- Daily Photo: Obama Jokes Around at G-20
- Blackwater gets replaced in Iraq
- Daily Photo: U.S. Marines Look Out for Taliban in Afghanistan
- Hillary Clinton the Tomboy and Her "Ah-Ha" Moment
- Obama Administration Sudan Envoy Headed to Region
- Daily Photo: Potential Flashpoint in Iraq
- Clinton Says New Afghanistan-Pakistan Plan Depends on Diplomacy
- Exclusive: Three Israeli Airstrikes Against Sudan
- Additional 4,000 Troops to Be Ordered to Afghanistan
- Daily Photo: Navy Submarine Trains in the Arctic
- Alarm Over North Korea Missile Prep
- Anti-Terror Stimulus? US Offers Rewards for Top Terrorists
- Daily Photo: Pakistani Women in Refugee Camp
- Condoleezza Rice Appears on "The Tonight Show"
- Diplomat and Aid Group Sound the Alarm on Darfur Camp Situation
- auto industry rescue
- Ballotwatch
- Biden, Joe
- Bush, George W.
- Clinton, Bill
- Clinton, Hillary
- Dodd, Chris
- Edwards, John
- Giuliani, Rudy
- Gravel, Mike
- Huckabee, Mike
- Hunter, Duncan
- Inauguration
- Iraq
- Kucinich, Dennis
- McCain, John
- Obama, Barack
- Palin, Sarah
- Paul, Ron
- Romney, Mitt
- Tancredo, Tom
- Thompson, Fred
- Veepstakes
- Vote 2008: Democrats
- Vote 2008: Republicans
- Washington
- White House
« Previous | Main | Next »
Cheney Criticizes Dems' 'Slow Bleed' Strategies at AIPAC
March 12, 2007 12:09 PM
ABC News' Matthew Zavala Reports: Addressing the American Israel Pubic Affairs Committee Conference Monday in Washington, D.C., Vice President Cheney accused congressional Democrats of trying to undermine U.S. troops serving in Iraq by pursuing a "slow bleed" strategy to end the war.
"When Members of Congress pursue an anti-war strategy that's been called 'slow bleed' they're not the supporting the troops, they are undermining them," Cheney said.
Of congressional Democrats' new plan to set benchmarks in Iraq and impose a timetable for troop withdrawal as early as the end of 2007, the vice president said, "when members speak not of victory but of time limits, deadlines, or other arbitrary measures, they are telling the enemy to watch the clock and wait us out."
Knowing that a majority of Americans do not favor Congress using its power of the purse to end the war, Cheney hoped to keep the argument over troop redeployment wrapped in the debate over troop funding. "I sincerely hope the discussion this time will be about winning in Iraq," said Cheney adding, "anyone can say they support the troops and we take them at their word but the proof will come when its time to provide the money."
Cheney refuted the notion that the war in Iraq is not linked to the global struggle against terrorist. "The most common myth is that Iraq has nothing to do with the global war on terror" said Cheney. The most serious myth, he said, is "the false hope that we can abandon the effort in Iraq without serious consequences in the Middle East."
March 12, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (11)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Breaking News: Cheney prefers strategy of 'hemorrhage chaos' in Iraq.
Until VP Dick has something constructive to add to the debate he should sit down and shut-up, and in the future refrain from mis-attributed quips from the Politico.
Posted by: BenMurphyNYC | Mar 12, 2007 1:25:28 PM
Come on Cheney, we are smarter than that. The dems DO support our troops we care about them so much to bring them home, we are not trying to warmonger the way you gop's are. Since you have experance in shooting people maybe YOU DICK cheney should go fight in the war.
Posted by: nate | Mar 12, 2007 1:29:02 PM
In Cheney's mind, "support" is the same thing as blind obedience. Since the administration has failed in the Middle East, I don't believe they have the credibility to define anything. Such statements by discredited administration figures have reached the point of diminishing returns where the more they say, the more impotent they seem. The battle for public opinion has been lost and there so no way they can put that genie back in the bottle.
Posted by: Dirik Lolkus | Mar 12, 2007 3:27:35 PM
Good lord, I can't believe this guy can sit down with a straight face and say things like that. If congress reduces funding and Cheney/Bush continue to push them in harms way even without appropriate funding, who's not supporting the troops? The guys who refuse to fund them being put in harms way, or the people who put them in harms way anyway?
Posted by: Paul | Mar 12, 2007 4:35:55 PM
I believe that the United States has a vital role to play in world leadership. I simply worry that too much emphasis on military intervention rather than more peaceful means of establishing democratic republics can be counterproductive.
Posted by: Harvey Clark | Mar 12, 2007 4:44:40 PM
Oh Dick,
I guess the VP has a already forgotten that his administration had a responsibility to plan and provide for the injured vets coming home who have been all but forgotten by those who started this war. Now, who again is it that supports the troops?
I'd say Dick doesn't have much of a track record to stand on.
Posted by: Amazed | Mar 12, 2007 4:45:04 PM
Spoke with a guy that just got back Iraq, he said the waste over there was an outrage. Does anyone take Cheney seriously?
Posted by: Ron Orr | Mar 12, 2007 6:35:33 PM
Your absolutely correct Mr. Cheney! The Dems have NEVER really supported the troops. We have to give this one last good go. Ask the troops...They want to finish the job. So people should get behind the President and his Generals. He is the Commander and chief. United, we can defeat anyone(See WWII)....Divided we fall(See Vietnam).
Posted by: Tom | Mar 12, 2007 8:10:35 PM
Here you will find a Democrat that is totally against pulling out of Iraq without winning the conflict 100%. I do not like or support President Bush, lets get serious about this war. Its better to fight over there than to pull out and let the conflict come over here.
Posted by: George Smallwood | Mar 12, 2007 9:37:00 PM
Amazing--all the Bush apologists are totally silent on this board.
How dare this Vice President accuse anyone--anyone--else of failing to suppor tthe troops. The administration has gotten every penny it asked for for this war. And what have they done?
1) Put our troops into a war that we did not need to fight.
2) Lied to the troops and everyone else about the reasons for the war.
3) Sent too few of our troops to do the job properly, leading to a prolonged, more costly war in terms of lives and treasure.
4) Sent the troops with inadequate body armour, inadequate armoured vehicles, again leading to countless unnecessary deaths and injuries. And then lied about the situation, falsely stating that the armour could not be produced any faster.
5) And then when our brave troops are wounded doing the administration's bidding, they are stuffed into shamelessly inadequate medical facilities to rot away and be forgotten.
And THIS man is going to lecture ME about supporting the troops? Get real Dick--you never supported the troops in anywhere near the way they deserved.
Posted by: Jim | Mar 12, 2007 11:06:08 PM
The Dems stragedy to put a time line on withdrawal is a BAD idea. It gives the enemy a goal to sustain itsself to. This is not about Democrat or Republican to the enemy.
You can bet if Bush and company wanted to put a time line on withdrawal, the Dems would do be pushing for the opposite agenda.
They act like little kids in a sandbox, fighting over who gets the bucket.
The Islamic extremists are a patient and cunning enemy.
Part of their strategy is to let us fight among ourselves while they muster up strength and support elsewhere.
The irony here is those that are the most liberal ( ie :those that don't have the stomach to fight the good fight ) will be the first slaughtered by these islamic extremists if they take over.
They are not a tolerent group.
They have a stated goal, read up on it.
I hope we stay in the fight for the long haul.
That's one reason Bush is not too popular, he doesn't cater to the whiny extreme left and they can't handle it.
I'm betting "Jim" never had to fight for anything in his life, that's why we have real warriors over there so he doesnt have to here.
Posted by: BDH | Mar 13, 2007 11:04:35 AM
Post a comment



