Cheney says Bush bearing largest burden of Iraq war

[gauchogolfer]

ABC news link (http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Politics/story?id=4513250&page=1)

"The president carries the biggest burden, obviously," Cheney said. "He's the one who has to make the decision to commit young Americans, but we are fortunate to have a group of men and women, the all-volunteer force, who voluntarily put on the uniform and go in harm's way for the rest of us."

Raddatz noted that some soldiers, Air Force members, and Marines have been on multiple deployments and have been sent back to Iraq because of the stop-loss policy — an involuntary extension of a service member's enlistment contract. The Army alone says 58,000 US soldiers have been redeployed to war because of the stop-loss policy.

I didn't think that he could get any more deluded, but I was wrong.

[Pittsax]

Wow...just.....wow

[mactastic]

That's what you get from a chickenhawk who refused to serve when his nation called while supporting the same war effort he was avoiding...

Talk about deluded. I'm trying to decide who's more deluded -- Bush, who thinks war is some romantic fun-fest, or Cheney, who thinks Bush has the worst burden on the war.

[Iscariot]

I believe that the soldiers who were killed or ruthlessly mangled and crippled carried the biggest burden, but I have been wrong, from time to time.

[djellison]

Quite rightly people have said it's the friends and family of the 4000 dead soldiers who carry the real burden, and the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians killed.

Sadly it is doubtful Bush will ever realize what he's done. If he does, he'll have a burden beyond belief. Sadly, such a revelation required an amount of intelligence that he doesn't have.

[IJ Reilly]

Number of military funerals attended by George W. Bush: still zero.

At least we now know the reason why. It would be just too tough on him.

[mactastic]

If he's not tough enough to handle a military funeral, how is he going to be tough enough to stand up to America's enemies?

[Dont Hurt Me]

These draft dodgers who wouldnt serve dragged us into this Iraq war knowing Saddam didnt do 911,didnt have WMDs and worked hard to fake evidence anywhere they could. And get this...no one is accountable,not Bush,Cheney,Rove,Hastert,Delay,Libbey or any of the other draft dodging republicans.

Bushco is out of touch with America and its people.

There, I think I have said this enough times now.:p

[skunk]

There, I think I have said this enough times now.:pIt bears repeating.

[stevento]

excuse me dick, i think the ones carrying the biggest burden of the war are those who give their lives for it!!!!!!!!!
american and iraqi, soldier and civilian alike NOT THE IDIOT WHO SITS IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND GOES "oh man $4 for gas? i didnt know that!"

[Dont Hurt Me]

It bears repeating.Should I say it again?:D How did we as a country sink so low and who really thinks that democracy can be slapped on a Islamic state like Iraq? Is it worth it ? "Not including the oil companys mind you."

[Badandy]

These draft dodgers who wouldnt serve dragged us into this Iraq war knowing Saddam didnt do 911

The evidence was not there, true. But from the very beginning, I've always thought that the reason we went there was to protect Israel, a huge ally strategically.



,didnt have WMDs

He's used WMD's in the past, I don't think it was that unreasonable to assume that he still had them.

And get this...no one is accountable,not Bush,Cheney,Rove,Hastert,Delay,Libbey or any of the other draft dodging republicans.

Right, because as we all know, there wasn't a huge movement in the Vietnam era of liberals dodging the draft. People of all political persuasions dodged the draft, stop laying those problems on the GOP doorstep. Of course, the point you're making about hypocrisy is noted, and true.

Bushco is out of touch with America and its people.

I'm still amazed any republicans still like him. I am a republican, and I can't stand him.

[Dont Hurt Me]

I use to be also, but we must be honest Bush had lots of help to do all these things from the GOP.

Im thinking what a trillion dollars could have done HERE AT HOME!

[Qoxiivi]

"I believe that the soldiers who were killed or ruthlessly mangled and crippled carried the biggest burden, but I have been wrong, from time to time."

I'm not going to win any friends for this, but although it's inherently nonsensical to objectively evaluate one victim's suffering against another's, if we're doing so one could argue that innocent civilian casualties of a war which was none of their doing (and is recking their home country) carry a 'bigger burden' than those of the occupying armies.

Even despite the desperately, desperately sad fact that most men and women in the aforementioned armies are operating under the illusion they were set to deliver democracy and freedom to a crushed and impoverished people courtesy of western civilization's earnest, benevolent and collective concern. Rather than merely to facilitate the manipulation of Iraq's resources and geography for political and economic enrichment under the facade of humanitarian intervention.

[mactastic]

The evidence was not there, true. But from the very beginning, I've always thought that the reason we went there was to protect Israel, a huge ally strategically.
Do you have any evidence of that, or is this more of your "logic"?

He's used WMD's in the past, I don't think it was that unreasonable to assume that he still had them.
Of course he used them in the past! We sold them to him!

We also knew that anything we sold him was not in any condition to be considered a WMD in 2003.

Right, because as we all know, there wasn't a huge movement in the Vietnam era of liberals dodging the draft. People of all political persuasions dodged the draft, stop laying those problems on the GOP doorstep. Of course, the point you're making about hypocrisy is noted, and true.
The issue isn't draft dodging. It's the hypocrisy of draft dodging while supporting that very war you aren't willing to fight, aka being a chickenhawk.

[skunk]

The evidence was not there, true. But from the very beginning, I've always thought that the reason we went there was to protect Israel, a huge ally strategically.So he lied to the American people and the UN about the reasons for destroying Iraq whichever way you put it? Is that what he swore to do at his inauguration?

He's used WMD's in the past, I don't think it was that unreasonable to assume that he still had them.So an assumption is a good enough reason to launch a war and destroy a nation? I hope you aren't planning to limbo dance under that bar.

[Badandy]

Do you have any evidence of that, or is this more of your "logic"?


I don't need a source.

"But from the very beginning, I've always thought that the reason we went there was to protect Israel, a huge ally strategically."


The issue isn't draft dodging. It's the hypocrisy of draft dodging while supporting that very war you aren't willing to fight, aka being a chickenhawk.

Agreed, which I mentioned in the part of the post you quoted.

[skunk]

"But from the very beginning, I've always thought that the reason we went there was to protect Israel, a huge ally strategically."Have you heard of the PNAC? It's all in there in black and white.

[mactastic]

I don't need a source.

"But from the very beginning, I've always thought that the reason we went there was to protect Israel, a huge ally strategically."
But what do you base this upon? Anything? A hunch? Something someone from the Bush administration has said?

And if you believe that to be the case, do you feel like the Bush administration lied to the public about the reasons for war?

Agreed, which I mentioned in the part of the post you quoted.
Just wanted to be sure because you were downplaying the significance of avoiding service in wars you support just prior to your mention of it in the part of the post I quoted.

[stevento]

"But from the very beginning, I've always thought that the reason we went there was to protect Israel, a huge ally strategically."


at that time i was 14 and i thought since we already had bases in afghanistan that we were going into iraq to set up a vice grip on iran.
because it just didn't make any sense to go to war based on the evidence that was being presented at that time i thought bush has got to have something evil up his sleeve

[savanahrose]

Im thinking what a trillion dollars could have done HERE AT HOME!


Hasn't most of this money been borrowed from China? By the time we pay off the interest it will be alot more than this. America is in deep doody. It will suffer more if McCain gets in there. Oh heck we just needed Ron Paul in the oval office. He would have gotten us out of there and found ways to do away with the debt. :p

[leekohler]

I believe that the soldiers who were killed or ruthlessly mangled and crippled carried the biggest burden, but I have been wrong, from time to time.

Yep- and my cousin goes back next month. :mad: This crap has got to stop.

[sowillo14]

Read this, I'm sure you will love it............
Can anyone explain to me how these idiots going completely against the constitution have not been impeached? In the early 1900's they would have been hanged publicly.
http://infowars.net/articles/march2008/200308Cheney.htm

[miloblithe]

...I'm not going to win any friends for this, but although it's inherently nonsensical to objectively evaluate one victim's suffering against another's, if we're doing so one could argue that innocent civilian casualties of a war which was none of their doing (and is recking their home country) carry a 'bigger burden' than those of the occupying armies...

To play devil's advocate, returning soldiers tend to face, as I understand it, the incredible hardship of having had a traumatic experience coupled with the trauma that no one wants to hear about it, often not even or especially not family and friends.

Survivors of a conflict in one's own country at least, in theory, live in a society that is interested in their suffering.

But maybe I'm confusing "burden" with something else.

In the end though, I agree, it's a somewhat meaningless to compare.

[sowillo14]

Yep- and my cousin goes back next month. :mad: This crap has got to stop.

Well I hope you don't think any of these jokes that are called candidates will stop it. It doesn't matter anymore, INVADE IRAN, they are a threat to Israel. Sacrifice yourselves for Israel, and we will have plenty of illegal Mexicans fill the jobs you leave behind, and we'll save money in the end. Only one man vowed to put an end to it at any cost, and you all laughed him out. :rolleyes:

[Badandy]

But what do you base this upon? Anything? A hunch? Something someone from the Bush administration has said?


Not really based on facts, just some thinking. It's really not important, I just thought it. I don't mean Bush said it was to protect Israel, I just got that feeling.


Just wanted to be sure because you were downplaying the significance of avoiding service in wars you support just prior to your mention of it in the part of the post I quoted.

No, I still think it's bad.

[fridgeymonster3]

The quote said "carries the biggest burden" not "bears the biggest burden". I don't think many would argue that soldiers and their families bear the biggest burden of any war; however, Bush does carry the biggest burden because it was basically his and Cheney's efforts that caused us to go to war. He carries the burden of bringing the US to war, a burden that he carries the most even though other officials had some input. There is a different between the two.

P.S. I hate the war, Bush, Cheney, etc. so please don't yell at me for kind of defending Cheney. He is a turd. :D (can I say that or will I get a timeout?)

[hulugu]

The quote said "carries the biggest burden" not "bears the biggest burden". I don't think many would argue that soldiers and their families bear the biggest burden of any war; however, Bush does carry the biggest burden because it was basically his and Cheney's efforts that caused us to go to war. He carries the burden of bringing the US to war, a burden that he carries the most even though other officials had some input. There is a different between the two.

P.S. I hate the war, Bush, Cheney, etc. so please don't yell at me for kind of defending Cheney. He is a turd. :D (can I say that or will I get a timeout?)

Huh?
I don't understand the distinction between bear and carry.

I would say that Bush bears responsibility, while the troops bear the consequences of the war, both physical and emotional.

[NAG]

I'm not buying it was entirely Bush's idea. The neocons and business buddies were all over this way too fast for this to not have been the idea of his political backers/puppeteers.

I'm not sure if Bush loses sleep over what he's got us into, if he actually feels remorse over this needless war and the lives, both american and iraqi, that he has screwed up for the almighty dollar.

Saying he has the biggest burden is just romanticizing this. They're trying to frame it as some movie where the good guy is sad for whatever reason and eventually overcomes it in the end. Maybe if he had family over there he could say that. I don't know how anyone who is so desensitized to the violence can say that.

[Iscariot]

"I believe that the soldiers who were killed or ruthlessly mangled and crippled carried the biggest burden, but I have been wrong, from time to time."

I'm not going to win any friends for this, but although it's inherently nonsensical to objectively evaluate one victim's suffering against another's, if we're doing so one could argue that innocent civilian casualties of a war which was none of their doing (and is recking their home country) carry a 'bigger burden' than those of the occupying armies.

Even despite the desperately, desperately sad fact that most men and women in the aforementioned armies are operating under the illusion they were set to deliver democracy and freedom to a crushed and impoverished people courtesy of western civilization's earnest, benevolent and collective concern. Rather than merely to facilitate the manipulation of Iraq's resources and geography for political and economic enrichment under the facade of humanitarian intervention.

No, I agree. The soldiers were just picked as a victim more or less arbitrarily. Any victim is carrying a greater burden than that man.

The quote said "carries the biggest burden" not "bears the biggest burden". I don't think many would argue that soldiers and their families bear the biggest burden of any war; however, Bush does carry the biggest burden because it was basically his and Cheney's efforts that caused us to go to war. He carries the burden of bringing the US to war, a burden that he carries the most even though other officials had some input. There is a different between the two.

P.S. I hate the war, Bush, Cheney, etc. so please don't yell at me for kind of defending Cheney. He is a turd. :D (can I say that or will I get a timeout?)

Carrying a burden would mean acknowledging both responsibility and loss, something he doesn't seem capable of doing.

[NAG]

Bush is either a huge idiot or the most evil genius alive. Probably idiot. I think this neocon buddies are idiots too...although they're probably more evil than idiotic. War makes those scum bags money, sadly.

[IJ Reilly]

Not really based on facts, just some thinking. It's really not important, I just thought it. I don't mean Bush said it was to protect Israel, I just got that feeling.

The neocons had all sorts of bad reasons, of which this wasn't one.

[solvs]

There, I think I have said this enough times now.:p
As someone who also once supported these bozos (but to be fair, I only did right after 9/11) I think we forgive you for being so angry. You supported someone you thought would be good, or at least better than what we had. At the time, I didn't even notice, didn't think it would make a difference, so I guess I understand where you're coming from. If I supported someone that much who turned out to be such a disaster, I think I'd be as pissed off as you are. Probably even more than someone who only supported him briefly as I did, and I'm sure more than someone who always hated them. It's just sad that you have to keep reminding his defenders that you used to be a Republican. Disliking how bad things are, and keep getting, shouldn't be a partisan thing.

He's used WMD's in the past, I don't think it was that unreasonable to assume that he still had them.
Always thought it was strange though that they didn't actually wait for proof either way when they weren't an immediate threat even if they had them the way Bin Laden (who actually attacked us) was. Smearing those who spoke out against it, like the Wilsons and Clarke, both of whom were right about everything else. But as said, we shouldn't have gone on an assumption. Especially since we now know this was planned by PNAC long before 9/11, and that Saddam really didn't have a plan to kill Bush Sr.

Of course, the point you're making about hypocrisy is noted, and true.
Yeah, it's the hypocrisy that kills it.

I'm still amazed any republicans still like him. I am a republican, and I can't stand him.
There is hope for you yet. :p Seriously though, that's what I don't get. He's a terrible conservative. There's reason we call them neocons. As has been said many a time he hasn't done anything for social Republicans like abortion, fiscally his policies may seem to be benefiting the rich temporarily, but are terrible for the economy in general, and if you support the wars, they aren't going so well thanks to him and those he and his administration have running it. Not to mention all that support the troops talk that's backed up with a lot of action that's anything but. When your own commanders are quitting the military to write books about how bad things are, you know you screwed up. But he still has support from the 30%ers. For some reason. It's not logic. If it was, if they were paying attention, he would be everything they hate.

Im thinking what a trillion dollars could have done HERE AT HOME!
That's just for now. I've been hearing over 3 trillion counting everything. When all is said and done though, even if it ends by next year, we're looking at long term costs around 5 trillion.

I'm not buying it was entirely Bush's idea.
It wasn't. PNAC has been planning it since Bush Sr. It's not even a conspiracy. Used to be right there on their website of what they wanted to accomplish. Kristol, Cheney, and a bunch of others were all involved with that, if that tells you anything.


Oh, and sorry to cross post, but here are those who have the real burden:

Six of the Fallen, in Words They Sent Home (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/us/25dead.web.html?_r=3&ex=1364184000&en=06d9ecc2bf2df533&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)

It's a long article, but if you really support the troops, it's an eye opener.

[MACDRIVE]

I'd say after watching PBS FRONTLINE's "Bush's War" that the three most major knuckle heads were Wolfolwitz, Rumsfeld, and Bremer. Yeah ... it was Bush and Cheney that made the stupid decision to go to war for no good reason, but it was those other three that totally screwed up how the war was executed.