Cheney: Democratic Victory Emboldens Terrorists!

JaJae · 11-03-2006, 11:15 PM

Cheney: Democratic victory would embolden militants - Yahoo! News

Cheney: Dem victory would embolden militants

26 minutes ago

Vice President Dick Cheney, campaigning for Republicans four days before congressional elections, said on Friday victories for Democratic critics of the Iraq war would tell militants that "their strategy is working."

Polls show Democrats may be poised to take control of at least one chamber of Congress in the November 7 elections, largely due to anger over the war.

In an interview with ABC television, Cheney cited the example of antiwar Democratic Senate candidate Ned Lamont's primary win against incumbent Joe Lieberman to suggest al Qaeda militants would draw messages from the vote.

Lieberman, a supporter of the war, is now running as an independent after losing the Democratic primary.

"I think when they (militant groups) see something happen such as happened in Connecticut this year with the Democratic party in effect (having) purged Joe Lieberman, primarily over his support for the president and the war, that says to them that their strategy is working," Cheney said on ABC's "This Week."

The vice president also said the Bush administration would proceed "full speed ahead" with its Iraq policy, regardless of the election outcome.

"Clearly, there have been problems," Cheney said, but he added, "We've got the basic strategy right."

Asked how the election would influence Iraq policy, Cheney replied, "I think it will have some effect, perhaps, in the Congress, but the president has made clear what his objective is. It is victory in Iraq and it is full speed ahead on that basis and that is exactly what we are going to do."

In a visit to Fort Carson, Colorado, earlier on Friday, Cheney told an audience of 5,000 soldiers and their families that Americans "do not support a policy of retreat" in Iraq and gave an optimistic assessment of the situation there, saying the Iraqi security force was "growing in size and ability."

This is getting old. So basically as long as there's militants in the world against the US the GOP should keep power? Give me a break

This is the crap that hurts the GOP with the independents and it's part of the reason I want them out of power now. They're too involved in themselves than the real issues right now.

Scrum · 11-04-2006, 12:01 AM

The thing that gets me is that these people seem pretty well Emboldened as it is.

This is just the same "vote for us or have your family die" rhetoric we have been hearing since the last election.

And all this from the guy who said the insurgency was in it's final days a long time ago. It's about time people stopped caring what he says.

KatKanPlay · 11-04-2006, 12:21 AM

I think when they (militant groups) see something happen such as happened in Connecticut this year with the Democratic party in effect (having) purged Joe Lieberman, primarily over his support for the president and the war, that says to them that their strategy is working," Cheney said on ABC's "This Week."

He is making this shit up as he goes. It pisses me off when he says this kinda stuff. Its like he is deaf and dumb to the voices out here in the homeland. How many times does he think he can cry wolf and get away with it. He just needs to sit down and shut up!

Nonphixion · 11-04-2006, 12:24 AM

What's worse is that in the months after we rightfully pull out of a place that we don't belong (and never have belonged as an occupying force). He'll say that we don't know what we're talking about -- that he "never said that" and "you must be misquoting me, I would never say that".

SICKGUY · 11-04-2006, 12:37 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Cheney: Democratic victory would embolden militants - Yahoo! News

This is getting old. So basically as long as there's militants in the world against the US the GOP should keep power? Give me a break

This is the crap that hurts the GOP with the independents and it's part of the reason I want them out of power now. They're too involved in themselves than the real issues right now.

glad to hear you making sense. i have nothing against republicans, just these current posers making our entire country look bad.

motivez · 11-04-2006, 12:59 AM

I find it hilarious that anyone could still take them seriously at this point.. their rhetoric and fear mongering is so transparent that it's laughable at this point.

Sure, there's dangerous shit out there. Sure, people want to kill us, blow up our buildings, yadda yadda.. but so what? There always have been, and always will be.

I'm not going to live my life in fear of a terrorist attack, because what kind of life is that? We should do what we can to protect the nation, but this fear mongering has to stop.

6SpeedTA95 · 11-04-2006, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

I find it hilarious that anyone could still take them seriously at this point.. their rhetoric and fear mongering is so transparent that it's laughable at this point.

They're taken seriously because its the exact same shit coming out of both parties. Just like you take the democrats seriously (or at least more serious) many folks take republicans seriously. So just because someone prefers republicans that doesn't make them unintelligent or laughable.

thatguyoverthere · 11-04-2006, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

I find it hilarious that anyone could still take them seriously at this point.. their rhetoric and fear mongering is so transparent that it's laughable at this point.

The last thing in the world I would recommend to anyone is not to take them seriously!

I find Bushco to be many things, but laughable is not among them

>

KatKanPlay · 11-04-2006, 10:42 AM

ballz2wallz · 11-04-2006, 10:52 AM

Democrats are not known for being strong on security, or tough militarily. That said, when they are in power, it is a question of how they will handle military operations in a war.

thatguyoverthere · 11-04-2006, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Democrats are not known for being strong on security, or tough militarily.

Wasn't a Democrat at the helm when we won World War 2? As for security, last time the WTC was bombed, those guys were caught and brought to justice. Just because Democrats aren't trigger-happy doesn't mean that they're not tough.

The biggest security breach in world history happened on Bush's watch, and Bush and the Republicans have started a war in Iraq that they can't finish, bogging down our military and stretching it thin.

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

That said, when they are in power, it is a question of how they will handle military operations in a war.

They couldn't possibly do any worse.

MercuryNews.com | 10/30/2006 | Audit: U.S. military has lost track of weapons in Iraq

KatKanPlay · 11-04-2006, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Democrats are not known for being strong on security, or tough militarily. That said, when they are in power, it is a question of how they will handle military operations in a war.

That really isnt true, that has become more campaign rhetoric than a true definate. I dont think this country was ever more unified than we were when we went into Afghanistan. It was a just war. It is when we took a wrong turn into Iraq that the division began to grow. Democrats are not willing to go to war just for wars sake. Democrats believe in diplomacy. But when the time is necessary, Democrats are just as fierce. Most Democrats just dont happen to believe that we have some God given superiority that grants us permission to create war.

ballz2wallz · 11-04-2006, 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

That really isnt true, that has become more campaign rhetoric than a true definate. I dont think this country was ever more unified than we were when we went into Afghanistan. It was a just war. It is when we took a wrong turn into Iraq that the division began to grow. Democrats are not willing to go to war just for wars sake. Democrats believe in diplomacy. But when the time is necessary, Democrats are just as fierce. Most Democrats just dont happen to believe that we have some God given superiority that grants us permission to create war.

My statement is a result of far more presidencies than the Bush admin. Please don't assume this is a result of the past 5 yrs. It's a result of the past 5 decades. This is neither partisan rhetoric, nor a personal opinion.

WickedLou9 · 11-04-2006, 12:04 PM

Cheney is a halfwit. He sounds like he knows what he is talking about.. then yougo back later to check and everything he said was wrong.

KatKanPlay · 11-04-2006, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

My statement is a result of far more presidencies than the Bush admin. Please don't assume this is a result of the past 5 yrs. It's a result of the past 5 decades. This is neither partisan rhetoric, nor a personal opinion.

It is rhetoric and it stems from disagreements that explode when it comes to defense funding. You can post as many anti defense, they hate the military posts that you want to, the fact is they hate the use of the military for anything that does not directly relate to national security. To imply that Democrats do not care about the defense of this country is just flat wrong.

World War II, we were brought into that war, we did not create or promote it.

Korean War was not really a war for the US we were supposedly there as peace keepers and we are still there... WE have been in Korea for a really long time........

Viet Nam was not considered a war in its day, it too was a peace keeping mission that later became a huge military conflict. We had been in that part of the world since the end of WWII. The country as a whole understood and supported our presence as we were there to stop communism. The escalation of conflict in Viet Nam in the 60's was a mistake and cost this country so much in money and multitudes of American casualties. It turned out to be a huge mistake and for those who spoke out against it they were tagged as hating the military and hating the country in general. Those dissenters they saw the strategy, lives lost and money spent to be a huge waste of this countries resources. Turns out it was, but from then on, Democrats have been tagged as the party that hates the military.

ballz2wallz · 11-04-2006, 12:29 PM

In every war there have been dissenters, and a large part of those dissenters have been party of the Democratic party. Alternatively, a large part of the Democratic party are dissenters. Whether you like it or not, the Democratic party, in any situation, does not like military force. It's a mindset that is common to many of them.

KatKanPlay · 11-04-2006, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

In every war there have been dissenters, and a large part of those dissenters have been party of the Democratic party. Alternatively, a large part of the Democratic party are dissenters. Whether you like it or not, the Democratic party, in any situation, does not like military force. It's a mindset that is common to many of them.

Yes you are right. But the dissention is the belief that war should be a last resort and not used to gain global power. It does not mean that Democrats want to disarm the nation, it simply means the nation needs to be certain of its military conflicts before it actually engages in that conflict. Go in do what needs to be done and get out... Grenada, Bosnia, Desert Storm.....etc. If we have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world 36 times over, why do we need more? That was a major part of the conflict for defense approppriations of the 60's, 70's and into the 80's. There was plenty of rhetoric then that Democrats hated the military and therefore voted against defense funding.

ballz2wallz · 11-04-2006, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

But the dissention is the belief that war should be a last resort and not used to gain global power.

And it is this belief that is the underlying difference on war between the Republicans and Democrats.

It is this belief that Cheney's comments stem from, and it is this belief that the Republicans want the nation to know during election season.

KatKanPlay · 11-04-2006, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

And it is this belief that is the underlying difference on war between the Republicans and Democrats.

It is this belief that Cheney's comments stem from, and it is this belief that the Republicans want the nation to know during election season.

And Cheney's comments are horseshit to at least half of this nation. He will say what needs to be said in order to perpetuate his war machine. The War on Terror does not require bigger and better bombs. It requires bigger and better human intelligence and a broader understanding of just what we are fighting. It requires cooperation from friends and allies and respect for those who do not hold near and dear to their hearts the same things we do. We do not need to waste resources, and, the Iraq confict is a huge waste of resources. Im not interested in global power, I am interested in global peace. I dont not believe peace can truly be achieved through war, only domination can be achieved through war.