FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Cheney & FOX smearing Commander in Chief during wartime





handfleisch
Republicans and FOX PR agency used to say it was not right to harshly and irresponsibly criticize the war policy decisions of Pres.Bush because it could jeopardize the war and morale of the troops. They used to accuse others of hating America, of actions tantamount to treason. But last night former VP Cheney, from the comfort of his suburban home and his many military deferments, spent 90 minutes on FOX bashing, smearing, undermining and sabotaging the Commander in Chief. Even though the president has committed more troops to Afghanistan (which Bush refused to do).

Boots are on the ground, a risky surge is about to be implemented, American soldiers are about to fight and die in a new attempt to win the war, and what do the Republicans and FOX do? Attack the Commander in Chief. It's unbelievable. Cheney, FOX and the Republicans really are endangering our troops in Afghanistan with this over-the-top crap. Cheney even used constitutional language implying the president was guilty of treason. And since Obama has just given the generals the troops they asked for, there really can be no reason to do this except politics. Cheney, FOX and the Republican Party want to strengthen the Republican position at the expense of US troops dying in Afghanistan. It's beyond sick.

Where is the outcry from conservative Americans?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/30024.html
Quote:
Dick Cheney slams President Obama for projecting ‘weakness’

MCLEAN, Va. — On the eve of the unveiling of the nation’s new Afghanistan policy, former Vice President Dick Cheney slammed President Barack Obama for projecting “weakness” to adversaries and warned that more workaday Afghans will side with the Taliban if they think the United States is heading for the exits.

In a 90-minute interview at his suburban Washington house, Cheney said the president’s “agonizing” about Afghanistan strategy “has consequences for your forces in the field.”

“I begin to get nervous when I see the commander in chief making decisions apparently for what I would describe as small ‘p’ political reasons, where he’s trying to balance off different competing groups in society,” Cheney said.

“Every time he delays, defers, debates, changes his position, it begins to raise questions: Is the commander in chief really behind what they’ve been asked to do?”

Obama administration officials have complained ever since taking office that they face a series of unpalatable — if not impossible — national security decisions in Afghanistan and Pakistan because of the Bush administration’s unwavering insistence on focusing on Iraq.

But Cheney rejected any suggestion that Obama had to decide on a new strategy for Afghanistan because the one employed by the previous administration failed.

Cheney was asked if he thinks the Bush administration bears any responsibility for the disintegration of Afghanistan because of the attention and resources that were diverted to Iraq. “I basically don’t,” he replied without elaborating.

Obama will announce a troop buildup in Afghanistan in a speech Tuesday at West Point, and he’s expected to send at least 30,000 more U.S. troops to the country. The White House also has said that Obama will outline a general time frame for the United States to begin withdrawing from Afghanistan.

But Cheney said the average Afghan citizen “sees talk about exit strategies and how soon we can get out, instead of talk about how we win.

“Those folks ... begin to look for ways to accommodate their enemies,” Cheney said. “They’re worried the United States isn’t going to be there much longer and the bad guys are.”

During the interview, Cheney laced his concerns with a broader critique of Obama’s foreign and national security policy, saying Obama’s nuanced and at times cerebral approach projects “weakness” and that the president is looking “far more radical than I expected.”
deanhills
I'm most certainly am not a fan of FOX and Cheney, and I don't necessarily see them as synonymous with the Republican Party, however let's face it Handfleisch, this "exit strategy" of the President's was dumb in more than one way. It made Obama look doubly weak, as everyone could see through it as a political game, in that he was trying to appease the liberals in his own Party. Also, the world did not buy it. The media made a complete mockery of it. I can't imagine the troops would worry about it. They seem to have very strong commanders in the military I have great faith in all of them.
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
I'm most certainly am not a fan of FOX and Cheney, and I don't necessarily see them as synonymous with the Republican Party, however let's face it Handfleisch, this "exit strategy" of the President's was dumb in more than one way. It made Obama look doubly weak, as everyone could see through it as a political game, in that he was trying to appease the liberals in his own Party. Also, the world did not buy it. The media made a complete mockery of it. I can't imagine the troops would worry about it. They seem to have very strong commanders in the military I have great faith in all of them.
Too bad your post is totally off topic, which is whether Republicans should smear, ridicule and undermine the Commander in Chief for cheap political points during wartime. And you're wrong, Cheney is totally carrying the water for the party. You'd see censure and disassociation for other Repubs for his remarks otherwise, and you wouldn't see it carried on the semi-official Republican publicity agency, FOX.
Alaskacameradude
Quote:

Too bad your post is totally off topic, which is whether Republicans should smear, ridicule and undermine the Commander in Chief for cheap political points during wartime. And you're wrong, Cheney is totally carrying the water for the party. You'd see censure and disassociation for other Repubs for his remarks otherwise, and you wouldn't see it carried on the semi-official Republican publicity agency, FOX.


I always LOVE these posts. Blaming Republicans for 'smearing, ridiculing and undermining
the Commander in Chief for cheap political points during wartime'. When have I heard
those in Congress 'smearing, ridiculing and undermining the Commander in Chief for
cheap political points during wartime' before? Hmmm.....let me think. By the way, have
we 'officially' declared war? I might have missed that one.....
handfleisch
Alaskacameradude wrote:
By the way, have
we 'officially' declared war? I might have missed that one.....


Now you're using the defense that the war in Afghanistan is not a real war, so it's okay to undermine the Commander in Chief in the pursuit of conducting the war? That's bizarre on the first count, and real disrespect for our soldiers fighting and dying in Afghanistan in the second. You should be ashamed.

Alaskacameradude wrote:
Quote:

Too bad your post is totally off topic, which is whether Republicans should smear, ridicule and undermine the Commander in Chief for cheap political points during wartime. And you're wrong, Cheney is totally carrying the water for the party. You'd see censure and disassociation for other Repubs for his remarks otherwise, and you wouldn't see it carried on the semi-official Republican publicity agency, FOX.


I always LOVE these posts. Blaming Republicans for 'smearing, ridiculing and undermining
the Commander in Chief for cheap political points during wartime'. When have I heard
those in Congress 'smearing, ridiculing and undermining the Commander in Chief for
cheap political points during wartime' before? Hmmm.....let me think.

If you've finished thinking, did you come up with anything? In terms of Congressmen undermining and ridiculing Bush's specific decisions on war policy and the conduct of the war.

I guess you're saying it was just fine if Democrats ever smeared, ridiculed and undermined Bush specifically on war decisions and war policy, as it is when Cheney does it. Or is it wrong when Democrats do it, but great when Cheney does it?
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

I guess you're saying it was just fine if Democrats ever smeared, ridiculed and undermined Bush specifically on war decisions and war policy, as it is when Cheney does it. Or is it wrong when Democrats do it, but great when Cheney does it?

It's impolite (though sometimes necessary), no matter who's on which side of it.

Condemning others for doing it when you've done it yourself adds the stigma of hypocrisy.
Alaskacameradude
Democrats undermining Bush and ridiculing his war decisions.....hmmmm what to choose.

http://newsbusters.org/node/2867
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34220-2005Jan25.html
http://schakowsky.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2397&Itemid=17
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/09/_pelosi_blasts_bushs_ten_year.php

Takes all of 3 seconds to find if you actually WANT to search and find this stuff. Of COURSE
the Democrats ridiculed Bush's war decisions! Pretty much everybody knows that.....some may
not remember that many Democrats actually AGREED with Bush's war at first......they were 'for
it before they were against it'.

As for what I think in this regard, here's my opinion.
We live in America. That means we have freedom to 'dissent' with what our leaders are doing.
It's kind of what the American Revolution was about...
So, whether it is Democrats going after Bush, or Republicans going after Obama, I'm going to
defend their right to do so. Is it a 'cheap political maneuver'? Ya probably, and both sides
do this all the time. However, in my opinion, 'squishing' dissent because it is 'undermining' the
commander in chief is a bunch of crap, no matter which side is trying to squish the dissent.
handfleisch
Alaskacameradude wrote:
Democrats undermining Bush and ridiculing his war decisions.....hmmmm what to choose.

http://newsbusters.org/node/2867
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34220-2005Jan25.html
http://schakowsky.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2397&Itemid=17
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/09/_pelosi_blasts_bushs_ten_year.php

Takes all of 3 seconds to find if you actually WANT to search and find this stuff. Of COURSE
the Democrats ridiculed Bush's war decisions! Pretty much everybody knows that.....some may
not remember that many Democrats actually AGREED with Bush's war at first......they were 'for
it before they were against it'.

As for what I think in this regard, here's my opinion.
We live in America. That means we have freedom to 'dissent' with what our leaders are doing.
It's kind of what the American Revolution was about...
So, whether it is Democrats going after Bush, or Republicans going after Obama, I'm going to
defend their right to do so. Is it a 'cheap political maneuver'? Ya probably, and both sides
do this all the time. However, in my opinion, 'squishing' dissent because it is 'undermining' the
commander in chief is a bunch of crap, no matter which side is trying to squish the dissent.


Thanks for the links, but could you cite the words which you feel equivalent to Cheney's? For example, Cheney accused Obama of giving "aid and comfort to the enemy". Could you cite anything that is just as strongly undermining and offensive toward Bush by any of the people in your links, especially any high-level Democrats? In my brief review I saw mainly legitimate questions about the direction of the war, not personal attacks on the Commander in Chief.

Also, your third link is not valid, since it dates back to criticism of the invasion of Iraq months before it ever happened.
deanhills
Byline by Jennifer Harper, THE WASHINGTON TIMES 26 May 2004.
Looks as though name calling goes with the political territory of whoever is the leading party at the time:
Quote:
For Democrats, it's good vs. evil; Rhetoric increasingly likens Bush, GOP to Taliban, Saddam, Nazis.
The Democrats are talking trash these days, lobbing the left wing's frantic and often melodramatic insults at the Bush administration while Iraqi prisoner abuse is still leading the news.

"There is no longer a distinction between the rhetoric used by people on the left fringe of the Democratic Party and the rhetoric used by the leaders of the Democratic Party," Christine Iverson of the Republican National Committee said yesterday.

"This is the same vitriolic stream of political hate speech we've seen since the Democrat primary began. Anger is not an agenda, but anger is the only thing Democrats have been offering the American people. And it's going to backfire," she said.

But the Democrats are forging ahead.

"How sweet it's going to be on June 2 when the Taliban wing of the Republican Party finds out what's happening in South Dakota," said Sen. Tim Johnson during a voter rally Sunday in Sioux Falls for an upcoming special election there for a vacant at-large House seat.

He initially refused to apologize, but finally issued a guarded mea culpa yesterday.

In a Senate speech on May 10, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts noted, "Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management - U.S. management."

Such talk is "anti-American slander," according to Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby yesterday - ignored by the mainstream press and Democratic establishment.

Perennial presidential candidate Ralph Nader also got in on the act, calling President Bush a "messianic militarist" and "an out-of-control West Texas sheriff" during a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York on Monday. Mr. Nader also suggested the president be impeached for purportedly lying about the Iraq war.

Other Democrats have joined the chorus.

In an e-mailed fund-raising appeal for presidential hopeful Sen. John Kerry, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York declared that Mr. Bush's re-election would "create an America we won't recognize."

In his own appeal, Mr. Kerry solicited donations but criticized "the slow and inept response by President Bush, which has further undermined America's credibility in...
Related topics
Are atheists more likely to be fellons?
A question for athiests
Moore Sued for Misleading Interview in 'Fahrenheit 9/11'
Democrat US Senator Joe Lieberman booted for war-hawk stance
Ultimate Shooter Video Game Protagonist Battle!
The Bush Administration must be happy this week
Ergens anders surfen?
War & Research
Abortion...is it wrong?
Young Turks: Republican Senators Give FU To Obama & Coun
Tea Party Protests
Closing the Military Prison at Guantanamo
Obama down in polls
Things only a Republican could believe
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.