Gay Patriot Header Image

Quote of the Day

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 8:12 pm - November 16, 2005.
Filed under: National Politics, War On Terror

“The President and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone – but we’re not going to sit by and let them rewrite history.”

–Vice President Cheney (Via Polipundit)

Share

38 Comments »

  1. As men get old their earlobes grow.

    Comment by hank — November 16, 2005 @ 9:06 pm - November 16, 2005

  2. As men get old their earlobes grow. In his case, so does his nose.

    Comment by hank — November 16, 2005 @ 9:07 pm - November 16, 2005

  3. Hi, Hank! It’s good to see that even children are now posting on Gay Patriot. Have you met Monty yet?

    Comment by glisteny — November 16, 2005 @ 9:35 pm - November 16, 2005

  4. Ted Kennedy’s nose? (as he’s one of the opportunistic liars Cheney’s remark would refer to) You sure nailed it. Click here.

    Or maybe you meant Senator Carl Levin. Really – the Democrats have so many sick, pernicious liars these days to choose from. So many of their noses grow and grow.

    Comment by Calarato — November 16, 2005 @ 9:36 pm - November 16, 2005

  5. Haha, yeah, but at least lying isn’t a requirement to join the democratic party, unlike the republican party where it’s an essential.

    Comment by Joey — November 16, 2005 @ 9:57 pm - November 16, 2005

  6. The RNC was kind enough to put the democrat’s memory lapses to a rather interesting choice of music.

    http://www.gop.com/Default.aspx?s=video

    Comment by V the K — November 16, 2005 @ 9:58 pm - November 16, 2005

  7. I Love Dick Cheney

    I Love Dick Cheney

    Trackback by Freedom Folks — November 16, 2005 @ 10:54 pm - November 16, 2005

  8. #4 Dick says “pernicious” today and then his followers are using the word “pernicious.” Fascinating.

    Comment by jimmy — November 17, 2005 @ 1:58 am - November 17, 2005

  9. It’s a good word. I hadn’t heard it used in a long time. But, once you see it used, you see how it fits so very, very well.

    You’ve learned new words before, or been reminded of good old ones, right jimmy?? (I hope)

    Comment by Calarato — November 17, 2005 @ 2:30 am - November 17, 2005

  10. #8 Hubris is a good word too.

    Comment by John — November 17, 2005 @ 2:41 am - November 17, 2005

  11. Use it in a sentence, please.

    Then we’ll discuss whether it’s a good word or not, in the context of that sentence or intended meaning.

    “pernicious” already being excellent, in the context of Cheney’s intended meaning. (Unless you would prefer a discussion on that?)

    Comment by Calarato — November 17, 2005 @ 2:44 am - November 17, 2005

  12. (in other words, the shoe has to fit)

    (and wear it, if – or since – it does)

    Comment by Calarato — November 17, 2005 @ 2:45 am - November 17, 2005

  13. I was referring to jimmy.

    Comment by John — November 17, 2005 @ 2:57 am - November 17, 2005

  14. Ah, sorry. I get it now.

    Here’s another phrase making the rounds, which I am going to repeat to jimmy who may not have seen it, because it’s so a propos: Was Clinton lying?

    Comment by Calarato — November 17, 2005 @ 3:05 am - November 17, 2005

  15. The Left has been on crusade ever three or four months for about six years now. Their bitches in the media do their best to buck them up but this charge by the Dems will go the way of the others.

    Imagine if the Dems could marshall all that hate for Reps and direct it towards terrorists.

    The new charge will be phosphorus. American soldiers are so vile (we support the troops, honest) they used “illegal” chemicals against our enemies. That will be the next sermon for about a month.

    Comment by VinceTN — November 17, 2005 @ 8:48 am - November 17, 2005

  16. Imagine if the Dems could marshall all that hate for Reps and direct it towards terrorists.

    It does often seem that the Donks hate Bush more than Osama, hate conservatives more than terrorists, and think Wal-Mart is a bigger threat to America than Al Qaeda.

    Comment by V the K — November 17, 2005 @ 9:07 am - November 17, 2005

  17. Meanwhile, Harry Reid, projecting big time in the best ‘pot-kettle-black’ tradition, sez: “I would urge the members of the Bush administration to stop trying to resurrect their political standing by lashing out at their critics.”

    Comment by V the K — November 17, 2005 @ 10:05 am - November 17, 2005

  18. From “The Washington Post”, a rag that has never had a great love for George Bush, which greeted his inauguration in January 2001 with the admonition that:

    [o]f all the booby traps left behind by the Clinton administration, none is more dangerous—or more urgent—than the situation in Iraq. Over the last year, Mr. Clinton and his team quietly avoided dealing with, or calling attention to, the almost complete unraveling of a decade’s efforts to isolate the regime of Saddam Hussein and prevent it from rebuilding its weapons of mass destruction. That leaves President Bush to confront a dismaying panorama in the Persian Gulf [where] intelligence photos . . . show the reconstruction of factories long suspected of producing chemical and biological weapons.

    Yes, to say “Bush lied” is itself a lie.

    Comment by Shamalama — November 17, 2005 @ 10:29 am - November 17, 2005

  19. Comment 15 – Well, yeah. I’ve never seen a media that was so partisan and deeply separated from the 51% of the country that voted for the President.

    If you ever thought “I wonder what it would be like to have a media that hates the sitting, majority-elected President, even though he’d done nothing like Watergate and actually defended the country”: this is it. A new breathless, angry storm of coverage over some newly invented non-issue, every time you turn your head.

    With the President then inevitably dropping to 39% in the polls, and people going “See?! See?!” like he should resign, despite the fact that 39% is historically good for second-term Presidents.

    Instapundit makes a good point about the new White Phosphorus brouhaha:

    if WP is a form of chemical WMD (that America consequently should never employ), then Saddam absolutely had WMD stockpiles (as he had WP stockpiles) and the war was justified.

    Comment by Calarato — November 17, 2005 @ 11:16 am - November 17, 2005

  20. Hello glistneny. Happy to see that you old farts can still read.

    Comment by hank — November 17, 2005 @ 12:03 pm - November 17, 2005

  21. #11. “Use it in a sentence, please. Then we’ll discuss whether it’s a good word or not, in the context of that sentence or intended meaning. “pernicious” already being excellent, in the context of Cheney’s intended meaning. (Unless you would prefer a discussion on that?)”

    Words have meanings regardless of their use in sentences. There’s no reason to repeat “intended meaning.” But why not, when that item, too, is a talking point these days?

    I must go practice my enunciation of “pernicious” and the scowl that must compliment it, one that will clearly manifest how much of a victim I am as the Democrats continue to attack my party.

    Pernicious, pernicious, pernicious….grrrrrrrrrr.

    Comment by jimmy — November 17, 2005 @ 12:36 pm - November 17, 2005

  22. #23

    How about these, Gay Cow?

    “Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.” — Madeline Albright, 1998

    “(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983″ — National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

    “Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement.” — Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

    “The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability.” — Robert Byrd, October 2002

    “There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat… Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He’s had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001… He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn’t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.” — Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

    “What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad’s regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs.” — Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

    “The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — Bill Clinton in 1998

    Or how about this:

    “Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

    The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq’s history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.” – Lord BJ Clinton, 31 October 1998

    Or this:

    It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

    It is the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq’s transition to democracy by providing immediate and substantial humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, by providing democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, and by convening Iraq’s foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to Iraq’s foreign debt incurred by Saddam Hussein’s regime. – Iraq Liberation Act of 1998

    Go F**k yourself, assclown.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 17, 2005 @ 3:25 pm - November 17, 2005

  23. And who could forget this:

    “This amount of Anthrax (pointing to a 5lb bag of sugar) could be spread over a city-let’s say the size of Washington. It would destroy at least half the population of that city” Holding up a small vial, “VX is a nerve agent. One drop from this particular thimble as such-one single drop will kill you within a few minutes”. Clinton Defesnse Secretary William Cohen on ABC’s This Week underscoring the threat from Iraq, 16 November 1997

    Sound familiar? Col. Powell has been mocked and criticized by liberals for the same thing. Now let’s look at an example of how “secular” Saddam Hussein was.

    “In the name of God, the most merciful, the most passionate, all great people, those who are satisfying the nation with glory and Jihad, the sons of our Arab glorious nation, the failures have come back again to Baghdad. They have come come back to the steadfast Baghdad, the symbol of every noble city. And they have come back to the City of God the Greatest, bearing with them the failure that they have encountered which has run for all their previous trials, which started two years back until the day of turning back on the 13th of this month…
    Attack them, our beloved people. You are the glory of our nation. Attack them. God, his prophets, and his angels and his soldiers are standing beside you. Attack because this is the day of defense, where we’l see the sun which will never fade from it in order that it will be, and all Arabs and faithful people will be at the grade which God has bestowed upon them in the great side with their faith which is ceaseless and everlasting glory in the past, present, and future, the doors of which are open to all glory. Here our souls will be satisfied.” –Liberal hero Saddam Hussein announcing “the day of battle has come”, 17 Januay 1993

    Doesn’t sound very secular, eh?

    Shall I go on, GayCow?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 17, 2005 @ 3:49 pm - November 17, 2005

  24. TGC, did they rely on the same faulty intelligence that the president did? Or did they have some redacted version?

    Where is the proof?

    Comment by gaycowboybob — November 17, 2005 @ 4:08 pm - November 17, 2005

  25. GCB, maybe we should be demanding some proof from you given how many unsubstantiated allegations you make in commenting to this blog.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 17, 2005 @ 5:04 pm - November 17, 2005

  26. #24

    What intelligence did they have, oh wise and all knowing dumbass? Where’s your proof that Bush lied? What’s that based on other than blind seething rage?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 17, 2005 @ 6:22 pm - November 17, 2005

  27. It looks like you’re the one “seething”.

    Comment by hank — November 17, 2005 @ 6:32 pm - November 17, 2005

  28. GCB, maybe we should be demanding some proof from you given how many unsubstantiated allegations you make in commenting to this blog.

    Fire away. I’m more than happy for the opportunity to educate.

    Comment by gaycowboybob — November 17, 2005 @ 8:02 pm - November 17, 2005

  29. #28

    Just give him a couple days to make something up.

    #27

    Hardly. But I am sick to death of pathological liars on the left and their Screw America disinformation campaign of propaganda.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 17, 2005 @ 9:53 pm - November 17, 2005

  30. ‘”Liars on the left”?
    What upside down world do you you inhabit?
    “We don’t torture. That’s illegal”.
    Idiot

    Comment by hank — November 17, 2005 @ 10:14 pm - November 17, 2005

  31. Comment 21 -

    Thanks for caving, Jimmy. :-) Nice to see.

    Comment 24 -

    Yes Bob – they saw the exact same National Intelligence Estimate that the President saw.

    They didn’t see the President’s Daily Briefs – HOWEVER – the Robb-Silverman Commission found that those briefs were produced (and fed to the Administration) by the same intelligence “professionals” as the NIE, and, were even more un-ambiguous and alarmist than the NIE given to both the Administration and Congress.

    So Congress was given a more complete, more carefully nuanced version of the intelligence than the President was given. And it was only 93 pages long or whatever (I read documents like that for breakfast). And the Democrats had time to read it. And they still reached the conclusion they reached – i.e., that Saddam was a gathering threat and Coalition action to remove him was right.

    Comment by Calarato — November 18, 2005 @ 2:08 am - November 18, 2005

  32. Yes, it would seem that Hank is the one seething. America will win this. Just look at all the forces that have set themselves against us: Nazis, Communists, The EU (France, especially), now we have a double team of terrorists and “progressives” on our tail but they too will fall like the rest. Not even the great fascist hope- China, will meet their expectations. We’ll win. Let the Left cling to their reporters and thier “news” stories. Their era is over.

    Comment by VinceTN — November 18, 2005 @ 8:20 am - November 18, 2005

  33. #30

    Hey Hankster, please provide an example of one person tortured.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 18, 2005 @ 11:05 am - November 18, 2005

  34. Suspending Habeas Corpus isn’t enough for you? Try a look at Andrew Sullivan. Read his blog (it’s too balanced for you howler monkeys…but try). Also check out No Parrasan. It’s a French site ( before you screech in horror, it’s very pro Bush, anti France, but not as far right as AttillatheGayPatriot.)
    It helps if you read French, but you’ll get the idea.

    Comment by hank — November 18, 2005 @ 12:23 pm - November 18, 2005

  35. Sorry. It’s “No Pasaran

    Comment by hank — November 18, 2005 @ 12:34 pm - November 18, 2005

  36. Since succumbing to BDS, Andrianna Sullington is no longer capable of discerning between coercive interrogation … which includes things like sleep deprivation, exposure to loud music, and non-injurious violations of personal space … and actual torture: the intentional infliction of extreme pain and or disfigurement.

    Comment by V the K — November 18, 2005 @ 12:37 pm - November 18, 2005

  37. I never realized how accurate and self-descriptive PP’s nic was until now.

    Comment by V the K — November 19, 2005 @ 9:16 am - November 19, 2005

  38. The first half of it anyway.

    Comment by V the K — November 19, 2005 @ 9:17 am - November 19, 2005

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Live preview of comment