Cheney warns of new attacks

[twa]

Yes, I believe that W was correct in his assessment on that one. He just didn't leave enough troops there to be effective.

Well we we certainly see how effective more troops are as well as how hard to supply the increase.

We have had two alt routes in shut down and the Taliban pretty much control the third....Guess we will see is O can sweet talk Putin.(better ring cash;))

[Hersh]

Just curious on this since it was W that ordered both.

You saying W was right and O is correct not to have remanded the orders?

W was correct in ordering the drones over the border. O is correct in continuing the policy and ordering more troops on the ground.

[Predicto]

No we just talked about the Cheney claim. People really dont like talking about politics where I work.

Well, I have no problem with Dick Cheney reminding us that terrorists still hate us and are going to try to attack us.

It's the rest of his message that is so obviously bull. "I'm not going to tell you exactly what I disagree with so we can have a specific discussion of that substantivepoint, but let me just say that if any terrorist ever attacks us in the future it will be because Obama abandoned our core neo-con principles that kept your children safe and left the American people undefended raaaar!!"

It's like something Charles Krauthammer would say.

[haithman]

Then by your logic, someone who was never in power like us voters shouldn't even have an opinion right? Get over yourself

Clearly you lack reasoning abilities because there is a difference between someone who was ONCE in power and someone who was NEVER in power and never really had any political clout. Please don't misconstrue someone else's words to construct what you believe to be a rational world in which you believe you live in. Here is the problem, I have no problem with Cheney expressing his opinion that he believes Obama's policies leave us more vulnerable, that is his right in this country. However don't talk about how we are specifically open to biological and nuclear attack to stir up the masses in what smacks of an "I told you so" political stunt. It is absolute ridiculous. Please Cheney if you know something go speak to Obama about it, having people scared to walk the streets of our cities will not solve the problem now will it?

[Mad Mike]

Clearly you lack reasoning abilities because there is a difference between someone who was ONCE in power and someone who was NEVER in power and never really had any political clout. Please don't misconstrue someone else's words to construct what you believe to be a rational world in which you believe you live in. Here is the problem, I have no problem with Cheney expressing his opinion that he believes Obama's policies leave us more vulnerable, that is his right in this country. However don't talk about how we are specifically open to biological and nuclear attack to stir up the masses in what smacks of an "I told you so" political stunt. It is absolute ridiculous. Please Cheney if you know something go speak to Obama about it, having people scared to walk the streets of our cities will not solve the problem now will it?

Yeah, how horrible that people should understand the threats we face so we can vote and lobby our leaders to do something about it. I mean after all, what's the harm? It's only a Nuke in a major city. Why is that mean old Cheney stirring things up over nothing?

And you are right. Cheney is just setting things up so he can say he told us so if a nuke destroys a city. That must be EXACTLY what he is thinking.

And you want to lecture someone else about reasoning abilities?

[haithman]

You strike me as someone who believes we will spend $2 trillion in Iraq for the purposes of spreading democracy and freeing people from the evil clenches of a no good dictator.

That line of thinking is right up your alley right?

Think for a moment for yourself

[G-Prime]

One the scare of hypocrisy, libertarians (most I met, and there are a **** ton in Texas) are off the chart.

Those are the scary ones, that thinks anything not born here should be shot... We REAL libs don't pay any attention to them.

[GoSkins561]

To be fair, Gore had also been very critical of a sitting president and in many more things than just foreign policy.:2cents:

Former Dems are allowed to be critical, just not Repubs, Repubs can't even offer advice.

[Midnight Judges]

Yeah, how horrible that people should understand the threats we face so we can vote and lobby our leaders to do something about it. I mean after all, what's the harm? It's only a Nuke in a major city. Why is that mean old Cheney stirring things up over nothing?

And you are right. Cheney is just setting things up so he can say he told us so if a nuke destroys a city. That must be EXACTLY what he is thinking.

And you want to lecture someone else about reasoning abilities?

The problem with that is, Dick Cheney has zero credibility. He cannot be believed on anything he says. This is a guy who said there is no doubt Iraq has WMDs when he was specifically warned that there was debate within the intelligence community about whether or not Iraq had WMDs.

This is a Vice President who once claimed to not be part of the executive branch (!) to escape one law while simultaneously claiming executive priviledge to escape another!

[twa]

W was correct in ordering the drones over the border. O is correct in continuing the policy and ordering more troops on the ground.

W also ordered the increase in troops...not that it matters now

PESHAWAR, Pakistan — Militants blew up a bridge in northwest Pakistan on Tuesday, cutting the major supply line for U.S.-led troops in Afghanistan with an explosion that turned the narrow span into a jagged metal “V.”

It was the latest, and perhaps most serious, attempt to block supplies to the U.S.-led mission against the Taliban.

The length of the slender metal bridge slanted to one side and was blocked by an overturned truck that spilled dozens of dusty bags into the pavement. Traffic from the bare hills continued on foot, with Afghans and Pakistanis, including women in burqas, hurrying their baggage over the dry riverbed.

A NATO spokesman in Afghanistan said supplies along the route had been halted “for the time being,” but stressed the alliance was in no danger of running out of food, equipment or fuel.

The latest attack on the famous Khyber Pass highlights the urgent need NATO and the U.S. have for alternative supply routes to landlocked Afghanistan through nations to its north, especially as the U.S. plans to double its troop numbers in the country this year.

Up to 75 percent of the fuel and supplies destined for U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan travel through Pakistan after being unloaded at the port of Karachi, and most are driven along the Khyber Pass.

It was not immediately clear whether supply convoys could reach Afghanistan through alternative, smaller routes in the region. An official in the area, Fazal Mahmood, said repair work had begun on the bridge.

on the troops

Gates Delays Troop Decision

ABC News’ Luis Martinez reports: ABC News has learned that Defense Secretary Robert Gates has decided to delay a decision to send additional troops into Afghanistan until after the Obama administration concludes its ongoing review of the strategy for Afghanistan.

The surprising decision comes after the much anticipated proposal to send three additional combat brigades to Afghanistan — or 17,000 troops as reported by ABC News last week — was presented to Secretary Gates for his approval this afternoon. The Pentagon troop proposal anticipated a large Marine brigade to be followed by two Army Brigade Combat Teams, including a Stryker Brigade. The top US general in Afghanistan , Gen. David McKiernan favors using the armored vehicles as a way of extending his troops’ presence to remote regions of Afghanistan.

Gates told Congress last week that he anticipated that should a decision to send additional brigades be made, “we could have two of those brigades there probably by late spring, and potentially a third by mid-summer.”

It’s unclear how long the decision will be delayed given that the reviews are expected to go on for at least another few weeks and possibly a few months.

Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell told reporters on Tuesday that any troops decision did not hinge on the conclusion of the reviews.

“My understanding is that whatever decision is made on additional forces for Afghanistan will likely take place in advance of the conclusion of the strategy review that this White House has undertaken on Afghanistan,” said Morrell.

ABC News has learned that the review conducted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff favors a limiting of the objectives for Afghanistan, moving away from the broad goal of democracy-building in Afghanistan towards providing regional security for both Pakistan and Afghanistan and preventing al Qaeda from maintaining a safe haven in Pakistan.

The Obama administration will also receive a recommendation from Gen. David Petraeus, who heads Central Command, and from Richard Holbrooke, Obama’s civilian envoy to Afghanistan. The reviews were begun under the Bush administration last fall, one review conducted by the White House czar on Iraq and Afghanistan, Lt. Gen. Doug Lute, has already been completed.

[Mad Mike]

The problem with that is, Dick Cheney has zero credibility. He cannot be believed on anything he says. This is a guy who said there is no doubt Iraq has WMDs when he was specifically warned that there was debate within the intelligence community about whether or not Iraq had WMDs.

This is a Vice President who once claimed to not be part of the executive branch (!) to escape one law while simultaneously claiming executive priviledge to escape another!

So you dont believe that AQ is trying to get a nuke or nukes to attack America? You don't believe that's a danger? You think Cheneys warning is a lie?

:doh:

[Predicto]

So you dont believe that AQ is trying to get a nuke or nukes to attack America? You don't believe that's a danger? You think Cheneys warning is a lie?

:doh:

Jesus Mike, don't play stupid. Of course that is not what he was saying. We all know that AQ wants to hurt us as bad as it can. No one on either side ever denies that.

Cheney's real claim is that Obama is making us less safe from those type of threats than Cheney and his people did, and that the tradeoffs Obama is making are not worth making.

That's the part that people here are having trouble with. That's the part that you should be debating if you really want to have an honest debate.

[Mad Mike]

Jesus Mike, don't play stupid. Of course that is not what he was saying. We all know that AQ wants to hurt us as bad as it can. No one on either side ever denies that.

Cheney's real claim is that Obama is making us less safe from those type of threats than Cheney and his people did, and that the tradeoffs Obama is making are not worth making.

That's the part that people here are having trouble with. That's the part that you should be debating if you really want to have an honest debate.

If you want to debate me on the subject that's fine. But don't step into the middle of my debate with someone else and try to re-write what they said.

I have worked for several pages trying to get him to clarify his position. It's pretty clear.

[Midnight Judges]

So you dont believe that AQ is trying to get a nuke or nukes to attack America? You don't believe that's a danger?

For the bazillionth time, I never said that.

You think Cheneys warning is a lie?

:doh:

I think it's a political ruse. And a rather typical one.

[Mad Mike]

For the bazillionth time, I never said that.

I think it's a political ruse. And a rather typical one.

OK. So let me see if I have it right this time.

There is a real threat of terrorists nuking a city. But that evil Cheney is only saying so as some sort of ruse? (For what exactly?) So you are saying that Cheney isn't warning us because he cares about the country and doesn't want to see a city nuked. He just wants political points.

[Koolblue13]

OK. So let me see if I have it right this time.

There is a real threat of terrorists nuking a city. But that evil Cheney is only saying so as some sort of ruse? (For what exactly?) So you are saying that Cheney isn't warning us because he cares about the country and doesn't want to see a city nuked. He just wants political points.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you, but....

How much money would stand to be made by folks around Cheney, if there was a domestic nuclear attack?

[Midnight Judges]

OK. So let me see if I have it right this time.

trust me, you don't.

There is a real threat of terrorists nuking a city.

No there isn't. Just like there wasn't a robust neclear weapons program in Iraq in 2002-2003.

[JimmyConway]

OK. So let me see if I have it right this time.

There is a real threat of terrorists nuking a city. But that evil Cheney is only saying so as some sort of ruse? (For what exactly?) So you are saying that Cheney isn't warning us because he cares about the country and doesn't want to see a city nuked. He just wants political points.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/06/AR2009020601443.html?hpid=topnews

"The comments reprised Cheney's familiar role as doomsayer during the Bush administration, when he routinely warned of imminent danger from terrorists and portrayed Democrats as soft on national security. During the 2004 campaign, Cheney warned that the nation would be at risk of terrorist attack if it made the "wrong choice" by picking Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.)."

-----------

Nothing new from Cheney. He's your classic fear monger. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_mongering

[Mad Mike]

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you, but....

How much money would stand to be made by folks around Cheney, if there was a domestic nuclear attack?

Yeah, I'm sure Cheney is that evil. Dude if you honestly believe that, you need help. :doh:

[Mad Mike]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/06/AR2009020601443.html?hpid=topnews

"The comments reprised Cheney's familiar role as doomsayer during the Bush administration, when he routinely warned of imminent danger from terrorists and portrayed Democrats as soft on national security. During the 2004 campaign, Cheney warned that the nation would be at risk of terrorist attack if it made the "wrong choice" by picking Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.)."

And he was right. Kerry is a moron.

[Mad Mike]

trust me, you don't.

No there isn't. Just like there wasn't a robust neclear weapons program in Iraq in 2002-2003.

Sure. No threat at all...

Lawyer: Pakistani nuclear scientist freed from house arrest

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/02/06/pakistan.nuclear.scientist.arrest/index.html

In Washington, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she is "very much concerned" about Khan's release.

Separately, acting deputy State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid said: "This man remains a serious proliferation risk.," he said. "The proliferation support that Khan and his associates provided to Iran and North Korea has had a harmful impact ... on international security and will for years to come."

[Joe Sick]

Hey, Dick. Weren't you one of the ones in charge when we got attacked the first time?

I really find it hard to understand why we should listen to ANYTHING the members of the past administration say... about war, about economics, anything. People voted for change because what the last president and his puppet masters did didn't work! (for most of the US.)