Asked about Two-Thirds of Americans Opposition to War, Cheney says 'So?'

Originally posted by jsobecky
Not really, when many of the posts don't limit their attacks to Cheney, but always seem to include the entire administration. Plus, I know which way most political sentiments on this board lean.

Much of the administration deserves the scorn and ridicule heaped upon it, as well as the loathing and disgust. They are ALL personally responsible for the bills they pass, the measures they propose, their own words, actions, and how they present themselves. They are guilty of THEMSELVES.

As for "Which way the board leans"... you are again being divisive and making this Republican v. Democrats. There's a healthy heaping of both on this board, depending on where you look.

This isn't about politics, this is about responsibility to the United States People. So please, stop trying to make it about us v. them.

That's OK. In fact, that's following what is often shouted on this very forum - that America should care more about what the rest of the world thinks!

No representative of the United States government should consider a FOREIGN BODY above and beyond their own responsibilities to their nation. If the nation itself was being taken care of, then they could certainly give aid and assistance to other nations. That isn't happening here, and Dick shows his contempt for the people by not caring.

What is their typical reaction? How many times have you heard them say, "Well, then, hell! The poll must be right. I'm gonna change my ways starting right now!"

No, of course not. So why are you so surprised at Cheney?

Every politician has a responsibility to gauge the information coming in, assess what would best serve the American People, and make decisions based off of the information that is readily available. Part of that assessment should take into account what the American People themselves say.

A responsible Guardian (to reference Plato) should certainly change their course if doing so would better serve the Republic as a whole. Excusing stodgy and contemptable behavior merely because others do it and it is expected is not an argument. It is a failure to present a compelling case.

The short answer is bush and company need to be impeached for high crimes etc. removed from office and prosocuted under federal laws, then turned over to the Hague for trial as war criminals.

However that will not happen because the speaker of the house Nancy Pelosi has ruled out impeachment for a number of sound reasons some of which I agree with (to stop tit for tat impeachment as political retialation for a previous one) and others that I don't such as it wouldn't be good for the country.

Originally posted by grover
The short answer is bush and company need to be impeached for high crimes etc. removed from office and prosocuted under federal laws, then turned over to the Hague for trial as war criminals.

However that will not happen because the speaker of the house Nancy Pelosi has ruled out impeachment for a number of sound reasons some of which I agree with (to stop tit for tat impeachment as political retialation for a previous one) and others that I don't such as it wouldn't be good for the country.

So you think they should be impeached, but also don't want them to be because it would cause turmoil in the states.

Well then why the hell do you want 9/11 truth? Alien truth? Any truth? If the states found out the government was involved in 9/111, you don't think there would be turmoil?

If you don't want the truth to come out and for our leaders to be punished for their heinois crimes, why are you here? If you don't want turmoil, why don't you just succumb to the powers that be like the rest of the American populace?

---

If you believe the President and his Administration should be kicked from office, it is your duty as an American to get that done. You can't sit behind a wall claiming it would cause too must distress on the country. Doing that is just as bad as committing the crimes our Administration has.

reply to post by Double Eights


No you misunderstand me. I do want them impeached... I just understand Pelosi's arguement... that doesn't mean I agree with all of it.

reply to post by cams


Obama is a distant relative of Bush and Chaney ? Is this a figure of speech ? If not, care to share some light on this ?

Originally posted by Double Eights
I don't care when he said "so." If he replied with "So?" to a statement regarding 2/3 of the AMERICAN POPULACE opposing the Iraq War, he should be impeached.

You need to take a Civics or American History course, with regards of how the government is set up, right quick. And so do a lot of other posters in this thread. The ignorance is staggering.

To be certain, this is not an argument for or against the Iraq War. What I am commenting on is the profound ignorance about how a Representative Republic is supposed to work.

Our country was not set up for the leaders to follow the whims of public opinion. Knowing public opinion can change rapidly or be easily manipulated, the founders wanted a system wherein representatives would be trusted to do the right thing, regardless of how the winds of public opinion may blow. Of course, those who consistently disregard public opinion suffer, both in the voting booth and in the memory of popular history.

Some might say on a subject of such importance as the Iraq War, public opinion should be followed. But who determines what issues are important or not? And by what standards? Even the idea of what issues are important or not can change on a whim. For instance, if one were to watch the nightly news, one could make the determination that the Iraq War isn't important; a recent study found a staggering drop in how often Iraq is covered..

By your argument, if we should leave Iraq based on public opinion, we should have also invaded due to public opinion. ABC News found that 62% of Americans supported the war at the on set; by April that number increased to 78%. If the war had been adverted, would you then say that Bush/Cheney should be impeached for not following the whim of public opinion then?

Or does it just apply to issues you care about? What if 2/3s of public opinion was against something you were for? Would you argue and demand impeachment then?

[edit on 20-3-2008 by SaviorComplex]

reply to post by NorthWolfe CND


Let me ask.

Since you say that we didn't look into the political base.

Was going to Iraq for war part of their political base when running?

I highly doubt it....at least not openly.

So our new primeminister used to bush bash PRIOR to election now after announcing our staged withdrawl nothing is said on either side of the house. however weren't scuds wmd?the u.n. warned them resolution 14??iraq will and does control its own oil,bush's approval rating at the time needed fixing and haliburton+co needed patting.dont count on aussie leadership it has dulled down from what was hoped

Originally posted by jsobecky

Back to Cheney.

You've all seen politicians when they are asked about an opinion poll that doesn't go their way.
No, of course not. So why are you so surprised at Cheney?

You are right Js, on this part of your post, and for that I gave you a start.

Cheney , you smug arrogant comptentuous piece of S@#T ! One day karma is going to come around and get you , and get you it will . Bush is no better ! One day the people of america will have their justice and I hope it is swift . And to all the posters that defend this pile of dung , you should be ashamed of yourselves.! Who's side are you on ? This MAD DOG cares nothing about this country or the american people . all he and his cronies care about is wealth and their own ass's . I say take the whole damn bunch of them out and string em up ! Better yet where are all the LONE GUNMEN ?

reply to post by TheColdDragon

Originally posted by TheColdDragon

Originally posted by jsobecky
Not really, when many of the posts don't limit their attacks to Cheney, but always seem to include the entire administration. Plus, I know which way most political sentiments on this board lean.

Much of the administration deserves the scorn and ridicule heaped upon it, as well as the loathing and disgust. They are ALL personally responsible for the bills they pass, the measures they propose, their own words, actions, and how they present themselves. They are guilty of THEMSELVES.

The administrative doesn't pass bills. The legislative does.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
As for "Which way the board leans"... you are again being divisive and making this Republican v. Democrats. There's a healthy heaping of both on this board, depending on where you look.

This board is overwhelmingly liberal. Sorry if you can't accept that fact.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
No representative of the United States government should consider a FOREIGN BODY above and beyond their own responsibilities to their nation. If the nation itself was being taken care of, then they could certainly give aid and assistance to other nations. That isn't happening here, and Dick shows his contempt for the people by not caring.

You're dancing around here. If you cannot admit that a common theme here is that the US is arrogant and selfish and does not care what the rest of the world thinks, then you are naive. I suggest you do some reading before you make such statements.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon

What is their typical reaction? How many times have you heard them say, "Well, then, hell! The poll must be right. I'm gonna change my ways starting right now!"

No, of course not. So why are you so surprised at Cheney?

Every politician has a responsibility to gauge the information coming in, assess what would best serve the American People, and make decisions based off of the information that is readily available. Part of that assessment should take into account what the American People themselves say.

A responsible Guardian (to reference Plato) should certainly change their course if doing so would better serve the Republic as a whole. Excusing stodgy and contemptable behavior merely because others do it and it is expected is not an argument. It is a failure to present a compelling case.

You danced around the question again and failed to answer it, again. I realize that if you answered it you would have to be honest and acknowledge that what I said was true. Instead you babble about some philosophical goal and avoid the real truth completely.

reply to post by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by Double Eights
I don't care when he said "so." If he replied with "So?" to a statement regarding 2/3 of the AMERICAN POPULACE opposing the Iraq War, he should be impeached.

You need to take a Civics or American History course, with regards of how the government is set up, right quick. And so do a lot of other posters in this thread. The ignorance is staggering.
:
:
:
By your argument, if we should leave Iraq based on public opinion, we should have also invaded due to public opinion. ABC News found that 62% of Americans supported the war at the on set; by April that number increased to 78%. If the war had been adverted, would you then say that Bush/Cheney should be impeached for not following the whim of public opinion then?

Very good thread. A star for you.

Failure to follow public opinion is not an impeachable offense.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Or does it just apply to issues you care about? What if 2/3s of public opinion was against something you were for? Would you argue and demand impeachment then?

[edit on 20-3-2008 by SaviorComplex]

Then we would have been told that the average citizen is nowhere near as "enlightened" or "intelligent" as the typical ATS poster.

Originally posted by SHADOW WALKER
Better yet where are all the LONE GUNMEN ?

Well, you actually need a CIA funded coupe for that.

I'm not surprised, America will back their elected morons until we are eating out of garbage cans.

Rev. Wright called it right ----- Just another example of the historical arrogance of a white man. And, I say white man with no offense to others...

Americans always point guilty fingers at the OTHER evil doer's around the world, while turning a blind eye to the real culprits sitting at our dinner tables... Please!!!

Here is rock solid proof this mans got total disreguard for American people..... Yet, this clown Chaney will be praised in US history books as some Oil stealing, fruadulent, inside trading, American hero.

Fortunately, at this point in history, now 60% of whites are begining to smell the stench of their enslavement on Masters plantation. WOW! suddenly all those patriotic rallies behind these morons are adding up be not so --------- Patriotic

Originally posted by SHADOW WALKER
And to all the posters that defend this pile of dung , you should be ashamed of yourselves.! Who's side are you on ?

I don't see most people defending Cheney to be actually defending him, per se. They are rather arguing against the notion that politicians should follow every turn and shift in public opinion.

But to answer your question, they are on America's side, as is everyone else in this thread. Disagreement is not tantamount to not being on America's side, or being a traitor.

Originally posted by SHADOW WALKER
Better yet where are all the LONE GUNMEN ?

I sincerely hope you are not calling for the assassination of the President and/or Vice President.

Originally posted by Level X
Just another example of the historical arrogance of a white man...

..now 60% of whites are begining to smell the stench of their enslavement on Masters plantation...

Wow, this wasn't racist, bigoted, or anything. Anyone else suspect this person is just a troll without anything to contribute?

reply to post by SaviorComplex


A troll please! The angle here is not and never been racist one... It is a factual one, based on facts... Again, I mean no harm... your point is well taken. But remember my ATS friend, with facts come truth and sometimes it hurts.

Cheney's remark should come as no surprise. He is secure in his understanding that the next "false flag" attack on this nation will scare the hell out of Americans, allowing this gang to declare Marshal Law and cancel the elections as well as what is left of our freedoms. Our only hope is a well armed and couragious populace ready to lay it on the line. I hope sincerely I'm wrong, but everything seems to be in place and this gang of thugs cannot be counted on to give up the power that so intoxicates them...

reply to post by biggie smalls


I believe that congressmen have also been wiretapped by B*ush/C*heney. This would give B*ush the political ammunition (blackmail) needed to keep congress from going for impeachment or ending the war in Iraq. B*ush can wiretap anyone (since he ignores laws) he chooses. Naturally he will wiretap his political enemies first an keep files on each one. He can blackmail them anytime he wants. Remember how crooked B*ush/C*heney are, they stop at nothing...

Sort Of on topic;

About two years ago, Dick Cheney told a national television audience, “[S]ince I left Halliburton to become George Bush’s vice president, I’ve severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interests,” Cheney said. “I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven’t had now for over three years.” Even at the time, the claim wasn’t true.

A non-partisan congressional report requested by Sen. Frank Lautenberg’s (D-N.J.) office showed that Cheney still has substantial financial interests in Halliburton, including lucrative deferred compensation and more than 433,000 stock options. But instead of acknowledging the ties divesting himself from his former company, Cheney denied everything.

Lautenberg, to his enormous credit, has stuck with this story, and issued a report today explaining that the value of Cheney’s Halliburton stock options rose in value 3281% in one year.

An analysis released today by the Office of Senator Frank R. Lautenberg reveals that Vice President Cheney’s Halliburton stock options have increased in value 3,281 percent in one year. The stock options, which were worth $241,498 one year ago are now valued at $8,165,489.07. In light of the surging value of Vice President Cheney’s holdings, Senator Lautenberg reiterated his call for the Vice President to forfeit his continuing financial interest in the Halliburton Co (HAL). Vice President Cheney continues to hold 433,333 Halliburton stock options and receives almost $200,000 a year in deferred salary from Halliburton.

“As Halliburton’s fortunes rise, so do the Vice President’s, and that is wrong,” said Senator Lautenberg. “Halliburton has already raked in more than $10 billion from the Bush-Cheney Administration for work in Iraq, and they were awarded some of the first Katrina contracts. It is unseemly for the Vice President to continue to benefit from this company at the same time his Administration funnels billions of dollars to it. The Vice President should sever his financial ties to Halliburton once and for all.”www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com...

SO

Halliburton serves contaminated water to troops
Posted on September 25, 2005 by editor www.veteranstoday.com...

SO

Cheney continues to hold 433,333 Halliburton stock options, and receives a deferred salary of about $200,000 a year. According to Cheney’s most recent tax returns, he held $2.5 million in retirement accounts, much of which likely came from his former defense firm.
www.fourwinds10.com...

[edit on 20-3-2008 by scrapple]