And now a word from your vice pResident…
From Cheney’s interview with Fox News’s Bret Baier:
“QUESTION: On the debate about Iraq at home, do you believe that someone who opposes the war wants terrorists to win?
“THE VICE PRESIDENT: I think they have to be responsible for the consequences of the policy recommendations they make. If, in fact, they advocate complete withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, then they are, to some extent, accountable for what would happen when that policy followed, what happens inside Iraq, what kind of encouragement that might give to al Qaeda. . . .
“So if you’re going to be a public official advocating withdrawal from Iraq, you, in fact, are also saying that what you’re recommending is validating the al Qaeda strategy.”
so who thinks we should call Castle’s office and find out if he supports this stance? I personally think we should. Maybe I will do that tomorrow….whadya think?
Did I miss something? What exactly is wrong with this statement. Withdrawl from Iraq and Al Qaeda wins, gets emboldened, and can divert all Iraq efforts elsewhere….wonder where that might be….
I actually found the statement ironic. To say that you have to be held accountable for policy decisions and the unintended consequences thereof, is irony at its finest.
I also think that AQ wants us to live in fear, burn all of the respect that we have in the rest of the world and to fire up previously unengaged Muslims to rise up and fight the US. Does Dick get the blame for doing exactly what AQ wants, too?
I can’t wait to hear what John Stewart makes out of Cheney’s obversation about being responsible for the consequences of ones policy recommendations.
Chris,
yes you did miss something, it isn’t a zero sum game. Perhaps that is where your error is.
also, Iraq is not Al Qaeda. The 2 are not interchangeable, hence my post last week about who are we at war with.
We need to fight terrorism globally. If we leave Iraq terrorism goes on regardless.
So I guess based on your assumption that if we stay and “WIN” in Iraq, terrorism is defeated?
No offense but that is way to simplistic a view and borders on nievity.
“We need to fight terrorism globally. If we leave Iraq terrorism goes on regardless.”
Agreed, but the terrorists cannot resist fighting us in Iraq. Unlike them, we need to operate on a physicial battlefield. For better or worse, Iraq is it for now. If we win in Iraq will terrorism be defeated. No. But many more terrorists will be dead and if we humiliate them ultimately, it will severely reduce recruitment for them.
And if democracy takes and the Iraqis flourish under it, will make it even harder to recruit. For most, the opportunity for a much better life will win out over the 72 virgins ultimately.
This is a zero-sum game situation. We lose here….WE LOSE. No regrouping and moving on. GAME OVER.
Pardon if I would prefer if we avoided that.
terrorism is used by people that feel they have no political voice…hence the reason the Baker Hamilton group recommended we talk to the neighboring countries bro.
Trying to defeat terrorism is like our stupid “war on drugs” it isn’t going to happen by the ridiculous “kill em all” attitude. so just b/c we set up a base in Iraq to draw them in, doesn’t mean that we can kill them all.
besides, we seem to be moving away from the reason we are in Iraq to begin with, fighting terrorism is a smokescreen to securing our Energy needs.