Posted on Sep 4, 2015
"Dick Cheney warns of potential 9/11 with ‘much deadlier weapons’"
8.63K
36
33
5
5
0
From: The Press Examiner
“The Obama agreement will lead to a nuclear-armed Iran, a nuclear-arms race in the Middle East and, more than likely, the first use of a nuclear weapon since Hiroshima and Nagasaki”, he said, referring to the US dropping of atomic bombs in the two Japanese cities in 1945, killing more than 200,000 people, thus forcing Japan to surrender in World War II. He has imposed limits on our ability to modernize and maintain nuclear weapons.
Cheney further criticized Mr. Obama’s handling of the Iran nuclear deal saying some agreements had “nothing to do with the nuclear side of the business”.
In one instance, Britain’s former foreign secretary David Miliband, said in August 2014 that “It’s clearly the case that the invasion of Iraq, or more importantly what happened afterwards, is a significant factor in understanding the current situation in the country”.
“I think what you can do is, if Congress will reject the deal, which I hope they will, and override president’s veto, then you can go back to negotiating table”, Cheney said Monday on “CBS This Morning“.
“But well before that, Iran will get hundreds of billions of dollars of sanctions relief and investments to fuel its aggression and terrorism in the Middle East, in North Africa and beyond. He has reduced the nation’s missile-defense capabilities”, they continued.
But former U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond Odierno, who was one of the architects of the 2007 surge and a top official in Iraq, has disputed that the decision to leave Iraq was Obama’s. The White House has reacted by fiercely defending the deal.
“President Obama told us he would never accept a deal based on trust…Instead, the Obama deal provides the Iranians with months to delay inspections and fails to address past clandestine work at military sites”, they wrote. In order to save ourselves, we need to kill the Iran deal.
U.S. Republicans are largely united against the agreement, and have allied themselves with Netanyahu’s government against it.
“When we got through in Iraq at the end of our administration, Iraq was in good shape”. “We have to make sure that we don’t impugn people’s motives even as we have what is a very serious debate”. The webcast was hosted by the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and the Jewish Federations of North America.
Like all grownups, Cheney claimed that his part of the Iraq war was a success, any failures are President Obama’s fault.
Meanwhile, Obama gained a new Democratic supporter for the deal when Sen. Ted Cruz plan to hold next month to a “pro-war rally”. Obama’s weakness is particularly disturbing, the Cheneys say, because American leadership will be essential “for the defeat of militant Islam”.
Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, said Friday that Republicans were still waiting for the president to retract that assertion.
http://www.pressexaminer.com/dick-cheney-warns-of-potential-9-11-with-much-deadlier-weapons/63646
“The Obama agreement will lead to a nuclear-armed Iran, a nuclear-arms race in the Middle East and, more than likely, the first use of a nuclear weapon since Hiroshima and Nagasaki”, he said, referring to the US dropping of atomic bombs in the two Japanese cities in 1945, killing more than 200,000 people, thus forcing Japan to surrender in World War II. He has imposed limits on our ability to modernize and maintain nuclear weapons.
Cheney further criticized Mr. Obama’s handling of the Iran nuclear deal saying some agreements had “nothing to do with the nuclear side of the business”.
In one instance, Britain’s former foreign secretary David Miliband, said in August 2014 that “It’s clearly the case that the invasion of Iraq, or more importantly what happened afterwards, is a significant factor in understanding the current situation in the country”.
“I think what you can do is, if Congress will reject the deal, which I hope they will, and override president’s veto, then you can go back to negotiating table”, Cheney said Monday on “CBS This Morning“.
“But well before that, Iran will get hundreds of billions of dollars of sanctions relief and investments to fuel its aggression and terrorism in the Middle East, in North Africa and beyond. He has reduced the nation’s missile-defense capabilities”, they continued.
But former U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond Odierno, who was one of the architects of the 2007 surge and a top official in Iraq, has disputed that the decision to leave Iraq was Obama’s. The White House has reacted by fiercely defending the deal.
“President Obama told us he would never accept a deal based on trust…Instead, the Obama deal provides the Iranians with months to delay inspections and fails to address past clandestine work at military sites”, they wrote. In order to save ourselves, we need to kill the Iran deal.
U.S. Republicans are largely united against the agreement, and have allied themselves with Netanyahu’s government against it.
“When we got through in Iraq at the end of our administration, Iraq was in good shape”. “We have to make sure that we don’t impugn people’s motives even as we have what is a very serious debate”. The webcast was hosted by the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and the Jewish Federations of North America.
Like all grownups, Cheney claimed that his part of the Iraq war was a success, any failures are President Obama’s fault.
Meanwhile, Obama gained a new Democratic supporter for the deal when Sen. Ted Cruz plan to hold next month to a “pro-war rally”. Obama’s weakness is particularly disturbing, the Cheneys say, because American leadership will be essential “for the defeat of militant Islam”.
Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, said Friday that Republicans were still waiting for the president to retract that assertion.
http://www.pressexaminer.com/dick-cheney-warns-of-potential-9-11-with-much-deadlier-weapons/63646
9/11
Nuclear
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 8
10
10
0
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin
SGT Efaw (Mick) G. - There's less evidence of Cheney conducting anything illegal or even unethical than there is in the "alleged" Benghazhi cover up. Your suggestion that Cheney discussed details of the Iraqi invasion can no where be compared to the cover up of the events of the death of 4 Americans in Libya in efforts to not look bad during an election. That and the use of a personal server for official business which was not maintained by or secured by the US Government. That by itself is an illegal act and at a minimum should negate Sec Clinton from ever holding a government position again.
(0)
(0)
SCPO (Join to see)
I just couldn't see you hanging out there with nine votes for a year, Wayne. However, in spite of giving you that tenth one, I humbly disagree with you about this man. I've followed him from his earliest entry into the Washington political scene, and I think he has brought an incomparable level of wisdom to every situation he faced. I know you disagree. In spite of that, you're still okay in my book!!! ROFL!!!
(1)
(0)
CWO3 (Join to see)
I have no use for (chicken) hawks that have dodged the draft. His 4-2S and 1-3A deferments tell me all I need to know about him, Limbaugh, Ted Nugent and the rest that cry War! Same goes for WJC and any others. Cheney said it was so he could have other opportunities, but I can think of 58,000 that didn't get that chance. Put some skin in the game before you support war.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
Evil greedy man. I think America learned from its mistake listening to this menace. Go enjoy your billions you earned off of this war and fk off already.
(5)
(0)
SFC Everett Oliver
SSG (Join to see) -
The OP is about Cheney talking about the so called "Deal" with Iran. My statement was on that topic. If you want to back up 7 to 15 years and talk about Bush and Cheney again, then I suppose we could dig out all the old arguments for and against them. But that is not what this Thread is about.
It is my belief after reading all I can find about the "Deal", to include most parts of the Deal" itself, that Iran will have a Nuke within 5 years. And it will be the fault of this "Deal". Cheney is correct on this....
The OP is about Cheney talking about the so called "Deal" with Iran. My statement was on that topic. If you want to back up 7 to 15 years and talk about Bush and Cheney again, then I suppose we could dig out all the old arguments for and against them. But that is not what this Thread is about.
It is my belief after reading all I can find about the "Deal", to include most parts of the Deal" itself, that Iran will have a Nuke within 5 years. And it will be the fault of this "Deal". Cheney is correct on this....
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
SFC Everett Oliver - Jared, the subway spokesperson pedophile, is going away to jail for a long time. 15 years from now, he may have perspectives about subway sandwiches that may on fact be true. Fact remains the same, he will always be known for being a pedophile. Yes, I just compared Cheney to Jared in my abstract point.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Mark McMiller
SSG (Join to see) Well, you can down vote whoever you want, but most here reserve the down vote for someone who is being a jackass; not just because they disagree with them. Down voting people and not leaving a reason or down voting people just because you disagree with them constitutes being a jackass. It really is cowardly like drive-by shooting. Did you notice that neither I nor anyone else who disagrees with you voted you down for what you said on this post? But I'm only here to discuss issues and not win a popularity contest so don't worry; you didn't hurt my feelings; you just confirmed to me that you lack the intellectual capacity to back up your arguments.
(0)
(0)
3
2
1
Cpl Mark McMiller
SGT (Verify To See) Thanks for the re-writing of history. Actually, just about everyone was behind the war in Iraq before we went in and in the early stages. Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton from 1995 to 2000 when he resigned. Halliburton was awarded the contract because they were the only company in existence capable of fulfilling the contract requirements. Halliburton's award of the contract was investigated by the Justice Dept., the FBI, and the Pentagon Inspector General, who all found no wrongdoing. If you have anything else, I'm willing to listen as I have no dog in this hunt; however, I think it's shameful to denigrate someone based on innuendo and conjecture.
(1)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
Cpl Mark McMiller, you are correct, but BDS is a terminal disease with no known cure.
(0)
(0)
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin
SGT Ira Smith - That is a complete fabrication of the truth. There was overwhelming support for the invasion of Iraq. Now if you want to argue that many of those minds changed after we did not produce the numbers of WMDs expected to be revealed, fine. But that is a totally different argument. Before you try it, consider the enormous amounts of Semi-trucks running unfettered into Syria, days before the invasion took place.
(1)
(0)
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin
You stated "everyone outside the Bush administration". Congress voted for the authorization to use force with a 420 to 10 vote in the House and a 98 to 0 in the Senate. That I would call overwhelming support by those outside the Bush Administration. Since Wiki is your chosen source for references, I've provided you with that link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists
Your link by the way does not reflect the recollection you have of the "facts". It states that in Jan 2003 "67% of those who watched the speech felt that the case had been made," despite the desire by some to see the inspections continue for a few more months. By Feb 2003 "Only 27% opposed military action, the smallest percentage since the polls began in April 2002". And then there's Mar 2003 where "An ABC News/Washington Post poll taken after the beginning of the war showed a 62% support for the war." Inspections were going no where and they would not have resulted in a different outcome. There was also a noted corruption running rampant in the UN inspection program, while those who refused to support Bush ignored the massive amount of dual technologies which in those numbers would only be gathered for one purpose. Weaponizing them was a trivial matter of months, once the inspections and sanctions ever got lifted (which was getting close as each of the nations in the coalition continued to drop out of the mix).
The rest of the world by the way is not the US nor should we place their national interest over our own. These are the same countries which ALL confirmed the WMDs were still not disposed of since 1991 and agreed Saddam Hussein had to go. It's not our problem if they couldn't make the case to their people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists
Your link by the way does not reflect the recollection you have of the "facts". It states that in Jan 2003 "67% of those who watched the speech felt that the case had been made," despite the desire by some to see the inspections continue for a few more months. By Feb 2003 "Only 27% opposed military action, the smallest percentage since the polls began in April 2002". And then there's Mar 2003 where "An ABC News/Washington Post poll taken after the beginning of the war showed a 62% support for the war." Inspections were going no where and they would not have resulted in a different outcome. There was also a noted corruption running rampant in the UN inspection program, while those who refused to support Bush ignored the massive amount of dual technologies which in those numbers would only be gathered for one purpose. Weaponizing them was a trivial matter of months, once the inspections and sanctions ever got lifted (which was getting close as each of the nations in the coalition continued to drop out of the mix).
The rest of the world by the way is not the US nor should we place their national interest over our own. These are the same countries which ALL confirmed the WMDs were still not disposed of since 1991 and agreed Saddam Hussein had to go. It's not our problem if they couldn't make the case to their people.
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
pdf 107-40], codified at 115 Stat. 224 and passed as S.J.Res. 23 by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizes the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who...
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google