• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Cheney links rise in Iraq violence to US election

J

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
link

Vice President Dick Cheney said on Monday insurgents had stepped up attacks in Iraq to try to sway next week's U.S. elections and they were constantly surfing the Web to keep tabs on American public opinion.
Click to expand...

Cheney said America's enemies in Iraq possessed the Internet savvy to monitor U.S. developments, helping them to time attacks aimed in part at influencing the elections. But he cited no evidence to back the theory.

"There isn't anything that's on the Internet that's not accessible to them. They're on it all the time. They're very sophisticated users of it," he told Fox's "Your World with Neil Cavuto" program.
Click to expand...

Fox news has a longer version posted where he also dodges his no-brainer on waterboarding and lauds his wife's bout with Wolf as the smackdown.

Anybody have any ideas why he is making a big deal about the internet? I doubt that he is trying to make us aware that the bad guys are not ignorant savages. Is he saying that maybe they monitor sites like this for public opinion?

Is he laying the groundwork for government monitoring and restriction of the public sites as the government has done with their own? I am certain that he doesn't think they wouldn't know about the election if not for the internet.

Is this a roundabout way of suggesting that dissent voiced on the internet is aiding the enemy?

Maybe Cheney has done enough already that I am paranoid about everything he does and says. I admit that I do not like or trust him at all.
 
I doubt they monitor sites like this, too little traffic. But yahoo and Google. news and such for sure. As well as the big network sites, and maybe dailykos and a few of the other really big political forums.

The ramping up of violence claim is being made by a lot of people, the insurgents would certainly like to see a Democrat congress in hopes that would lead to a withdrawal of troops.

You have to wonder how much intel on all this that they have but are not sharing with us for security reasons. I am sure 20 years from now we will learn a lot of things that will surprise us, just as we have for Nam.

The question of how much effect the war dissidents are having is really interesting, and their impact is hard to tell. It looks like this will be a very close election so that takes some of the heat of Bush and Co. If we see a 30 seat shift in the house and a clear ?Americans aren?t happy with the war? type of vote then they would have an impact, but it does not look like we are going to see that.

On a side note not related to this. I remember years ago hearing from a former Vietnam peace protester who regretted what he did because he believed that their efforts actually lengthened the war by backing the politicians into a hole from which they could not get out of easily.
Look at all the news about Bush and the "stay the course" thing. Bush has been put in a position that any change in policy is looked at through a microscope AND worse turned into a political talking point. This makes it MUCH harder for him to make decisions based on what is in our best interests as a country and for the troops. Because every decision that is made has to be looked at in a political context.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Look at all the news about Bush and the "stay the course" thing. Bush has been put in a position that any change in policy is looked at through a microscope AND worse turned into a political talking point. This makes it MUCH harder for him to make decisions based on what is in our best interests as a country and for the troops. Because every decision that is made has to be looked at in a political context.
Click to expand...

I understand your point, but think about what you are actually saying in motive and response.

Bush will continue a failed policy because he wants to save face for himself and his party. Even if it means getting a lot more soldiers killed needlessly, and even if it means alienating CONSERVATIVES.

The whole Iraqi nightmare has been the definition of unconservative.

 
This sounds like the right wing version of all those silly conspiracy theories that the lefties have floating around about how the election is about to be stolen.

Hopefully both are true and they will cancel each other out.😉
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Look at all the news about Bush and the "stay the course" thing. Bush has been put in a position that any change in policy is looked at through a microscope AND worse turned into a political talking point. This makes it MUCH harder for him to make decisions based on what is in our best interests as a country and for the troops. Because every decision that is made has to be looked at in a political context.
Click to expand...
Of course this is the tactic the Republicans used against Kerry in the '04 elections, claiming any discernible change of opinion was "flip-flopping" and a sign of weakness.

The Democrats are slow learners but they seem to be catching on to how politics should be played this century.
 
On a side note not related to this. I remember years ago hearing from a former Vietnam peace protester who regretted what he did because he believed that their efforts actually lengthened the war by backing the politicians into a hole from which they could not get out of easily.
Look at all the news about Bush and the "stay the course" thing. Bush has been put in a position that any change in policy is looked at through a microscope AND worse turned into a political talking point. This makes it MUCH harder for him to make decisions based on what is in our best interests as a country and for the troops. Because every decision that is made has to be looked at in a political context.
Click to expand...

Right, just take away any accountabilty for their mistakes, and they they'll be free to correct them - and they'll be happy to do so. That's fantasyland.

There are unpleasantries in these conflicts. One of them is that the person who got us in the mess is often with their hands tied at getting us out, because they don't want to admit error.

Your viet nam vet acquaintance can be wrong about whether his protesting was helpful. Of course war supporters will try to convince people he made things worse.

So much tragedy in war is based on BS about 'saving face' for someone. You can get to a conflict between one side saying the war is a bad idea and the other not proving it's a good idea, but saying that you have to 'honor' the casualties by not 'giving up' a bad cause, because they're unable to admit the possibility the casualties were unjustified.
 
I as a US voter have to realize my opinions are being manipulated by outside forces---regardless if this manipulation comes from a jerk like Dick Cheney or a terrorists.
I know for a fact Dick Cheney is a known liar---I am less certain about how terrorists are manipulating my opinions. Since my biases are towards the safety of our troops,
I also have to realize that when Dick Cheney is motivating the killers of our troops---I then have to wonder why is he not over in Iraq trying to sell his program to the Iraqi
people---a step GWB&co. seem to have skipped.----and instead gave them the 3.5 year Katrina treatment---if the Iraqi's don't buy the Cheney line---why should I?









 
What a crock.

Violence has been escalating for months now. And that farce, Operation Together Forward, merely made more of our troops target practice as evidenced by the worst monthly death toll for US troops since Jan. 2005.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
What a crock.

Violence has been escalating for months now. And that farce, Operation Together Forward, merely made more of our troops target practice as evidenced by the worst monthly death toll for US troops since Jan. 2005.
Click to expand...

Violence has consistently gone up since we went in, if I'm not mistaken.
 
Well, violence against US troops (at least in terms of pure death toll numbers) had been going down until a few months ago.
 
conjur

Death toll of our troops is likely not an accurate base for evaluating the level of violence. Even Cheney admitted that some of the recent rise might be connected to Ramadan instead of the elections.
 
Oh, I understand that but the average person in American doesn't know about the dozens upon dozens of attacks our troops sustain daily. All they know is the monthly death toll. If the "liberal media" gave even half of the truth going on, the Iraq War approval ratings would be down to single digits.
 
They scheduled Saddam's death penalty verdict for this Sunday too. Just in time for more violence on monday and tuesday to focus people on Iraq.
 
Actually what he is saying is that the Democrats have told the Iraqis to step up the violence so they can get elected, no?
 
I thought the rise in violence was due to the season of Ramadan?

and besides, Bush's Iraq policy is the best recruiting tool terrorists could hope for. I am sure they (terrorist insurgents) don't want to see an end to republican congressional rule anytime soon, that could spell trouble for, "Stay the (dynamic) course."
 
Perhaps the grain of truth is there, but violence will continue regardless of who gets elected.

We should all note that before the Iraqi elections violence peaked until the curfews and pedestrian only zones were setup.

It is not in the least bit inconceivable tha the insurgents want to disrupt the elections of the "Great Satan". And as far as them not monitoring Fox news and CNN...Dream on!! Satellite T.V., Cell phones amd such are COMMON in Iraq nowadays, and I have first-hand knowledge of Iraqis watching CNN.

Verizon has great service over there!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top