So?...

[gabry85 2]

Cheney On Two-Thirds Of The American Public Opposing The Iraq War: ‘So?’

Source: ThinkProgress.org:

This morning (March 19, 2008), on the fifth anniversary of the Iraq invasion, ABC’s Good Morning America aired an interview with Vice President Cheney on the war. During the segment, Cheney flatly told White House correspondent Martha Raddatz that he doesn’t care about the American public’s views on the war:

CHENEY: On the security front, I think there’s a general consensus that we’ve made major progress, that the surge has worked. That’s been a major success.

RADDATZ: Two-third of Americans say it’s not worth fighting.

CHENEY: So?

RADDATZ: So? You...you don’t care what the American people think?

CHENEY: No, I think... you cannot be... um... blown off course... by the... fluctuations in the public opinion polls.

This opposition to the war is not a “fluctuation” in public opinion. The American public has steadily turned against the war since the 2003 invasion. According to a new CNN poll, just 36 percent of the American public believes that “the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over — down from 68 percent in March 2003, when the war began.”

Even though he doesn’t care what the American public wants, Cheney still thinks he is able — and entitled — to speak for the American public. Last month, Cheney declared, “The American people will not support a policy of retreat.” If Cheney were actually listening to the “American people,” he would know that 61 percent actually supports the redeployment of U.S. troops.quote>

That says it all. Does someone have the faintest idea of why are they still on the White House?

Watch the video of the interview here. Also read this note from Michael Moore's website.

[PhilsCafe 8]

How am I not surprised? What does surprise me though is that a person in his position is caught off guard by that rather obvious question... don't they ever ask themselves critical questions in the White House?

[Aontan 0]

It's also fitting to note that yesterday the US death toll in Iraq hit 4,000. I suppose his response to such a large loss of life - which could be anything from 8,000 to 1,120,000 (depending on the source) if we include Iraqi forces and civilians - is "So?" as well.

[GingerBlokey 30]

Originally posted by: Aontan It's also fitting to note that yesterday the US death toll in Iraq hit 4,000. I suppose his response to such a large loss of life - which could be anything from 8,000 to 1,120,000 (depending on the source) if we include Iraqi forces and civilians - is "So?" as well. quote>

Indeed.

"You appear to have knocked that chocolate bar off the shelf"

"So?"

"You didn't know that 3 square is 9"

"So?"

but not.

"Most of the country youv'e been elected to represent is against you continuing a dubiously legal war in which up to 1,120,000 people could have died"

"So?"

American politics is borked. The way the cabinet works here he'd have had to resign years ago.

[screamingman12 30]

The crap has hit the fan now...

Wonder what happened to that house resolution to impeach Cheney?

[DuskTrooper 316]

Hey, you folks SUPPORTED this war before it began. You made the choice(even though you have no "real control"), so you need to deal with the irony of the consequences, and the entire situation. Be careful what you ask for; you may get it.

however:SUPPORT THE TROOPS!

[toxicpiano 125]

LOL geriatrics in the white house.

[GingerBlokey 30]

Originally posted by: DuskTrooper Hey, you folks SUPPORTED this war before it began. You made the choice(even though you have no "real control"), so you need to deal with the irony of the consequences, and the entire situation. Be careful what you ask for; you may get it.

however:SUPPORT THE TROOPS!quote>

Which folks? My impression of this forum is being quite liberal. I know I certainly was against the war, in fact I was on the anti-war march through London back in 2003.

[Haljackey 17,398]

I still can't believe that the Bush Administration has not been booted from office. George W will not resign, so the only way to get him out is to kick him outta the oval office.

Theres still a ton of stuff that he could potentially do before your next election, you know.

I think he is going to be like the Emperor in Star Wars. He will stay in office far past his term and turn the USA (republic) into the Empire!

-HAHAHA!

Anyways, the whole Iraq war is stupid in my opinion. What's the purpose of the war anyways?

Best,

-Haljackey

[DuskTrooper 316]

Originally posted by: GingerBlokey

Originally posted by: DuskTrooper Hey, you folks SUPPORTED this war before it began. You made the choice(even though you have no "real control"), so you need to deal with the irony of the consequences, and the entire situation. Be careful what you ask for; you may get it.

however:SUPPORT THE TROOPS!quote>

Which folks? My impression of this forum is being quite liberal. I know I certainly was against the war, in fact I was on the anti-war march through London back in 2003.quote>

That was a sort of rhetorical/general statement above, directed towards the general American public who overwhelmingly supported the war before it began.

[TheQuiltedLlama 34]

Originally posted by: GingerBlokey

Originally posted by: DuskTrooper Hey, you folks SUPPORTED this war before it began. You made the choice(even though you have no "real control"), so you need to deal with the irony of the consequences, and the entire situation. Be careful what you ask for; you may get it.

however:SUPPORT THE TROOPS!quote>

Which folks? My impression of this forum is being quite liberal. I know I certainly was against the war, in fact I was on the anti-war march through London back in 2003.quote>

As was I, among at least 1 Million others. It seems to me the majority of the public in Britain at the time was against the war and this is while the government was feeding us lies to try and gain support for the war. For all the talk of liberating the Iraqi people, you must remember that the stated reason for going to war was because Saddam had 'Weapons of Mass Destruction'. Now we know there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction, Iraq is a shambles and more and more troops and civilians die every day. It's hardly a surprise that support is so low.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[JanYpe 17]

Look, I'm sure I dislike Cheney as much as the next person, but this is stupid soundbite journalism. Opinion polls on whether or not it's worth fighting don't have the first damned thing to do with the effectiveness or success of the surge, real or not.

What kind of medieval idea of journalism makes slapping some bolding on a sentence and letting the context just flap in the breeze acceptable? Oh jeeze guys, he said he doesn't care about what the people think. Quick, hang him for treason!

[DuskTrooper 316]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Originally posted by: DuskTrooper Hey, you folks SUPPORTED this war before it began. You made the choice(even though you have no "real control"), so you need to deal with the irony of the consequences, and the entire situation. Be careful what you ask for; you may get it.

however:SUPPORT THE TROOPS!quote>

Sorry, but you can't throw all Americans into the same bucket.  I have been against this war from the start.  My reps also voted against it.  Being outnumbered does not equate to supporting what happens.

Barbarossaquote>

Then please excuse yourself from this; as you can see from another post above, it only applies to the large number of folks who "supported" it before it began.

[belfastuniguy 18]

It seems to me the majority of the public in Britain at the time was against the war and this is while the government was feeding us lies to try and gain support for the war. For all the talk of liberating the Iraqi people, you must remember that the stated reason for going to war was because Saddam had 'Weapons of Mass Destruction'. Now we know there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction, Iraq is a shambles and more and more troops and civilians die every day. It's hardly a surprise that support is so low.quote>

What solid evidence do you have for that??

Please remember that one million marching in London does not represent a majority of over 60 million people, also remember that the government was voted back into power despite the opposition to war..

I supported the war and I supported for regime change, though did believe their were weapons, but primarily for regime change. Of course the situation has turned into a complete mess but I still support it and will always support the troops. We now have to focus all effort and support on re-building and leaving a country the government can run easily and one that has all its infrastructure repaired.

[fukuda 351]

I don't know in england but in Spain more than 90% of the country was against the war of Iraq (in official polls). It is estimated than 7 millions of people went out in the streets in spain to demonstrate against it, there were huge "caceroladas" (making noise with frying pans in the balconies) that covered the cities in noise every night, but it was useless, Aznar went in war, even against his own party members.

[Simfan34 11]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy I supported the war and I supported for regime change, though did believe their were weapons, but primarily for regime change. Of course the situation has turned into a complete mess but I still support it and will always support the troops. We now have to focus all effort and support on re-building and leaving a country the government can run easily and one that has all its infrastructure repaired.quote>

 

Never in a million years would I have thought that would be your opinion! 

I supported the war then, and support it now, and will support it forevermore until it becomes pointless. Pointless being that everything is la-de-doo-de-dah in Iraq and it is on par with the other nations in the reigon.* Until that is the case, we must remain in Iraq, for if we were to leave BEFORE THAT IS THE CASE, tens of thousands, if not hundreds, of innocent Iraqi citizens would die in secretarian violence. As belfastuniguy said, we must focus on making Iraq being able to stand on its own feet. 

It does not matter what people think, this is the case and I think Cheney's "So?" was right on the spot.

*supporting the war meaning supporting an Coalition presence in Iraq

[Meg 368]

One reason George W. Bush has not been impeached is that impeaching him would make Dick Cheney President.    I don't know anyone who thinks that is a good idea.

Impeaching both of them at once is not impossible but it has never been done before.  And, given that there is an election in a few months, I believe most people see it as a waste of time because they will be gone soon enough.

[TheQuiltedLlama 34]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

It seems to me the majority of the public in Britain at the time was against the war and this is while the government was feeding us lies to try and gain support for the war. For all the talk of liberating the Iraqi people, you must remember that the stated reason for going to war was because Saddam had 'Weapons of Mass Destruction'. Now we know there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction, Iraq is a shambles and more and more troops and civilians die every day. It's hardly a surprise that support is so low.quote>

What solid evidence do you have for that??

Please remember that one million marching in London does not represent a majority of over 60 million people, also remember that the government was voted back into power despite the opposition to war..

I supported the war and I supported for regime change, though did believe their were weapons, but primarily for regime change. Of course the situation has turned into a complete mess but I still support it and will always support the troops. We now have to focus all effort and support on re-building and leaving a country the government can run easily and one that has all its infrastructure repaired.quote>

Would you have supported the Iraq war had you know that Saddam did not have Weapons of Mass Destruction? I can't be sure that the majority of people were actually against the war, but it was a pretty small margin, but I know there is quite large amount of people who have the opinion that had they know that government was lying  to win support, they would not have supported the Iraq war.

I would say one of the biggest demonstrations ever, although not solid evidence, is a pretty good indication that the public does not support it.

I would have supported regime change in Iraq, but this was not the way to go about. I believe the Iraq war was always about the oil.

I still support it and will always support the troopsquote>

I support the troops in Iraq as are doing their best to contain a disaster created by the government, but in my opinion the troops shouldn't be there.

[toxicpiano 125]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

It seems to me the majority of the public in Britain at the time was against the war and this is while the government was feeding us lies to try and gain support for the war. For all the talk of liberating the Iraqi people, you must remember that the stated reason for going to war was because Saddam had 'Weapons of Mass Destruction'. Now we know there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction, Iraq is a shambles and more and more troops and civilians die every day. It's hardly a surprise that support is so low.quote>

What solid evidence do you have for that??

also remember that the government was voted back into power despite the opposition to war..

quote>

Take these things into account before you say anything like that

Tories voted for the war

They needed a massive swing to get into power to topple the Labour party

The labour party only secured 800,000 more votes than the tories (35.3% over a tory 32.3%) and The conservatives won 30% of seats and labour 55.2%

People are not voting for the government, they are voting for their local representation on parliament. Whether it seems like it or not people still vote on local issues\

The first draft of the original Iraq dossier was about potential threats to Britain and the middle east from Iraq. The final draft was the first, but with words changed by spin doctors to make the threat sound absolute.

[belfastuniguy 18]

Would you have supported the Iraq war had you know that Saddam did not have Weapons of Mass Destruction?quote>

Yes.

As I said my primary reason to support was regime change. He was an absolutely disgusting individual that murdered 10's of thousands and destroyed the cultural heritage of millions. Before anyone jumps in I would also support moves to remove Mugabe and intervention in Sudan. I feel disgusted western government doesn't have the ***** to intervene and stop such acts of brutality.

@Toxicpiano. That's exactly my point. The majority of the people of the UK which includes aupporters of Conservatives, Labour, Ulster Unionists, Democratic Unionists and other parties in Westminster did not see the Iraq War as reason to vote against their party. Issues specific to the UK such as health and the economy were deemed as more important. If there had been total outrage and a 'majority of the British voting population opposed to the war and willing to change the government then they could have voted Lib Dem....well they didn't, they understood we had more important things to be getting on with and realised that despite taking us into war the Labour government was still best placed to run the country. So my point still stands.

@ Sinfan

Never in a million years would I have thought that would be your opinion! quote>

How so?? I can be pretty conservative on some issues

[saltandsauce 0]

do you think the US or UK (for those thinking im just ranting) act in their constituents interest?

if you do you think they are the government OF the people FOR the people

sounds like the "project for the new american century" is coming to fruition

bearing in mind that Tony bLIAR forced declaration of war through with the act of parliament so yes this is democracy at work next to nobody wanted the war in iraq in the UK for the reasons stated maybe if it was "OK we put saddam hussein in charge and we don't like him you don't like him so we'll at least get rid of him" but what we were told was he MIGHT have had WMDs

[gabry85 2]

This war has been started just to steal oil, the Weapons-of-Mass-Destructions thing was just a lame excuse to justify this senseless violence. The U.N. inspectors always said that there were none of them. Are we going to invade Iran now, just because they're most probably working on real WMDs?

Even though I always despised Saddam Hussein for being a bloody dictator, the present situation is now even more unbearable, and that's just because Bush & Co. never cared of the American people, let alone the Iraqi. There's an as-big-as-Texas problem in Iraq called 'terrorism': fanatics devoted to commit suicide for killing troops and particularly civilians. That's normal I now hear people saying: "We can't leave now! There's much to be done there." But that wouldn't never have happened if this war hadn't started. There are more NYPD officers in Manhattan than U.S. troops in the whole Afghanistan (where bin Laden is supposed to be, if I remember well), while there are more than 300,000 soldiers in Iraq!

And let's speak about everybody's favorite issue: money. This war is costing billions of dollars and counting, and it's ruining the whole U.S. and world's economy. And that for what? Oil. Oil for those oil greedy corporations. There's no democracy, no freedom, no food, no water, no money, no security, absolutely NO-THING! 4,000 U.S. soldiers and God knows how many Iraqi have died in this war.

Is this worthy of a simple "So?" That's just sad...

[nazaguy 0]

The Iraq War was not in vain! Now we can attack Iran from 2 ways (your next Turkmenistan!). Plus, now we can attack Syria, Jordan (if they ever step out of line!). Do ya think we can ever get the people to support a war on France? Regime change was needed in Iraq, but we could have got someone more competent to do it? I think maybe Syria, now they know how to completly dominate a neighbouring country.

But, before i start to ramble, isn't democracy rule by the people if im not mistaken? And weren't the majority of people in most countries against the war? I know this has been said 1000 times but sort out your own backyard first.

[belfastuniguy 18]

Tony bLIAR forced declaration of war through with the act of parliamentquote>

What he stood there with a gun to their heads and forced them to approve, oh please...MP's are perfectly capable of voting no when it suits them, the British Parliament voted the bill through, people just have to deal with that and not lay all he blame with Blair. The Prime Minister does not have to ask Parliament to approve military action, but he did and won it..

[belfastuniguy 18]

This war has been started just to steal oilquote>

Really??

Curious that the first international oil exploration company to begin drilling and exports is an American company?? NO

It's actually from Norway. What benefits has the United States got from this oil so far?? Not a lot it would seem, oil production is still at a very low level, American petrol prices are at the highest level they have ever been at. World oil prices are the highest in history.

Doesn't seem anyone has got much benefit from this oil. The oil excuse I believe is false and something used by anti-war protesters. The oil will be important, but all of Iraq's oil is under the control of the Iraq government and not the big bad American or European oil corporations.

[gabry85 2]

What benefits has the United States got from this oil so far??quote>

None for the U.S. economy, but just for the oil companies (Halliburton/Dick Cheney). Take a look on Halliburton's profits here on Google Finance (NYSE:HAL) from 2003 to 2008.

all of Iraq's oil is under the control of the Iraq governmentquote>

...which is at the same time established and controlled by the United States, ergo by the Bush administration.

[belfastuniguy 18]

Take a look on Halliburton's profitsquote>

aahhhhh.....well seeing as oil prices have undergo a massive increase in value then of course the profits are going to increase, just as they have for every oil corporation around the world and led to a second oil boom in Calgary, Canada. High oil prices are the primary reason for an increase in oil profits.

controlled by the United Statequote>

You want to tell that to the millions of Iraqis that voted it into power?? I doubt they would take that too well tbh

Yes coalition forces help provide security but you can hardly just state the entire Iraq government is controlled by the USA.

[patriots_1228 51]

it's times like this i like to sing

"Lil bush heees Lil bush, lil bush, lil bush, Lil bush heees Lil bush, lil bush, lil bush, Tonights episode:"

haha.....cheneys comments really make this sound like a dictator ship. So? means: "Yea, I suck, but, who cares?"

[Things Go Better With Milk 0]

Yeah seriously.