View Full Version : Cheney's bizarre comments
While his comments may be honest, they just seem ... to be either incredibly callous and said without care or consideration.
I am of course speaking of the "So?" reply Cheney gave in response to being queried on the majority of America's disagreement with the war.
And this as well, now :
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Politics/story?id=4513250&page=1
Even in full context, this is bizarre :
"It obviously brings home I think for a lot of people the cost that's involved in the global war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan," Cheney said in the interview, conducted in Turkey. "It places a special burden obviously on the families, and we recognize, I think — it's a reminder of the extent to which we are blessed with families who've sacrificed as they have."
"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."
The president carries the biggest burden ? Seriously? The reason I think the guy has finally lost it is that this is insulting to his very base.
ghostyouare
03/24/08, 11:10 PM
While his comments may be honest, they just seem ... to be either incredibly callous and said without care or consideration.
I am of course speaking of the "So?" reply Cheney gave in response to being queried on the majority of America's disagreement with the war.
And this as well, now :
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Politics/story?id=4513250&page=1
Even in full context, this is bizarre :
The president carries the biggest burden ? Seriously? The reason I think the guy has finally lost it is that this is insulting to his very base.
Right or wrong, there has to be a huge burden on Bush if he really is in Iraq to liberate the people, which is probably not the case but if it was then I could respect his dedication. Obviously I dont think he carries the greatest personal burden but Im sure he isnt completely apathetic to the fact that he is the cause of 4k american lives and countless iraqis.
Also, public opinion hasnt always been the best, i mean our country thought it was a good idea to colonize the Phillipines.
Right or wrong, there has to be a huge burden on Bush if he really is in Iraq to liberate the people, which is probably not the case but if it was then I could respect his dedication. Obviously I dont think he carries the greatest personal burden but Im sure he isnt completely apathetic to the fact that he is the cause of 4k american lives and countless iraqis.
Also, public opinion hasnt always been the best, i mean our country thought it was a good idea to colonize the Phillipines.
I do kind of see where Cheney is coming from on the first one, although I still feel it is just a very insulting remark to dead soldier's families. And how many of those does Cheney know personally? It isn't something anyone is really in a position to judge.
True, it just shows the same characteristic of the other remark: undisguisedly callous. Maybe he is right, but it seems like he is spitting in the face of most Americans in general here. This one is just about those who disagree with him, which I didn't find particularly unusual, just untactful. The other one though, is pretty a slap in the face to everyone who has family in the military. It really depends on how they take it, I just find it hard to believe even his staunchest supporters will like that comment.
ghostyouare
03/24/08, 11:26 PM
I agree it is a very insulting remark to that the president has the largest burden.
saysmydoctor
03/25/08, 01:25 AM
I forgot the president is carrying the gun on patrol in Tikrit. Cheney is a prick.
ghostyouare
03/25/08, 02:58 AM
I forgot the president is carrying the gun on patrol in Tikrit. Cheney is a prick.
Because thats the only way to carry a burden.
Machu505
03/25/08, 07:00 AM
I would actually not support the impeachment of Bush without the impeachment of this guy.
Thats how much I hate him.
saysmydoctor
03/25/08, 08:51 AM
Because thats the only way to carry a burden.
Triple-checked what I wrote and that's not what I said, but considering that was essentially the topic of discussion (Iraq conflict, the soldiers, etc.) when Cheney made that remark, I consider that a much heavier burden (fighting a lost cause and risking your life for it) then whatever the fuck the President is doing. I'll this out for you continously, if necessary.
ghostyouare
03/25/08, 09:22 AM
Triple-checked what I wrote and that's not what I said, but considering that was essentially the topic of discussion (Iraq conflict, the soldiers, etc.) when Cheney made that remark, I consider that a much heavier burden (fighting a lost cause and risking your life for it) then whatever the fuck the President is doing. I'll this out for you continously, if necessary.
There is a bit of a difference between sacrifice and burden.
saysmydoctor
03/25/08, 10:39 AM
There is a bit of a difference between sacrifice and burden.
At least with the President's 'burden,' he has his wife right there to 'console him.' These men are thousands of miles from family. Your oneline zingers are becoming annoying especially considering this one wasn't even thought out. I mean, sure there is a difference, but in Iraq there is a correlation, a connection. These men have the burden of knowing the possibility that they could die on patrol as well as they also realize that a mistake or miscalculation on their part could result in the death of a fellow. The possibility of self-sacrifice (without reason) and the recognition of the fact that someone's life is in your hands--those are pretty heavy burdens. Comparatively, the President is 'the decider.' Who carries the heavier burden?
The president bears the moral burden of having sent people to die, and especially of having sent them to kill. However, this is only if he has morals. Cheney certainly doesn't, but it is a moral question if Bush bears more responsibility for any one death or if the people who actually killed them are guiltier.
ghostyouare
03/25/08, 11:54 AM
The president bears the moral burden of having sent people to die, and especially of having sent them to kill. However, this is only if he has morals. Cheney certainly doesn't, but it is a moral question if Bush bears more responsibility for any one death or if the people who actually killed them are guiltier.
Exactly, that was my point, I was never saying he had a greater burden just I could see how Cheney could make such a statement. Im not so caught up in hating Bush and Cheney that I will ignorantly argue every thing they say.
saysmydoctor
03/25/08, 12:43 PM
The president bears the moral burden of having sent people to die, and especially of having sent them to kill. However, this is only if he has morals. Cheney certainly doesn't, but it is a moral question if Bush bears more responsibility for any one death or if the people who actually killed them are guiltier.
But he doesn't really consider it a burden if he calls it a necessary risk, that he has decided to take as 'The Decider,' as he so aptly titled himself.
Exactly, that was my point, I was never saying he had a greater burden just I could see how Cheney could make such a statement. Im not so caught up in hating Bush and Cheney that I will ignorantly argue every thing they say.
That was your point? You conveyed with one liners so well. I'm not caught up in hating Bush and I can't see how Cheney would make such a statement. As an elected official, he should care about the general dissent for the war and it should weigh heavily. He disregarded the entire national with a disrespectful "So?" He mind as well have said "Who gives a shit, I'm the boss." It's wholy arrogant.
ghostyouare
03/25/08, 12:48 PM
But he doesn't really consider it a burden if he calls it a necessary risk, that he has decided to take as 'The Decider,' as he so aptly titled himself.
That was your point? You conveyed with one liners so well. I'm not caught up in hating Bush and I can't see how Cheney would make such a statement. As an elected official, he should care about the general dissent for the war and it should weigh heavily. He disregarded the entire national with a disrespectful "So?" He mind as well have said "Who gives a shit, I'm the boss." It's wholy arrogant.
Right or wrong, there has to be a huge burden on Bush if he really is in Iraq to liberate the people, which is probably not the case but if it was then I could respect his dedication. Obviously I dont think he carries the greatest personal burden but Im sure he isnt completely apathetic to the fact that he is the cause of 4k american lives and countless iraqis
Im sorry but Im not sure how you didnt follow. Also, arrogant or not it doesnt make his opinion invalid and that was what we really were arguing.
saysmydoctor
03/25/08, 12:51 PM
Right or wrong, there has to be a huge burden on Bush if he really is in Iraq to liberate the people, which is probably not the case but if it was then I could respect his dedication. Obviously I dont think he carries the greatest personal burden but Im sure he isnt completely apathetic to the fact that he is the cause of 4k american lives and countless iraqis
Im sorry but Im not sure how you didnt follow. Also, arrogant or not it doesnt make his opinion invalid and that was what we really were arguing.
You're assuming that's a burden. He choose to do it, it may have a burden of choice five years ago, now he just suffers the consequences.
Personally.
ghostyouare
03/25/08, 01:10 PM
You're assuming that's a burden. He choose to do it, it may have a burden of choice five years ago, now he just suffers the consequences.
Personally.
Im not sure why it wouldnt be a burden. You really are too quick to judge him because of your hate for him.
Anyways, you arent the type to admit your wrong so I guess we end here.
But he doesn't really consider it a burden if he calls it a necessary risk, that he has decided to take as 'The Decider,' as he so aptly titled himself.
Still, from a basic moralistic point of view, Bush has the burden of being culpable. He may call it a necessary risk, but that does not mean he isn't responsible for the actions of the troops. While I think this used to be the common view, Nuremburg sort of altered it for the troops to bear responsibility for their own actions. Of course I don't believe in objective morality, but Bush does. (Or at least strongly claims to, and the majority of his supporters strongly do).
GoWaitInTheCar
03/25/08, 01:50 PM
Anyone of those men and women could of been the next Einstein and we'll never know.
ghostyouare
03/25/08, 01:59 PM
Anyone of those men and women could of been the next Einstein and we'll never know.
They also could have been the next hitlers by that logic.
saysmydoctor
03/25/08, 06:15 PM
Im not sure why it wouldnt be a burden. You really are too quick to judge him because of your hate for him.
Anyways, you arent the type to admit your wrong so I guess we end here.
I'm not quick to judge because I hate him mostly because I don't hate him. I've lived in general prosperity almost entirely because of him--at the same time, the benefits I have had aren't reflected in others surrounding me and I think that should be his true personal burden--the real greatest of all--bringing maximum prosperity to everybody.
You can't really be wrong on a judgment, anyway.
Still, from a basic moralistic point of view, Bush has the burden of being culpable. He may call it a necessary risk, but that does not mean he isn't responsible for the actions of the troops. While I think this used to be the common view, Nuremburg sort of altered it for the troops to bear responsibility for their own actions. Of course I don't believe in objective morality, but Bush does. (Or at least strongly claims to, and the majority of his supporters strongly do).
Is responsible a corollary to burdened? Maybe he doesn't consider the responsibility a burden? (He does--but that's just an arrogant persona he is portraying). The reason I don't think this was a burden is because of what I've read about the situation.
Before he was even president, he was briefed on Iraq, Saddam Hussein, and the Al-Zarqawi figure. He was more concerned about the time it would take for Baghdad to fall then the number of lives. Only when Condoleeza Rice mentioned the possibility of what she called "Fortress Baghdad," did he become concerned. If you are carrying a heavy burden, you are alert to all things that could affect the situation you are placing yourself into. He wasn't, he wasn't thinking, he was tunnel-visioned on some loose goal. He wasn't burdened, he was foolish.
I don't think the next Einstein would be dumb enough to join the army.
:rotfl:
Love As Arson
03/25/08, 06:22 PM
The ruling class rarely have moral problems with sending people to die. In fact, they do as much as they can in order to prevent the public from understanding the full scope of war. If they were at all concerned with the fate of the soldiers, then they'd be far more open about the personal consequences of the conflicts they choose to engage in. It's interesting, however, that there is no mention of the polls regarding Iraqis, nor is there any reference to the immense costs they have to bear.
ghostyouare
03/25/08, 09:22 PM
I'm not quick to judge because I hate him mostly because I don't hate him. I've lived in general prosperity almost entirely because of him--at the same time, the benefits I have had aren't reflected in others surrounding me and I think that should be his true personal burden--the real greatest of all--bringing
http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=8994037#post899403 7
From I have witnessed from you it seems that you harbor an immense amount of hatred for him.
Personally.
saysmydoctor
03/25/08, 10:12 PM
Calling him a fucktard (essentially my term for unintelligent) equates to hate? Connect straws as you see fit.
ghostyouare
03/25/08, 10:16 PM
Calling him a fucktard (essentially my term for unintelligent) equates to hate? Connect straws as you see fit.
`four words i say constantly.` was the more relevant porition of that post.
saysmydoctor
03/26/08, 09:10 AM
Thus I hate him? Or maybe I just find him extremely unintelligent on several issues? I like how you argue a statement that wasn't even the point.
s.t.e.v.e.n.
03/26/08, 10:10 AM
Calling him a fucktard (essentially my term for unintelligent) equates to hate? Connect straws as you see fit.
the problem is that when you call him that "constantly" it negates everything else you say in a lot of people's minds. I'm not saying it truly invalidates your opinion on policy, but it makes it easier for people to write you off.
RememberFminus2
03/26/08, 10:20 AM
i dont know why people listen to anything he says
s.t.e.v.e.n.
03/26/08, 10:26 AM
If you're talking about Bush or Cheney, my first guess would be that they are two of the most powerful people in the world
saysmydoctor
03/26/08, 12:55 PM
the problem is that when you call him that "constantly" it negates everything else you say in a lot of people's minds. I'm not saying it truly invalidates your opinion on policy, but it makes it easier for people to write you off.
Well, I do. I find what he does a majority of the time to be fucking dumb--but I also can acknowledge the fact, that because of him, my family has had increased money due to an increase in military and we have been able to do things we wouldn't normally have been able to.
If you're talking about Bush or Cheney, my first guess would be that they are two of the most powerful people in the world
Not a chance.
vBulletin v3.6.0, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.