Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 36

Thread: Vice-President Cheney gets it right

  1. #1
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like

    Vice-President Cheney gets it right

    [B]Cheney raps Democrats on war charges
    President also accuses critics of 'playing politics'[/B]

    Thursday, November 17, 2005; Posted: 3:53 p.m. EST (20:53 GMT)

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Vice President Dick Cheney on Wednesday lambasted Democrats accusing the Bush administration of misleading the country on prewar intelligence about Iraq, calling their allegations "one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city."

    "What we're hearing now is some politicians contradicting their own statements and making a play for political advantage in the middle of a war," Cheney said. "The saddest part is that our people in uniform have been subjected to these cynical and pernicious falsehoods day in and day out.

    "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. We're going to continue throwing their own words back at them." (Watch if Cheney is becoming less popular in the White House -- 2:38)

    Cheney made the remarks at the Frontiers of Freedom's 2005 Ronald Reagan Gala. The conservative think tank was honoring its founder, former U.S. Sen. Malcolm Wallop, from the vice president's home state of Wyoming.

    Cheney's comments are part of a White House counteroffensive against allegations that the Bush administration misled the country, which have helped drag down the president's poll numbers. (Full story)

    President Bush also responded to detractors during a joint news conference Thursday with South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun in Gyeongju, South Korea. Bush accused Democratic critics of "playing politics."

    "Look, ours is a country where people ought to be able to disagree, and I expect there to be criticism," he said. "But when Democrats say that I deliberately misled the Congress and the people, that's irresponsible. They looked at the same intelligence I did, and they voted -- many of them voted -- to support the decision I made.

    "It's irresponsible to use politics. This is serious business making -- winning this war. But it's irresponsible to do what they've done. So I agree with the vice president," the president said.

    Cheney's comments drew an angry response from Bush's Democratic opponent in last year's election, Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, who said the vice president "engages in the politics of fear and smear."

    "If the Bush White House cared as much about our troops as they do about their plummeting political fortunes, they would at last offer a clear strategy for success in Iraq and work to bring home 20,000 troops after the successful Iraqi elections," Kerry said in a statement. "Then, and only then, would they be even beginning to offer leadership equal to our soldiers' sacrifice."

    But national security adviser Stephen Hadley on Wednesday called Democratic criticism a "disservice."

    "That was an issue that was discussed during the 2004 campaign. It was looked at by the Senate Intelligence Committee, and it was looked at by the Silberman-Robb commission. They found no evidence to support it," Hadley said. "That issue needs to be closed. It does no good to anybody to keep re-litigating that issue."

    The Silberman-Robb commission was appointed by Bush to investigate the causes of intelligence failures in the run-up to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.

    That commission and the Intelligence Committee have said there was no evidence that political pressure skewed the intelligence, but they did not address how the administration made its case for war.

    Before the Iraq invasion, administration officials -- including the president, Cheney and then-Secretary of State Colin Powell -- cited intelligence information that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction to make their case for war.

    But after Hussein was toppled, no such weapons were found.

    Senate Democrats recently have stepped up criticism of the administration's handling of prewar intelligence on Iraq's weapons, pressing for completion of an Intelligence Committee follow-up probe into whether the intelligence was manipulated or exaggerated to build support for the invasion.

    Administration officials have insisted that while the intelligence turned out to be wrong, there was no attempt to mislead, noting that the Clinton administration and many Democrats in Congress also came to the conclusion that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

    Some Republicans, including Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, also have criticized the Bush administration's handling of the war.

    Hagel on Tuesday defended the right to criticize the White House's war policies in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations.

    "The Bush administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for disagreeing with them," Hagel said, according to a transcript on the council's Web site.

    "To question your government is not unpatriotic -- to not question your government is unpatriotic," said Hagel, who was decorated for his military service in Vietnam.

  2. #2
    TMahoney
    Guest
    [QUOTE]Some Republicans, including Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, also have criticized the Bush administration's handling of the war.

    Hagel on Tuesday defended the right to criticize the White House's war policies in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations.

    "The Bush administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for disagreeing with them," Hagel said, according to a transcript on the council's Web site.

    "To question your government is not unpatriotic -- to not question your government is unpatriotic," said Hagel, who was decorated for his military service in Vietnam.[/QUOTE]

    This is why I like McCain.

    He's not worried about why the war started, hes worried about how its going to end.

    That should be the real criticism of this administration. The lack of long term planning and willingness to change strategies when the time calls for it.

    The Bush administration shouldn't be spending their time defending the decision to goto war, they should be winning the war instead.

    To silence the critics all Bush has to do is win.

  3. #3
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    6,118
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=CarlSpackler].

    The Bush administration shouldn't be spending their time defending the decision to goto war, they should be winning the war instead.

    To silence the critics all Bush has to do is win.[/QUOTE]

    [B]Correction:[/B] The Bush administration shouldn't [I]have to [/I] be spending their time defending the decision to go to war - the bipartisan support was based on bipartisan intelligence.

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    19,619
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=CarlSpackler]This is why I like McCain.

    He's not worried about why the war started, hes worried about how its going to end.

    That should be the real criticism of this administration. The lack of long term planning and willingness to change strategies when the time calls for it.

    The Bush administration shouldn't be spending their time defending the decision to goto war, they should be winning the war instead.

    To silence the critics all Bush has to do is win.[/QUOTE]

    Carl - which strategy would you change? And to what?

    Aren't we winning? Iraq has a constitution, elections. Its not perfect, but then what is?

    I'm going to take a guess how you'll answer and ask this: who do you think has it better - the people of Iraq or North Korea?

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=CarlSpackler]

    To silence the critics all Bush has to do is win.[/QUOTE]


    No, this is wrong. The critics' arguments do not come from principle, but from politics. This statement above is based on a flawed assumption.

    The Democrats are making attacks against Bush's character. I agree, it is one thing to criticise the prosecution of the war and the mistakes made therein, it is QUITE ANOTHER thing to accuse Bush of lying to begin the war. Bush [I]should[/I] defend himself from such slurs and yes, the GOP is 100% correct to lambast the Democrats for their shameful, indefensible slurs. They are the ones lying, not Bush. These Democrats mostly voted for the war and ostensibly want to win it, yet by lying about and slandering Bush for lying to start the war, they undermine it completely and make success more difficult. Bluntly, they care more about damaging Bush politically than winning the war that they voted for. This is horrible and is yet another clear indiciation to me that I can never vote for a Democrat nationally, not ever. They are children, not leaders.

    Your assumption that the critics would be silenced if we start winning the war is naive and not grounded in reality. I am also unpersuaded that we are "losing" the war presently, but that is a whole 'nother thread entirely. The critics lack the integrity necessary to be that honest, period.
    Last edited by jets5ever; 11-18-2005 at 09:26 AM.

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=sackdance][B]Correction:[/B] The Bush administration shouldn't [I]have to [/I] be spending their time defending the decision to go to war - the bipartisan support was based on bipartisan intelligence.[/QUOTE]

    the Bush administration made the decision to go to war. This is not a true war in the sense that it is a declared war by congress. The war in Iraq is an executive police action, hence the decision to go to war is 100% the domain of the white house.

  7. #7
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti]the Bush administration made the decision to go to war. This is not a true war in the sense that it is a declared war by congress. The war in Iraq is an executive police action, hence the decision to go to war is 100% the domain of the white house.[/QUOTE]

    Nice try, hoss.

  8. #8
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,686
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=CarlSpackler]He's not worried about why the war started, hes worried about how its going to end.[/QUOTE]

    Best.

    Position.

    Ever.

  9. #9
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]Nice try, hoss.[/QUOTE]

    what did I say that was untrue? This is not a real war by constitutional standards. It is 100% an extension of Presidential agenda.

    As a nation we have not fared well in these wars. Go down the list...

    Korea
    Vietnam
    Panama
    Nicueraqua
    Gulf War I
    Serbia/Bosnia
    Gulf War II

    all were "Presidential Police actions" all had dubious results at best.

  10. #10
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti]what did I say that was untrue? This is not a real war by constitutional standards. It is 100% an extension of Presidential agenda.

    As a nation we have not fared well in these wars. Go down the list...

    Korea
    Vietnam
    Panama
    Nicueraqua
    Gulf War I
    Serbia/Bosnia
    Gulf War II

    all were "Presidential Police actions" all had dubious results at best.[/QUOTE]

    Problem is, to show how bad your comparison is, no vote was taken on the floor of the senate to okay those actions, except the first Gulf war...

    btw: why aren't any of the bombings or half-measured actions clinton took against Iraq or bombing an aspirin facory in Sudan on this list??

  11. #11
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=CarlSpackler]This is why I like McCain.

    He's not worried about why the war started, hes worried about how its going to end.

    That should be the real criticism of this administration. The lack of long term planning and willingness to change strategies when the time calls for it.

    The Bush administration shouldn't be spending their time defending the decision to goto war, they should be winning the war instead.

    To silence the critics all Bush has to do is win.[/QUOTE]
    I too like McCain for a number of reasons- the problem is the same people condeming the war now are those who voted for it three years ago....

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]Problem is, to show how bad your comparison is, no vote was taken on the floor of the senate to okay those actions, except the first Gulf war...

    btw: why aren't any of the bombings or half-measured actions clinton took against Iraq or bombing an aspirin facory in Sudan on this list??[/QUOTE]

    I am not talking about votes on the Senate floor - I am talking about a full-on declaration of war: both houses, formal documentation, as the founders of the consitution intended. No one expected the executive police action clause to be used as a carte blanche for unchecked war mongering. It is a loophole that has been abused by both parties for far too long.

    as for the second comment - go right ahead and put those items on the list as well they were also futile executive agenda moves. The reason why they weren't on the list is because I made the list off the top of my head. I absolutely agree - Sudan asperin factory and Iraq activities of the mid-90's were wastes of time, energy and effort with little or no return. That's just making my list of failed executive "wars" longer.

  13. #13
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,686
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti]I am not talking about votes on the Senate floor - I am talking about a full-on declaration of war: both houses, formal documentation, as the founders of the consitution intended. No one expected the executive police action clause to be used as a carte blanche for unchecked war mongering. It is a loophole that has been abused by both parties for far too long.

    as for the second comment - go right ahead and put those items on the list as well they were also futile executive agenda moves. The reason why they weren't on the list is because I made the list off the top of my head. I absolutely agree - Sudan asperin factory and Iraq activities of the mid-90's were wastes of time, energy and effort with little or no return. That's just making my list of failed executive "wars" longer.[/QUOTE]

    The founders could not have anticpated a World in which Terrorism would be such a large-scale threat. In their time, there was no such thing a NON-Nationstate Millitary Actions. You can, by definition, only declare a formal "War" on another Nation State. While we use the word "war" to describe our actions, it is really not the correct word in any form. What we are doing is fighting against non-nation state, fundamentalist aggression world-wide. It shares some aspects with traditional war, but is vastly different in many of it's operational and end-game result goals. Whereas in War you seek to defeat your enemy completely, this modern kind of action is not designed to "control" land, or to defeat a people. it is to defeat a much more difficult problem, a belief system.

  14. #14
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish] Whereas in War you seek to defeat your enemy completely, this modern kind of action is not designed to "control" land, or to defeat a people. it is to defeat a much more difficult problem, a belief system.[/QUOTE]

    this is a very good post to which I respond: Perhaps we should understand what the goals are and how to accomplish them before committing ourselves to wanton invasion. You say it's not about controlling land its about defeating a belief system - well our armies aren't equipped, trained or constructed to defeat belief system - their job is to control land. That's what they did and that's what this war was initially about.

    Mertha is right when he says the military has done it's job. Their job was to take Iraq, topple the regime and install a new one. It was all over in about a month or so. Since that point they have just been sitting targets taking pot shots, without a real goal.

    You are right when you say it's not about controlling land it's about changing a belief system, but we aren't doing that. There is no proof that changing governments will change these people's belief system. It's the PNAC theory and it's early returns have been crap. The administration is fighting a new problem using old techniques and it's not going to work.

  15. #15
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    2,848
    Post Thanks / Like
    The Bottom Line:

    1. Osama is not found.

    2. Zurkawi (sp) is not found.

    3. Insurgents kill American troops on a daily basis.

    Americans are tired. Bush should have all three items above taken care of by now. Hence, the frustration. Throw us all a bone, Bush!

  16. #16
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,686
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti]this is a very good post to which I respond: Perhaps we should understand what the goals are and how to accomplish them before committing ourselves to wanton invasion. You say it's not about controlling land its about defeating a belief system - well our armies aren't equipped, trained or constructed to defeat belief system - their job is to control land. That's what they did and that's what this war was initially about.

    Mertha is right when he says the military has done it's job. Their job was to take Iraq, topple the regime and install a new one. It was all over in about a month or so. Since that point they have just been sitting targets taking pot shots, without a real goal.

    You are right when you say it's not about controlling land it's about changing a belief system, but we aren't doing that. There is no proof that changing governments will change these people's belief system. It's the PNAC theory and it's early returns have been crap. The administration is fighting a new problem using old techniques and it's not going to work.[/QUOTE]

    It is difficult to debate the potential end results since this type of war has never in the history of mankind been waged on this scale.

    However, I ask you this Bit:

    How do you feel IF we leave today, as you and the Lefty clearly desire, and Civil War immediately engulphs the country, and the winners of that war are both definantly Anti-American, and Pro-Terrorism/Pro-obtaining WMD's??

    Do you believe that is a likely or unlikely outcome? Why?

    Do you believe that outcome is in the best interests of the USA? Why?

    Do you beleive that is the "best we can do" now? Why?

  17. #17
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    what amazes me is how people, specifically liberals, think war is an exact science; you have a plan, you execute the plan then- voila! it's over...

    NFL teams can't execute simple game plans on Sunday never mind 150K troops on foriegn soil...

    6/6/44 was considered one of America's greatest military victories yet I suggest to anyone who b!tches about no plan today and all the other whiney BS to go back, read, watch documentary's or listen to interviews on GI's who stormed Utah\Omaha- find out what they were told was going to happen, what they were told to expect and what actually went down and most of all, their complaints about it...

    The advantage on D-Day was individual Captains were able to pick themselves up and say, "okay- instead of this let's do that"....a similar thing happened in Grenada.

    A major problem today is you have a vehemently anti-war\anti-troop MSM, fueled by anti-American groups who look to "catch" our soldiers at every possible corner for precieved wrong-doing....sadly our soliders are fighting on two fronts- a terrorist enemy in the ME and a similar anti-war enemy at home...

    Don't think I'm right? Look at the coverage given to Abu Graibh, etc...

    Look at the tone of the coverage given when American's were beheaded in Iraq...is the focus on the animals who did it or is the tone that of a preceived American failure which led to the event??

    The media is up in arms over the treatment of potential terorrists held in prison.....what was their preception of the treatment of American POW's in Vietnam???

  18. #18
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,686
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]what amazes me is how people, specifically liberals, think war is an exact science; you have a plan, you execute the plan then- voila! it's over...

    NFL teams can't execute simple game plans on Sunday never mind 150K troops on foriegn soil...

    6/6/44 was considered one of America's greatest military victories yet I suggest to anyone who b!tches about no plan today and all the other whiney BS to go back, read, watch documentary's or listen to interviews on GI's who stormed Utah\Omaha- find out what they were told was going to happen, what they were told to expect and what actually went down and most of all, their complaints about it...

    The advantage on D-Day was individual Captains were able to pick themselves up and say, "okay- instead of this let's do that"....a similar thing happened in Grenada.

    A major problem today is you have a vehemently anti-war\anti-troop MSM, fueled by anti-American groups who look to "catch" our soldiers at every possible corner for precieved wrong-doing....sadly our soliders are fighting on two fronts- a terrorist enemy in the ME and a similar anti-war enemy at home...

    Don't think I'm right? Look at the coverage given to Abu Graibh, etc...

    Look at the tone of the coverage given when American's were beheaded in Iraq...is the focus on the animals who did it or is the tone that of a preceived American failure which led to the event??

    The media is up in arms over the treatment of potential terorrists held in prison.....what was their preception of the treatment of American POW's in Vietnam???[/QUOTE]

    I have to say, no matter your position on the War itself, the fact that the general major media (of all stripes) have covered Abu G. so extensively, and the horrid murders/beheadings/etc. so cautiously and so sparingly, shows that the media has a cleart anti-U.S. bias.

    And it is very very sad IMO. To turn against the very institution that gives you, and protects, all your freedoms.

  19. #19
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish]

    And it is very very sad IMO. To turn against the very institution that gives you, and protects, all your freedoms.[/QUOTE]

    Teenager Syndrome - that's what Victor Davis Hanson calls it. Teenagers can't stand their parents for their rules, but must think that the house is heated and locked, the fridge stocked and the bills paid [I]somehow.[/I] They don't mind driving the cars their parents buy them, or wearing the clothes their parents buy them, and don't ever give their parents thanks for schlepping to work every day to pay for these things - they simply ***** about them.
    Last edited by jets5ever; 11-18-2005 at 02:18 PM.

  20. #20
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,648
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE][B]the general major media (of all stripes) have covered Abu G. so extensively, and the horrid murders/beheadings/etc. so cautiously and so sparingly, shows that the media has a cleart anti-U.S. bias.[/B[/QUOTE]]

    No! It just shows that the media (and the world) hold the U.S.A to much higher morals and standards than they do the terrorists.Rightfully so!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us