Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Cheney Validates Al-Qaeda

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-22-07 09:39 AM
Original message
Cheney Validates Al-Qaeda
Edited on Thu Feb-22-07 09:48 AM by bigtree
February 22, 2007


"You cannot say as the president of the United States, 'I welcome disagreement in a time of war,' and then have the vice president of the United States go out of the country and mischaracterize a position of the speaker of the House and in a manner that says that person in that position of authority is acting against the national security of our country." -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi responds to VP Cheney


After years of relentlessly questioning the patriotism of Democrats and critics of the Bush administration's Iraq occupation, Dick Cheney has come out of his bunker to officially declare that congressional opposition to their latest escalation would "validate al-Qaeda," presumably moving Democrats one step closer to being declared outright enemy combatants by the increasingly autocratic White House.

In an ABC interview Wednesday in Tokyo, Cheney explained that the reason other countries were abandoning the U.S. in Iraq was because the occupation was going so well. "'I look at it and see it is actually an affirmation that there are parts of Iraq where things are going pretty well,' Cheney told ABC.

'I think if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we will do is validate the al-Qaida strategy,' Cheney said. 'The al-Qaida strategy is to break the will of the American people ... try to persuade us to throw in the towel and come home, and then they win because we quit.'

The "will of the American people," however, is under no threat from al-Qaeda, rather, their will is being actively thwarted by Bush and his republican obstructionists who have spent the months since the repudiating election - which replaced their enabling majority - ducking and dodging every effort to get them to change course and bring our troops home like voters demanded in November.

Cheney and his administration have spent the time they were expected to craft a way home for our soldiers, creating even more 'enemies' and stoking even more extremism and resistance in Iraq as they escalate the very military presence that our own intelligence agencies have repeatedly said is fueling "jihad" and recruiting more Iraqis to violent reprisals against our troops and against the new puppet Iraqi authority. Every U.S. action in the new escalation has drawn even more Iraqis into violent confrontation as the U.S./Iraqi government forces worm their way back into the shell-shocked Baghdad neighborhoods and inch their way back into the battle-torn neighborhoods in al-Anbar looking to pick a fight with the "Iraqi al-Qaeda."

As Democrats and others have repeatedly told the administration, the mandate Congress gave Bush in the original authorization in the wake of 9-11 was to apprehend the perpetrators of the attacks and bring them to justice. There was no merging of missions with the discredited Iraq diversion which postured against non-existent WMDs, mushroom clouds, and an al-Qaeda 'training camp' which was actually protected in the north against Saddam's wrath by the U.S. no-fly zone.

The actual 'war on terror' was intended by Congress to be waged in Afghanistan against the 'Taliban', and against bin-Laden's gang, not in Iraq. Democrats want our troops to come home from Iraq, but they also are demanding that Bush devote a fraction of the resources that he's squandered in Iraq, in Afghanistan against the original threat from the original suspects and accomplices of 9-11.

It doesn't take an experienced strategist to realize that al-Qaeda wants nothing more than to keep us bogged down in Iraq while they enhance their propaganda and influence from Afghanistan and beyond with impunity. They are inspiring a new generation of followers by their mere freedom from prosecution for the five years following the attacks, and by the example of U.S. aggression and imperialism which Bush and Cheney so obligingly provide by escalating their repressive Iraqi occupation.

There is nothing more 'validating' to al-Qaeda and their followers of their hatred of the U.S., than the images from Abu-Ghraib, or any of the atrocities and destruction committed by our occupying forces, either deliberate or collateral as they are commanded by the White House to press on. No one in the U.S. has enabled al-Qaeda more than Bush in his blundering invasion and occupation of Iraq which fractured the historic coalition which came together after the 9-11 attacks, and in his squandering of the support he got for his Iraq diversion as it became clear he intended to own Iraq rather than rescue the sovereign nation for Iraqis.

Now, as Bush and Cheney are in their last stand in Iraq to cow and intimidate Iraqis into accepting the autocratic rule of the new U.S. junta, everyone who opposes their swaggering advance is subject to their branding with the al-Qaeda moniker. It's of little matter to Cheney and his White House that they are the main promoters of the erstwhile rebels, both in Iraq and beyond, with their insistence that every resistance to their strident aggression abroad is a bump-up in prestige for their convenient al-Qaeda nemesis.

I wonder what the weather's like in Guantanamo?


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-22-07 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
1. If Cheney and Bush did declare Dems to be
enemy combatants, what do you think would happen?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SutaUvaca Donating Member (472 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-22-07 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Torches and pitchforks.
I have trouble enough just making ends meet day to day, but such a declaration would get me in my car headed to the monsters' caves to drive them out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-22-07 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. the defeat of the republican party
Edited on Thu Feb-22-07 11:54 AM by bigtree
they are well on their way
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wicket Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-22-07 11:58 AM
Response to Original message
4. Excellent post!
K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-22-07 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. thanks, wicket
mustn't give Dick free reign
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-22-07 01:52 PM
Response to Original message
6. White House does not budge on Cheney comments
Edited on Thu Feb-22-07 01:52 PM by bigtree
The White House on Thursday refused to give any ground in a row between Vice President Cheney and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) after the Speaker tried to reach out to President Bush to complain about comments Cheney had made about her and Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.).

That comment resulted in a stinging response from Pelosi, who accused Cheney of continuing to "question the patriotism of those of us in Congress who challenge the Bush administration's misguided policies in Iraq."

Pelosi added that Cheney's "latest attack is beneath the office of the vice president, especially at a time of war."

The Speaker added that she hopes Bush "will repudiate and distance himself from the vice president's remarks," and she tried to call the president Wednesday to discuss the issue. Pelosi failed to get Bush on the line but talked to White house Chief of Staff Josh Bolten.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino rejected the notion that Cheney was questioning the patriotism of Pelosi or Murtha.

She added that both Bush and Cheney believe that Pelosi's and Murtha's plan "would leave the region in chaos."

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Fro...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wicket Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-22-07 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. So typical
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-22-07 10:34 PM
Response to Original message
8. A portion of the transcript from Air Force One follows
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp...

Q Dana, the Vice President made some comments about Democrats and their agenda and how it would -- I don't remember the exact wording, but I know you've talked to Ann Compton about this -- just being that it would encourage terrorists in Iraq. My question is, Nancy Pelosi called the President, didn't get him, apparently talked to Josh Bolten. Is the President going to return her call?

MS. PERINO: Josh Bolten did talk to Nancy Pelosi on behalf of the President. I'm not exactly sure the time of the call, I know the President was traveling yesterday. The bottom line is this: The Vice President was not in any way questioning anyone's patriotism. He was questioning the strategy. And anyone who puts forward a strategy has to be able to explain the consequences of those actions if they were to move forward.

What the President and the Vice President believe is that Nancy Pelosi's and Representative Murtha's plan is one that would not help secure our country and would leave the region in chaos. And securing Baghdad is absolutely critical. So it was a questioning of the merits of their proposal, not their patriotism.

Q Was he at all out of line in making those comments?

MS. PERINO: The Vice President out of line? Absolutely not. He was questioning the merits of the -- of their proposal. And I think if you go up and take a look back at some of the things that they've said about the President, the tables could be turned. But we're not making the same accusations.

Q I'm sorry, just to follow up, the President hasn't called her back. Do you know if he's going to?

MS. PERINO: Chief of Staff Josh Bolten spoke to the Speaker on the President's behalf. As far as I know there's no -- there's been no other phone call.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Sep 21st 2014, 10:06 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC