What to do in Iraq? Let's ask the Vice-President's daughter!

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

America faces an existential threat, doncha know.

Oh yeah, and our troops will win if we let them, so we should apparently ignore all that civillian rape/collateral damage/war crimes bunk.

Also, this is Cheney's elder daughter, not the pregnant lesbian one.

― kingfish moose tracks (kingfish 2.0), Wednesday, 24 January 2007 19:50 (eighteen years ago)

Just as simple-minded as ever.

― Haikunym (Haikunym), Wednesday, 24 January 2007 19:52 (eighteen years ago)

No force on Earth -- especially not an army of terrorists and insurgents -- can defeat our soldiers militarily.

― Steve Shasta (Steve Shasta), Wednesday, 24 January 2007 19:54 (eighteen years ago)

She's not smart and she's a callous jerk, but she throws a very civilized cocktail party.

― Haikunym (Haikunym), Wednesday, 24 January 2007 19:56 (eighteen years ago)

No force on Earth -- especially not an army of terrorists and insurgents -- can defeat our soldiers militarily.

Every time I read conservatives claiming this -- which is like true, in a limited, useless sense -- I imagine some kind of 18th-century British commander saying the same thing: "But we have greater numbers and more arms! Of course we can beat them! If only they would just quit hiding behind things."

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 24 January 2007 20:00 (eighteen years ago)

Yeah, that's the point. It was like when one of the NVA officers was in a convo with a U.S. guy some years back, talking about the same thing, that the U.S. Army never lost a battle with the NVA. The officer replied something like, "That is true. It is also irrelevant."

― kingfish moose tracks (kingfish 2.0), Wednesday, 24 January 2007 20:28 (eighteen years ago)

She should watch this report and see how well her troops are winning.

http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=4444

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 24 January 2007 20:30 (eighteen years ago)

I'm thinking that maybe their constant allusions and outright summoning of WWII isn't just a craven attempt to try a shade of "just war" to the current colonial exploit; it's the only way these guys can conceive of military action. One of the recent criticisms of Condi & the rest of the neocons was that their knowledge of world history only involved Europe from 1914-1991, and they knew jack shit about anything else.

The constant use of the WWII metaphor is how these guys might think: that there are actual front lines, there's only one easily definable enemy(axis powers vs 20-odd groups running around in the sandbox), that there will be easily definable victory with a set # of German regulars surrendering, and that will be that. They constantly talk about "4th generational warfare" but their language betrays their limited thinking of this as anything more than the 3rd Army motoring across France.

Or so I figure, anyway.

― kingfish moose tracks (kingfish 2.0), Wednesday, 24 January 2007 20:38 (eighteen years ago)

Has there ever been a situation in world history where an occupying power has pacified a country where the populace has not been thoroughly beaten into submission and disarmed?

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 24 January 2007 20:44 (eighteen years ago)

here's Glenn Kessler in the WaPo writing about this

In his State of the Union address last night, President Bush presented an arguably misleading and often flawed description of "the enemy" that the United States faces overseas, lumping together disparate groups with opposing ideologies to suggest that they have a single-minded focus in attacking the United States.

It's like we only have the Wehrmacht or the Soviet Army to defeat, then we'll be fine.

― kingfish moose tracks (kingfish 2.0), Wednesday, 24 January 2007 21:21 (eighteen years ago)

I love how the headline is a truism and then each section of the article is subheaded by a truism and/or cliche.

― A-ron Hubbard (Hurting), Wednesday, 24 January 2007 22:56 (eighteen years ago)

The Republicans have absolutely NO concept of what would constitute a "win" in Iraq. I've been listening closely since the start, and I've never heard a single politician or pundit attempt to explain this notion of which they're so much in favor in even slightly realistic terms. Liz uses the term 5 times in that piece, yet she's entirely unaware that she doesnt know what it means.

― A knife to his wife Eve and his credibility. (goodbra), Thursday, 25 January 2007 00:15 (eighteen years ago)

Well, yeah, and Dubya's been swapping "victory" with "success", without ever enumerating what that would be.

― kingfish moose tracks (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 25 January 2007 00:22 (eighteen years ago)

The major pole about which a neocon tirade spins whenever the topic of the "win" arises is certainly al-Qaeda: While the "Iraq issue" is not reasonably defined only by al-Qaeda's presence in Iraq, we might set that large qualm aside momentarily to consider that the fundamental fact to which all the Iraq hawks are fundamentally blind when speaking of the US "war" in Iraq is that our "allies", Saudi Arabia and Pakistan -- just to name two -- are among the best friends al-Qaeda ever had. Unless and until the right starts talking about dealing with the seeds from which al-Qaeda sprang, the ground in which it grows, and the water, sun, and fertilizer that keeps it green, then all their talk about "winning" is no more than a gardener's guide to pruning an otherwise vigorous and healthy plant.

― A knife to his wife Eve and his credibility. (goodbra), Thursday, 25 January 2007 00:42 (eighteen years ago)

Former principal deputy assistant secretary?

Quite a mouthful.

― Ned T.Rifle (nedtrifle), Thursday, 25 January 2007 09:36 (eighteen years ago)

No force on Earth -- especially not an army of terrorists and insurgents -- can defeat our soldiers militarily.

Let's hope that the leftists and members of the underrace do not stab our soldiers in the back, forcing them to give up a war they were winning.

― The Real Dirty Vicar (dirtyvicar), Thursday, 25 January 2007 10:08 (eighteen years ago)

this is a sign of how thin bush's support is, even among repubs.

"hey the boss's daughter will vouch for me!"

― m coleman (lovebug starski), Thursday, 25 January 2007 11:03 (eighteen years ago)

three months pass...

Congrats to Mary Cheney, who gave birf today

the official WH released photo is

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20070523/capt.c61b49f90a2140b39a2964b9425ed30b.cheney_grandson_wx112.jpg?x=242&y=345&sig=2SeENqZvHdRfact5bWAXEA--

In which you can see the kid, but not his two mommies('cuz they GAY! GAAAAAAAAYYYY!)

This photo provided by the White House shows Vice President Dick Cheney, right, and his wife, Lynne Cheney, holding their sixth grandchild Samuel David Cheney, Wednesday, May 23, 2007 in Washington. He weighed 8-lbs., 6-oz, and was born Wednesday morning at Sibley Hospital in Washington. His parents are Cheney's daughter Mary, and her partner, Heather Poe. (AP Photo/White House, David Bohrer)

― kingfish, Wednesday, 23 May 2007 23:05 (eighteen years ago)

Lynn Cheney looks like Jack Nicholson's Joker, but Dick Cheney still looks more evil than she does.

― Alex in SF, Wednesday, 23 May 2007 23:44 (eighteen years ago)

http://a248.e.akamai.net/7/800/1134/1179407853/oasc03.247realmedia.com/RealMedia/ads/Creatives/NatlRev/nr_cruise_house_300/ad_cruise_5-17-07.gif

unrelated but needed to go somewhere

― deej, Thursday, 24 May 2007 00:01 (eighteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.