Redstate

sorry please read more coherent comment below and excuse this until I figure out how to delete. It is 2:51 am after all.

I don't have to agree with him all the time to think this. Has anyone been trashed as badly as he has? Even those that trash Bush usually call him a bumbler. They call Cheney evil. What proof do they have of this? I can't tell you how much they have, zero nada.

Look, politics is a rough sport. How easy it it for the left to attack Cheney, to call him a draft dodger, and mean old man etc? But what has he done in office? He has lead through at least two major wars. Do we forget he was Sec Defense during the "moderate" GHWB years and Desert Storm?

The left throws around the word "Chickenhawk" as if it is particularly insightful. Trust me, the word is not. Our country was founded on civilian control of the military, if we now trash civilians who decide to send our troops to war, then we are spitting on our own Constitution.

There are Republicans in Congress with sons at war, Duncan Hunter and John McCain are two that come to mind. These men both ran for the presidency. How many Democrat presidential candidates have kids in this war? My point is this, those that trash Cheney or anyone who believes he is doing what is right, are nothing but naysayers from the peanut gallery.

Some people in this country have to worry not for their personal popularity of poll ratings. In a serious time with deadly consequences, we must have a few who decide to lead and tell us what is right. How easy is it to bash from the balcony? Has naysaying and trashing every helped anyone? You say you care about your friend's kid, well I say they could do a lot worse than have Dick Cheney as VP while in this situation.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

Ok. Can I just be the devils advocate here since I am really trying to draw out the response to the 'party line' of the dems?

Or maybe not the devils advocate but just meeting you in the middle with what you said and the grounds that you seem to be defending this issue and the way that I (I will stop blaming the abstract "liberals" and start taking some responsibility) have been, perhaps, indoctrinated.

This is what "a liberal" might say:

First of all, I don't know what a chicken hawk IS. I am assuming its a civilian who has never been to war? And is Cheney accused of dodging the draft? If so I never heard about it. I don't think I or anyone I know personally has raised objections to him on the grounds of his courage or anything like that.

I think the main issue people like me have with Cheney is some suspicion about the whole Halliburton issue and no-bid contracts in Iraq and wasteful spending in Iraq (and electrocuted troops due to faulty wiring of contractors) and issues like that. People just feel that a lot of money has been made by some people on account of this war.

Now I can feel your eyes rolling from here but all I am trying to say here is that I think that the reasons liberals call him out or attack him--and I agree that he is one of the most attacked men in America-- is not so much for lacking courage as for thinking he has some kind of self-interest (or self-interest of associates perhaps) at stake in a war situation.

But in all seriousness, its good to know that you really do believe in him. I swear that sometimes when you only hear one side of the story you start to believe people are sticking by people not out of principle but habit or simplistic brainwashing, as I am sure some people may feel about Hillary or Obama supporters as things get increasingly messy on that side of things.

Its good to hear a reasoned, intelligent (non-kneejerk) defense of Cheney. This is exactly the reason I came here in the first place.

sign off for now, it is even later here than where you are:)

Look, if someone sees true evil and conspiracy in Cheney et al, there is not much anyone can say to placate them. But if we are talking above board reality, then I do have a few points to make.

1) if you do not know the "chickenhawk" meme or the draft dodging commentary, then you are not spending too much time on hte far left blogs, heck, that is a good sign lol.

2) Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton, he had to give up that salary in order to run as the VP candidate. Furthermore, he had to dispose of ALL his Halliburton stock and stock options, he gave up millions.

3) Halliburton's former wholly owned company, KBR did win many no bid contracts. Do you know why this is? It is because KBR was the only US company that could provide those services on such a scale. Clinton gave no bid contracts to KBR during the war in Kosovo that are still in place today in the former Yugoslavia. IN fact, the US government has been giving contracts to KBR since Vietnam. There really are not so many companies that bid for contracts in war zones.

4)as far as price gouging, inefficency and simple ineptness goes among contractors such as KBR, I would not be surprised if it has happened. I do think some cases have gone to trial and people have been punished. I never doubt inefficiency when it comes to the government.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

Ok you are right, its getting kind of ridiculous how late it is here as well (3:49), but just one question back to you:

As a free-market, Adam Smith admiring capitalist (and I have a solid background in economics and nothing against capitalism, don't take that as some sort of liberal insult, lol).... don't you think there is something slightly amiss with KBR having a monopoly?

Do you think that is really accidental or coincidental? I am perhaps stepping out of my bounds here in trying to be neutral but I would guess that the basic principle of competition as being the basic principle leading to efficiency and ultimately the maximization of social welfare is something we can all agree on here.

So why aren't we seeing this in these circumstance? Its not exactly like Comcast or the power companies which have some sort of natural monopoly. Its kind of baffling that after all this time (since Vietnam as you say) there is no true competition yet in this business to make the market work as it should. That's not what economics as a pure science would predict. There is a market failure here. Why do we accept it? Or am I off base here?

in your desire to have tru competition. But certainly offering services such as morale centers, food halls, mail, and water sanitation in the middle of a war are what some might call a niche industry. No bid contracts are not really as misterious as some might want you to think.

When there is a war, and when a hundred thousand men need to be fed, the gov pretty much has to go with the company that can provide that service. If other companies wanted to provide that service, and could do it, then they probably would have bid for the contract.

I think you have been fair, my only criticism is that you do not seem to be responding to my answers. If Cheney was not going to benefit personally from the KBR contracts, then why are they such a problem? The entire reason why the left complains about KBR (which is no longer affiliated with Halliburton) is the desire to impugn Cheney. If they had a case, they would have made it long ago. There is no there, there.

Also, there are now hundreds of contractors from many countries operating in Iraq. Also, Halliburton stock has underperformed rivals such as Schlumberger since this war began.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

You are right that I am not addressing your comments about what happened when Cheney assumed office, his relations to KBR, his alleged interest or lack thereof in all of this.... because I don't want to impugn myself by saying something that I can't back up with facts and while usually I would hop to it, I kind of feel that a) its too late to get that worked up about this when I am just really interested in YOUR perspective and b) it would kind of fall on deaf ears, or at least would all come from sources deemed untrustworthy for one reason or another. That's just the nature of this divide.

What I have "heard" is in some ways contrary to what you are saying, but (again) you are entirely right to say I am dodging those issues at the moment. Its not because I am willfully not hearing them or dismissing those points, just because I feel like some fact checking needs to be done that I am too lazy to engage in at what is now 4:10 am (don't worry I am a grad student writing a thesis, being up this late is normal for me).

But thanks again for humoring me. The response I have gotten (even just from the two of you guys, inc. civic truth) has really made my night/morning. At the very least I would hope to prove not all of us are "brain dead." That might be asking too much though!

I am not here to preach the liberal gospel or change anyone's mind. I am not that arrogant.

I am here to listen and maybe once in a while raise questions that might seem incendiary but really just show my curiosity about the chasm between the parties.

Just want to make that clear.

I don't want to impugn myself by saying something that I can't back up with facts and ... it would kind of fall on deaf ears, or at least would all come from sources deemed untrustworthy for one reason or another. That's just the nature of this divide.

If the backing for your arguments comes from sources your opponent would find untrustworthy, then why is it that you find them trustworthy? That is, in politics and religion it is very, very easy to fall into the trap of circular logic, in which the support for a position depends on the presupposition of its correctness.

Look for external support, such as a dead man getting up and walking around for all to see, or for raw data from unimpeachable sources.

Otherwise, know that you believe out of faith. There is nothing wrong with faith; but be sure that your faith is well-placed so that when others challenge your assumptions you can say "Yes, but He arose."

--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.

Could you acknowledge that all facts are tenets of faith ultimately? Or is it just 'liberals' who are assigned to belief on faith? Are your sources inherently more trustworthy than my own? I am trying my hardest to be neutral and equal here and in good faith I have to ask if you can be as well?

But no, all facts are not ultimately based on faith. I know that I'm typing this. While it's true that I don't know for a fact that you are not an alien from another galaxy, it is not faith but reason which leads me to believe you are not.

--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.

It wasn't you who called me a socialist, so I'm sorry for mentioning that in my response to you. It was the post above yours. I really need to go to bed, its 7:20 a.m. my time! Sorry about that, please excuse my error.

Who was this who started talking about opponents? It wasn't me. It wasn't Doc Holliday with whom I feel I had a great conversation. When did we become 'opponents'? When did our discussion become adversarial, or some kind of duel, or combat?

That was never my intention. I don't recall saying that.

Will I be labeled and pigeonholed for asking why it always has to come down to this friends and enemies narrative? I didn't know that by declaring myself a liberal I would automatically become an opponent. I just declared myself a liberal as shorthand which was probably a mistake but I certainly don't feel that way--adversarial, combatitive-- about conservatives. Or Republicans. I feel just like I do physicists or francophones.

This is exactly the problem. Can we ever see each other as anything more than these stupid categories? I am more than just the label you assign me (socialist? when did i say anything at all about socialism? C'mon. You can do better than that!). I am quite sure that you as well are more, much more, than just a "redstater."

I don't imagine anything I say will matter but I really hoped to have a real discussion without name calling or labels. i am not a socialist. It might be easier for you to dismiss me as such but perhaps you should ask me something about my beliefs first. Not everything can be named and whisked away with a single word, a label. And don't you--deep down--feel like maybe an opportunity is lost by doing so?

If not, I am fighting a losing battle.

is an ally in the search for truth.

Relax. You are arguing an opposing point of view. That makes you an opponent. Come up with a better word, and I will use it.

If not, then I suggest you stop using such militaristic and explosive language as "If not, I am fighting a losing battle."

Just kidding on the "militaristic and explosive" part. I understood your point, and was not injured in the least by the concussive force of your language, nor by the shrapnel of its connotations.

--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.

there's not much else I can say...

I totally fell right into that "losing battle" thing :)

Guess I am being defensive too.

Could you acknowledge that all facts are tenets of faith ultimately?

FACTS as tenets of faith? Do you mean "opinions" as tenets of faith. A FACT IS! You can lack faith that the sun will rise in the East, but it is a FACT that it will. You can have the opinion that it will rise in the West. but that doesn't make it so.

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.- Ronald Reagan

I'll wager the young man leaving for Iraq had the least concern with how the American people feel about the war. After seeing what is happening there, he will care even less.

And concerning Cheney, I also see that he is a man standing up for something he believes in which on some level is admirable although I must confess strong feelings against him in general. But that is neither here nor there.

You appear to have an unreasoned dislike for Dick Cheney. Explain why you don't like him. It will help your cause to try, however briefly, to understand that we don't dislike him. In fact, we rarely think about him at all, and when we do it's mostly in conversations like this one.

--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.

I am really, really, just hear to listen. I don't want to start fights. I don't want to have epic batttles over patriotism or honor. I don't want to get into my beliefs vs. yours. This is your turf and I respect that.

I just want to know whats on your mind. If you think Cheney is a wonderful guy, that's great to hear, because I live in OR in a liberal town and hardly ever hear the other perspective. I would like to at least be able to consider it.

That's why I came here.

I mean that...I would like to hear though why you dislike this specific man? Please let us know, as I think it will help others here take your time here seriously. Thanks

" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised

...and I am still up.

This is the kind of subject I'd have to tackle on RedState (if at all) with a full night's sleep.

Let me get back to you on that one ok?

Happy Easter to you too, and to all of you.

-emily (mle)

You can't just show up and say "defend Dick Cheney".

As you say, this is our turf. The sitting Vice President is of our Party and is more or less a conservative, as we mostly are. Why should we defend him to you, and not just say "Go away, liberal flea", as we would any troll?

Give some reason why you don't like him, or better, give several valid reasons and argue your way to another point.

Hint: it's not enough to note that he shot someone while hunting, as that would be an irrational reason to dislike someone unless you can show some ulterior motive for the shooting.

--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.

wtf?

i have to prove i am none of the above?
is there any point? What could I possibly say?

Anything I said would probably antagonize you or upset you and close the lines of communication entirely.

Look, I lived with my extremely conservative grandparents for three months last year when I was writing my first masters thesis. I watched Bill and Sean and Greta every single night without fail when I was cooking dinner for them. And from living with my grandparents those three months I learned how valuable those lines of communication are but how precarious and delicate they can also be.

Is it really so dishonorable to just try to listen to people without trying to inject your own opinion? I am here to learn. Not to argue. Sorry if thats a cop out but I have enough stress in my life.

Forgive me for the "liberal flea" line, as it was name-calling couched in a hypothetical, and appears no less antagonistic than simply calling you a name. It wasn't what I meant to say.

What I was trying in my thumb-fingered way to say was that shifting the burden to our proving Cheney's innocence will simply make us shrug and ignore you, or throw rocks.

I know you say you're trying to understand us, and that's admirable, but the mechanics of how you can achieve that are different than your tactics so far.

--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.

looks to have been an all nighter...mybe a diary will follow on actual reasons why there is a dislike for DC...

" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised

You may edit the "body" of your blog entry, but "only the moderators" have full-editing capabilities.

Second, trolling is a banable offense. Simply asking pointed questions, but failing to engage in the discussion they generate, gets old very quickly and will lead to disciplinary action. The moderators are free to use their own judgment.

Third, if you are truly interested in learning why conservatives respect Vice President Cheney, then I suggest reading this book by Stephen Hayes:

Cheney: The Untold Story of the Most Powerful and Controversial Vice President in American History.

NRO Q&A - Kathryn Jean Lopez interviewed Stephen Hayes regarding the book and his time spent with Vice President Cheney. You can read the interview here:

Conservative in the White House.

Finally, if you are a graduate student in the field of political science, but fail to recognize that modern liberalism is an inherently dangerous ideology, then academic freedom no longer exists in our institutions of higher learning.

***

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

I know a few polisci grad students. The overwhelming characteristic that almost all of them share (and I'm not necessarily referring to the OP, just in general) is an astonishing ability to build strawmen. Once you challenge their absurd premises with a real argument rather than the strawmen their liberal professors gave them, you are almost always greeted with a few minutes of stammering and dissembly, followed by a 'feel good' statement along the lines of "we can't let the children die from lack of healthcare."

I recently engaged a polisci friend of mine on the 2nd amendment, and it took a total of 30 seconds for this pattern to bear itself out.

A close examination of the facts reveals that modern liberalism requires obfuscation, denial, victimhood, protected-classes and an unhealthy faith and misguided belief in the power of a centralized government to level the playing field.

***

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

If you end your comment by declaring outright that everything I believe is a "dangerous ideology" how can I expect you to seriously consider anything else I might say? Why should I bother?

You have just told me that you think I am not only full of it but menacingly so.

And are you threatening to exert "disciplinary action" against me here because I won't fight with you? I feel that I am engaging in and responding to points being made. This seems like a no win situation. If I don't express my opinions which I know will probably make some people angry here I am a
"troll." If I do, I am sure I will be called much worse than a liberal flea.

If you really want me to say the main reason why I don't like Cheney (which I really didn't want to get into but seems to be a prerequisite for talking to you guys) it is because I believe that he pushed our country into war on the grounds of very bad, very weak, selective intelligence.

It seems to me that he was very eager, for reasons I don't know and won't speculate about, to fight another war with Iraq. And I think that lots of good intelligence was there that refuted the ultimately faulty WMD intelligence, but that Cheney and others around him chose to ignore it and the price of that has been 4,000 american lives. That upsets me.

Thanks very much for the book reference. I will honestly try to get a copy of it and read it and I hope it will prove me wrong.

Now can we please have a civil discussion?

If you really want me to say the main reason why I don't like Cheney...it is because I believe that he pushed our country into war on the grounds of very bad, very weak, selective intelligence.

Now this is something that can be discussed. You're not just saying "I don't like Cheney, tell me why I should like him..." You're given a reason for your dislike that's based on a statement that can be intelligently debated.

(Unlike statements like "Cheney is evil, eats women and children for breakfast, wants more business for his buddies, etc." that are just character judgments that end discussion.)

What you're stating is that you disagree with our going into Iraq and the Cheney was a prime mover behind that decision. I'm a bit unclear what you mean by "very bad, very weak, selective intelligence". Many on the left assert that Cheney twisted intelligence, but you don't seem to be saying that. What I think I'm hearing you say is that you think that the information was inconclusive, differing observations, uncertain knowledge, certain inaccuracies - and that Cheney should not have been so sure of himself. But I'd rather you elaborate.

A word of caution here. I am not one of the "experts" here on the intelligence basis for our going into Iraq. This topic has been exhaustively dissected here at RedState, and thus patience may be limited. Also, this intelligence issue is filled with "Talking points" that most here are confident have been refuted. Also, be extremely precise in your usage of terms like "neoconservative". So tread a bit carefully and be sure you stick with sourced references.

In fact, at the top of the page is a search box (with a Go button on the right). You might want to key in some terms on this topic (one of the search terms has to be at least 5 letters long) and see what's already been said here before jumping in.

(You do know how to create links, don't you? It's very important here to be able to back up your statements with evidence.)

Good luck.

And Rightly So!

Ok. This is an example of what I am talking about. This is what upsets me. And, for the record, I also resent the insistence on linking 9/11 to Saddam that is a theme through the interview.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/meet.htm

Transcript of Interview with Vice-President Dick Cheney on Meet the Press, 8 September 2002

VICE PRES. CHENEY: So the point that-to be made here is we have to assume there’s more there than we know. What we know is just bits and pieces we gather through the intelligence system. But we-you never-nobody ever mails you the entire plan or-that rarely happens. It certainly has not happened in this case. So we have to deal with these bits and pieces, and try to put them together in a mosaic to understand what’s going on. But we do know, with absolute certainty, that he is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon.

------------
To me this seems like a cavalier attitude and a shaky argument for sending 4,000 Americans and counting to die in Iraq. Why would you act on the basis of an incomplete picture when it is something THIS important? He seems in the interview very keen on the idea.

Saddan Hussein links to terrorism:
http://www.husseinandterror.com/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmb...
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/salman_pak.htm
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84291,00.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Ca...

Saddam Hussein ties to WMDs
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/salman_pak.htm
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Ca...
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Ca...

===
This post has been brought to by Thorazyne and other psychotropic drugs -- better living through chemistry

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/881yeg...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/889pvp...

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

More Saddam links to WMDs
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/18/hussein.tapes/index.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/main3749494_page4.sh...

Democrat leaders on Saddam Hussein and WMDs
http://www.jrwhipple.com/war/wmd.html

===
This post has been brought to by Thorazyne and other psychotropic drugs -- better living through chemistry

at the time of 9-11 a little research of the above links might give you some understanding of the world at that time

===
This post has been brought to by Thorazyne and other psychotropic drugs -- better living through chemistry

and I when I heard the news for the first time on the radio, I was driving past Air Force One which was parked just across the fence from me and was, rumored to be the next target.

I went to New College in Sarasota FL which is located next door to the airport. Bush was in Sarasota at the time reading a book to an elementary school class, something about goats if I remember correctly. So this is not ancient history to me nor dimly remembered past.

In response to the question as to why I view Cheney as I do, I am highlighting this quote to show that my opinion of Cheney is basically shaped by my perception that he is overly casual when it comes to a momentous decision affecting 300 million Americans. I don't believe in faith-based policy making, especially not when American lives are on the line.

Mr. Cheney was privy to many intelligence reports both from our intelligence services as well as from other countries. You never have absolute certainty; you have to weight all these reports, as well as what you know about the sources, your hard data from satellites, intercepted communications, documents, defectors. Then you have to look at your history with the individual/country, other interestes parties and countries (e.g. Syria, Iran, Israel) and you have to consider the consequences of acting versus the consequences of not acting.

Mr. Cheney also stated that he was certain that Hussein was actively seeking to develop a nuclear weapon. Remember too the the embargo from Gulf War I was breaking down (remember the U.N scandal regarding Iraq aid) and that if we didn't invade when we did, we would have had to wait for at least nine months because of the impending summer heat - and by then the military option may well have no longer been feasible.

And while this is less germane, the issue of whether Saddam's WMD's were shipped to Syria/Lebanon is still unresolved. But this would lead into another whole discussion based on limited evidence either way.

Anyway, back to Cheney's "style" - now it may well be that you don't agree with the level of certainty that should have been present in order to start the war. (And neither you nor I know what was the level of certainty that Cheney had.)

In any case, though, you are certainly entitled to think that Cheney's decision was wrong (assuming he was wrong) and that he should have waited for more certain intelligence info (although again you have to also consider the opportunity costs of waiting for more certainty, as I alluded to briefly above).

However, I don't see where the evidence is for judging that Cheney was cavalier about the decision he made. (Indeed, most criticisms of Cheney are that he's too serious.)

And by the way, "faith-based policy making" is an example of a "pointy stick". While I suspect that you didn't even think about this phrase, since it's so widely used on the left as a way to insult the Bush administration and tease his religious faith (and thought to be a really clever line), it's worn thin from overuse and isn't funny anymore. Nor is it remotely applicable to Mr. Cheney here unless you want to equate lack of absolute certainty with "faith-based". But in that case, most of our lives are "faith-based" in this sense every day.

And Rightly So!

because you have really shown me that its possible for someone to respond to my thoughts without "pointy sticks" as the popular term seems to be on this board.

I just want to clarify one thing. I never heard that phrase about faith-based policy making before I said it as far as I know, perhaps unconsciously somewhere? But I am getting a masters in public policy at the moment and so policy-making, and the reasoning behind it, is what I spend most of my time thinking about these days.

What I meant by using that phrase had absolutely zero reference to Bush's or anyone else's religion. I was only saying that I felt Cheney had made HIS decision with reference to tenets of faith--and I by no means imply religion in that, but more reference to an internal belief system--rather than facts or "evidence" which he disdains. he just *believed* that something was out there, even though the facts hadn't really painted the complete picture yet. That is the faith I am referring to. So to address what you said, I guess I AM equating lack of certainty with "faith based" although its more than that-- he seems to me to be acting on the basis of his beliefs, something that he possesses rather than something that he does not (i.e., certainty).

I can see how having that phrase mindlessly repeated would get annoying but I didn't know I had stumbled upon something inflammatory. Anyways, the main point is I was not making any reference to religion.

I just feel that Cheney believed that it would be a cakewalk because he had no idea of the complexity of the situation on the ground there. His statement that we would be greeted as liberators just shows a profound disconnect to me in my opinion. I think he just didn't do his homework on this beyond the military perspective, and this one decision, to me, was the one issue that matters more than everything else that has come up in my lifetime (I am 27, and a woman for those who have been unsure).

Your argument above is incredibly rational and well thought out and I thank you for acknowledging my right to conclude his decision was wrong (and I will even admit this is still up for grabs) and my right to critique his haste (I will take that one though). I just think that a reasonable leader would have acknowledged that the opportunity costs of assembling evidence for a few more months are outweigh the inherent risks of making the decision to go to war, and possibly commit ourselves to a war without end on the basis of incomplete information.

I don't actually believe that opportunity cost figured in Cheney's decision at all, although this kind of thing might have been part of the marketing of the necessity of war to Americans. I believe that Cheney had the intelligence in front of him all along and for whatever reason he saw what he wanted to see and just trusted his gut. Well that might be admirable in some cases but with a decision like this I just don't think that following your gut is the right approach.

Anyways, you rock civil truth. Thanks for being so damn smart.

I hope you know that my apology was sincere for the 'liberal flea' jab. It was really not what I was thinking, I'm sorry to have inflicted it on you, and regret giving even the appearance that this site is about ad hominem attacks, which it ostensibly is not.

--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.

Thanks a lot for reiterating that. Although no apology was necessary to begin with, I know that your apology was sincere as you seem like a very forthright and thoughtful individual. Sometimes its easy to get carried away when you are talking about things you feel very strongly about (and why oh why can't you edit a post on this site once its been submitted!)

Perhaps a fellow Republican will be able to explain this more effectively than I can.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/21/AR200803...

In case anyone was interested in Edward's GOP creditials, some background from Wikipedia:

During Edwards’ sixteen years in Congress, he served variously on the House Budget and Appropriations committees and was the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations. He was also a member of the House Republican leadership, serving as the chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee, the party's fourth-ranking leadership position. In Edwards first run in 1974, he was defeated by incumbent conservative Democratic Congressman John Jarman, who switched parties to the Republican party shortly before retiring. The next time around in 1976, Edwards beat GOP establishment candidate G.T. Blankenship, a local banker and oilman who was a former state attorney general and former Republican leader in the state House of Representatives, in the Republican primary, and defeated Democrat Tom Dunlap in the general election.

Edwards was one of three founding trustees of the Heritage Foundation and national chairman of the American Conservative Union. Along with former White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler, he has served as co-chairman of Citizens for Independent Courts, a national organization devoted to preserving judicial independence, and co-chairman with another former White House Counsel, Abner Mikva, of Citizens for the Constitution, a national organization concerned with limiting the use of constitutional amendments as a substitute for the normal legislative process. Edwards has also served as co-chairman of a Brookings Institution/Council on Foreign Relations Task Force on Resources for International Affairs as well as the Brookings Working Group on Campaign Finance Reform and for five years as chairman of the annual Conservative Political Action Conference. He has served on the board of directors of the Constitution Project and was the director of the congressional policy task forces advising Ronald Reagan's 1980 presidential campaign.

Nowhere in the Constitution is there listed a referendum.

We don't ever vote on issues. We don't even vote on Constitutional amendments directly. That's because -- wait for it -- it's not a democracy. It says it's government by the People and for the People, but that's contradicted by the plain facts: it's government by the States, and whether that's for the People or not is iffy.

That States elect Congressmen and Senators is obvious. That States elect the President is shown clearly by the Electoral College mechanism: there is no requirement that a State even hold a vote for President.

And I would flee a democracy, because today's mandatory action would be tomorrow's crime.

--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.

but I remember from school that he was very influential on the Founding Fathers.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

Vice President Cheney was absolutely correct. "So?"

So, what?... Abdicate the constitutional responsibilities of the Executive, and govern according to the whims of mob rule public opinion?

The U.S. was a constitutional republic last time I checked.

***

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

Any other response to the question he was asked would have been a waste of breath.

--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.

From the same interview:

Dick Cheney: We have a tendency-I don’t know if it’s part of the part of the American character-to say, “Well, we’ll sit down and we’ll evaluate the evidence. We’ll draw a conclusion.” But we always think in terms that we’ve got all the evidence. Here, we don’t have all the evidence. We have 10 percent, 20 percent, 30 percent. We don’t know how much. We know we have a part of the picture. And that part of the picture tells us that he is, in fact, actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.
------------------------------
I fundamentally disagree with this logic. He seems to be disdaining the idea of "evaluating the evidence" as imprudent. This is dangerous.

"feelings" is a liberal thing (and a very cheesy song)
Around here you are asked to THINK

===
This post has been brought to by Thorazyne and other psychotropic drugs -- better living through chemistry

I meant "which explains how I have come to hold the opinion that I hold" which i have arrived at through thinking and not emotion.

throughout your short posting history here you have repeated told us of your feelings, how you feel, what you feel...

It is nice to know that throughout, what you meant to say was THINK

How imprecise is the rest of what you have posted?

===
This post has been brought to by Thorazyne and other psychotropic drugs -- better living through chemistry

and not just criticizing my choice of words?

rather than just criticizing my choice of words?

with links about the "points" you were trying to make. When you have examined the links provided, why don't you come back and tell us what you feel think.

===
This post has been brought to by Thorazyne and other psychotropic drugs -- better living through chemistry

So I don't see how completing my homework would address the fact that Cheney is leading us into war on the basis of "bits and pieces" and criticizing people who would look for evidence.

I like the way you move those goalposts around...

What is your screen name at Kos?

===
This post has been brought to by Thorazyne and other psychotropic drugs -- better living through chemistry

But I was asked to explain my dislike for Cheney. I didn't say he lied about WMD or anything like that. I talked about his decision-making style (see below) which is exactly the same point I am making now.

"it is because I believe that he pushed our country into war on the grounds of very bad, very weak, selective intelligence.

It seems to me that he was very eager, for reasons I don't know and won't speculate about, to fight another war with Iraq. And I think that lots of good intelligence was there that refuted the ultimately faulty WMD intelligence, but that Cheney and others around him chose to ignore it and the price of that has been 4,000 american lives. That upsets me."

I don't participate on Kos. Is there really a need for those kind of petty swipes?

- Hindsight is 20/20

- Nearly every Senator and Congressman was of the same opinion (based on the intel) that Sadam was a threat and had to be dealt with.

- With that in mind, it is hardly just Cheney et al that was ready to go after Hussein. It included a majority of both parties.

History suggests that "modern liberalism" is a dangerous ideology. Mobocracy replaces order, and the end-result is revolution. Millions die. It has happened every time it's been tried.

Nope. Not a moderator, just been here longer than most. That was just a friendly heads-up.

Much is not publicly known, or acknowledged, regarding the actual state and disposition of Saddam's various WMD programs. There was a great deal of Russian and Iraqi activity preceding Operation Iraqi Freedom and especially during the period immediately following the invasion by coalition forces. A significant portion of Saddam's nuclear weapons program is floating around the Indian Ocean (Or another secure, undisclosed location). Thank you, Col. Moammar al-Gadhafi.

The Duelfer Report was woefully inadequate and incomplete. The Iraqi Survey Group admitted in the Addenda to the Comprehensive Report, March 2005 (pdf) that less than ten percent of Iraq's suspected or known weapons sites were inspected before the ISG closed-up shop, and that many of the "scientists" interviewed by the ISG were actually planted by Iraqi Intelligence.

I'd withhold judgment until the rest of the captured Iraqi Intelligence documents are translated and analyzed. To date, only about fifteen percent of said documents have been translated.

You can examine the unclassified version of the IDA Report here:

INSTITUTE FOR DEFENSE ANALYSES
Joint Advanced Warfighting Program

IDA Paper P-4287

Iraqi Perspectives Project
Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents - Volume 1 (Redacted)

(pdf format)

History will be kind to President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

***

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

Do you support confronting America's enemies, or do you support capitulation to those who seek to kill us?

Betcha get a different poll number to that question.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

the simple answer would be NOBODY!

However, the adults among out leadership understand that sometimes war is necessary.

There can be no real peace while one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. We are at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it has been said if we lose that war, and in doing so lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well, I think it's time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.

---Ronald Reagan

I don't see how any person who doesn't share your beliefs can be lumped together and dismissed with a sneer under the title of "Joe Liberal." There's a bit more diversity there than that. Its just as offensive, if not more, than being called "a typical white person."

But OK. I guess I was misguided in this attempt. At least I know I was not the first to try and fail to have a discussion here.

I don't encounter many conservatives in my daily life and don't get the chance to talk to them or hear what they think. I was hoping this was I place that I could do that- going right to the source rather than just reading Fox News. But apparently reaching across like that is scorned and frowned upon. Sorry to have wasted your time and thanks to those people who did respond to me thoughtfully and respectfully. You've given me a lot to think about.

But just a question where do you live that you don't encounter many conservatives ?

On campus at a university ?

I live in Corvallis, OR and just shook Obama's hand yesterday at a rally at the University of Oregon in Eugene. That is how sheltered I am from conservative viewpoints :)

Can you understand now why I have to seek out divergent opinions on places like this?

layed out. But if you want to learn more about a particular issue why don't you put up why you think a position is correct. Mostly we believe our positions are both better in theory and practice. We have observed history and theoretical arguments to back that up. For us debating them with hard line liberals is like debating the Gospel with Rev Wright. You run out of breath and he still doesn't understand what you are saying.

Not to argue. Like putting up the Pew study, I am not arguing anything with that, I am asking what you think- is is false? is it relevant? is there another side to the story? is there something going on here that's being overlooked? I have no argument to make with that. I just want to know how to interpret it outside of what I hear said around me.

Same with the Cheney "So"? thing. I am not saying its bad that he did that. I am just feeling a lot of outrage from some people around me about that and wanted to understand the perspective that was NOT feeling that same sense of anger. I am not trying to say anyone should be angry, or that Cheney was wrong to respond like that. I am just trying to understand the logic or rationale that would react to that comment in a divergent way that what I have mostly seen.

I am gradually learning that that kind of thing, just putting something out there to hear feedback, trying to take MYSELF out of the discussion, doesn't go over that well here so perhaps I will need to reconsider.

I go to Oregon State University, a very small and very liberal college town. I live two blocks from campus.

Given the liberal leanings of academia, I'm sure that you can imagine the politics of a town ranked by Forbes as having the fifth highest concentration of advanced degrees in the US.
http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_021708_news_smart_corvallis.34...

...you'd understand that we value and welcome interchange with anyone with a thoughtful and well-expressed opinion, no matter what part of the political spectrum they represent.

"I don't encounter many conservatives in my daily life and don't get the chance to talk to them or hear what they think. I was hoping this was I place that I could do that- going right to the source rather than just reading Fox News."

Kinda like, if you were a Zoology major, you'd be spending the afternoon in the Great Apes exhibit at the zoo. That's why we call this type of diary "Conservatives in the Mist". We're not lab rats, and conservative thought is not that hard to find on the internets.

Read and thoughtfully consider. Read and thoughtfully consider. That's all we ask.

There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa

I think your metaphor is inappropriate, or at least not applicable to what I came here for. I am not here to scientifically document you in your native habitat or to carry a message about you to the outside world a la Jane Goodall. I don't think its accurate to keep using this 'animal' theme with apes and zoology and gorillas in the mist. Why is it assumed that I dehumanize you? I want to talk to you as human beings- I am explicitly hoping for dialogue and which would be impossible with apes. If I thought that way, why would I have come in the first place?

Earning a Masters degree in Anthropology has made me very sensitive to the dangers of objectifying or exoticizing some "Other" and to be accused of doing so hits me on a very personal level. But I can understand if you sometimes feel thats what people are trying to do on here, or if thats what some people have done in the past.

Joliphant had a good one for you, up above: create a diary about what you believe and why you believe it. Be prepared to support your beliefs with facts, not assumptions & suppositions.

Ask yourself why it is that you have so little interplay with true conservatives: are you in a cocoon? That bit about Eugene & the fifth highest number of advanced degrees: are you sure that's a good thing? Don't get me wrong; I'm not anti-education -- I just put daughter #2 on the plane to go back to her college, one of the Seven Sisters, and you don't get much more liberal than that.

Here's where I'm coming from: I'm probably pretty typical around these parts in the development of my political philosophy. I was pretty liberal (well, moderate) when I got out of college (I was an engineer, after all); life experiences, observations and growing understanding of business and management have undermined most of what I thought I knew about the way the world worked when I got out of college.

Business people intuitively understand the Law of Unintended Consequences, which is truly one of the key pillars of conservative thought. Business people understand that government is not a universal agent of good. Government almost always wields a meat-ax when usually a scalpel is appropriate.

That, and I happen to be in the oil business in LA so I don't project demonic motives on Cheney, GW Bush and Halliburton; those are my peeps, I've worked with and for personalities just like them for most of my career.

Bottom line: if you stay in an academic environment and get 90% of your information from the MSM, your political attitudes are unlikely to change much. If, however, you engage in a capitalistic enterprise and become a part owner, the odds go up greatly that your attitudes will evolve in the conservative direction.

Oh, and another big factor is kids (as in offspring); they make you more conservative, too.

There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa

Long ago, when I was of the liberal persuasion I spent some time with the anthropology types at Berkeley. They were a very liberal lot but I was impressed with their wide understanding of science outside of their field. They certainly did not like things to go over their heads so to speak. The same cannot be said for their understanding of things like open markets and economics.

They had a visceral dislike of Reagan who was the CA governor at the time. Surprisingly, Cheney’s comment “So” does not surprise or upset me, I thought the question was rhetorical and thus did not need a deeper answer. Of course I also find that the question of going to war without complete and verifiable intelligence to be easily answered. On one hand the intelligence is never that complete and leaders must almost always make decisions with imperfect data. On the other hand, the intelligence offices in this nation have been degraded for years, beginning in the Carter era so the fact that our knowledge was less than perfect is a consequence of our own past actions. Another example of the law of unintended consequences I suspect, who would have thought that a reduction of our intelligence services worldwide would have led us down the path to war.

I think we should also point out that some of the best posters on this site had to learn this lesson the hard way. There are quite a few seasoned posters that had to learn how to put their thoughts and ideas out rather than pointy sticks.

and wow, i have been here since 2005 and never even heard that word before! But its good to know you are out there. Hope you are enjoying that rare glimpse of the sun today.