Bush, Cheneys Secret Work for the Troops and Families

Discussion in 'US' started by Yank_Lurker, Dec 22, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I'd always been hearing things on back channels about them doing things without media coverage. Interesting article.

    http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/22/bush-cheney-comforted-troops-privately/
     
  2. Touching.

    A shame they dragged these men and women into this unnecessary war to begin with.
     

  3. How did I know the snarking and editorializing would not be far behind?

    I'm sure you can find dozens of threads around here where you can debate the necessity of this war. But of course, you need to whine about it here.
     
  4. If the story is true, then it is to bush's credit.

    Perhaps his personal identification with those who have lost so much, served as a very good motivator to 'do the job right' and to resource the effort properly.

    I wonder if it was the same on this side of the pond, perhaps we would have more helos in afg.
     

  5. pity your collecting for terrorists/criminals

    dragged other men and women into an unnecessary war
     
  6. I dated a woman who'd served in Iraq with the US Army. When her then-husband (also a soldier) had deployed to Iraq, she and a few other Army wives were invited to the White House for Easter. She had a great time, and told me that Lynne Cheney was one of the "coolest" women she'd ever met.
     
  7. The whole point is Mr. Bush and Cheney's 'touching' and private comforting letters, meetings etc. would not have been needed if they had not been determined to go to war with Iraq, for reasons that had naught to do with WMD, in the first place.

    Hardly unrelated.
     
  8. I don't know about you, but I've debated this subject all over the place right here in ARRSE. It's tiresome. I think it was necessary, lots of others think so, too. Including the President. You don't think it's necessary. Are we going to agree? I'd say not. Cool. Now that we've resolved that, mightn't you just feck off somewhere else to bemoan our victory in Iraq?
     
  9. Read 'The Price of Loyalty' by one of Bush's former cabinet members, and you'll see how they were determined, before 9/11, to attack Iraq - for reasons that have little to do with WMD, democracy etc.

    Sorry, much as I support the US troops, I hardly see a 'victory' in Iraq. Wait ten years, and you will either have another secular strongman in or a theocratic dictator there.
     
  10. I was determined in 1993 to attack Iraq. Sitting in a bar after duty, screaming at Maddy Albright on the TV asking her, "IF THEY'RE PLAYIN STUPID GAMES WITH THE INSPECTORS AND VIOLATING THE CEASE FIRE, WHY HAVEN'T I GOTTEN ORDERS TO GO KICK THEIR ARSSES AGAIN?!" The same circumstances maintained in 2003. And go somewhere else to debate this please.
     
  11. The men who engineered this invasion lied to the public about why they really went to war, and then went out to comfort the victims or the relatives of the dead troops. That doesn't bother you?
     
  12. What bothers me is that you're so willing to believe any lie you're told to reinforce what you're predisposed to believe. Tangentially, what have the NORAID/IRA/SF people told you which makes you willing to give them money and support?
     
  13. What makes you think what Bush told the American people was the truth? Do you really think they would have supported a war for oil and enriching Haliburton?

    I am not going to get into the NORAID topic here, I've answered it in depth on another thread.
     
  14. i think the aim of the thread is to simply highlight that somewhere deep inside Bush and Cheney acknowledge the sacrifices of their countrymen.

    to be honest, hardly worth debating considering the anger and pure hatred it evokes when comparing to the attitudes of Blair and Brown towards our own men and women.

    Bush or Cheney could easily have not done all the things mentioned in the article.....

    tip the hat where its due me thinks. albeit slightly.
     
  15. Oh really? And I haven't said several times that I don't want to debate the necessity of the Iraq war here? Apparently you've chosen to disregard my request.

    Bottom line:

    A) The Iraqi Gov't signed a cease fire agreement in 1991.

    B) After several months (at the most) it was obvious to EVERYONE, even the most casual observer, that the Iraqi government was in blatant violation of the ceasefire terms, and was openly flouting the agreement.

    C) In a sane world ruled by people with an iota of common sense, when a defeated nation violates a cease fire agreement, the victors come back and slam their heads into the wall a few more times. Invasion. Regime change. Shock and awe. This should have happened in 1993, 1994, 1995...or any time throughout the '90's up to 2003.

    D) When Bush finally arrived in office, international consensus for continuing the sanctions and the aerial patrols was disintegrating. The Russians, French and Germans were particularly interested in opening Iraq up again for trade (those three did love Iraqi dinars in exchange for weapons).

    E) If Bush hadn't acted in 2003, then by now in 2008 we would still be facing a hostile Iraq, ruled by Saddam Hussein and his sociopath sons, with no economic sanctions, and WMD programs resurrected, running at full bore, complete with unfettered purchases of French and German technology to aid them.

    F) Whatever the reasons, we did the right and necessary thing. Just as adherence to the terms of an alliance is a critical test of national credibility, so is adherence to the terms of a ceasefire. The Clinton Administration acted with typical feckless disregard for national security imperatives, essentially preferring to "Hope it goes away" rather than deliver a decisive thumping to the goons in Baghdad.

    G) Take it elsewhere.