War - 1 Year Anniv Thoughts to Ponder

[sq764]

Some questions I was trying to answer myself:

1) If they charged Hussein today, what crime could we convict him of in a court of law?

2) Is anyone else most fearful of what would happen if/when we do have both Hussein and Bin Laden in custody? Would that inspire even more attacks to try to get them freed?

3) I saw an anti-ware protest of 250 people the other day. Like what the hell does this accomplish? I mean seriously..

4) My wife and I are considering having a child soon. I am 30 now. When the child is 30, what will the state of terrorism be at that point? Worse? Better?

Just some random thoughts..

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by sq764
Some questions I was trying to answer myself:

1) If they charged Hussein today, what crime could we convict him of in a court of law?

2) Is anyone else most fearful of what would happen if/when we do have both Hussein and Bin Laden in custody? Would that inspire even more attacks to try to get them freed?

3) I saw an anti-ware protest of 250 people the other day. Like what the hell does this accomplish? I mean seriously..

4) My wife and I are considering having a child soon. I am 30 now. When the child is 30, what will the state of terrorism be at that point? Worse? Better?

Just some random thoughts..

Good questions.

1. My guess is he'll eventually be handled over to the Iraqi people and executed. He could be tried in the World Court for war crimes, but I'm pretty sure the US wants him dead and I'm sure the Iraqis will comply with that.

2. There's really nothing more to fear with Hussein in custody than there is now. However, Bin Laden is a symbol to the Islamic world. He's on kidney dialysis now however, and most likely already is dead or close to it. He's nothing to lose so his capture would probably initiate a great deal of quick terrorist actions by al Quada factions around the world. This al Quada is a beast with many heads, You chop one off and another grows back. The only way to really cut them off is to cut off the money flow and the suppliers. There will always be desparate people. Slowing down their funding is the key. It's like the mafia. It's easy to capture a hit man, but until you get to the source, and where the power and funding is coming from, you're just dealing with hit men.

As I said the danger with Hussein's capture is nothing. He's hated in the Islamic world and by his own people. Bin Laden is a different story. He is like Jesse James in our culture, a legend in the Islamic world, a rebel fighting a Holy War, a jihad. Most likely a capture of him and his death would make him a martyr to thousands of Islamic men, and probably ignite new terrorist actions around the world, especially against Israel and the Us and Britain, and, beleive it or not, France.

3. People feel strongly enough to get up and dissent. That's their right. It isn't that they feel they can do anything. However, it soothes one's soul in knowing that they did something and to say publicly, I do not agree with this US policy. I can't just sit idly by and shake my head and acquiesce. People in America have always protested throughout history from the WW I vets marching in Washington after their pension benefits were screwed over to Martin Luther King in Selma Alabama over Civil Rights, to the Vietnam Vets against the War, to AIDS walks, whatever your grievance. It's an investment of thier time and allows other to share their beliefs with others. I don't see why you would have any objection to a non-violent protest or march.

4. That's a pretty speculative question. Most of us don't even know if we'll have a job tomorrow let alone what the future is gonna bring. There have always been acts of terrorism in the world however, and I would assume there always will be. Whether it is worse or not is only conjecture. Let's hope its better than today.

[Suff]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Good questions.

. Let's hope its better than today.

Good questions---

Well Thought answers as well.

Perhaps GWB is right..

It may be that EXACTLY because the world has changed... That the current solutions being used are the CORRECT answers.

That is such a small world now... That Humans have connected to each other... remember it was only 500 years ago that we stepped on PLYMOUTH ROCK. Now the internet makes a CAVE in pakistan your next door neighboor.

Perhaps these guys are cancer cells that 25 years ago posed no immediatte threat to America. And now things have changed. These extremists are amongst us...and maybe we need to cut them out? Thats a view.

I'm not suggesting I share it..or agree with it. But I do think about it. Perhaps Bush/Rumsfeld have it right. That the future of a free world depends on America riding itself of this Virus.

We need to murderously, ruthlessly and ummercifully attack these animals and rid the world of them.

[Secretariat]

The only problem with a cancer is you've got to get it all, or it keeps coming back.

I also worry about dehumanizing these people we have defined as terrorists. They are terrorists because of what they have done. But why? What makes a terrorist? What makes a person give up his life for a cause? How do they get that way?

Yes, there is the Islamic fantacism of a better world, but not every angry Islamic young man is willingly blowing himself up. These are desperate people. We have understand these root causes, and address that, because without it, I am afraid we are nothing more than law enforcement. We're not really addressing the cause of what creates an Al Quaida, and who are the people playing upon these young men by funding them with masses of money and then hiding in the shadows while the Islamic soldiers march to their brain washed jihad.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Secretariat
The only problem with a cancer is you've got to get it all, or it keeps coming back.

I also worry about dehumanizing these people we have defined as terrorists. They are terrorists because of what they have done. But why? What makes a terrorist? What makes a person give up his life for a cause? How do they get that way?

Yes, there is the Islamic fantacism of a better world, but not every angry Islamic young man is willingly blowing himself up. These are desperate people. We have understand these root causes, and address that, because without it, I am afraid we are nothing more than law enforcement. We're not really addressing the cause of what creates an Al Quaida, and who are the people playing upon these young men by funding them with masses of money and then hiding in the shadows while the Islamic soldiers march to their brain washed jihad.

Why did the nazi's do what they did?
Why did japan do what it did?
What side was Italy on-the most?

Who cares. When a threat emerges, you destroy it.
You worry about cleanig it up later on.

[sq764]

I loved the line the Pakistani General used last night on CNN. When asked if the Al Quaida members would surrender, he said "Well, they either surrender or they will be eliminated. It's that simple"

[kenwoodallpromos]

1- Attempted assasination on 2 Bushes. / 2- Fearful of only urban legends about 2 lowlifes who get others to die and kill so they can protect their wealth and power. Like Jesse James, as soon as caught or killed they are late night jokes for 2 weeks. / 3- protests; If they are not radical enough no attenton is paid to them unless there are at least 2,500 for antiwar stuff, 25 for anti-christian stuff! / 4- 30 years from now- If we keep fighting them, it will be 3 questions on a history quiz. If we elect people who cannot fight or pressure the world enough to get rid of the riff raff, we will see films about Mohammed in Arabic instead of about christ in Latin!!!

[Secretariat]

I posted what happened in Aghanistan today.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20040321/ap_on_re_as/afghan_assassination

The problem with tough talk is it just engenders MORE tough talk and tough action.

We may win the war on terror, but personally I think it will continual indefintely. Bush has basically said as much. We don't know when there will be an end.

Factoring in that the Bush adminstration refuses to give Congress an estimate on the finanicial cost of this war, and refuses to factor the hundreds of billions of dollar already going into Iraq alone, I think our nation faces real financial crisis in the future.

We can spend money and build weapons, but what will defense contractors do when there's no more money to buy the products? We're already a nation of IOU's, and dwindling manufacturing jobs.

I don't like to paint a bleak picture, and wouldn't if in fact Bush could lay out some time tables, and factor in real costs of war (in lives and money). But he doesn't. He just postures and tries to score political votes out of this pre-ordained war for oil.

I stilldon't understand why Iraq was divided up among foregin interests in Cheyney's Energy papers which were developed and subpoenaed by Judicial Watch.

I still don't understand why information about the Israels arrested on 911 is still deemed "classified." I still don't understand why Bin Laden's relatives were given a free air ride out of the country on 911 rather than being questioned. I still don't understand why NORAD was not prepared on that day when they had drilled for that type of situation just months before. I still don't know why Bush had taken the longest vacation of any President only a month before after so little time on the job. I still don't know why Clarke stated there was an immediate urge by the adminstration to hit Iraq after 911 when they were declared by intelligence not to be responsible for it. I still don't understand why the FBI posted inaccurate people who were on the planes that day and later had to admit that. I still don't know why most of the claimed hijackers were Saudi and yet the government has allowed the Saudi banks to stone wall us into investigating the financial money trail of 911 when Bush said this would be his first priority. I still don't understand why Iraq was invaded now when the head of the CIA George Tenet claims he never said Iraq was an imminent threat to our nation.

I hear the argument that all Bush's mistakes are wiped away by 911, yet these same people will harp on a bill Kerry voted for a decade earlier to slightly cut defense after the end of the Cold War. Unbelievable.

[Tom]

You seem to not understand an awful lot.
I suggest you listen to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly. Maybe Savidge. That might clear up the mysteries you are fighting with. :D

[sq764]

Man, I fired people at my work and they cussed at me. I guess I should be fortunate..

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Secretariat
I still don't understand why information about the Israels arrested on 911 is still deemed "classified."

I still don't understand why Bin Laden's relatives were given a free air ride out of the country on 911 rather than being questioned.

I still don't understand why NORAD was not prepared on that day when they had drilled for that type of situation just months before.

I still don't know why Bush had taken the longest vacation of any President only a month before after so little time on the job.

I still don't understand why the FBI posted inaccurate people who were on the planes that day and later had to admit that.

I still don't know why most of the claimed hijackers were Saudi and yet the government has allowed the Saudi banks to stone wall us into investigating the financial money trail of 911 when Bush said this would be his first priority.


At least we can agree on a few things. The above quotes are valid questions that must be answered, but I'm afraid never will.

[Suff]

Please... Remember this. Because this is going to get ugly by November.

George Bush used 9-11-01 as tool for votes and understanding of his difficulties while president.

He used Actors (dressed as NYC Firefighters) in a TV ad to try and get people to visualize his difficulties. He did it.

"I'm George Bush and I approved this message"

Remember that ok. he opened the door...

[Lefty]

Sec, you are afraid of dehumanizing terrorists? Methinks they have dehumanized themselves by their actions. The first thing that happened on 9-11 is these monsters boarded an airplane and the first thing they did was grab an unsuspecting stewardess and CUT HER THROAT.

[Lefty]

suff, Bush opened the door? All i've been hearing for months is the dem candidates calling Bush one vile name after another. and one John Kerry kept bragging about being a war hero in Vietnam.
9-11 is what happened and it defined a President. Events often shape the man. Now it's his turn to answer.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
Sec, you are afraid of dehumanizing terrorists? Methinks they have dehumanized themselves by their actions. The first thing that happened on 9-11 is these monsters boarded an airplane and the first thing they did was grab an unsuspecting stewardess and CUT HER THROAT.

Yes Lefty. I am afraid of dehumanizing them because it creates a vicious cycle on both ends. Kill the evil ones. Now they say kill the satans. Kill the evil ones. Now kill the satans. It doesn't end until we get to the root causes and address them. When we use terms such as Axis of Evil we polarize entire nations. We dehumanize them. We create new terrorists. Hence the Palestinian situation. A never ending cycle with a wall between them. Did I say those bastards who are responsbile for 911 shouldn't be punished? No...never had, but the approach of dehumanization serves little purpose except vengeance and hatred engendering more vengeance and hatred.

General Myers, chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff said "A big piece of fighting the war is creating an environment that is not conducive to to recruiting terrorists. - you have got to make sure people are educated and have economic opportunities and so forth. That's a tall order and it's one not easily dealt with or going to be changed in a DECADE OR SO."

Polls now show that 70% of Jordanians and 665 of Morroccans now feel that suicide attacks against the US are now justified. 56% of Britains are for veering away from US Policy and 75% in France.

And Clarke said on Sixty Minutes we're creating new terrorists with this approach.

Hatred and vengeance is understandable, but it is not going to solve the problem. Simple solutions of blowing them to smithereens might feel good, but it is not going to stop the growth of terrorism. Dehumanization of the enemy stifles dissent, but it does not solve the long term problem.

Justice yes. And yes, I am glad the bastard who killed that stewardess is dead. Lefty, I feel as outraged as you about it. I just think killing thousands of innocent civilians and our own men and pushing the nation into fiscal crisis isn't really helping to bring that girl's life back or stopping future terrorism. Those polls show we're going backward in the rest of the Arab world.

[Lefty]

Ronald Reagan used the term "The Evil Empire" GW, "The Axcis of Evil"
It defines the problem. Doing nothing does not make the problem go away. The terrorists are in a Holy War. They won't quit until they or us are stamped out. Clinton did little, and the terrorists grew bolder. We must show them we will not acquiesce. They feed on weakness.
Others want a consensus, but leaders lead. That's GW.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
Ronald Reagan used the term "The Evil Empire" GW, "The Axcis of Evil"
It defines the problem. Doing nothing does not make the problem go away. The terrorists are in a Holy War. They won't quit until they or us are stamped out. Clinton did little, and the terrorists grew bolder. We must show them we will not acquiesce. They feed on weakness.
Others want a consensus, but leaders lead. That's GW.

Why do you keep misstating information on Clinton? I voted for Dole in 96, but the information you are getting is incorrect.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A45352-2003Feb21&notFound=true

[Lefty]

the writer worked for Clinton. hmmm, kinda says it all, doesn't it?
Remember when Hillary said the allegations against her husband that he was having an affair in the oval= office was rightwing conspiracy? The bitch never did apoligize.
I don't think the rightwing has to make up a damn thing when it comes to Clinton.

[Secretariat]

C'mon Lefty. You can do better than that. How about really trying to refute this man's assertions rather than your typical old Hilary bashing (as if she had anything to do with it.)

[Lefty]

Instead of me refuting his assertions let him prove his assertions.
I don't have the energy to "link hunt" as you do. But let's just say I blve the right in this as I have seen and heard so many lies from the left(hillary was just an example)that I wouldn't believe them if their tongues came notarized. A saying btw, that i've borrowed from the lovely Judge Marilyn Milyan.

[Lefty]

I found someone who refutes the clintonite. Richard Miniter wrote a book called: Losing Bin Laden:How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror.
Haven't read it but gee, a whole book. This guy must have some facts huh, not just opinion.

[Secretariat]

Lefty, just because someone writes a book doesn't mean he has all the facts.

[JustRalph]

Rush Limbaugh spoke with the Vice President today.

Cheney to Rush: Clarke "Not in the Loop"

March 22, 2004

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT 01:05 PM ET

RUSH LIMBAUGH: We are always happy to be able to talk to Vice President Dick Cheney who joins us now on the phone. Vice President Cheney, thank you for making time. It's great to have you with us once again.

VICE PRESIDENT RICHARD B. CHENEY: Well, thanks, Rush, it's good to talk to you.

RUSH: All right, let's get straight to what the news is all about now before we branch out to things. Why did the administration keep Richard Clarke on the counterterrorism team when you all assumed office in January of 2001?

CHENEY: Well, I wasn't directly involved in that decision. He was moved out of the counterterrorism business over to the cybersecurity side of things. That is, he was given the new assignment at some point there. I don't recall the exact time frame.

RUSH: Cybersecurity? Meaning Internet security?

CHENEY: Yeah, worried about attacks on computer systems and sophisticated information technology systems we have these days that an adversary would use or try use.

RUSH: Well, now, that explains a lot, that answer right there.

CHENEY: Well, he wasn't in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff, and I saw part of his interview last night.

RUSH: He was demoted.

CHENEY: It was as though he clearly missed a lot of what was going on. For example, just three weeks after we got here, there was communication, for example, with the president of Pakistan laying out our concerns about Afghanistan and Al-Qaeda and the importance of going after the Taliban and getting them to end their support for the Al-Qaeda. This was, I'd say, within three weeks of our arrival here. So the only thing I can say about Dick Clarke is he was here throughout those eight years going back to 1993, and the first attack on the World Trade Center in '98 when the embassies were hit in east Africa, in 2000 when the USS Cole was hit, and the question that out to be asked is, what were they doing in those days when he was in charge of counterterrorism efforts?

RUSH: Well, you know, the media finally has what it wants, I'm talking the partisan media has what it wants, it's got an independent contractor, man who's worked for both administrations now launching full barrels at the president, and one of the claims that Clark is making is, and you just countered it, he said the president didn't treat Al-Qaeda as a serious threat before September 11th. He keeps harping on the fact that even before your administration assumed office you guys wanted to go in and level Iraq.

CHENEY: Yeah, that's just not the case. The fact is what the president did not want to do is to have an ineffective response with respect to Al-Qaeda and we felt up till that point much of what had been done vis-à-vis Al-Qaeda had been totally ineffective, some cruise missiles fired at some training camps in Afghanistan, basically didn't hit anything, and it made the U.S. look weak and ineffective and he wanted a far more effective policy for trying to deal with that, and that process was in motion throughout the spring.

RUSH: Why do you think -- and he's not the first, Clarke is not the first -- why do you think so many opponents of the president, what do they hope to achieve by continually attacking Condoleezza Rice?

CHENEY: Well, I think it's shortsighted. Condie is well able to defend herself, she's done a superb job for us and extremely knowledgeable --

RUSH: Well I guess --

CHENEY: -- supervisor. I've worked with a lot of them over the years. I suppose he may have a grudge to bear there since he probably wanted a more prominent position than she was prepared to give him.

RUSH: I guess what I'm getting at is whenever it comes to the counterterrorism efforts, foreign policy in general, it seems that elements of the Democratic Party today and their allies attack Condoleezza Rice, which is a matter of real curiosity to me, and of course she can defend herself, as she did today in the Washington Post, but it's just part of what appears to me an obvious attack machine at full throttle. You have this book coming out while John Kerry is on vacation, so he doesn't have to say this stuff.

The author of this book is associated with Kerry's foreign policy advisor up at the Kennedy school. You've got a Bob Woodward book that's coming in a few weeks from the same publisher. Despite all of these attacks, and by the way, I actually think Mr. Vice President if you'll permit me an editorial comment here, you have the Clinton administration, if they defended the country as eagerly and with as much fervor as they are attempting to defend themselves in all this, we might have -- I don't expect you to comment -- we might have escaped some of the attacks that we've had. But with this frontal assault, the president's poll numbers remain up, the administration remains focused, they haven't taken you off your game. What effect, both in a governing sense and in a political sense, is this full frontal assault having on all of you in the White House?

CHENEY: Well, we've got to get on with our business. There's plenty work to be done. The terrorist threat is very real. It continues out there every day. The president and I and Condie Rice, Andy Card, begin our day six days a week meeting with the director of the CIA and the director of the FBI and reviewing intelligence and working these problems, and you've got to be able to continue to do that even if there is a campaign underway out there.

And I think we've done that fairly well. We can't let our guard down, we've got to remain vigilant, we've still got major issues, obviously, in the sense that terrorists have launched many attacks around the world since 9/11 in places like Madrid most recently, but Casablanca, Riyadh, Bali, Jakarta, Mombassa, it's a worldwide global problem and it's got to be dealt with I think very aggressive just the way the president's dealt with it.

RUSH: Do you believe that this policy of dealing with them aggressively has led to more terrorism?

CHENEY: I don't. The fact of the matter is I think we're operating obviously with a very different policy, tending to treat these matters primarily as law enforcement problems prior to 9/11, that in no way slowed down the terrorists. They still launched against us on 9/11 and killed some 3,000 of our people that morning.

This has less to do with what we do than it does with what we stand for. I think the extremists out there in al-Qaeda are bound and determined to do everything they can to try to change U.S. policy and to kill Americans including innocent civilians, men, women, and children, and the only way to deal with the threat, because you can't negotiate with them, there's no treaty at the end of the day here, you can't deter them, there's nothing they want to defend, the only way to deal with it is to destroy the terrorists before they can launch further attacks against it United States, and that's what we're about.

RUSH: Mr. Clarke, to get back to him for a moment, is saying actually if we would just take some more time and talk to these people, understand why they hate us, we might be able to forge some kind of peace with them.

CHENEY: I think that's totally unrealistic. You know, I fundamentally disagree with his assessment both of recent history, but also in terms of how to deal with the problem. As I say, he was head of counterterrorism for several years there in the nineties, and I didn't notice that they had any great success dealing with the terrorist threat. I think what we've done since going into Afghanistan, taking down the Taliban, closing the camps, killing Al-Qaeda, wrapping up a siginificant percentage of the total leadership of Al-Qaeda, that's an effective policy.

RUSH: Now, what would you say to people, though, who maybe casual or a bit more than casually interested in this, because it does appear to the average observer watching the news that terrorist attacks are up around the world, and yet the administration keeps claiming success in the fight against conveyed as evidenced by more of them dead, more of their leaders imprisoned, Al-Qaeda on the run. How are you defining this success against them?

CHENEY: Well, we've been defining it in terms of specifically Al-Qaeda, in terms of our ability to wrap up major parts of the organization to prevent further attacks against the United States obviously . I think all of that -- all of those are hallmarks of success. You've also got to measure it in terms of the fact that we're changing circumstances on the ground in key parts of the world, both in Afghanistan and Iraq. Afghanistan was basically a failed state, then with the Taliban in charge, it provided sanctuary, a home base, if you will, for Al-Qaeda to launch attacks not only against us, but wherever they chose. Afghanistan can no longer be used for that purpose because of what our forces did there.

In Iraq, similar proposition, that we were concerned not only about the fact that Saddam had hosted terrorists in the past, he'd stimulated and encouraged them by providing financial rewards for suicide bombers who hit Israel, as well as his past involvement with weapons of mass destruction and all of that put us in a position where we think now with a process begun both in Afghanistan and Iraq, where we're standing up new governments, we've got constitutions written where we're going to have governments put in place here hopefully in the not-too-distant future, where those areas will no longer be threats to the United States or anybody else. In fact they'll be able to serve we hope as models for responsible states in that part of the world.

RUSH: Mr. Vice President, one quick one before we go to the break. The Clinton administration officials who are now on television again attempting to defend themselves in all of this hubbub are trying to create the impression that this whole Al-Qaeda and modern-era terrorist problem began on January 22nd of 2001. What exactly was it you inherited?

CHENEY: Well, I go back to the first attack on the World Trade Center in '93, when the man named Ramzi Yousef, together with others, tried to bomb the World Trade Center then. Remember, they took a truckload of explosives and set it off in the parking garage underneath the World Trade Center and didn't do what they hoped it would do, he eventually was captured, he's now doing 240 years in the federal pen. But what we now know I think looking back at that, nobody realized at the time, looking back at that was that was perhaps the first Al-Qaeda attack on the U.S. homeland. Ramzi Yousef turned out to be Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's nephew. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is the guy who came up with the idea of using airliners to strike the World Trade Center in about 1996, we believe, when he first suggested that, and who later supervised the attacks of 9/11.

RUSH: You mean that idea didn't come in February of 2001, the terrorists had that idea in 1996?

CHENEY: No, there's some evidence that he first briefed Osama bin Laden on that in 1996.

RUSH: Richard Clarke aware of that by any chance?

CHENEY: I have no idea.

RUSH: We'll take a break and be back in just a second. Vice president Dick Cheney is with us for the remainder of the half hour. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK 1:20 PM EST)


RUSH: Welcome back, Rush Limbaugh, it's the EIB Network. We continue our conversation with the Vice President, Dick Cheney. Mr. Cheney, let's go to the campaign. Last week, after your appearance in Simi Valley at the Reagan Library, the New York Times and other media outlets the next day immediately posted stories decrying all of the new negativity and partisanship in the campaign. After your appearance, no mention of what the Democrats have assaulted this administration with for three years, it was your appearance and things like it. Now, I realize that this is part of the game but how does this affect you and your strategy as you go forward toward the election?

CHENEY: Well, we've got an obviously very important election, Rush, the most importantly presidential election in many years because of the issues that are going to be decided here, especially with respect to how we defend the country in this war on terror and it's very important we get our side of the story out, people talk about, you know, negative campaign starting early. The fact of the matter is we just recently got started, the Democrats have been out there since last September roughly launching attacks against the president and me and it's been a good part of what they spent the money on their side has been primary negative as opposed to what we've been trying to do.

RUSH: You ran your first series of ads were patriotically themed with the 9-11 images, which were designed to cast the election about America's future and those ads were even said to be attack ads when you criticized senator Kerry's record says said that you're attacking him and going negative in this sort of thing. I see it's not deterring you and so forth. But how do you plan a campaign against an opponent who will claim to have said or not said anything he's accused of having said or not said?

CHENEY: Well, you've got him on tape saying things like, "I actually voted before it before I voted against it," talking about the supplemental for the war in Iraq. You know, that's not anything we dreamed up, that's John Kerry himself captured on film, and so in fact basically what we've been talking about is his own record. He's got 19 years of votes in the Senate. You know, all of us will be judged by our performance in office, certainly the president will be with respect to his four years, and John Kerry should expect to be evaluated as well by the voters based on how he's performed as a senator and what that tells us about his capacity for the leadership position he aspires to.

RUSH: Does it frustrate you when you see Senators Hagel and McCain, Republicans, sort of attack the administration's attack on Kerry's voting record and defend it saying, hey, he's been here 19 years, we all are going to have a lot of votes that we couldn't explain because they're cast in a strange way, does it bother you to see what some people regard as Republican defections?

CHENEY: I guess I wouldn't go that far it terms of how you characterize it. John MCain has been a good guy to work with. These last several years I've known John since we served together in the House of Representatives. He's co-chairman of our Arizona effort. I called him a couple months ago and asked him to make a run to New Hampshire for us, which he did a very good job on. I don't have any criticism to offer at this stage, we've got personal relationships involved there as well too and I don't think we'd be critical of that.

RUSH: I understand. I understand, I just, you know, you see these things in the paper and it irritates supporters of the president who may not understand, in a time like this where the administration is involved in a struggle for the future of the country to see some Republicans not totally on board that struggle, puzzles people, they don't understand it. It just befuddles them, and they don't quite understand why people would do things that might appear on the surface to undercut the president's efforts. Such as Senator McCain toying publicly with being Senator Kerry's vice president.

CHENEY: Well, I saw that interview, and I didn't take it that way. I think John Kerry was asked if he would entertain such a notion and he said, well, he'd entertain it, but anything was likely, and he went through all the reasons why, he's made it very clear he doesn't want to be vice president and that he's not about to leave the Republican Party, so you know, it's early in the campaign and again as I say it's a big party, there's room in it for everybody, and we don't have any complaints at this stage about Senator McCain's actions. On occasion they disagree, and he expresses his disagreements.

RUSH: What about your health, sir, how are you doing?

CHENEY: Well, I'm doing well. I'm getting older year by year, I guess, but I don't have any complaints, Rush, they've been taking good care of me.

RUSH: And we have about 45 seconds. Are you planning to stay on the ticket in this election?

CHENEY: As long as the president wants me, that's where I'll be, and he's indicated he wants me to run again, so that's what I plan to do.

RUSH: All right, Mr. Vice President, I know that you're extremely busy. You've got many things going on. We always appreciate your time here. It's always an honor to speak with you. It's inspirational for a lot of people, and I always say this to you at the close of every conversation we have, just to affirm it, because I know you know it, but you really need to be reminded how much love there is and appreciation for you and the president and the whole administration for what you're trying to do against these long odds, and I speak for all these people out there, love you and appreciate it and wish you continued success.

CHENEY: Well, thank you very much, Rush. That means a lot.

RUSH: Vice President Dick Cheney, and we will be back in just a moment. Stay with us.

END TRANSCRIPT

[JustRalph]

NEWS FOR SALE:

CBS PUSHED BOOK IT OWNS; '60 MINUTES' DID NOT REVEAL PARENT COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STAKE IN CLARKE PROJECT

CBSNEWS did not inform its viewers last night that its parent company owns and has a direct financial stake in the success of the book by former White House terror staffer turned Bush critic, Dick Clarke, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.

60 MINUTES aired a double-segment investigative report on the new book "Against All Enemies" -- but did not disclose how CBSNEWS parent VIACOM is publishing the book and will profit from any and all sales!

ETHICAL BREACH

CBS even used heavy promotion for the 60 MINUTES/book launch during its Sunday sports shows.

It is not clear who made the final decision at CBSNEWS not to inform the viewer during 60 MINUTES how they were watching a news story about a VIACOM product.

60 MINUTES pro Lesley Stahl is said to have been aware of the conflict before the program aired.

[CBSNEWS.COM did add a disclaimer to its Internet coverage of the book over the weekend: "Against All Enemies," which is being published Monday by FREE PRESS, a subsidiary of SIMON & SCHUSTER. Both CBSNews.com and SIMON & SCHUSTER are units of VIACOM." And CBS RADIO did carry a disclaimer in its news coverage of the book.]

SIMON & SCHUSTER INFO-COMMERCIAL

Earlier this year, it was Stahl who also profiled another author on 60 MINUTES -- for another book owned by VIACOMCBS -- without any disclaimer!

"The Price of Loyalty" by former Treasury Secretary, turned Bush critic, Paul O'Neill was financed, produced and released [and rolled-out at CBSNEWS] by VIACOM's SIMON & SCHUSTER.

Coming in future weeks, best-selling author Bob Woodward is set to release his PLAN OF ATTACK, a fresh look at the Bush White House.

Will the Woodward VIACOMSIMON&SCHUSTER product debut on: VIACOMSIMON&SCHUSTERCBS's 60 MINUTES?

[JustRalph]

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/143


Info on Clarke

This is going to turn into a book killer instead of a promotion

[sq764]

Reagan hated the Yankees too?

[Lefty]

sec, doesn't mean he doesn't have all the facts either. When 60 minutes puts these guys on(O'neill/Clarke) why don't they invite someone like the guy who wrote this book for a rebuttel. Maybe it doesn't fit with their agenda. As quickly as you discounted the book that you haven't read sure makes me wonder if you're not just a Bush-Hater, after all.
And shouldn't 60 Minutes make a disclaimer that they also own Viacom and Simon & Schuster?
You know, just to be fair and balanced...
JR, I heard that Cheney interview. Thanks for getting the transcript so others can read it.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Lefty, just because someone writes a book doesn't mean he has all the facts.

This is true, It is not truth unless it involves endless links. :D