Wtf Cheney/lieberman!?!?!

[Damuri Ajashi]

Cheney: "The al Queda types are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task. And when they see the Democratic Party reject one of its own, a man they selected to be their vice presidential nominee just a few short years ago, it would seem to say a lot about the state the party is in today."

Lieberman: “If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England. It will strengthen them, and they will strike again.”


Does Cheney/Lieberman really expect us to buy into this bullsh*t again?
BTW, what is the "task" that Cheney is talking about?

Has Cheney been pitted too many times for this to even matter anymore?

[Frostillicus]

The good news is that Ned Lamont is not one of those pink tutu-wearing Democrats who rolls over and takes this crap without fighting back. Lamont should mention Lieberman and Cheney togehter in every apparance between now and November.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060813/...el_se/lamont_3

[BobLibDem]

Ted Kennedy has it nailed:

Cheney and his crowd are all for free and open elections - as long as they turn out their way. They are all for free speech - provided it supports the administration. They are all for the rule of law - as long as the law does not prevent them from doing whatever they want to do. When elections, speeches or laws are inconvenient, he does not hesitate to declare that they are helping the terrorists. I can think of no graver offense against our democracy.

Cheney is a thug. He is afraid that if the Republicans get voted out, then his cronies won't be be able to gut the treasury the way they currently do. If he can scare people to vote for his minions and keep the gravy train going for his buddies, then that's exactly what he'll do. Lieberman is a turncoat and no longer relevant. He's just unable to accept that the voters have every right to show him the door because of his policies.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by col_10022

BTW, what is the "task" that Cheney is talking about?

The task would be the task of building a stable, democratic government in Iraq. This isn't new...it's the same argument the administration has been using since the debate over whether to pull out of Iraq started...that setting a firm date to pull out of Iraq will just embolden the Iraqi insurgents, because they'll know that if they can just hold out until that date, Iraq will be helpless and they can take it over.

[OttoDaFe]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

Cheney is a thug. He is afraid that if the Republicans get voted out, then his cronies won't be be able to gut the treasury the way they currently do. If he can scare people to vote for his minions and keep the gravy train going for his buddies, then that's exactly what he'll do. Lieberman is a turncoat and no longer relevant. He's just unable to accept that the voters have every right to show him the door because of his policies.

(Bolding mine.)

I have a sneaking suspicion it goes beyond that. He may have heard that the cardiac-care facilities at the Greybar Hotel aren't up to the standards he's come to expect at whatever "undisclosed location" he's inhabiting now.

[Squink]

Originally Posted by OttoDaFe

I have a sneaking suspicion it goes beyond that.

Yes, I hear tell that the vice president is just plain old rattlesnake mean!

[Ogre]

I'm afraid both Lieberman and Cheney are perfectly right in their assessment. We pick up and leave now, we leave a giant vacuum that al-Qaeda will fill to the brim with terrorist training camps.

Yes, we created the problem. I know that. We broke it. We bought it.

[GLWasteful]

Originally Posted by col_10022

Does Cheney/Lieberman really expect us to buy into this bullsh*t again?

Oh sure. Hell, it's not like Cheney's assorted bullshit pronouncements haven't proven effective before. Or Rice's. Or Rumsfeld's. Difference being that people are starting to notice the leaps of faith that they are required to make, looking into the chasm that they are expected to leap over, and saying, "Fuck that." Here's to hoping that said people continue to look objectively at the twaddle that issues forth from the latest Bush admin.

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

The task would be the task of building a stable, democratic government in Iraq. This isn't new...it's the same argument the administration has been using since the debate over whether to pull out of Iraq started...that setting a firm date to pull out of Iraq will just embolden the Iraqi insurgents, because they'll know that if they can just hold out until that date, Iraq will be helpless and they can take it over.

Which in turn was at least the second task that the US was charged with. After, natch, WMDs and the attendant smoking gun being a mushroom cloud. Honestly, I would dearly love to see a stable, democratic government in Iraq. But I would be a helluva lot happier if the US could get basic services (electricity, water, making the schlep to the damned airport) back up to levels that actually exceed those that existed under Hussein. Seems to me that more hearts and minds would be won over by doing that than installing the latest, greatest leader according to the Bush fils administration.

Originally Posted by Squink

Yes, I hear tell that the vice president is just plain old rattlesnake mean!

Well sure, but Barbara Bush can still school his sorry white ass.

[Oy!]

col! Glad to see you signed up!

Sorry, I have nothing to contribute to this discussion...

[Merijeek]

Originally Posted by Ogre

I'm afraid both Lieberman and Cheney are perfectly right in their assessment. We pick up and leave now, we leave a giant vacuum that al-Qaeda will fill to the brim with terrorist training camps.

Yes, we created the problem. I know that. We broke it. We bought it.

And the solution is to keep stuffing that vacuum with American and Iraqi bodies.

-Joe

[Wolfian]

Oh, thank God! I thought the OP had discovered the worst slash ever.

[Ogre]

Originally Posted by Merijeek

And the solution is to keep stuffing that vacuum with American and Iraqi bodies.

-Joe

Well, sir, what do you propose? Pull out and pretend the whole thing never happened?

[BobLibDem]

Originally Posted by Ogre

Yes, we created the problem. I know that. We broke it. We bought it.

True to a point, but how many lives are the US obligated to sacrifice because they broke it? Is the goal of an Iraqi democracy worth 100,000 dead bodies? If not, then perhaps it's time to cut the losses.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Ogre

We pick up and leave now, we leave a giant vacuum that al-Qaeda will fill to the brim with terrorist training camps.

Whereas if we don't leave, the same thing will happen. And the terrorists will have a much more accessible set of targets to hit (our troops).

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by Ogre

I'm afraid both Lieberman and Cheney are perfectly right in their assessment. We pick up and leave now, we leave a giant vacuum that al-Qaeda will fill to the brim with terrorist training camps.

Yes, we created the problem. I know that. We broke it. We bought it.

We're breaking it further. When you have a bull in a china shop, you don't keep the bull there until he starts to mend the dishes. You get it the hell out.

[Ogre]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Whereas if we don't leave, the same thing will happen. And the terrorists will have a much more accessible set of targets to hit (our troops).

Our troops hit back. The innocent people that will die in the next major terrorist attack can't.

[Caridwen]

You can smell the desperation in Lieberman and he needs to stop embarrasing himself.
He lost his parties primary, it happens. Like BobLibDem said, I don't know what he hopes to gain by this selfish attempt to stay relevant. He just comes off as whiny and malicious.

[Ogre]

Originally Posted by Voyager

We're breaking it further. When you have a bull in a china shop, you don't keep the bull there until he starts to mend the dishes. You get it the hell out.

Huh? I'm not sure it could be broken any further, except if we were to suddenly pull out and leave eveything to totally collapse into sectarian violence without even the PRETEXT of a unified government. It's not quite Somalia in Iraq now, but it would be within 6 months of our leaving.

[Ogre]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

True to a point, but how many lives are the US obligated to sacrifice because they broke it? Is the goal of an Iraqi democracy worth 100,000 dead bodies? If not, then perhaps it's time to cut the losses.

Oh, it's far more than that, because when we leave, the breakdown of all civil order, famine, sectarian violence, ethnic pogroms, and inevitable civil war will probably kill another couple of million, I'm guessing. And even with us safely ensconced and walled-in on the other side of the Atlantic, every one of those deaths will be laid at our door as well.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

Ted Kennedy has it nailed:

That's a great quote!

Cheney is a thug. He is afraid that if the Republicans get voted out, then his cronies won't be be able to gut the treasury the way they currently do. If he can scare people to vote for his minions and keep the gravy train going for his buddies, then that's exactly what he'll do. Lieberman is a turncoat and no longer relevant. He's just unable to accept that the voters have every right to show him the door because of his policies.

I was never much in favor of term limits, but maybe I should change my mind. Lieberman clearly thinks he has a right to his seat, no matter what the voters in his party might think.

I have another peeve around this - the news media bringing up those who voted to give Bush authority for the war (but not for the war itself.) I've not noticed any backlash against them, since most of them have looked at the facts and admitted they made a mistake and that voting then doesn't require supporting it now. Lieberman got dumped for refusing to face the facts today, not three years ago.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by Ogre

Our troops hit back. The innocent people that will die in the next major terrorist attack can't.

That's right, the recent terrorist attack was planned in Iraq.

Oops.

Don't be stupid. What will be more effective in preventing terrorist attacks - throwing money down a rathole in Iraq, or using some of the money to beef up Homeland Security and patch all the holes we can't afford to patch today, and use some of the troops and new clout in going after the terrorist hq in Afgahanistan. Remember Osama?

[Oy!]

Voyager, Ogre isn't just talking about Americans. He's talking about people. That includes Iraqis.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by Ogre

Oh, it's far more than that, because when we leave, the breakdown of all civil order, famine, sectarian violence, ethnic pogroms, and inevitable civil war will probably kill another couple of million, I'm guessing. And even with us safely ensconced and walled-in on the other side of the Atlantic, every one of those deaths will be laid at our door as well.

So, to prevent this we stay there forever? Do you think things are moving in the right direction?
We might be able to turn things around if we sent Bush, Cheney, Rummy and their contingent of clowns off to Gitmo and put someone in charge with their head out of their ass, but as it stands we've got 2 1/2 more years of these idiots, and no reason to think things will get better. We've got Captain Wrong-way Peachfuzz running our ship, and since he's locked in the bridge, we'd better get off before we hit an iceberg.

[Oy!]

Since we aren't going to get rid of these assholes until January 2009, I don't see any choice but to try to keep the lid on until then and then have the next president, who hopefully will actually have some credibility, try to fix it.

[BobLibDem]

The political debate has sunk to a new low.

Not that I ever accused Cal Thomas of being smart, but this is low even for him.

The narrow primary defeat of veteran Sen. Joe Lieberman in Connecticut's Democratic primary is more than a loss for one man. It is a loss for his party and for the country. It completes the capture of the Democratic Party by its Taliban wing.

"Taliban Democrats". This might be the slimiest editorial ever written.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by Oy!

Voyager, Ogre isn't just talking about Americans. He's talking about people. That includes Iraqis.

Then he's slapping the label of terrorist on anyone he doesn't like. There is a civil war there. There are militias on the side of the government killing people, there are insurgents against the government killing people, there are militias in the government coalition killing people. They're just as dead, but terrorism isn't the problem.

Here's a suggestion. The one thing we actually pulled off there was having a reasonably free and fair election. (Considering the circumstance we did a damn good job - I have to give that to the Administration.) Have one and ask the Iraqis if they want us to leave. If they do, set up a timetable and split. We're in favor of democracy, right?

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

The political debate has sunk to a new low.

Not that I ever accused Cal Thomas of being smart, but this is low even for him.

"Taliban Democrats". This might be the slimiest editorial ever written.

If Cal like him, the voters of Conn. did a good job.

The Pubbies should make Joe their candidate, and make an honest man out of him.

[Oy!]

Originally Posted by Voyager

Then he's slapping the label of terrorist on anyone he doesn't like. There is a civil war there. There are militias on the side of the government killing people, there are insurgents against the government killing people, there are militias in the government coalition killing people. They're just as dead, but terrorism isn't the problem.

Here's a suggestion. The one thing we actually pulled off there was having a reasonably free and fair election. (Considering the circumstance we did a damn good job - I have to give that to the Administration.) Have one and ask the Iraqis if they want us to leave. If they do, set up a timetable and split. We're in favor of democracy, right?

Actually, that would work for me, if we really felt we could ensure a valid election. That is, if the insurgents (and I agree that Ogre's choice of term there was bad, but that came from the administration and has percolated down, just as somehow overnight Kerry became a Flip-Flopper) don't prevent the ordinary citizens from voting. And that might be quite difficult, but you're right - the election on the whole went quite well.

[Guinastasia]

Originally Posted by GLWasteful

Well sure, but Barbara Bush can still school his sorry white ass.

Raise hands: who here would pay to see Barbara Bush go up against Dick Cheney in a no-holds bar steel cage match?

[The Great Sun Jester]

Originally Posted by Voyager

The Pubbies should make Joe their candidate, and make an honest man out of him.

You've reminded me of that optical illusion where you take a shade of grey and put it on a white field and it looks dark, and then put it on a black field and it looks light.

I'm voting Republican in 2008. No way should any other party have to clean up this mess.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

Sure, as long as you suspend the cage over an active volcano, and cut the cables when the victor's declared.

[kaylasdad99]

Originally Posted by Guinastasia

Raise hands: who here would pay to see Barbara Bush go up against Dick Cheney in a no-holds bar steel cage match?

I might pay some to ensure that it happened, but watching it? No thanks.

[wring]

Originally Posted by Guinastasia

Raise hands: who here would pay to see Barbara Bush go up against Dick Cheney in a no-holds bar steel cage match?

20 on Babs.

as long as Dick's unarmed.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

"Taliban Democrats". This might be the slimiest editorial ever written.

I saw another one called "Liberal McCarthyism." There is no comparison too ridiculous for these Hyperbolical Conservatives.

I wonder if Cheney's intervention will help sink Lieberman.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

The task would be the task of building a stable, democratic government in Iraq. This isn't new...it's the same argument the administration has been using since the debate over whether to pull out of Iraq started...that setting a firm date to pull out of Iraq will just embolden the Iraqi insurgents, because they'll know that if they can just hold out until that date, Iraq will be helpless and they can take it over.

So what do we think are the indicia of "a stable, democratic government in Iraq"? Do we have to get to the point where there is no more sectarian violence in Iraq? If our presence is the only thing standing between civil war and the current situation, are we hoping that the Sunnis, Baathists, Kurds, and Shia will somehow come to terms with each other and live happily ever after so long as we are there to prevent outright civil war? Is there a roadmap or are we at the point where we are just "hoping"?

[Oy!]

Until there's a new administration, we're just hoping, I think. But what's the alternative? Pull out and let the entire former Iraq go up in flames? Because we blindly and stupidly created a mess we had no idea how to clean up?

The Iraqis don't deserve what's happened to them already. But what's already happened to them is nothing compare to what will likely happen if we just say "Oops! My Bad! See ya around!"

[rjung]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

True to a point, but how many lives are the US obligated to sacrifice because they broke it?

"Everyone who voted for Bush/Cheney in 2000 and 2004"?

(Or as my greey little id would say, "They broke it, they pay for it.")

[Squink]

Originally Posted by Oy!

The Iraqis don't deserve what's happened to them already. But what's already happened to them is nothing compare to what will likely happen if we just say "Oops! My Bad! See ya around!"

How acurate were your pre-invasion predictions?

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Ogre

It's not quite Somalia in Iraq now, but it would be within 6 months of our leaving.

And that will be true whether we leave now, or in 10 years after a Republican President declares "mission accomplished" and brings the boys home. Doing it now will save the lives of thousands of American troops. The victims of sectarian violence are doomed either way.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

And that will be true whether we leave now, or in 10 years after a Republican President declares "mission accomplished" and brings the boys home. Doing it now will save the lives of thousands of American troops. The victims of sectarian violence are doomed either way.

But obviously, Cheney doesn't believe that, and neither does Lieberman.They both believe it's possible to end the sectarian violence with US involvement. Obviously, you disagree, but what they're saying makes sense, given the premises they're starting with, just as what you're saying makes sense given the premises you're starting with.

[kaylasdad99]

Well then, the set of premises that more closely matches reality should be the one that trumps the other one.

[Ogre]

That is, if the insurgents (and I agree that Ogre's choice of term there was bad...

No offense intended, but what in the name of hell are you talking about? I never used the term "insurgent."

Don't be stupid. What will be more effective in preventing terrorist attacks - throwing money down a rathole in Iraq, or using some of the money to beef up Homeland Security and patch all the holes we can't afford to patch today, and use some of the troops and new clout in going after the terrorist hq in Afgahanistan. Remember Osama?

There are many, many other terrorist organizations operating within Iraq with financial and logistical ties to al-Qaeda. Tawhad. Khalid bin Al Walid Brigade. Ansar al-Islam. Al Qaeda itself (has claimed responsibility for several bombings in Iraq). Again, our fault. Doesn't matter. We created the situation in which 100,000 are dead. It's our responsibility to make it better.

Then he's slapping the label of terrorist on anyone he doesn't like.

Question: are you stupid, or do you just act that way in public? I'm slapping the label "terrorist" on those groups, and only those groups, who have confirmed ties with al-Qaeda. And yes, receiving support from al-Qaeda = terrorist.

The victims of sectarian violence are doomed either way.

That's just inhuman. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[kaylasdad99]

Many of us are already ashamed of ourselves for being citizens of a nation with an administration such as this one.

Originally Posted by Ogre

Again, our fault. Doesn't matter. We created the situation in which 100,000 are dead. It's our responsibility to make it better.

It can be argued that the only way in which the U.S. can possibly be involved in "making it better" is to open the checkbook, and stand aside while someone without so much blood on his hands does it.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Ogre

I'm afraid both Lieberman and Cheney are perfectly right in their assessment. We pick up and leave now, we leave a giant vacuum that al-Qaeda will fill to the brim with terrorist training camps.

Yes, we created the problem. I know that. We broke it. We bought it.

I am on board with the "you break it you bought it" idea but I also thought that there were some limits.

As far as I can tell, most of the armed insurgents in Iraq these days are NOT al Queda. The country is mostly Shia so you have to wonder how al Queda would get overrun by al Queda a Sunni group. Heck even most of the Sunni's are either nationalists (trying to get the foreign occupiers out of Iraq) or anti-Shia (trying to regain the power they had under Saddam Hussein).

Do we have an obligation to support the current democratically elected government in the face of civil war? Because then I don't see ANY path to getting our troops out of there, these guys are not going to just agree to disagree and move on with life. I don't think the majority will ever give the minority as much as they want and the minority is never going to roll over and just take what the majority gives them... not without enough bloodshed that everyone gets sick and wants a solution even though they don't get everything they want.

Heaven forbid I sound defeatist but can someone show me how our presence in Iraq will help create a self sustaining stable government? Right now it seems like we are just holding on and hoping for a miracle. Do we even know what sort of miracle we are hoping for?

[Ogre]

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99

Many of us are already ashamed of ourselves for being citizens of a nation with an administration such as this one.It can be argued that the only way in which the U.S. can possibly be involved in "making it better" is to open the checkbook, and stand aside while someone without so much blood on his hands does it.

This may very well be true, but I can't realistically see it happening...at least not until looooooong after this administration is gone.

[DoctorJ]

For those who just couldn't understand why the Democrats couldn't get behind Holy Joe, this is why. It isn't that he supports the war; it's that he uses the Bush administration's rhetoric. War is no time to criticize the President. Agree with us or you're emboldening* the terrorists.

If Lieberman had any honor at all, he would stand up and loudly denounce those who in any way attempt to equate his opponent with terrorist groups. Instead, he's right there with them.

It's no wonder President Bush is not planning to support the GOP candidate in the race, getting behind Joe's Bullshit Moose Party ticket instead.

* It's a perfectly cromulent word.

[Oy!]

Originally Posted by Squink

How acurate were your pre-invasion predictions?

Actually, pretty fucking accurate; I was vehemently anti-invasion, just as I was vehemently anti-Bush and all of his minions since before the 2000 election. I can't prove the former (I was pretty new here and quite shy about posting - still am quite a bit of the time), but if you do any kind of search on me, you'll find that I have been close to Reeder rabid about Bush at times (and consistently anti-Bush at all times), and it's certainly not a recent development.

I am not a reformed sinner. I have either been a saint all along or a sinner all along. But my feeling from before the day we set foot in Iraq was that once we went in, we had a responsibility to do everything in our power to fix the mess we made (which was pretty obviously what was going to happen to anyone who was paying attention, although the degree to which it was fucked up still manages to astound me). The fact that it's now costing American lives and American money is not reason enough to me to turn our backs on what we've done and just go home as if everything were okay. The one thing we can do to make this worse is to just walk away, maybe tossing out a mumbled semi-apology over our shoulders as we go.

I understand the desire to make Shrub fix what he broke. But it's not going to happen, and what we Dems had better figure out pretty damned quick is how to keep the Republicans from blaming this crap on us. Because they're damned good at doing that, in case you hadn't noticed, and while Bush is a lame duck, Rove isn't. He's still alive and well, and just as well positioned as ever to weave his ugly webs.

[Oy!]

Originally Posted by col_10022

I am on board with the "you break it you bought it" idea but I also thought that there were some limits.

As far as I can tell, most of the armed insurgents in Iraq these days are NOT al Queda. The country is mostly Shia so you have to wonder how al Queda would get overrun by al Queda a Sunni group. Heck even most of the Sunni's are either nationalists (trying to get the foreign occupiers out of Iraq) or anti-Shia (trying to regain the power they had under Saddam Hussein).

Do we have an obligation to support the current democratically elected government in the face of civil war? Because then I don't see ANY path to getting our troops out of there, these guys are not going to just agree to disagree and move on with life. I don't think the majority will ever give the minority as much as they want and the minority is never going to roll over and just take what the majority gives them... not without enough bloodshed that everyone gets sick and wants a solution even though they don't get everything they want.

Heaven forbid I sound defeatist but can someone show me how our presence in Iraq will help create a self sustaining stable government? Right now it seems like we are just holding on and hoping for a miracle. Do we even know what sort of miracle we are hoping for?

I said what kind of miracle I was hoping for in your other thread, col, but as I'm always happy to talk too much, I'll repeat the jist here:

I'm hoping that we can elect a government that the nations of the world can consider credible. If we can do that, we may be able to put together a coalition of nations, most visibly from the Middle East itself, who would be willing to replace the US military presence in Iraq. Unfortunately we can't do this with our soldiers; they have pretty much lost all credibility with the Iraqi citizens, predominantly because of our government's policies, and secondarily because of the inevitable bad actions of a few young men in a situation where violence is often the appropriate first reaction. But we will have to pay for a lot, if not most of this effort, and even then, we'll go for a long time with the moral superiority/IOU edge held by the nations that are able to get this done when we haven't been able to.

Will this work? I certainly can't guarantee it. I can't even give it better than, say, 25% chance. But I think it's our moral obligation to try. Because we broke it. We broke it bad.

[Oy!]

Originally Posted by Ogre

No offense intended, but what in the name of hell are you talking about? I never used the term "insurgent."

Oy! I meant the word "terrorist." And you're right, there are real live terrorists in Iraq right now (and we put 'em there). But I think there are more real insurgents than terrorists, and I think there are probably even more real thugs and criminals than insurgents. The choice of the word terrorist just sounded to me like Bush-speak - a way of labelling the people who were fighting against us in Iraq as all being enemies in The War Against Terror^TM. They're not.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Ogre

That's just inhuman. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I am ashamed only of those who would prolong the bloodshed in a delusion that any other outcome is possible.