him out this time. And it must really frost Junior to see dad spend so much time with Bill Clinton and treat him like the son he never had.
As for Chaney. Remember when everyone said that he would provide the adult ballast to Shrub’s inexperience? Well nevermind. If its true that GWB no longer listens to him at least something good comes out of all this. Three more long, really long, years.
November 17th, 2005 at 9:07 am
That’s my take on Bush as well. The hatred angle is a creation of the right. It works both ways I’m told. Here’s what the right really is: totalitarian. They dictate, you follow or be smeared regardless of the merit of the argument. Theirs has none that I can see. It’s been tested and failed on all fronts. Nothing remains on the right but deniers of the most pathetic variety.
November 17th, 2005 at 9:13 am
“it’s more than noisome” It’s more the cluelessness of the conservative wealthy classes. As Kevin Phillips outlined in great detail if you aren’t in the top one percent you’re not even on the Bush radar.
November 17th, 2005 at 9:15 am
let’t start from the top.
first of all Cheney’s unpopulartiy is no argument. Truth is often unpopular and what he said was true.
I still have not seen any strategy from any Dem on how to get out of Iraq that differs in any way from the current policy. Other than immediate withdrawal now. that is a non starter and irresponsible at best.
Do you really expect any comment on your ad hominem attacks?
November 17th, 2005 at 9:16 am
Good one Marc…and evets.
Woody likes Cheney and Rumsfeld because they “don’t mince words.” Cheney may not mince words - shredding the truth is sufficient (”The insurgency is in it’s last throes”. “It’s been determined Atta met with Iraqi agents in Prague.” “I never said Atta met with Iraqi agents in Prague.” “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.” etc. etc. ad nauseum) but Baron von Rumsfeld is a verbal cuisinart - he can mince, slice and dice:
A handful of excerpts from The Donald Rumsfeld Cookbook -
“I would not say that the future is necessarily less predictable than the past. I think the past was not predictable when it started.”
“We do know of certain knowledge that he [Osama Bin Laden] is either in Afghanistan, or in some other country, or dead.”
“I believe what I said yesterday. I don’t know what I said, but I know what I think, and, well, I assume it’s what I said.”
“Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don’t know we don’t know.”
“If I said yes, that would then suggest that that might be the only place where it might be done which would not be accurate, necessarily accurate. It might also not be inaccurate, but I’m disinclined to mislead anyone.”
One more “character” note on Dick “I had priorities other than military service” Cheney. Former Tres. Secy. Paul O’Neill’s last words to the Veep before he was fired were, “I’m too old to start telling lies now.”
November 17th, 2005 at 9:30 am
Woody: “It works both ways. Those within the administration and those who support it have a right to disagree with their critics and speak out without being demonized, too.”
Nobody has a right to not be “demonized”. Hagel didn’t say ” right”, he said “should not.” And that’s appropriate — demonization is wrong, but when it happens, it’s a result of people exercising their right of free speech.
Bush and now Cheney have said the Dems are “rewriting history”. Well, that IS demonization — its saying that the Dems are up to something positively Orwellian. Are they? The Dems would be “rewriting history” if they were claiming they hadn’t authorized force against Iraq, a vote cast in view of the claims about intelligence made by the administration at the time. Many of those claims have turned out to be overstated, or simply false, and evidence continues to emerge that the administration had every reason to doubt the key sources it used to make the oublic case for war. One of these key sources (indirectly, anyway), after falling from the good graces of the administration when he came under suspicion of funneling intelligence to Iran, has in recent days enjoyed an audience with both Bush and Cheney. Yep, Ahmed Chalabi, the comeback kid. I wonder what he came back for, exactly? Maybe about some rumblings that the torture chambers in Iraq’s Ministry of the Interior (run, it now appears, by representatives of the Badr Corps) were about to be exposed?
“Rewriting history” is the tagline with which this administration hopes to fight a rearguard action against another tagline: “reality-based”. It’ll probably work — for a while. They DO need their own counter-tagline, after all; they can hardly mount a defence of their manipulations with the verdict of one quasi-whitewash report: “collective groupthink”.
I love it that Bush said that criticizing the government was “patriotic as heck.” And that’s smart of him: leave the german-shepherd growls to Cheney, be the smiley face. Then they get to have it both ways. What a team.
November 17th, 2005 at 10:31 am
“…gangster ethos.” Well, said, Marc.
But I can never quite sign on to that description of “affable mediocrity,†as much as I’d like to believe it. This is, I think, the surface pose. Bush has an affable side to him, to be sure, and it’s the style he’s worked to cultivate. But there’s also the insecure, bullying frat boy, that RLC mentions, and maybe deeper still, the ultra-cosseted child who tantrums nastily, even cruelly, when crossed.
Unlike with Cheney, however, whose viciousness appears a product of conscious adult choices, I feel genuine pity for George Bush whose actions and emotions always seem awash with unconscious tides and winds. If one wants to get Freudian, I’d look to the mother not Bush pere, the woman who alternately verbally abused and over-indulged her eldest son, making him emotional whipping boy and/or leaning post, depending upon her need of the moment.
Yes, there are the not-funny nicknames, and the newly rampant rumors of the bubble-encased boy president lashing out nastily now that his fantasy-based policies and his approval ratings are blowing themselves to smithereens. But, to me the ugly side of the character Barbara’s mother “love†wrought revealed itself most vividly and irrevocably in the now infamous 1999 “Talk Magazine†interview/profile of Bush written by bow-tie wearing conservative TV pundit, Tucker Carlson:
****************
“…..Bush’s brand of forthright tough-guy populism can be appealing, and it has played well in Texas. Yet occasionally there are flashes of meanness visible beneath it. While driving back from the speech later that day. Bush mentions Karla Faye Tucker, a double-murderer who was executed in Texas last year. In the weeks before this execution, Bush says Bianca Jagger and a number of other protesters came to Austin to demand clemency for Tucker. “Did you meet with any of them?†I ask.
Bush whips around and stares at me. “No, I didn’t meet with any of them†he snaps, as though I’ve just asked the dumbest, most offensive question ever posed. “I didn’t meet with Larry King either when he came down for it. I watched his interview with [Tucker], though. He asked her real difficult questions like “What would you say to Governor Bush?â€
“What was her answer?†I wonder.
“Please†Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation ‘don’t kill me.â€
I must have looked shocked – ridiculing the pleas of a condemned prisoner who has since been executed seems odd and cruel, even for someone as militantly anticrime as Bush….â€
November 17th, 2005 at 12:00 pm
Hey ugly, you have now?
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa12_murtha/pr051117iraq.html
November 17th, 2005 at 12:01 pm
And here is a good takedown of all of the staying the course fallacies.
http://niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=0063
November 17th, 2005 at 12:07 pm
I’ve always thought that Bush’s persona perfectly fits the designation of “little shit”.
When a little shit like Tucker Carlson exposes someone else as having reached the absolute pinnacle of “little shitness” - and is disturbed by it - the problem isn’t likely rooted in “Bush-hating” paranoia but in the man’s fundamental character.
November 17th, 2005 at 3:29 pm
And what is interesting is that attitude came out in the 2000 Presidential debates. Gore argued for a “Hate Crimes” bill and Bush opposed it. I happen to be with Bush on this - these laws sound too much like regulating thoughts. But then Bush used the example of the three cretins who were tried for dragging that poor black guy behind their truck. They got the Death Penalty, hard to see how a Hate Crime Enhancement would do more. But when Bush pointed this out he gave that little smirk of his and said, rather nastily, that they were going to die. Mean little prick. Affable? No!
November 17th, 2005 at 3:39 pm
Well, Woody makes a point. Some people on
the Left are obnoxious to Bush such as having
a website calling him “Smirking Chimp.” That’s insulting. Do Leftists think they are convincing anyone by using such language? I really think we on the left should quit the ad hominem attacks.
It really gets us nowhere.
As for me, I alwasy thought Bush was a very bright man who just didn’t work very hard at college. There’s a theory of multiple intelligences: verbal, math, artistic, music, social etc. Those with social brilliance are the people who know how to get along brilliantly with other people such as the politicians. I thought Bush had that “social” or brilliant IQ as he figured out how to get himself elected. He figured it out pretty early in his political career.
I also think that Bush never learned much about the world outside the United States and chose very poor advisors on foreign affairs, so he led us into the Iraq debacle. Anyway who knew anything about Islamic history would have known that it was dreadfully stupid for the U.S. to invade the historical, cultural capital of the Islamic world–Baghdad.
From the beginning I thought Muslims were going to push us out of Badhdad–rather sooner than later. Historically Muslims pushed all the Crusaders out and then pushed the British out after World War I. But then Bush didn’t know anything about Islamic history.
Also, I think Bush in his way is anti-racist by appointing blacks and Mexicans to high offices. He just is cut off from the reality how his social programs hurt minorities terribly. I think there is
small small shred of truth to Bush’s “compassionate conservative” label. But then Bush’s economic policies have dreafully hurt both the middle and working classes of this country. Bush is cut off from this reality. Too bad.
November 17th, 2005 at 5:39 pm
RLC…agree with you….and Bush…on the hate crimes issue. Try and sentence people for the actual crime committed. Period. If there’s a pattern of repeated crimes, take that strongly into consideration at sentencing. Over and out.
We have enough in the way of misused sentencing “enhancements” on the books as it is.
November 17th, 2005 at 6:29 pm
That a hawkish dem has come out for immediate withdrawl…wow. puts hillary clinton and marc cooper to shame man.
The best point the guy has made over and over is that the american people are ahead of congress, cooper, hillary…and other ‘more troops to Iraq’ gangbangers…
November 17th, 2005 at 6:41 pm
Yes, it will be really hard for the GOP to trash John Murtha who now has, for all intents and purposes, the same position as Dennis Kucinich. I loved the bit in today’s press conference where Murtha, a 37 year Marine Vet, said he wasn’t go to take advice on war from a guy who got FIVE deferments. Ouch!
Of course John Kerry is still dithering. He disagreed with Murtha on HARDBALL today. John Aravosis carves him up today for that - “you lost to a moron - shut up!” being the gist. So what does Hillary say now? I see Bill told an audience in the Middle East that the war was a “mistake.” Listen to your husband, Hil. That is if you want to be something else than Senator.
November 17th, 2005 at 7:06 pm
It will be funny to see if Marc Cooper now tries to trash Murtha for taking a position that so many others he has trashed have taken.
Murtha is an ANSWER/KUCINICH/GOODMAN dupe?
November 17th, 2005 at 7:07 pm
She can’t take the chance, she and Cooper have to be ‘responsible’. LOL.
November 17th, 2005 at 7:27 pm
I don’t know who Rod Dreher is, but he posts at National Review’s Corner - which is right-wing radical, neo-con central, with a handful of actual conservatives thrown in for good measure - and Kevin Drum linked to his comments on Murthra. Very interesting. If you didn’t think Bush and Cheney’s pushback on the war was doomed before this, maybe it’s time to check in with the Earthlings.
“MURTHA BREAKS [Rod Dreher]
Don’t know how many of you caught Rep. John Murtha’s very angry, very moving speech just now in which he called on the White House to institute an immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. CNN didn’t air the entire thing, but as I listened to it, I could feel the ground shift. Murtha, as you know, is not a Pelosi-style Chardonnay Democrat; he’s a crusty retired career Marine who reminds me of the kinds of beer-slugging Democrats we used to have before the cultural left took over the party. Murtha, a conservative Dem who voted for the war, talked in detail about the sacrifices being borne by our soldiers and their families, and about his visits out to Walter Reed to look after the maimed, and how we’ve had enough, it’s time to come home. He was hell on the president too.
If tough, non-effete guys like Murtha are willing to go this far, and can make the case in ways that Red America can relate to — and listening to him talk was like listening to my dad, who’s about the same age, and his hunting buddies — then the president is in big trouble. I’m sure there’s going to be an anti-Murtha pile-on in the conservative blogosphere, but from where I sit, conservatives would be fools not to take this man seriously.
Posted at 11:27 AM”
November 17th, 2005 at 7:37 pm
Marc Cooper quoting Hagel: “Suggesting that to challenge or criticize policy is undermining and hurting our troops is not democracy nor what this country has stood for over 200 years…To question your government is not unpatriotic. To not question your government is unpatriotic…â€
This is a total strawman argument. Just as the Democrats “How dare you call me unpatriotic” meme was. The issue is not criticizing the conduct of the war or the government, that is totally ok. The issue is criticizing the conduct of the war or the government partisan political purposes and that is a wholy different charge. There has been some strong criticism of the war that, in my opinion, is right on target. Then there are the clowns who are twisting the lead up and the intelligence (or lack thereof) etc. to make political points. That is shameless and dispicable.
November 17th, 2005 at 9:04 pm
“The issue is not criticizing the conduct of the war or the government, that is totally ok. The issue is criticizing the conduct of the war or the government partisan political purposes and that is a wholy different charge.”
This, of course, raises the issue of defending the war or the govenrment for partisan political purposes (or lack of political courage)….if the congressional Democrats have been guilty of anything, I’d say it’s been that particular sin. Of course, for the GOPers this latter position is default sleepwalking.
But this whole discourse is reduced to rank bullshit when you realize that most Americans, who gave the Prez their best shot and major benefit of the doubt for nigh on three years, have become critics of the war - and for reasons that are so obviously rooted in this adminstration’s manifest failures and lapses - amounting to serial criminal negligence in the very least - that to attack the motives of war critics at this juncture is to embrace the “blame America first” posture that our psuedo-cons endlessly blather about as evidence of evil. Shameless and despicable…
November 17th, 2005 at 9:46 pm
I not only don’t find it not to be a straw man, but a disingenuous false analogy.
Further reading I’m certain Prof. Cooper would approve of for reader consideration.
Straw man
Writers who misrepresent an opponent’s position so that it is easier to refute the opposition are guilty of presenting a straw man argument. This unfair and fallacious since the writer truly fails to refute the real arguments that have been made.
Ad hoc
Earlier, when talking about causality, we discussed one of the differences between argument and explanation. Ad hoc fallacies arise when writers try to give after-the-fact explanations for conclusions, rather than present premises and inferences that lead to those conclusions.
“Although we said we had proof that weapons of mass destruction existed, and although we found no evidence that they really did, the war was still justified because the leader was a tyrant.”
http://papyr.com/hypertextbooks/comp1/logic.htm
November 17th, 2005 at 10:07 pm
Murtha’s right that congress and the media are way behind most Americans who have never supported this unnecessary military adventure and present US occupation.
November 18th, 2005 at 12:18 am
slightly off-topic, actually, not at all, did anyone here see The Daily Show’s take on Cheney’s “Desperation Move”, to quote Marc? Pure comedy gold.
November 18th, 2005 at 5:33 am
“Cheney and the President are now lashing out, trying to distract our attention from the central issue of how we get out of Iraq. They have no strategy, as we know, and they know no other political response other than to try and polarize and cleave off a governing majority.”
I don’t understand those who claim this administration has no strategy Marc. It has been stated several times by Bush and just recently laid out plain and clear by Rice in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I see no need to repeat it here. Those who do not want to hear it will not listen now.
Cheney and the President fully and totally believe in it, are committed to it, and will vigorously defend it, which to the opposition may appear as a ‘polarizing political technique’.
They are defending something they believe is truly necessary, and the only long term solution for draining the Middle East swamp.
The breeding place for deadly suicidal brain rotting religious fanaticism. It is a strategy that understands this deadly disease didn’t occur in 3 years and is not solvable in 3 years. A problem for the short term expectations of civilized, free, open and compassionate democratic Nations. A problem terrorist leaders understand well and the core of their strategy for defeating the civilized on their on soil, on their own human rights principles.
Keep up the inhumane violence, even at a low level over time, and wait. The people in democratic Nations with a free press and elected politicians are civilized and won’t stand for it long. For Spain, just 1 year. For America, wobbling in 3.
I ask where will we, the leaders of the civilized, stand? If not now when? If not Iraq where?
November 18th, 2005 at 5:53 am
Kaus has a different take on Murtha: http://www.slate.com/id/2130405/&#murtha
November 18th, 2005 at 9:41 am
“The people in democratic Nations with a free press and elected politicians are civilized and won’t stand for it long. For Spain, just 1 year. For America, wobbling in 3.”
Jim Russell that is rubbish and you know it. The Spaniards voted out the little puppy because he lied his face off about who was responsible for that bombing. That combined with his extremely unpopular and unproductive support for the US occupation of Iraq were enough to bring the guy down and he well deserved it. Now you guys are even describing militarist Dems like Murtha as too concerned about humane principles. Gosh, I wish.
November 18th, 2005 at 9:42 am
Well I didn’t see any quote in the 2002 vets for whatever link saying he was a skeptic in 2002 only that he is now. All it says is he supported the first Gulf War so this is Kaus twisting in the wind.
Here’s how real thinking works: if an ill-advised test fails you change strategy, not stay with it dogmatically.
Perhaps an essay on truth is in order particularly when involving technical issues with false balance and propaganda? I think so.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/248046_mtrahant13.html
I’ll let that stand for the day. Over and out.
November 18th, 2005 at 11:47 am
Murthra’s been a war skeptic for a year and a half ? Oh, my. That really detracts from his credibility…. just proves how much more he’s been paying attention than hacks like Kaus. I’d say that May of 2004 - a solid year after the lavish declaration of “Mission Accomplished” - was a good time for growing doubt. The insurgency - which we’d been assured by Condi and Co. was just a handful of “deadenders” (remember this stuff?
which makes pro-warriors backtracking over public statements of “doves” a particularly dangerous and deadly mindfield for their alleged credibility) - was showing itself to be a potentially intractable problem. What’s new and “surprising” - despite the predictable disingenuity of Kaus and his ilk - is that Murthra has put forward a radical alternative (which most of us pissed about the manifest failures of BushCo’s Iraq venture have been loathe to actually consider) based on his coming to terms with his long-standing doubts that the administration knows what it’s doing and can navigate it’s own way out of its mess, take any responsibility other than as rhetoric or is prepared to level with the public about any aspect of it’s policy failures. Of course, my protestations are somewhat irrelevant, since there is NOTHING in Dana Milbank’s piece that provides even the tiniest of hooks for Kaus to hang his argument. This is par for the Kaus course.
November 18th, 2005 at 12:38 pm
Jim Russell’s little rant in support of Bush’s military adventure is out of touch with what most Americans think now. When there are 3,000 American deaths sometime by next July or August you will find Russell’s type arguing even more stridently for more war more war more war…as even more Americans see that position as out of touch with a country whose people can’t even afford decent health care for its citizens, can’t afford investment in schooling, pensions,…because the $ needed are being siphoned off to the military industrial complex’s latest adventure in Iraq.
November 18th, 2005 at 12:55 pm
I guess the thing that makes me most deeply suspicious of Jim R’s approach to this rather large problem is his reliance on the UberMetaphor “Drain the swamp.” The more I think about the implications and applications of that concept - for Us and for Them - I get the “mind boggles”.
November 18th, 2005 at 7:36 pm
Draining swamps is a bad idea. See Everglades at home; Saddam drained the Tigris/Euphrates Delta at the dismay of the marsh Arabs. Setting that flowing again is one of the good things we’ve done in this fiasco.
November 18th, 2005 at 7:49 pm
Cheney really strikes me as a near pathological liar. Here are a few choice examples:
It hadn’t been pretty well confirmed at the time, but it gets worse for Cheney. Here is on June 17, 2004 talking to Gloria Borger of CNBC:
June 4, 2004 Cheney on CNBC’s Kudlow & Cramer:
The only problem was that the source for that information, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi had recanted the claims in January 2004.
But wait there’s more:
September 13, 2004:
When, in fact
So Cheney may “not mince words”, but he certainly minces the truth and is a shameless liar.
November 19th, 2005 at 10:10 am
He is.
May 23rd, 2006 at 5:42 pm
credit scores…
disabling soggy dissents.publicizing adjudge grocers.free credit report http://www.secured-credit-report.com/ …