Cheney Response on the War.

[zoey]

They counted. People voted them into office. Deal with it.

Well, no actually we voted Gore into office and then a "fast one" was pulled.

Bush's war is to make him, Cheney, and their rich friends richer. It has nothing to do with anything they have claimed. They have been proven to be bold-faced liars and they aren't even pretending any longer.

 

[Arc]

Sorry, but I think it would be unbelievably stupid to try to make foreign policy on the basis of a poll.

We do have a binding poll; it's called national elections. In my opinion they roll around too often as it is.

The business about what the troops want to do is likely a justification, although from what I am told it appears to be true.

Maybe it means something too. They certainly know more about it and what the personal stakes are than we do sitting back here on our retired a$$es.

In any case we havea republican governement, not an ongoing plebiscite.

Ha

Thank you Ha! An important reminder!

 

[Arc]

Well, no actually we voted Gore into office and then a "fast one" was pulled.

Bush's war is to make him, Cheney, and their rich friends richer. It has nothing to do with anything they have claimed. They have been proven to be bold-faced liars and they aren't even pretending any longer.

And what fast one was that?

Also, I don't believe that you actually believe your post. No recognition of 9/11, no recognition of an out of control dictator and no recognition of a general world consensus that Hussein was a threat to the world.

 

[Texarkandy]

And do you think an Obama or Hillary presidency would give more of a cr*p about polls either?
(esp. in their 2nd term with a war they'd like to stabilize and position for winding down before handing over the reins to someone else?)

 

[Eagle43]

I do not believe that this war is to make Bush or Cheney rich. I do believe that all presidents make decisions based on what they consider right or necessary. Even Bush has to sleep at night. You can't even run a corporation by a poll, much less the country.

I also believe that the Congress has the power of the budget and can stop the war (or at least go on record with a vote which would be vetoed). Why don't they?

Don't forget that the congress voted for the war:

Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And they have never voted to stop funding or remove the troops.
Congress can halt Iraq war, experts tell lawmakers - washingtonpost.com

Maybe they're trying to get rich too.

 

[ChrisC]

If Lincoln had paid attention to public opinion in 1863 or to the election results of 1862, the Union would have withdrawn its forces and some board members might be owned by other board members.

I think you've got it wrong here, historically. Public opinion in general, except for those in the successionist states, favored keeping the Union in tact. Public opinion supported the Civil War. Lincoln was never out of touch with public opinion; in fact, he set re-engineered the passions of public opinion with his remarkable Gettysburg Address. He was re-elected in 1864.

 

[clifp]

I think you've got it wrong here, historically. Public opinion in general, except for those in the successionist states, favored keeping the Union in tact. Public opinion supported the Civil War. Lincoln was never out of touch with public opinion; in fact, he set re-engineered the passions of public opinion with his remarkable Gettysburg Address. He was re-elected in 1864.

I think people mistake the original gung ho enthusiasm for the war by both sides for a unwavering commitment to the war. Support for war especially in North wained and waxed depending on how the war was going. My impression is that Southern population was more commited (but I don't really know.)

The only definitive public opinion poll is elections.
i From Wikipedia

The U.S. House election, 1862 was an election for the United States House of Representatives in 1862 that occurred in the middle of President Abraham Lincoln's first term. Union defeats in the Civil War, as well as the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation, took a toll on Lincoln's popularity, and the opposition Democratic Party made substantial gains in seats held from his Republican Party...
The Republicans lost substantially, dropping 22 seats, while the Democrats picked up 28, for a net swing of 50 seats (or 27%) out of a total House membership of 185.

The equivalent today would be the Democrats gaining seats 65, so if people want to say the Democrats picking up 31 seats in 2006 was referendum on the war for Bush, I think it fair to say the election of 1862 was a referendum on the war for Lincoln. After all casualities of the Civil War on percentage basis were 1000 fold greater than Iraq so the campaign was entirely about the war.

Draft riots were common in many parts of the country. The worse being the 1863 riots in NY City. The shut down the city for 4 days killed 100+ people and cost large property losses.

Now by the time 1864 comes around the military situation had turned around. The Democrats ran Meade, and while winning generals do well in American politics losing generals...lose elections.

I do agree with you that Lincoln was well aware of public opinion. Likewise, Cheney didn't disagree with reporter that public opinion currently thinks that Iraq war was mistake, he just said we don't govern by public opinion polls, and neither did Lincoln.

(No I am not comparing Lincoln, with Cheney or Bush, I'll leave that to their relatives... )

 

[ChrisC]

I think people mistake the original gung ho enthusiasm for the war by both sides for a unwavering commitment to the war. Support for war especially in North wained and waxed depending on how the war was going. My impression is that Southern population was more commited (but I don't really know.)

Well, my basic point is that, on balance, Lincoln still had a majority of public opinion backing the War effort, at every point of the War. And the support reached highs and lows depending on the War effort and the justification for the War. It reached its highest level of popular support after Gettysburg and Sherman's successful campaign.

The only definitive public opinion poll is elections.
i From Wikipedia


The equivalent today would be the Democrats gaining seats 65, so if people want to say the Democrats picking up 31 seats in 2006 was referendum on the war for Bush, I think it fair to say the election of 1862 was a referendum on the war for Lincoln. After all casualities of the Civil War on percentage basis were 1000 fold greater than Iraq so the campaign was entirely about the war.

Draft riots were common in many parts of the country. The worse being the 1863 riots in NY City. The shut down the city for 4 days killed 100+ people and cost large property losses.

Now by the time 1864 comes around the military situation had turned around. The Democrats ran Meade, and while winning generals do well in American politics losing generals...lose elections.

I do agree with you that Lincoln was well aware of public opinion. Likewise, Cheney didn't disagree with reporter that public opinion currently thinks that Iraq war was mistake, he just said we don't govern by public opinion polls, and neither did Lincoln.

(No I am not comparing Lincoln, with Cheney or Bush, I'll leave that to their relatives... )

I'm not sure you can say anything significant about the election results of 1862; the Republican Party had only been formed in 1856 and had only been tested in one national election; I don't think it is fair to say the 1862 election was a referendum for the War. The Emancipation Proclaimation might have had more to do with the election results than the War itself.

BTW, it was General McClellan not General Meade who ran for President in 1864. And my point on this whole matter is that Lincoln did take public opinion into account in his governing the War effort, unlike Cheney as his statements suggest.

 

[youbet]

One of the most interesting aspects of the few hours I spent at the Lincoln musuem in Springfield, Illinois was learning that Lincoln had a major challenge coping with strong anti-war sentiment in the north mid-war. And that he was descimated/ravaged/ridiculed/mocked by the press. Because wealthy northerners were able to buy replacements (typically Irish immigrants) to take their place in military service, those with money frequently didn't serve. Sound familar?

Even Lincoln had to bend things a little to sell his position, for example writing the Emancipation Proclamation so that it didn't apply to all the states..........

 

[youbet]

Well, my basic point is that, on balance, Lincoln still had a majority of public opinion backing the War effort, at every point of the War. .

With all respect, I don't think that is true, although it might be hard to define "public opinion" since I don't think they were doing many polls then. If there had been polls run as we run them today, I think we'd learn that people supported the abolition of slavery, the continuation of the Union and the well being of the troops, but they were against the war. Can you point me to anything supporting your contention? Especially "at every point of the War."

 

[Insanity]

. . . As private citizens we actually know almost nothing.

Of course we know nothing. If the Bush administration has its way, we'll stay ignorant, even if we have the right to know. The Bush admin. is fighting to keep documents that discuss the run up to war out of the archives, and claims to have irreparably deleted emails that should have been saved, too, all in violation of the Presidential Records Act. It's 17 minutes of Watergate Tapes silence, 21st century style.

Did your parents ask you if they should take you to the doctor to get your shots?

Was the Bush administration honest with us before they sent our kids off to get shot?

 

[chinaco]

Die hard right Republicans will never admit that GWB and the administration made very poor decisions on the Iraq war and for whatever reasons exaggerated about the situation in Iraq to convince Americans and others that we needed to invade.

It is sad... but the French were correct on their assessment. No wonder much of the world was not with us.

That war was about settling an old score for GHB, Cheney, Rummy, etc.

He will not get a pass (from anyone but the hard right) for making such a blunder and mistake in judgment and seizing on the opportunity to invade. He has lived down to the criticisms about him in the first election... not too bright!

 

[zoey]

And what fast one was that?

Also, I don't believe that you actually believe your post. No recognition of 9/11, no recognition of an out of control dictator and no recognition of a general world consensus that Hussein was a threat to the world.

This fast one...Theft of the Presidency Day 369 (4): Gore Wins, Media Lies (Yet Again)

You don't believe that I actually believe my own post. What? That sounds ridiculous to me. Of course, I believe my own post.

What has 9/11 or Hussein got to do with why Bush really invaded Iraq. Nothing whatsoever. It's about oil and money. Let's not forget how much Haliburton makes off this invasion/occupation and the Cheney's connection to Haliburton. Not to mention Bush's connection to the Bin Laden family. Hussein was no real threat to the world. He was controllable and in fact had been controlled for quite some time. This isn't about Hussein.

The general world consensus was that they didn't want the US to invade Iraq, so I don't believe that the world conensus was that Hussein was a threat to the world. The world seems far more outraged about Bush and his war.

 

[lets-retire]

I think we tend to have an international reputation of leaving protectees and behind the scenes allies to go fish when our domestic political winds change.

Ha

I was watching an interview with a foreign national, back in, I believe, 2001 or 2002, and they were very angry with the US because they felt we left them high and dry. I would not doubt other countries and people have this same opinion of this country.

Chicano--You can say Bush lied all you want, but the Democrats believed the same thing, including when Clinton was in office. So if Bush lied about WMD then so did Clinton. There were definitely mistakes, but even with a Democratic Congress, Bush has not been impeached, so lie, I don't think so. Either way whether Hussein had WMD or not was rather irrelevant, because before the ink was dry on the surrender treaty Hussein started violating it.

Zoey--Hussein was not controlled. He was pinned in his country but we were still bombing his military almost every day since the end of the first Gulf War. As far as Halliburton goes, Clinton used Halliburton, or their subsidiaries, for every contract I can think of when I was overseas. This most likely means they were, like has been stated, the only company with the infrastructure and ability to complete these contracts. Posting an article that is clearly from a Democrat publisher does not exactly prove your point and only makes you look like a "company hack."

 

[chinaco]

Chicano--You can say Bush lied all you want, but the Democrats believed the same thing, including when Clinton was in office. So if Bush lied about WMD then so did Clinton. There were definitely mistakes, but even with a Democratic Congress, Bush has not been impeached, so lie, I don't think so. Either way whether Hussein had WMD or not was rather irrelevant, because before the ink was dry on the surrender treaty Hussein started violating it.

Bush had the intel and appoints (or maintains) the people who head up the agencies that produces the intel. They put spin on it.

And breaking the treaty is hardly a reason to put boots on the ground.

Let's assume that they did not lie about it. Perhaps they were so eager to settle an old score they were not objective. Not good considering what was at stake.

So which is it:

• A bold lie? Likely not!
• Old ax to grind and therefore some exaggeration and not willing to exercise due caution in making this big decision? -- This is it right here.
• Complete Incompetence? Probably not.
• Or the poor guys just made an honest mistake... leave them alone.
• Justifiable Invasion. Few think so... including Colin Powell

The decision resulted in the deaths and injuries of hundreds of thousands. Plus huge debt.

No... I think he should be held responsible for his actions. This whole thing will likely not end up with a real democracy in Iraq unless we do spend 50 years there... Why 50 years? Because it is an area of the world where the culture is still in the middle ages for the most part. Dictators and Kings. It will take that amount of time for the population to age and turn over such that new beliefs are predominant.

So. Did they lie back then? Who knows what they thought... maybe not, possibly a few did not have the courage to speak up in his cabinet. Are they deceiving us now and spinning this monumental blunder. You bet. We fought a war about WMD and concerns about Al Qaeda possibly getting those weapons.

As it turns out we got rid of one secular @$$h0!3 and will replace him with either another secular @ssh0!3 or a fundamentalist one.

Now tell me that deep down you believe otherwise.

 

[Arc]

This fast one...Theft of the Presidency Day 369 (4): Gore Wins, Media Lies (Yet Again)

You don't believe that I actually believe my own post. What? That sounds ridiculous to me. Of course, I believe my own post.

What has 9/11 or Hussein got to do with why Bush really invaded Iraq. Nothing whatsoever. It's about oil and money. Let's not forget how much Haliburton makes off this invasion/occupation and the Cheney's connection to Haliburton. Not to mention Bush's connection to the Bin Laden family. Hussein was no real threat to the world. He was controllable and in fact had been controlled for quite some time. This isn't about Hussein.

The general world consensus was that they didn't want the US to invade Iraq, so I don't believe that the world conensus was that Hussein was a threat to the world. The world seems far more outraged about Bush and his war.

Zoey - you got to do better than a left wing article from Democrats.com. I may be reading this wrong but if part of the premise is that the there was a media bias - in favor of Bush - in 2000, then the author loses credibility out of the shoot.
Try something that just may be a little more comprehensive (CNN.com In-Depth Specials).


Didn't mean to offend you on the (don't believe your own post thing). My point is that it just isn't that simple. At any given time (and especially after 9/11) there are a lot of complicated matters facing the president. To imply that - in the midst of the chaos - that the backroom decision-making boiled down to "hey how can we make more money for our friends." is ridiculous. My guess - and it's just a guess - is that any President has available more information on world affairs than you and I can get our hands on. As such we have no choice but to trust that they will do the right thing (doesn't mean we will always agree) - and that is why I believe that personal character and integrity is so important in the President.

 

[lets-retire]

And breaking the treaty is hardly a reason to put boots on the ground.

When the treaty signed stated you will do x, y, and z and in exchange we will stop pummeling you, then it is exactly a justified reason to put boots on the ground when you don't do x, y, or z. In this case Hussein did not do x, y, and most of z. Iraq lost the war they said they would comply with the terms they signed to in order to have us stop beating them, and if I recall correctly their terms were rather simple, "If you stop beating us we will do what you want." They violated that agreement from the start, so what do you do? You go back to the status quo before the treaty was signed and resume the beating. Diplomacy was tried for 12 years without success, further diplomacy would not have done anything.

 

[chinaco]

When the treaty signed stated you will do x, y, and z and in exchange we will stop pummeling you, then it is exactly a justified reason to put boots on the ground when you don't do x, y, or z. In this case Hussein did not do x, y, and most of z. Iraq lost the war they said they would comply with the terms they signed to in order to have us stop beating them, and if I recall correctly their terms were rather simple, "If you stop beating us we will do what you want." They violated that agreement from the start, so what do you do? You go back to the status quo before the treaty was signed and resume the beating. Diplomacy was tried for 12 years without success, further diplomacy would not have done anything.

It is not a matter of what we might be able to do or think we have the right to do. It is about what makes sense. Does it seem to make sense now?

 

[lets-retire]

Does it seem to make sense now?

It doesn't matter if it makes sense now, unless you have a time machine. All one can do it take decisions based on the knowledge at hand. The knowledge at hand was, Hussein failed to voluntarily abide by the treaty he signed begging us to stop beating him. The executive office, back to and including Reagan "knew" Hussein had WMD. Hussein failed to abide by the treaty he signed after extensive negotiations granting him certain reprieves from some sanctions included in the treaty (oil for food ring any bells). With that knowledge what was the likely future events if we did exactly what France wanted us to do? Hussein would most likely continue to buck the international community and be an even more destabilizing influence in the area. The war would go down as a victory for Iraq and, embolden, he would be back in Kuwait, as soon as we left, because the only hurt he received was during the two months of war 15 years ago. He was hurt more during the Iran-Iraq war and they were best buddies before the end of our beating of them in 1991.

 

[chinaco]

It doesn't matter if it makes sense now, unless you have a time machine. All one can do it take decisions based on the knowledge at hand. The knowledge at hand was, Hussein failed to voluntarily abide by the treaty he signed begging us to stop beating him. The executive office, back to and including Reagan "knew" Hussein had WMD. Hussein failed to abide by the treaty he signed after extensive negotiations granting him certain reprieves from some sanctions included in the treaty (oil for food ring any bells). With that knowledge what was the likely future events if we did exactly what France wanted us to do? Hussein would most likely continue to buck the international community and be an even more destabilizing influence in the area. The war would go down as a victory for Iraq and, embolden, he would be back in Kuwait, as soon as we left, because the only hurt he received was during the two months of war 15 years ago. He was hurt more during the Iran-Iraq war and they were best buddies before the end of our beating of them in 1991.

Yes Hussein was an @$$h0l3. He was defiant. And yes we backed him because of Iran. He was the Reagan administration's bully in the region.

Yes it does matter. GWB pushed a bad decision. Of course we have the benefit of hind sight.

He does not win a prize or even get a sympathetic pass for making a wrong decision of this magnitude.

Of course, if you believe it was the right move... we can agree to disagree.

 

[ChrisC]

With all respect, I don't think that is true, although it might be hard to define "public opinion" since I don't think they were doing many polls then. If there had been polls run as we run them today, I think we'd learn that people supported the abolition of slavery, the continuation of the Union and the well being of the troops, but they were against the war. Can you point me to anything supporting your contention? Especially "at every point of the War."

I'll dust off my old copy of McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom, which I believe is one of the most incisive historical accounts of the Civil War, to see if it supports my view. But I'm puzzled by your statement. If a majority of the people supported abolition of slavery and continuation of the Union -- how can they not be in favor of a War to preserve the Union and later justified to abolish slavery? There was, quite obviously, disenchantment and perhaps even major disapproval over the War effort, but I don't think there was ever majority public opinion disapproval over continuing the War. We didn't have public opinion polls back then, but Lincoln did have his pulse on public opinion during the War effort in the only way back then by reading the newspaper editorials and meeting with citizens at the White House.

 

[haha]

But I'm puzzled by your statement. If a majority of the people supported abolition of slavery and continuation of the Union -- how can they not be in favor of a War to preserve the Union and later justified to abolish slavery?

That is an easy one to answer. See any of the sociological research that shows people will express diametrically opposed and totally inconsistent opinions, depending on how the poll questions are phrased. It is called "framing", and it is probably one of the most powerful ideas to come along in social science in the last 50 years. Of course, it was well understand by practical people-- artists, politicians, skillful parents and others long before this.

Ha

 

[clifp]

Bush had the intel and appoints (or maintains) the people who head up the agencies that produces the intel. They put spin on it.

And breaking the treaty is hardly a reason to put boots on the ground.

Let's assume that they did not lie about it. Perhaps they were so eager to settle an old score they were not objective. Not good considering what was at stake.

Lets be fair, there was no substaintive difference between the Clinton and Bush 43 adminstration about the threats Saddam posed.

George Tenet was first appointed to the head CIA by President Clinton, not Bush.

If you go back to the justification that President Clinton used for Operation Desert Fox it was the same thing as Bush 43 used for Iraqi Freedom; Developing WMD, violating UN resolutions, supporting terrorism, and being a murderous dictator. You even had Senator John Kerry, sound more hawkish than John McCain in urging US ground troops to be used to get rid of Saddam around the same time as Clinton was bombing the crap out of Baghdad.

Is Bush 43 guilty of exaggerating the threat in order to sell the war? probably yes. But if he was settling old scores, it wasn't his Dads old scores he was trying to settle, it was the country's old score. Bush 41 did not lose the election because of unfinished business in Iraq. Bush 41s handling of the first Gulf War was his crowning achievement for most people. Come on a failed assaination attempt on his dad is reason to try to continue to kill Saddam not invade the country.

As it turns out we got rid of one secular @$$h0!3 and will replace him with either another secular @ssh0!3 or a fundamentalist one.

Before Saddam went to his well deserved death he was responsible for more violent deaths than anybody walking the planet. Your spinning worse than the Bush adminstration when you suggest that Saddam was just another @assho!3. Even if the ultimate ruler of Iraq is Ahmadinejad he will be an improvement (albeit a small one) over Saddam for the people of Iraq.

 

[clifp]

I'll dust off my old copy of McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom, which I believe is one of the most incisive historical accounts of the Civil War, to see if it supports my view. But I'm puzzled by your statement. If a majority of the people supported abolition of slavery and continuation of the Union -- how can they not be in favor of a War to preserve the Union and later justified to abolish slavery? .

Ha Ha has it exactly right.

We can see it today in many public opinion polls

Example
Do you support increase federal spending for developing alternative energy to reduce our dependence on oil. Probably 80% YES

Do you support a $1/gallon tax increase on gasoline with money being used to develop alternative energy to reduce our dependence on oil. Probably 70% No

In the abstract of course most Northerns supported preserving the Union and abolishing (or at least containing) slavery.

If you asked them is preserving the Union and abolishing slavery worth taking ~10,000 killed and wounded in battle after battle the answer changes dramatically.

 

[ChrisC]

Ha Ha has it exactly right.

We can see it today in many public opinion polls

Example
Do you support increase federal spending for developing alternative energy to reduce our dependence on oil. Probably 80% YES

Do you support a $1/gallon tax increase on gasoline with money being used to develop alternative energy to reduce our dependence on oil. Probably 70% No

In the abstract of course most Northerns supported preserving the Union and abolishing (or at least containing) slavery.

If you asked them is preserving the Union and abolishing slavery worth taking ~10,000 killed and wounded in battle after battle the answer changes dramatically.

Well, no one really questions that "framing" a question a certain way will yield answers a certain way. Of course, we see this with polling of racial issues where the manner in which you frame an affirmative action or racial preference or scoring proposition affects the answer you get from the public. But the "framing" here is not that complicated: do you support the withdrawal of the Union troops from the South (which was the original point you made about popular opinion being contrary to Lincoln continuing the War) or the withdrawal of the American troops in Iraq, that's a simple question where I believe the "evidence" would suggest that for Lincoln he had a majority of the nation behind him to continue the War whereas for Bush he does not appear to have a majority of the population to continue the War.

I'm not suggesting that public opinion should always dictate foreign policy; however, I do believe that in matters of War, if public opinion is not followed, then there should be strong, compelling reasons to continue a War, especially a War waged initially as a so-called "preemptive war." Whether you support the troops or approve of current military tactics or strategy has, in my mind, nothing to do with the basic question of whether we should continue this War. So, if you frame the issues as support for the troops or the surge, I do think this is irrelevant to the polling issue of whether the War should be continued, an issue the President should periodically question in light of public opinion on that score.