Cheney: situation in Iraq going "remarkably well"

E-Z-B

E-Z-B

CAGiversary!
Rush Limbaugh interviewed Vice President Cheney on his show today. At one point, Limbaugh asked Cheney to respond to growing frustration over U.S. efforts in Iraq.

Cheney acknowledged there is a “natural level of concern out there” because fighting didn’t end “instantaneously.” (Next month, the war will have lasted longer than U.S. fighting in World War II.) Cheney then pointed to various news items to paint a positive picture of conditions in Iraq and concluded, “If you look at the general overall situation, they’re doing remarkably well.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/17/cheney-rush/

"State of Denial" comes to mind. :lol:
 
I don't know if I'd argue he truly believes that; it wouldn't do him any favors, however, if he said "man, that's some fucked up shit over there."

He's in a catch-22, so the most reasonable response was to maintain consistency with what he believes, even if it runs contrary to what the rest of the world is saying.

We live in a culture that does not accept responsibility for its own actions (a lot of conservative writers have claimed that the Lewinsky scandal was the catalyst of this, though I'd argue it was the highest profile example of a cultural attitude that's been building for decades - hell, the entire 1980's economically was like that). Nobody owns up to shit anymore, and it provides political/cultural discourse at its most childlike and embarrassing.

What fuels the fire, of course, and makes this inevitable, is that few people accept apologies anymore either. I point to Mel Gibson's recent public apology as an example. He didn't claim that it was the booze talking, or that he was just kidding. He straight up apologized for it. And, in the mass public, who believed him? fuckin' nobody. They continued to deride him, they considered his apology and acceptance of responsibility false, and they regarded him as if his apology was null and void. If you feel that way, fine. But realize that this has larger cultural implications: apologies don't mean shit, so you might as well lie your ass off or blame someone else.

Both the messenger and the reactions to those messages are part of a perpetual feedback loop that mutually reinforce each other; we're part of that second half, yet we want to somehow distance ourselves from our own responsibility in affecting how the first part is formed.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']"State of Denial" comes to mind. :lol:[/QUOTE]
You think he's in denial?
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Rush Limbaugh interviewed Vice President Cheney on his show today. At one point, Limbaugh asked Cheney to respond to growing frustration over U.S. efforts in Iraq.

Cheney acknowledged there is a “natural level of concern out there” because fighting didn’t end “instantaneously.” (Next month, the war will have lasted longer than U.S. fighting in World War II.) Cheney then pointed to various news items to paint a positive picture of conditions in Iraq and concluded, “If you look at the general overall situation, they’re doing remarkably well.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/17/cheney-rush/

"State of Denial" comes to mind. :lol:[/QUOTE]
I agree that things don't appear to be going well in Iraq, but I'm positive that progress is being made there on a daily basis. Of course, the news media does not pick up on the positive coming out from Iraq. It's not good for their ratings. But I disagree with the comparison to WWII. They are/were two different wars, under different times, and different enemies.

By the way, posting a link from a left wing ragtag website is humourous. Atleast keep things in the mainstream where views are less bias.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I don't know if I'd argue he truly believes that; it wouldn't do him any favors, however, if he said "man, that's some fucked up shit over there."[/quote]

If those are the only two options, then sure. There is, however, a middle path: admit that things aren't going that great, but profess that the best way to improve the situation is to continue to keep US troops in Iraq to keep the situation from degrading any further. I disagree with that position, but its at least an opinion a sane, honest person might hold. Claiming that things are going well is a clear demonstration that the man is either a bald-faced liar or bat-shit insane, your choice.
 
70 soldiers are dead so far this month. That seems really well to me.

I thought the president and vice president were just idiots but they are truely assholes on a level I have never seen. 70 soldiers dead, 10 in one day, that's not fucking "remarkably well" to any sane person's standards.
 
You wonder if the P and VP even talk anymore when Bush says he's worried about it becoming another Tet Offensive and Cheney says everything's grand.
 
You think they switched from a king-size bed to two twin mattresses? ;)

I don't think Bush said that explicitly, but that he didn't disagree with Thom Freidman when he said it in an op-ed. IMO, if either of them is going to crack and admit to what's going on in the real world, it would be Bush before Cheney.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I don't think Bush said that explicitly, but that he didn't disagree with Thom Freidman when he said it in an op-ed. [/QUOTE]

Personally, I don't think Bush had any real clue what the question was about. Something about an election, and an attack, and um, yeah, sure, whatever.
 
[quote name='Lyzel']I agree that things don't appear to be going well in Iraq, but I'm positive that progress is being made there on a daily basis. Of course, the news media does not pick up on the positive coming out from Iraq. It's not good for their ratings. But I disagree with the comparison to WWII. They are/were two different wars, under different times, and different enemies.

By the way, posting a link from a left wing ragtag website is humourous. Atleast keep things in the mainstream where views are less bias.[/QUOTE]

could you give one example of some progress that has been made today, or any day this week?

i'd love to see a link

thanks!
 
Did anyone see NBC's news report at 6:30? We've virtually lost the war. Attacks have jump dramatically since we've tried to restore the calm. Our troops are panicking from the numerous sniper fire, road side bombs, and assaults every single day. :cry:

All this because Rumsfeld threatened to fire anyone who brought up a "post-war plan" again in 2002/2003 because he was tired of hearing about it.
 
[quote name='Lyzel']I agree that things don't appear to be going well in Iraq, but I'm positive that progress is being made there on a daily basis. Of course, the news media does not pick up on the positive coming out from Iraq. It's not good for their ratings. But I disagree with the comparison to WWII. They are/were two different wars, under different times, and different enemies.[/quote]

There is some inherent bias in the media towards negative stories, no doubt about it. I'm sure the same is true with Iraq. And when you compare how things are going in terms of casualties compared to something like Vietnam, things are going a lot better.

However, I doubt most Americans would agree things are going "remarkably well." Personally, for things to be going "remarkably well," I'd think we'd have pacified the country and gotten the hell out of there by this point in time. Not that things are as bad as they could be, but really.

[quote name='Lyzel']By the way, posting a link from a left wing ragtag website is humourous. Atleast keep things in the mainstream where views are less bias.[/QUOTE]

Hey, it's EZB. Next we'll have a link from DemocraticUnderground.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Are you saying Cheney's quotes aren't correct? What's your point?[/QUOTE]

That you often cite sources that are as useful and unbiased as Rush Limbaugh, Drudge, NewsMAx, or FrontPageMag.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']That you often cite sources that are as useful and unbiased as Rush Limbaugh, Drudge, NewsMAx, or FrontPageMag.[/QUOTE]

The only time I link to democraticunderground is when I post something about the Top Ten Conservative Idiot's list.

Which, by the way, is here: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/top10/264

An authoritative news source? No, but it helps me get through Monday mornings.
 
Well, looks like Dubya nows says that he's never been about "stay the course". Video & transcript here:

Bush: ‘We’ve Never Been Stay The Course’
During an interview today on ABC’s This Week, President Bush tried to distance himself from what has been his core strategy in Iraq for the last three years. George Stephanopoulos asked about James Baker’s plan to develop a strategy for Iraq that is “between ’stay the course’ and ‘cut and run.’”

Bush responded, ‘We’ve never been stay the course, George!’

Bush is wrong:

BUSH: We will stay the course. [8/30/06]

BUSH: We will stay the course, we will complete the job in Iraq. [8/4/05]

BUSH: We will stay the course until the job is done, Steve. And the temptation is to try to get the President or somebody to put a timetable on the definition of getting the job done. We’re just going to stay the course. [12/15/03]

BUSH: And my message today to those in Iraq is: We’ll stay the course. [4/13/04]

BUSH: And that’s why we’re going to stay the course in Iraq. And that’s why when we say something in Iraq, we’re going to do it. [4/16/04]

BUSH: And so we’ve got tough action in Iraq. But we will stay the course. [4/5/04]

Full transcript:

STEPHANOPOULOS: James Baker says that he’s looking for something between “cut and run” and “stay the course.”

BUSH: Well, hey, listen, we’ve never been “stay the course,” George. We have been — we will complete the mission, we will do our job, and help achieve the goal, but we’re constantly adjusting to tactics. Constantly.


http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/22/bush-stay-the-course

Time for some revisionist history, and the sheep to follow along.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top