• This is a stand-to for an incoming competition, one of our most expensive yet.
    Later this week we're going to be offering the opportunity to Win £270 Rab Neutrino Pro military down jacket
    Visit the thread at that link above and Watch it to be notified as soon as the competition goes live

Bush, Cheneys Secret Work for the Troops and Families

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

For much of the past seven years, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have waged a clandestine operation inside the White House. It has involved thousands of military personnel, private presidential letters and meetings that were kept off their public calendars or sometimes left the news media in the dark.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/22/bush-cheney-comforted-troops-privately/
 
#2
Yank_Lurker said:
I'd always been hearing things on back channels about them doing things without media coverage. Interesting article.

For much of the past seven years, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have waged a clandestine operation inside the White House. It has involved thousands of military personnel, private presidential letters and meetings that were kept off their public calendars or sometimes left the news media in the dark.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/22/bush-cheney-comforted-troops-privately/
Touching.

A shame they dragged these men and women into this unnecessary war to begin with.
 
#3
KevinB said:
Yank_Lurker said:
I'd always been hearing things on back channels about them doing things without media coverage. Interesting article.

For much of the past seven years, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have waged a clandestine operation inside the White House. It has involved thousands of military personnel, private presidential letters and meetings that were kept off their public calendars or sometimes left the news media in the dark.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/22/bush-cheney-comforted-troops-privately/
Touching.

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

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
KevinB said:
Yank_Lurker said:
I'd always been hearing things on back channels about them doing things without media coverage. Interesting article.

For much of the past seven years, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have waged a clandestine operation inside the White House. It has involved thousands of military personnel, private presidential letters and meetings that were kept off their public calendars or sometimes left the news media in the dark.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/22/bush-cheney-comforted-troops-privately/
Touching.

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

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
Yank_Lurker said:
KevinB said:
Yank_Lurker said:
I'd always been hearing things on back channels about them doing things without media coverage. Interesting article.

For much of the past seven years, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have waged a clandestine operation inside the White House. It has involved thousands of military personnel, private presidential letters and meetings that were kept off their public calendars or sometimes left the news media in the dark.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/22/bush-cheney-comforted-troops-privately/
Touching.

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

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.
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
KevinB said:
Yank_Lurker said:
KevinB said:
Yank_Lurker said:
I'd always been hearing things on back channels about them doing things without media coverage. Interesting article.

For much of the past seven years, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have waged a clandestine operation inside the White House. It has involved thousands of military personnel, private presidential letters and meetings that were kept off their public calendars or sometimes left the news media in the dark.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/22/bush-cheney-comforted-troops-privately/
Touching.

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

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.
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.
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
Yank_Lurker said:
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?
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
KevinB said:
Yank_Lurker said:
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?
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.
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
Yank_Lurker said:
KevinB said:
Yank_Lurker said:
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?
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.
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.
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
KevinB said:
Yank_Lurker said:
KevinB said:
Yank_Lurker said:
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?
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.
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.
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?
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
Yank_Lurker said:
KevinB said:
Yank_Lurker said:
KevinB said:
Yank_Lurker said:
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?
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.
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.
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?
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?
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
KevinB said:
I am not going to get into the NORAID topic here, I've answered it in depth on another thread.
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.
 
#16
It's odd that his is news now. Both Bush and Cheney and their wives have been doing this for years. They are secretive as they don't want media coverage. I also know that General Casey, when he was MNF-I, would always visit troops with his wife on his brief trips home from Iraq. I also have heard that Mrs. Cheney (maybe should be Dr. Cheney??, she has PhD) is extremely nice.

It is nice that leaders are supportive of the casualties and families. I am reading "This Republic of Suffering" by Drew Faust now and she feels that the enormous casualties of the US Civil war affected the US attititude towards veterans.

Also, Kevin B: STFU will ya, and despite that Nolliag Shona Duit.
and in the spirit of the season Nollaig Shona Daoibh for everyone else, and for those who couldn't read that, Happy Christmas to all!
 
#17
Yank_Lurker said:
KevinB said:
I am not going to get into the NORAID topic here, I've answered it in depth on another thread.
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.
This 'violation of cease fire' was an excuse to invade Iraq. The UN never authorised no-fly zones , although the UN Security Council did pass Resolution 688, in an attempt to stop Iraq from repressing ethnic groups via use of helicopter gunships. When Bush came to power, his admin targeted radar and c-and-c installations well beyond the no-fly zones, so, as far as Iraq was concerned, foreign aircraft was encroaching in its air space and it had legal right to fire on them.

This is not to say Hussein was not a brutal dictator, but he was not a threat to the US in any way.
 
#18
DavidBOC said:
Also, Kevin B: STFU will ya, and despite that Nolliag Shona Duit.
and in the spirit of the season Nollaig Shona Daoibh for everyone else, and for those who couldn't read that, Happy Christmas to all!
Is not my nature, DB, but despite your suggestion, bliadhna mhath ùr.
 
#19
KevinB said:
This 'violation of cease fire' was an excuse to invade Iraq.
Until panty waists started running the world, violations of cease fire agreements were (and still ARE) more than adequate reason (not an excuse) for a resumption of active hostilities. On the dim hope that you might understand a bit of Latin...violation of a ceasefire agreement, especially constant, ongoing mockery of a cease fire regime over a decade, is a casus belli in and of itself. Not an "excuse". A reason to cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war.
 
#20
Yank_Lurker said:
KevinB said:
This 'violation of cease fire' was an excuse to invade Iraq.
Until panty waists started running the world, violations of cease fire agreements were (and still ARE) more than adequate reason (not an excuse) for a resumption of active hostilities. On the dim hope that you might understand a bit of Latin...violation of a ceasefire agreement, especially constant, ongoing mockery of a cease fire regime over a decade, is a casus belli in and of itself. Not an "excuse". A reason to cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war.
Guess you skipped the part about there never being a UN resolution to establish and authorise no-fly zones, let along provide a mechanism for enforcing such zones.

And yes, I understand Latin.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top