Comments on: Cheney’s smackdown speech to the American Enterprise Institute

By: Lorica

Lorica — Sun, 27 Nov 2005 14:32:42 +0000

Honestly, don’t you think that 75 percent of these low poll numbers are only the MSM’s effect with their negative news stories, and anti-war slant??? – Lorica

By: Sister Toldjah

Sister Toldjah — Sun, 27 Nov 2005 14:32:30 +0000

Brian, with all due respect – by comparison you’re probably aware that the credibility you hold here with your comments is probably in the negative territory – that doesn’t stop you from saying what you feel, though, does it?

The speech was a smackdown. Whether or not you or ‘a majority of the American people’ care what he had to say is really immaterial to me.

By: Brian

Brian — Sun, 27 Nov 2005 07:35:58 +0000

Given Dick Cheney's approval rating is down to 30 percent: LINK I doubt that many Americans give much credibility to anything Dick Cheney says. I doubt most Americans would consider his speech a "smackdown". The following article explains how dishonest Dick Cheney has been on this issue: LINK "In making his continued one-man jihad against the facts, Cheney is apparently throwing Hail Mary passes to that part of the Republican base that will believe anything it is told -- having already lost the trust of the majority of Americans."

By: Big Bang Hunter

Big Bang Hunter — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 19:10:12 +0000

..”[Neither] I or the president can prevent some members of the Congress from losing their memories or their backbones…”… Ouch… heh….

- Not questioning their patriotism…. just their character…..

- Bang

By: Dana R. Pico

Dana R. Pico — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 03:00:11 +0000

Baklava:

You might be right; I think that the “whereases” create a debate that obscure the reasons for the resolution. And removing them preemptively might do just the same thing; the demagogues could play it either way.

But I am very much supportive of having the Democrats put their votes where their mouths are, or have to simply shut up (not that the shameless ones will).

By: Baklava

Baklava — Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:46:35 +0000

What I meant to say Dana and wasn’t clear was bringing up his ammendment without the “whereas’s” would spark debate on the wherea’s themselves. With more Democrats accusations about the legitimacy of the whereas’s it would just give them a mouthpiece in that way…

By: Dana R. Pico

Dana R. Pico — Wed, 23 Nov 2005 13:00:36 +0000

Thanks, Sis; I appreciate it!:cool:

Baklava: I did suggest that the GOP could bring up the Murtha resolution without the offensive “whereases;” that might be the only way to get a debate on the resolution itself, rather than the junk padding at the beginning.

And, of course, I appreciate everyone reading!

By: stackja

stackja — Wed, 23 Nov 2005 11:46:16 +0000

Dem lies, only Dems believe.

For those with faith, no explanation is necessary. For those without, no explanation is possible. â€“ Thomas Aquinas

By: Mike Veeshir

Mike Veeshir — Wed, 23 Nov 2005 11:37:43 +0000

I love it when Cheney goes on the attack. He’s just beautiful.
The best part? He’s usually so devastatingly accurate that the media has to either ignore what he said and declare “He’s attacking” or twist what he said by replaying Dems responses of “He’s challenging my patriotism” when he did no such thing.

I hope he writes a book in 2009. I’ve already put it on my Amazon wishlist.

By: ttyler5

ttyler5 — Wed, 23 Nov 2005 09:43:34 +0000

Let them go for it!

The anti-war wing of the Democratic party will lead them to election disaster, as that wing of the party has always done in the past!

By: Baklava

Baklava — Wed, 23 Nov 2005 05:41:00 +0000

According to the black and white text of the speech in front of me … msnbc, apnews, abcnews, cnn, foxnews (yes them too), yahoo news didn’t get right their false accusation about Dick Cheney’s remarks.

I do disagree with Dana though on bringing Murtha’s actual resolution up for a vote as it has these talking point leftist “whereas’s”. It would give them ground to debate each of these whereas’s. That would be the ugliest debate ever. Al Jazeera would say, “look we can increase this whereas and this one easily”