Cheney Won't Take Back Pelosi Comment

Ten bucks says McDonalds, not al-Qaeda, does Cheney once and for all.

Research the word neocon, it was actually a democrat organization.

The prefix neo- refers to two ways in which neoconservatism was new. First, many of the movement's founders, originally liberals, Democrats or from socialist backgrounds, were new to conservatism. Also, neoconservatism was a comparatively recent strain of conservative socio-political thought. It derived from a variety of intellectual roots in the decades following World War II, including literary criticism and the social sciences.

Irving Kristol,[1] Norman Podhoretz[2] and others described themselves as neoconservatives during the Cold War. In general, however, the movement's critics use the term more often than supporters.[3] In fact, some people described as "neocons" today say that neoconservatism no longer exists as an identifiable movement.

Many associate neoconservatism with periodicals such as Commentary and The Weekly Standard, along with the foreign policy initiatives of think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Neoconservative journalists, pundits, policy analysts, and politicians, often dubbed "neocons" by supporters and critics alike, have been credited with (or blamed for) their influence on U.S. foreign policy, especially under the administration of George W. Bush.

Research the word neocon, it was actually a democrat organization.

Wow. I'm nearly speechless.

It was not an "organization."

It was "democrat" in the same way that adults are "babies" or the way that milk is a "gateway drug."

Unless you were trying to say that you find it interesting that early neoconservatives had Democrat affiliations, in which case my response would be-- "Now you know why it's not always accurate to think that the labels 'liberal' and 'Democrat' are interchangeable."

Neoconservativism is a strain of conservatism that doesn't precisely map to classical conservatism-- hence the "neo." It's also a good idea to simply link to the source you're quoting from. Then people don't have to go searching for it themselves.

As a proud and loyal American, I can't stomach these people - money grubbing pigs - that have hijacked our country.

Because of a comment he made? Lately the word 'impeachment' is seeing as much abuse as the words 'freedom' and 'constitution'.

Maybe, but it has been warranted for a long time. Felonies and misdemeanors pile. Is it wrong to call a murderer a murderer in public? Last I checked there was no statute of limitations on treason. As for Freedom and Constitution, the NeoCons used them to death . . . now America is throwing them an Irish wake.

I'm sorry, but it seems to me that it would make more sense to support a Congress who might get some positive things accomplished in doing those tasks, rather than distracting them with a witch hunt.

Think about it. What you're calling for, I suspect, is more than impeachment. You're calling for impeachment and removal. We've got less than two years left of these guys, how much of the remaining 22 months will be spent on the "circus that would-be impeachment." Weigh your options.

I think the wiser option is to back a presidential candidate in '08 that pledges to: first, withhold move to sign and ratify jurisdiction of the ICC (where Saddam Hussein et. al. should have been tried), second: have its Justice Department thoroughly investigate the former administration's activities for wrongdoing.

Strike the word "withhold". :)

Oh God damn it, Mike, I must have missed that one. It's gold! It's not even comedic gold, it's just actual gold.

Matt

Whoops. That's what I meant. *blush*

ROFL

Thanks for those Zaki. They're hilarious.

Well for one thing, he's basing all of his nonsense on hypotheticals, on fear. al-Quida is one small player in a gigantic civil war over there in Iraq. Escalating our involvement in such foreign affairs will be futile, because they will simply not accept our dictation.

I agree.

I think there is a bunch here of Bush/GOP hatters that do not wish to discuss the facts, just spew their hatred. Most people in the US just ignore them.

where is the humor tag? "I think there is a bunch here of Bush/GOP hatters that do not wish to discuss the facts" You have got to be kidding??How can you even say the word"facts" when discussing the GOP.Bush,Cheney and the war in Iraq? Please tell me the facts about the "plan" for victory in Iraq. When you are done, tell me the facts about our exit strategy. After that clue me into the facts that led to the reason we are there in the first place. When you are done, your list of facts should be exactley this:() long.

My understanding of Pelosi's proposal is that it does not involve withdrawing from Iraq and coming home, rather withdrawing from Iraq and redeploying our troops outside of Iraq's borders (or something similar) - quick response should it be necessary, but not walking the streets of Baghdad stirring up resentment for American presence.

Is that Pelosi's stance, or am I confusing her stance with someone else's?

The thing is, he's accusing Pelosi of the very thing of which this administration is guilty.
They haphazardly unseated the dictator that was keeping that country stable and now refuses to acknowledge that this is what they've done or even really make a decent attempt at fixing the problem.
Bush should have instated the draft after the '03 election and devoted enough troops to fill the void left by Saddam's leaving, but that would have made him unpopular.

And questioning Pelosi's patriotism? Making these remarks while on foreign soil?

I'm calling my local country station and telling them I'm boycotting if they keep playing his records.

I admit that at some point we might just have to say we lost - that Al-Gaida (aka extreme Muslim Fundamentalists who want to see America's demise) wins and we move on. Is that where you guys are with this? If so - I am not attacking you...I think that opinion could be valid considering all the time we spent in Iraq to date. I just think that if that is what we are saying then we need to say it - and I think that Cheney is just trying to point this out in a logical way. Thoughts?

Just pointing it out in a logical way? No, I think it's obvious that's not what he is doing. He's attacking her politically, he's stating that disagreeing with his opinion is collusion with the enemy. It's a political gambit, not a call for consideration. He's never really been the guy for logical discussion.

I'm part of the Mad Hatter Matrix (mHm 23x20). That counts for something, I'm sure... *chuckling*

Damn, that's hot. A pipeline right through the Mediterranean, through the Strait of Gibraltar, and across the Atlantic. Now, do we ask the Jordan and Israel if we can run it through, or do we take out Syria while we're at it? Over or around Algeria? How do we compensate for the lack of viscosity that would be a result of the oil flowing through the pipe with the low temperatures that are found at the bottom of the ocean?

Okay ... that's more thought than I really should have given that statement.

I think the war for our freedom needs to come back home because of the fear mongering politics that Bush-Cheney spew have made us lose site of what freedoms we have and how we have to fight for them.

What about fair elections with discern-able paper trails?
What about how our tax dollars are being spent?
What about the reality of the war in Iraq, as opposed to the theory of why we are there?
What about looking at where the course is leading us instead of blindly staying it?
And lastly what about all the death and destruction this country and government has rained upon people all over?

Poverty is higher in this country now, even among the working class while rich people are getting richer, Social programs are being cut, our health care plans aren't working for many people and overseas we are detaining, torturing and killing people. Our government has been making us a target for terrorism as much as it is perpetuating it...

That being said the course of action I see before me is to grab the reins and use my voice to change it... or try, beginning with supporting the people in power who are still using their power for the betterment of the taxpayer...

Pointing out the failings in Iraq (where they have been many) and continuing to discuss those failings does nothing to solve the problem.

Well I'd argue that you have to keep pointing out the flaws until the people making the mistakes admit that they have made them make it known that they are willing to change direction. Bush has not yet shown any kind of openness to listen to experts or policymakers not on his short list of confidantes.

Well said iarnuocon.
It seems to me that this administration has had a free ride for so long that they think everyone doesn't see their mistakes. They have made so many mistakes that their competence is really in question. They keep on taking the stance that anyone against their ideas is helping Al Qaeda. How can you have debate when everyone who opposes their idea is in collusion with Al Qaeda?

he also never took back that saddam was associated with al quada and he has been pressed on that many times. He's not wrong, the intelligence is.

I guess this summons it up. Very well said.

That's what the Baker plan was supposed to be. It seems that when this administration does not like a plan, then it isn't a plan.
The sad part is, a lot of people take a collective amnesia and forget all these solutions that have been presented already. All of a sudden, there is no plan.

Step 1 is honest discussion.
It's clear that even with congress's resolution against the troop surge, the administration isn't going to engage in such discussion. They're going to do what they're going to do no matter what others think.
Without that, there's absolutely no reason to even bother trying to proceed forward with the military.
It's clear that this administration is either 1) Incredibly incompetent or 2) interested in something other than a stable Iraq and the military action there is simply an unfortunate aspect of their meeting this aim.

It's also clear that Shia and Sunni are going to continue to fight whether we are there or not.

The solution would have been to impose an enforceable martial law three years ago while the infrastructure we shocked and awed was rebuilt, then, when the lights were on, and people voting, they could have had a shot at talking to each other across tribes like grown ups.
Probably even then, this conflict would have continued as it has since, what? a generation after muhammad died?

President Bush was told this before the whole thing started and wouldn't listen.

A stable Iraq isn't going to be the product of anything we do now short of allocating WWII like resources to backtrack us a few years (I know my wife wouldn't like to be a riveter) to the extent that we can establish safety for the people of Iraq, then deal with those that still want to fight.

The people of this country, right up to the top, have been faced with one fundamental question since we started this campaign:
care to put your tax dollars where your mouth is?
and right up to the top, the answer has been "ummm, uh... ISLAMOFASCIST!"

When were the voters supposed to do the leading Sven? I mean really we vote for our President to be commander in chief - that is his job. If he doesn't do his job well then people can bitch and moan. Ideally they will do a better job of finding someone for the position next time. But they aren't supposed to do his job.

Why can't people continue to bitch about the ongoing mistakes made the administration? The administration (and all those before this one) are happy to repeatedly make the mistakes, and repeatedly cite their successes. The people can harp on the failures as much as they want, this way the mistakes, hopefully, aren't forgotten and the next guy can learn from those mistakes (hopefully).

It is pretty easy to see the current plan isn't going well even without advanced intelligence gathering - however, devising a solid plan without that intelligence is both foolhardy and practically doomed to failure. What makes you think avg citizens are going to be able to devise a better plan? With that said I have a plan (that has one major flaw that I will discuss in my next post)

At least try to be realistic.

Any solutions to solve the problem in Iraq? Some actual substance instead of just re-iterating the mistakes made by the administration? The latter leads to the former.

Step 1: Assess just how far up its own ass this administration has buried its head.
Step 2: Stop taking every nonsensical argument put forward by the administration as the truth
Step 3: Realize that there is no. way. in. hell. that Al Qaeda can ever "destroy" America
Step 4: Recognize that "the enemy" will be emboldened by whatever is conveniently pushed by their
propagandists
Step 5: Force the administration to set forth what its goals are in Iraq in realistic terms, not sound bites
Step 6: Start making decisions relevant to our goals based on rational assessments of cost and benefit, and not by what may or may not "embolden" our foes.

We need to take a long hard look at what we hope to accomplish. The destruction of terrorism? Not possible. A secular democracy in Iraq? Probably not possible. Peace in Iraq? How much will "peace" in Iraq cost? At first it was supposed to be nearly free; several hundred billion dollars later, we still don't have any rational assessment of the likely cost for completion of George Bush's experiment in nation-building. Once we know what our goals actually are, then we can build our annual plans for achieving them.

If these guys ran small businesses, they'd all be on welfare.

And cursing Dick Cheney, whatever your opinion of him may be, is not a solution. But it's soooo much fun!

I wish you could post links - I'd like to read that article.. can you maybe do it like this:

http : www {dot} washingtonpost {dot} com / some kind of trailing porting to the url..

or just put everything after the washingtonpost.com/ part of the url up? Thanks

Everything after the washingtonpost [dot] com.

/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/13/AR2006101301419.html

Let me know if that doesnt work

You mean like this:

Washington Post Article

Better yet, seed it.

excellent posting

I beg of you, please read jkirvin's post. It's well thought out and not just some knee-jerk response. The US needs to really think about this war and it's future...