Worst Vice President Ever

Dick Cheney says things in Iraq aren’t terrible.

Q But there is a terrible situation.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: No, there is not. There is not. There’s problems, ongoing problems, but we have, in fact, accomplished our objectives of getting rid of the old regime, and there is a new regime in place that’s been there for less than a year, far too soon for you guys to write them off. They have got a democratically written constitution, first ever in that part of the world. They’ve had three national elections. So there’s been a lot of success.

Can we just air drop his sorry butt into Baghdad?

For more news like this follow on Twitter or Facebook


Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Clinton T-Shirts
Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Clinton T-Shirts

  • jerry

    I wouldn’t mind sending along a squad of the executive branch grrls: think Jenna, Barbara, Liz, and Mary in camouflage. Rowr!

  • Nimrod Gently

    No! You can’t make me!

  • Dugger

    If its a terrible situation, then what do you call situations 20 30 40 50 times worse? What happens to perspective? Or do you have any at all?

  • legion

    I also love this part:
    Q The criticism is that you took your eye off the ball by going into Iraq and, in effect, reducing the focus of attention on al Qaeda and bin Laden.

    THE VICE PRESIDENT: It’s just not true. I’ve heard that charge; it’s simply not true, Wolf. The fact of the matter is we can do more than one thing at a time, and we have. And we’ve been very successful with going after al Qaeda. They’re still out there, they’re still a formidable force, but they’re not nearly as formidable as they once were in terms of numbers and so forth….

    Ummm… has he not seen pretty much every piece of news coming out of Afghanistan the past couple of years? We’ve pretty conclusively shown we _can’t_ do more that one thing at a time, at least not with him & Bush running the show…

  • legion

    If its a terrible situation, then what do you call situations 20 30 40 50 times worse?

    Bush’s third term?

    [ba-da-bum]

  • “what do you call situations 20 30 40 50 times worse?”

    I don’t know, but the half a million Iraqis who’ve died so far deserve better than to be belittled by a reptile like you, Dugger.

  • legion

    And a less snarky answer for Dugger:
    If its a terrible situation, then what do you call situations 20 30 40 50 times worse?

    A Holocaust.

    Most people would like to avoid another one of those.

  • A Holocaust.

    Most people would like to avoid another one of those.

    Not if it happens to the right people, legion. As KSFO hate radio hosts Lee Rogers & Melanie Morgan observed, “it’ll be really fun when unpleasant things start happening to all the liberals.”

    “Unser Stadt ist Liberalenfrei!”

  • Wilbur

    50 times worse would be:
    150,000 Americans and the entire population of Iraq dead.

    Yep, that would be “an unparalleled and unmitigated disaster”, which is worse than what we have now, which is only an “embarrassing disaster”.

    Hey Dugger, I think you’ve hit on the next Republican campaign slogan: “We’re not an unparalled and unmitigated disaster!”

    Yeah, that’s a winner.

  • Duros62

    50 times worse would be:
    150,000 Americans and the entire population of Iraq dead.

    OTOH, that would constitute a victory in Iraq, right?

  • Dugger

    Perspective. To date, Vietnam is about 20 times worse in terms of US casualties than Iraq. If you oppose all wars no matter what, fine. If you don’t, better get some of that perspective.

  • Quaker in a Basement

    Perspective. To date, Vietnam is about 20 times worse in terms of US casualties than Iraq.

    Fair enough.

    Iraq = “terrible situation”
    Vietnam = “catastrophic clusterf**k”

  • Quaker in a Basement

    Perspective.

  • Wilbur

    Dugger, I don’t oppose all wars, I just oppose bullshit wars. Vietnam was one, Iraq II is another. The fifty thousand dead in Vietnam was a disgrace and a disaster; so are the 3000 dead in Iraq.

    More than 100 times as many died in WWII, and yet I am proud of that war. Is it within you to understand why?

    How many Americans have to die in Iraq, Dugger, before you agree that it’s terrible? 5000? 10000?

    Perspective indeed!

  • SP

    Perhaps, Oliver, you meant to write, “Worst De fatco President. Ever.”

    I like when Cheney says, “It’s just not true.” Reminds one of:

    http://www.theonion.com/content/node/34144

    Man, if more people read The Onion (and watched the Daily Show), the world wouold be a much better–and more informed–place.

  • Nimrod Gently

    There are more than just US casualties, you know, Dugger.

  • merlallen

    From his point of view and all of the other war profiteers, things are just peachy. Those ghouls are making money hand over fist.

  • Dugger

    Nimmer

    You brought this up not I (thats for Rex). Many more died per day under Saddam in the Mideast than are dying now – and I’m talking more than US. Perspective. Oppose all wars fine. Selectively oppose this war on the basis of casualties and you get an argument from ‘cool’ Dugger.

    Wilbur

    Then your whole argument is that war is supportable and the casualties OK, if you agree with the reasons for the war. Do you really believe German or Japan would have invaded and occupied the US in WWII if we had not fought? I doubt it. Germany left part of France alone. No we fought and sustained thousands and thousands of heart-wrenching deaths for reasons mostly indirect geopolitical resons (good reasons I think). Well guess what? That was what Vietnam and Iraq were and are about. Different reasons but same type of reasons. I assume you support WWII because of the fight against Nazisim. Guess what. Vietnam involved an even more murderous ideology. Worse than Nazisim. Genocide occurred in the region because of that ideology.

    Quaker

    Argue war is terrible by nature and I won’t disagree. But within wars, to argue that the least costly war in our history in terms of casualties is terrible – renders the word ‘terrible’ meaningless in context.

  • Then your whole argument is that war is supportable and the casualties OK, if you agree with the reasons for the war…

    Sort of a given, isn’t it? Everyone (OK, 99.9999%) thinks that the US fighting against Hitler was a good idea. No one would have thought that it would be a good idea to attack Canada because the Blue Jays won the ’92 World Series.

    So obviously there’s a line somewhere in between. I think the Iraq war is more on the “attack Canada” side than the “stop Hitler” side. 70% of Americans now seem to agree with me.

  • “Many more died per day under Saddam in the Mideast than are dying now”

    This is a patented Dugger lie. Don’t fall for it.

  • legion

    Argue war is terrible by nature and I won’t disagree. But within wars, to argue that the least costly war in our history in terms of casualties is terrible – renders the word ‘terrible’ meaningless in context.

    Dugger, this is the key. People on all sides die in wars, but my argument is NOT that this war is bad because Americans (or anyone else) is dying. Nor do I believe all wars are bad. But I firmly believe that Iraq is the WRONG war to be fighting right now (or in 2003, or in 2001). There are many many other, more dire threats to US safety and world peace out there than Saddam Hussein’s wet dreams. Because of that, I believe that _any_ lives lost – US, Iraqi, whoever – is too many lives.

    I’ll summarize: If you accept ‘A’ (that this is the wrong war), then you pretty much have to buy ‘B’ (any deaths are too many). If you disagree with ‘A’, you’re probably never going to get to ‘B’.

  • Quaker in a Basement

    Argue war is terrible by nature and I won’t disagree. But within wars, to argue that the least costly war in our history in terms of casualties is terrible – renders the word ‘terrible’ meaningless in context.

    Hunh?

    “All wars are terrible, but this war is less terrible than those that are more terrible, so we shouldn’t use the word terrible at all.”

    Does that cover it?

  • Duros62

    How about horrible? Is that ok?

  • Wilbur

    A few simple points, Dugger:

    1. Nobody is opposing this war on the basis of casualties alone.

    2. Counterfactuals make for fun fiction (try Philip Roth’s “The Plot Against America” for instance), but that’s about all. If you look at the _facts_ of how we got involved in WWII and how our civilian and military leadership prosecuted that war, there is absolutely no comparison between that war and this one. It’s pretty ludicrous for someone who pompously trumpets his superior sense of “perspective” to suggest otherwise.

    3. Even in Vietnam, fucked-up as that war was, we had more justification to send our troops off to die than we did in Iraq.

    4. Every death that occured in WWII, Vietnam and Iraq was “terrible”. I’m sorry if you think that cheapens the word. I think it invests the word with even more power.

    5. Although there are fewer deaths in Iraq than in those other wars, if anything these deaths are _more_ terrible because of the utter senselessness and fraudelence of this war.

    6. I’d ask you how many deaths we have to have in Bush’s folly before we get to call it “terrible”, but morality is not a matter for bean-counting, Mr. “Perspective”.

  • midderpidge

    Dugger ate the fairy cake before he got in the machine. He never got his dose of perspective.

  • Duros62

    Also, as I’m sure Pedro will attest, advances in emergency medicine, body armor, etc. have reduced the number of casualties than form other wars.
    Still doesn’t justify it.
    And still terrible.

  • Dugger

    Quaker,

    Lets amend your statement:”All wars are terrible for those involved, but HISTORICALLY this war is less terrible than those that came before.”

    Wilbur

    So its not the casualties wholly. Why else then? More brown people are alive today because of this war (IBC versus Saddam in Iran/Iraq war, Kurd genocide and Iraq murders). A terrible dictator is gone. A potential nuclear threat is eliminated. Why? Is it the dollars? I mean some good has come out of it, right?

  • Wilbur

    So its not the casualties wholly. Why else then?

    Are you serious? There are a million reasons why this war is a terrible situation. Just a few:

    1. It has touched off a horribly bloody civil war

    2. It has served as a recruiting bonanza for groups like al qaeda

    3. It has left the infrastructure of Iraq in a shambles

    4. It has drawn our resources from critical anti-terror efforts, such as those in Afghanistan

    5. It has increased anti-Americanism worldwide, making us less secure and also weakening our ability to have a positive influence elsewhere.

    6. It has caused a budget deficit that our great great grandchildren will be paying interest on.

    7. It has emboldened people who wish us no good, just as Pig Dong-il and Aminwhoosyjad.

    The f*cked-uppedness of all this only makes the casualties, Iraqi and American doubly, triply, quadruply more tragic.

    More brown people are alive today because of this war

    I don’t even want to touch the perverted logic of this statement for fear of catching teh stoopid. Many of us on this site have schooled you in the past, Dugger, on making such comparisons, but Mr Perspective still doesn’t get it.

    Yes, Saddam is gone, other nasty people are gone. Some good has come out of this war. Some good will come out of any terrible situation. Pretty, sweet-smelling flowers will grow from the rankest manure. That doesn’t mean I want a pile of manure on my dining room table.

  • nightfox02

    Dugger: Vietnam involved an even more murderous ideology. Worse than Nazisim
    ——————————–
    HAHAHAHAH Yeah right!!!

    Get the f*** outta here…

    Vietnam was a joke you jingoistic retard. We went in to fight a proxy war with the Russians and the Chinese. It had nothing to do with a humanitarian issue and everything to do with an even more retarded premise, read Dominio Theory.

    Do the Republicans have a special abridged version of a history book? Dugger for your sake please dont play poker if you cant read politicians basically enough to read between the lines on such transparent foreign policy issues.

    Man you would lose plenty of cash. And if you do play poker online what is your username? hehe

  • Duros62

    A potential nuclear threat is eliminated.

    And another one springs up to take its place.