"So" What Comment by our VP!

Have you recently returned from a 7 1/2 year vacation in another galaxy?

 JUST?

Do you avoid reading newspapers thinking they can transmit a STD?

JUST?

Have you been waiting for the TV repairman for the past 7 1/2 years to fix your set?

JUST ASKING  (I apologize for the snark)

"They do as they please and when we say stop the war at Iraq, they tell us "so". What arrogance!"

Cheney is "voting" his conscience rather than changing his position like a weather vane. He has been consistent for the past 8 years, at least. Your real complaint should be with the Democrats in Congress who say they are against the war, but keep on supporting it. 

In any event, since when is an American President or Vice President supposed to act as the plurality of the people want? That's certainly not how most Presidents (democrats and republicans and even whigs) have acted.

Our Vice-President, perhaps the finest in modern history, finds it not especially relevant that the people fail to see the merit of the campaign they voted to support.

It is another matter to see that the effort is counter-productive, or that the terrorists are gaining strength or that more attacks are happening.  Any of those things would be completely relevant.

Dick Cheney, besides being a great man, is also appropriate with his words.  He said nothing controversial at all. 

Just to be clear.... it's not about who Cheney is but what he represents!  I don't know the guy personally (and I would think nor do you). 

The question here is not Democrats vs. Republicans.  (If a democrat said what he said, I would be appalled just as same!)

The issue here is our VP's comments & our American democracy.  (This is why I didn't not mention "Cheney's" name in the original post, 'cause it could of been him saying it or some green alien).

He represents me + you = he cannot ignore my voice just because he thinks differently, we (me + you) voted him in by voting for the president.

I mentioned Iraq b/c that's the question the reporter asked.  I believe that kind of arrogance transcendence any issues.

Such a one sided, strong comment, should be questioned by the public - otherwise it will be no different than living under a dictatorship type of government.

I see no arrogance in the remark, PLU. 

When Albright and Clinton marched into an air attack and 40 billion US taxpayer dollars in Bosnia--that would be called arrogance.  They asked no one, no votes in Congress, no Un resolutions, no clear statements that this is in the fundamental national security interests of the US.  Albright and Clinton just did what they wanted to--our opinions are to be damned.  That is arrogant and dangerous.

In the case of this war, the arguments were made and debated for months.  Evidence was brought forward and a minority suggested it was a blank check.  The UN was consulted and a coalition was formed.  The war was overwhelmingly authorized by the Congress and this is how democracy comes to bear on a subject.  We are in no quagmire, we have not lost 60,000 Americans, this remains a critical place to put our national security interests.

The question is, now that really nothing bad has happened, things are progressing only more slowly than expected and the majority now thinks, for the moment, "it is not worth it"--is that an important matter?  Dick Cheney answered: "So?"

Again, if our efforts are making our enemies stronger--that is a point.  If MORE terror attacks are happening--that is a point.  But if the public loves the war and then likes it less--this is not very interesting or important or unusual.  During every war there are periods in which the public is discouraged or disheartened.  As Cheney said bluntly, there are "fluctuations."

What is your point? 

Mr. Friedman,

You keep on justifying the Iraq war, that is just a distraction from the real point.

VP's "so" comment:

The point here is that we don't want an elected president and it's
appointed staff to high jack our democracy due to their personal needs.
This is how dictatorship and tyranny begins (yes I can see how this
sounds strange to some, but if you ever lived in a country that has
dictatorship, then you recognize it's onset!)

And what you are trying to say is that we need to keep on ignoring the
people's voice just because the other (the democrat or republican) did
before? In my opinion, that is childish! You need to learn from errors
and improve.

Iraq War:

For those who want the real facts about Iraq war, you should watch
Frontline, it's on pbs.org. It talks about the speeches given in UN and
how incredibly inaccurate they were (and they knew it!). The 4000
troops that have died is because of our President's inability to use
words to make peace. Words are more powerful than guns, only if you
know how to use it. The Iraq Wars is another example that shows how few
people who make up their minds, will create information to support
their goal so they can reach their goal at no cost. Most of the US was
against the Iraq War and our soldiers had no choice but to do what the
president wanted.

By the way did you just compare the democrats vs. republicans....and
you compared an actual Genocide in Boznia vs. Iraq war that was created
by lies? hmmm...

Peace, Love, and Unity could make peace and unity (let's leave the love to Fred and Ginger) with Mr. Friedman.  I'd like to see PLU's method of using words properly.  This should be instructive for all of us.

We seem to have diverted from the original post. However, this quote from PLU should not be ignored:

"Words are more powerful than guns, only if you
know how to use it"

Here's a more accurate assesment of the 20th century: 

Words = Holocaust

Guns = Israel

Enough said.

Jon,

What are you talking about?  Not enough said.  Use words. 

M'dear Naftali,

"I'd like to see PLU's method of using words properly.  This should be instructive for all of us."

I do my best to articulate my point without being hurtful.  Anyhow, this is a discussion  room and not a classroom.  Does Mr. Friedman and you have your opinion, yes of course, and that doesn't bother me as long as I have mine!  And both of our voices should be heard.  That is the beauty of democracy, and I will fight for that.

"Peace, Love, and Unity could make peace and unity (let's leave the love to Fred and Ginger) with Mr. Friedman."

In my opinion it shows weakness when you divert from the topic and attempt to insult someone.

THE POINT OF MY BLOG: 

You know what scares me the most and why I started this blog.

I believe it is so dangerous not to be able to get criticized by your own party when mistakes are made.  You need to have the confidence to sustain that and the humility to except that.  If you don't, then how different is that from a dictatorship and radical thought.  You give that individual heck of a lot of power when you see no fault in them (when they are actually showing fault), and it makes it even worse when that individual is in Government and has such a high power.  (If you think in a scientifically, then think of the bell curve, I want my government to be in the middle of that bell curve, not the outskirts.) 

Jon, I'm sorry I cannot follow your thought either.

My thoughts are that Peace begins with you and your mirror, and then extends to your personal relationships.

Personally, I think it's a tough struggle, and you'll find yourself in more than a few arguments.  And so, knowing how to get through that struggle is an important skill. I haven't argued with Mr. Friedman--yet.  I'm pugnacious around these parts.  Especially with one or two, or three, or four, or five, or six regulars.  Or seven, or eight.

Or nine.  But I felt that Mr. Friedman made a thoughtful point.          

PLU, I believe you respond to the VP with far too much emotion.  Again, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan was approved in a democratic process and debated over many months.  The war will continue if an administration is elected that sees fit to continue the effort, therefore, to some extent, whether or not we continue the fight will depend on the electoral fortune of either Mr. McCain or Mr. Obama. Bush/Cheney have an electoral mandate to fight this cause so it is reasonable to find a fluctuation in support not very meaningful. 

Further, the fact that one has a minority position has nothing to do with the position's righteousness.  Surely, as Jews, we would be the first to recognize that concept. If someone was to suggest I must be wrong or arrogant to live my life the way I live it in contrast with over 99% of humanity--I would be pleased to say that simply because 99% of humanity disagrees does not make my choices either wrong or arrogant.

Your perception that Mr. Cheney is a radical is without foundation.  I believe you hold your position only because you are not willing to understand the question from something beyond your own biases.  VP Cheney is very involved with the young heroes who are on the ground fighting the fight and they are very clear that the battle is very worthwhile and important.  He is also very involved with understanding the reaction of our enemies and very clear that are efforts are causing our enemies grave damage.  Given the facts, therefore, why is it important if there is opposition from people outside of the process?  So? is a blunt response to a rather unimportant question.  Give the VP credit for answering the question in a succinct manner. 

I also find it damnable that you have a name of Peace, Love and Unity and criticize a noble effort aimed at making peace in the world.  "Peace" is a nice hope--actually going out and making peace out of a very tough situation is very laudable.  Further peace, real peace is very different from pacifism--which tends to encourage violence and not peace.

You conclude:The Iraq Wars is another example that shows how few
people who make up their minds, will create information to support
their goal so they can reach their goal at no cost. Most of the US was
against the Iraq War and our soldiers had no choice but to do what the
president wanted.

Resp. But the war was voted on democratically and supported by the overwhelming majority when it began and for its first several years.  Further, you surely know that an overwhelming majority of military support the President and VP Cheney is greeted by huge crowds and cheers when he visits.  What could you be saying here?  They really want Obama and want to run away?  I wish that you could gain a connection with the truth and the reality. 

Naftali you are definitely struggling to understand the point of this blog.

And you have a lot of time on your hands to waste to think of things to rhyme w/ people's screennames... grow up.

David, It is very sad to see how closed off your mind is, that you cannot see anything more than what the presidential administration tells you.  Insulting is very easy isn't it!

"I wish that you could gain a connection with the truth and the reality."

Resp. Go to PBS.ORG and find out when FRONTLINE is on and watch it, it's a documentary, it's full of factoids, then go to the world and claim how justly the Iraq War is.

If you want to proove that the IRAQ WAR was right, then start a new blog, oh pretty please, 'cause this blog nothing to do with it!

For making sure I stay cynical.  First of all, I don't know what rhymes you are talking about, and second, I have thought for a while that folks who make a point of proclaiming they are about peace, aren't.  Not even close. 

Thank you so much for the backhanded slap.  It feels so full of Peace Unity and Love.

Just full of it. 

Naftali and PLU, please replace my earlier post with the following (I used verbs this time):

 PLU had written: "Words are more powerful than guns, only if you
know how to use it" I think that is only accurate when your adversaries are reasonable, generally moral people. See, for example Gandhi v British Empire or MLK v American bigotry. You get a different result when your adversaries hate you more than they love life.

We've tried your idealistic apporach of peace in our time before and it didn't work.  The Islamic fascists are no different than others who have sought to destroy Jews and freedom. See, e.g., Hitler, Stalin, et al. (Ok, I acknowldge that the current leaders of Iran and Al Queda are not as smart or talenetd as those past despots, but you get my point).

Recent history shows that peace through strength (i.e. guns) works and peace through words does not. Is that clear now? 

George Bush and DIck Cheney get this point and will be rememebered favorably in history for that (even if they are judged poorly on execution of  the war itself--but then Washington, Lincoln, FDR and Reagan were judged poorly on execution of their wars at varous points in their presidencies too)

PLU, yes, I saw the PBS show and it is true to form concerning many of these biased left-wing programs--they give a very small picture of the truth.

The President did a very good job presenting this war to the public.  Since Iraq offered no imminent threat, the choice was between two costly outcomes--the price of not going in and the price of fighting the war.  He reasoned it was likely that the cost of not going in would be more than the cost of fighting.  The public listened and voted.  He agrees we made the best choice and I surely agree.

You refuse or you are unable to debate the proposition.

I previously penned a response to you and all you want to do is send me to PBS to watch a propaganda show--which I did watch--this is no response.

Bush was re-elected in 2004 with the war on the table front and center.  The people voted for what they thought was the best option--this is nature of democracy.  But it is not sensible to complain that YOUR point of view is not being heard since in a democracy the people get to vote.

You cannot demonstrate in any way that the VP said anything odd or unjustifiable or "arrogant." 

No one on this blog has the guts to admit their mistakes.  If you cannot defend what you have to say, kindly withdrawal your comments.

Jon and Naftali are not won over by empty attacks and  I thank them for their response.

 someone should go and learn about American Democracy!

Maybe you should learn basic English spelling and grammar, as well as how to form a coherent argument, before posting here with the big boys.

And I say this as someone who's also been against the Iraq war from day one.

Incoherent, teenage-level ramblings do nothing to help the case against Bush/Cheney.

Nobody said user blogs should be grammatically correct or up to your personal standards, if this blog is not up to your expectations... move on, it's a USER BLOG, not YOUR BLOG. lolololol

I actually read through this blog.... and it not has nothing to do with the IRAQ WAR, or Bush/Cheney.